Falling apart - latest from True Faith

[madras]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

[TRon]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

Who cares? It doesn't cost nowt to complain so NE5 is getting maximum value for giving us his tuppence worth.

[NE5]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

[fredbob]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

 

Bit of a myth really, they've both bought unknowns on a failry regular rate, only difference is that they've also had the financial benefits of consistent CL to supplemnt there purchases.

 

What are we financially benefitting from having been out the CL for 6 years and spent incoming money before its arrived at the club?

[Guest Edd]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

At least you don't dispute the fact that you are cherry picking, using those 4 names.

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

And I'll say it again.  I'm only advocating a youth system that actually produces quality players.  I never mentioned selling them or not investing in other players as well.  I'll use shorter words next time if you still don't understand.

 

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself though.

[NE5]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

At least you don't dispute the fact that you are cherry picking, using those 4 names.

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

And I'll say it again.  I'm only advocating a youth system that actually produces quality players.  I never mentioned selling them or not investing in other players as well.  I'll use shorter words next time if you still don't understand.

 

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself though.

 

eerrr......of course. Its also like saying that we also have never appointed good managers like everybody else always does, and have been a laughing stock for the last decade. Clearly tripe spouted by idiots.

 

 

[Guest fading star]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

At least you don't dispute the fact that you are cherry picking, using those 4 names.

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

And I'll say it again.  I'm only advocating a youth system that actually produces quality players.  I never mentioned selling them or not investing in other players as well.  I'll use shorter words next time if you still don't understand.

 

Feel free to continue arguing with yourself though.

suck eggs

[madras]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks  money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

[fredbob]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks  money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

 

I asked him a bit ago how he'd go about things and all i got was "back my manager". Which basically means he'd of put his personal money into the hands of another man to buy whomever they want ignoring debt, ignoring wage bill and not giving me any inclination as to where the next batch of dosh was coming from fornext seasons transfer budget.

 

Apparently he;s sick and tired of telling us how simple this is...

[NE5]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks  money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

 

I asked him a bit ago how he'd go about things and all i got was "back my manager". Which basically means he'd of put his personal money into the hands of another man to buy whomever they want ignoring debt, ignoring wage bill and not giving me any inclination as to where the next batch of dosh was coming from fornext seasons transfer budget.

 

Apparently he;s sick and tired of telling us how simple this is...

 

whats your recipe for getting back into europe then fredbob ? Even via the mediocrity and disgrace of needing the intertoto to qualify for it ?

 

Do you still think we are heading in the right direction ie not wasting any money on better players according to the manager appointed by the club ?

 

 

[fredbob]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich. I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up. What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped.

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed. They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it. On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

 

I asked him a bit ago how he'd go about things and all i got was "back my manager". Which basically means he'd of put his personal money into the hands of another man to buy whomever they want ignoring debt, ignoring wage bill and not giving me any inclination as to where the next batch of dosh was coming from fornext seasons transfer budget.

 

Apparently he;s sick and tired of telling us how simple this is...

 

whats your recipe for getting back into europe then fredbob ? Even via the mediocrity and disgrace of needing the intertoto to qualify for it ?

 

Do you still think we are heading in the right direction ie not wasting any money on better players according to the manager appointed by the club ?

 

 

 

Yeh actually, i do think we're going in the right direction- in the long term. My only concern with whats happneing so far is that we have Kinnear in charge instead of a manager who could take us forwards, something which should of been done if the fans hadnt spit there dummies out.  

 

One of your famous quotes is "back your manager then balances the books later" well when is later?

 

P.S Good answer.

[Dr Venkman]

later is now, by the looks of it they got out before they had to balance anything

[NE5]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks  money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

 

I asked him a bit ago how he'd go about things and all i got was "back my manager". Which basically means he'd of put his personal money into the hands of another man to buy whomever they want ignoring debt, ignoring wage bill and not giving me any inclination as to where the next batch of dosh was coming from fornext seasons transfer budget.

 

Apparently he;s sick and tired of telling us how simple this is...

 

whats your recipe for getting back into europe then fredbob ? Even via the mediocrity and disgrace of needing the intertoto to qualify for it ?

 

Do you still think we are heading in the right direction ie not wasting any money on better players according to the manager appointed by the club ?

 

 

 

Yeh actually, i do think we're going in the right direction- in the long term. My only concern with whats happneing so far is that we have Kinnear in charge instead of a manager who could take us forwards, something which should of been done if the fans hadnt spit there dummies out.  

 

One of your famous quotes is "back your manager then balances the books later" well when is later?

 

P.S Good answer.

 

if you were one of one or two others, I'd keep that post 

 

Not that I hope it comes true, I hope he sells up asap to someone who will show more for the club. And believe it or not, we could still do worse, there are plenty of other tosspots out there who could buy the club. If he sells to one of those, those years of euroean qualifications, full stadiums, and top quality footballers under fat fred [and the Halls of course despite the notion some have that one person with less than 30% of shares ran the club single handed and told everybody else later what he was doing  ] could be a distant fond memory indeed.

 

The essence behind the "Back your manager and balance the books later" has been documented at the time I said it, it means if the manager wants a player badly enough, get the player and don't make him sell first in case he loses the player". This is what big clubs do, only small clubs adopt the other stance.

 

I'm going to go here.......don't want to go down old familiar route, although I suspect some people enjoy it more than they admit 

 

 

[fredbob]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks  money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

 

I asked him a bit ago how he'd go about things and all i got was "back my manager". Which basically means he'd of put his personal money into the hands of another man to buy whomever they want ignoring debt, ignoring wage bill and not giving me any inclination as to where the next batch of dosh was coming from fornext seasons transfer budget.

 

Apparently he;s sick and tired of telling us how simple this is...

 

whats your recipe for getting back into europe then fredbob ? Even via the mediocrity and disgrace of needing the intertoto to qualify for it ?

 

Do you still think we are heading in the right direction ie not wasting any money on better players according to the manager appointed by the club ?

 

 

 

Yeh actually, i do think we're going in the right direction- in the long term. My only concern with whats happneing so far is that we have Kinnear in charge instead of a manager who could take us forwards, something which should of been done if the fans hadnt spit there dummies out.  

 

One of your famous quotes is "back your manager then balances the books later" well when is later?

 

P.S Good answer.

 

if you were one of one or two others, I'd keep that post 

 

Not that I hope it comes true, I hope he sells up asap to someone who will show more for the club. And believe it or not, we could still do worse, there are plenty of other tosspots out there who could buy the club. If he sells to one of those, those years of euroean qualifications, full stadiums, and top quality footballers under fat fred [and the Halls of course despite the notion some have that one person with less than 30% of shares ran the club single handed and told everybody else later what he was doing  ] could be a distant fond memory indeed.

 

I'm going to go here.......don't want to go down old familiar route, although I suspect some people enjoy it more than they admit 

 

You should keep it mate.

 

The mere fact that you're avoiding the accounts thread like its got AIDs is enough for me.

 

Good to see absoltuely no answers from you, as usual.

 

"back your managers" its as simple as that! 

 

[madras]

And as has been said by spence, who from the likes of Ipswich has been significantly better than Taylor, Hughes, Harper, Chopra, Caldwell and Ameobi ? Nowt like a good cliche is there ?

 

I wasn't the one that originally brought up Ipswich, but a few that spring to mind are:

 

- I'm surprised you forgot Dyer (probably better than every player you mentioned combined)

- A £17m striker in Bent (he's not worth that, but apparently that's what big clubs do),

- One Titus Bramble (ah how I miss those signings that said "ambition")

- An international keeper in Richard Wright who won a Premier League winners medial IIRC. (Ok slightly different from us qualifying for Europe, but I'm sure he'll get over it)

 

 

Your cherry picking of Smith, Duff, Butt and Viduka is what I'm talking about. Do I/you want to be run like Ipswich, or would I/you rather sign players like Bellamy, Shearer, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Robert, Dyer, Woodgate, Ferguson, Speed, Hamman, Owen, Parker for starters.

Good to see you didn't cherry pick too

 

I never once mentioned being run like Ipswich.  I merely suggested that we, or any team for that matter, will benefit from a good youth set up.  What you do with them after that is a different argument.

 

 

West Ham have produced some good youngsters, but sold them in true 2nd rate style, under Ashley we may have eyes on this particular direction and spunk the money from the sales on anybody we do find on 2 inferior replacements to shore off relegation, but if thats what you want I hope you think you will be happy, but I'm telling you - just like the last 18 months - when it hits you, you won't be.

 

Your reasoning that because West Ham sell some of their youngsters, Ashley will get us relegated is, some might say, slightly warped. 

 

Surely even you can see your logic that because some teams with good youth set ups have struggled, therefore it must be a bad thing, is flawed.  They also all had tea ladies as well.

 

I can't even believe you're arguing about it.  On second thoughts....

 

I did mention Dyer.

 

I also deliberately missed out Bramble and Ambrose, because they were their "best" youngsters, who in the end arguably didn't prove good enough for us ala Ameobi, Chopra, Hughes etc.

 

So. The only one is Bent, maybe. For Dyer, who we bought, being the bigger club, or rather we were at the time. Richard Wright v Steve Harper ?

 

The bigger question being that it has been pointed out to you that these clubs who put the accent on finding the young players - as mentioned - have all sold them because they haven't "spunked money on bigger ready made players" to go with it, which is what the big clubs do, or do if they are actually big clubs.

 

The ones that don't, lose their youngsters, as mentioned, just like Ipswich who have lost some to Newcastle, when they acted like a bigger club, but didn't when they didn't act like it as in the days when Bobby Robson was manager of Ipswich Town and showed very little interest in managing the much bigger club, his hometown club, Newcastle United.

 

I just know you won't understand this, the same as the shitloads of people who also didn't understand it when it was pointed out that good owners choose to back managers, rather than choose to not back them . The difference now is beoming more clear to people, but not yet all it would seem. For people who cast envious glances at the likes of Ipswich town, its your prerogative, at least playing years in the 2nd division means they don't do embarrassing things, partly because it means they are out of sight and out of mind. Just like we used to be, and just like where we will end up again if the current regime stays as it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

so you would advocate just giving managers cash,racking up debt year on year hoping it works and not really caring about what happens if it doesn't.......have you noticed what clubs like west ham, portsmouth,everton and boro are now doing ? and to pre empt your call about we shouldn't be ranking ourselves alongside such clubs i'll say we should becuase the way the club has been ran we have as much available cash as these despite a higher turnover we also had much higher outgoings.

 

THROWING THE BANKS MONEY AT A MANAGER YEAR ON YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

 

stand by to support a club making a profit in the championship then.

 

Having said that, when gates are down to 30,000 and lower - like they were the last time the club acted like also rans - they didn't make money then either apart from when our best players wanted to leave for the big clubs.

 

These supporters of Arsenal and Liverpool must be devastated supporting clubs that buy the best footballers.

so you are advocating speneding the banks  money year on year with no thought to what happens if/when the plan fails ?

 

and

 

doing this year on year do you think the time will come when the banks say "no, because we don't think you are in any position to pay it back" ?

 

basically your plan is to just ignore any debt.

 

I asked him a bit ago how he'd go about things and all i got was "back my manager". Which basically means he'd of put his personal money into the hands of another man to buy whomever they want ignoring debt, ignoring wage bill and not giving me any inclination as to where the next batch of dosh was coming from fornext seasons transfer budget.

 

Apparently he;s sick and tired of telling us how simple this is...

 

whats your recipe for getting back into europe then fredbob ? Even via the mediocrity and disgrace of needing the intertoto to qualify for it ?

 

Do you still think we are heading in the right direction ie not wasting any money on better players according to the manager appointed by the club ?

 

 

 

Yeh actually, i do think we're going in the right direction- in the long term. My only concern with whats happneing so far is that we have Kinnear in charge instead of a manager who could take us forwards, something which should of been done if the fans hadnt spit there dummies out.  

 

One of your famous quotes is "back your manager then balances the books later" well when is later?

 

P.S Good answer.

 

if you were one of one or two others, I'd keep that post 

 

Not that I hope it comes true, I hope he sells up asap to someone who will show more for the club. And believe it or not, we could still do worse, there are plenty of other tosspots out there who could buy the club. If he sells to one of those, those years of euroean qualifications, full stadiums, and top quality footballers under fat fred [and the Halls of course despite the notion some have that one person with less than 30% of shares ran the club single handed and told everybody else later what he was doing  ] could be a distant fond memory indeed.

 

The essence behind the "Back your manager and balance the books later" has been documented at the time I said it, it means if the manager wants a player badly enough, get the player and don't make him sell first in case he loses the player". This is what big clubs do, only small clubs adopt the other stance, like Ashley appears to have done re Keegan of all people.

 

I'm going to go here.......don't want to go down old familiar route, although I suspect some people enjoy it more than they admit 

 

 

so keep backing hiom until you are succesful.....10, 15 years away maybe........except the banks may not like us having more of their money than they have of ours.

 

 

the point being as we've pointed out often enough.........that tactic can not go on for ever,sooner or later it has to stop,hopefully before it is stopped by the banks.

[UV]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

[Syrette]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

[johnnypd]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

thank god we didnt spend or we'd have done a leeds. one year from administration iyam.

[Mowen]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

[Baggio]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

 

Not to mention we had around £40 million in the bank from the float which was used to subsidise the loses.

 

I can see it being a kick in the bollocks for some to find out that it's only Ashley's promise to continue financing us that is keeping us out of administration when they've tried to paint the picture that all was well and he's in fact been creaming off our massive profits but they've got to try and get their head around the state the old board left us in.

[UV]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

 

The relative costs of running a football club have changed so wages are a higher % across all clubs. To try and clarify - the cost of running the stadium, etc will have risen roughly in line with inflation; the turnover of all premiership clubs has risen by well over inflation; the extra income is spent by most clubs to compete with everyone else, and this goes on transfer fees and wages, therefore these increase in line with the turnover rather than with inflation; therefore the % of turnover spent on wages will naturally increase. (That didn't clarify it at all did it)

 

I also forgot to add that we should have got someone like Vinnie Jones in to purchase players over Robson's head.

[Mowen]

What you say makes sense, I still think the wages we are currently paying are far less sustainable than they were under SBR, and the club isn't on such a sound financial footing.

 

If we had a manager with the ability of a Robson I would be far more in favour of spending to get us up the table rather than just survive in the immediate short term. We need to invest to guarantee survival this season. We've thrown money at a terrible manager before (ears burning, Graeme?) and it didn't do us too much good.

[NE5]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat bastard for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

[madras]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

[NE5]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was shite the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?