Falling apart - latest from True Faith

[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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

[Offshore]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

 

 

[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 ?

 

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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

[NE5]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

 

 

 

what

 

[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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat bastard, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

[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 ?

 

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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

[Offshore]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

 

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

[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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

[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 ?

 

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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

[NE5]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

[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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

[madras]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

i think the kamikazee spending spree he is on about was when we had left the top table (and to continue the analogy) and were on the way to the bog.

[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 ?

 

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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

 

 

i'll make it simpler..i'd hate to ask the same question over and over if you dont inderstand its context........where should the money come from year after year when the club is making a loss to finance this buying ?

[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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

[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 ?

 

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 s**** 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 ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

i'll make it simpler..i'd hate to ask the same question over and over if you dont understand its context........where should the money come from year after year when the club is making a loss to finance this buying ?

 

 

 

edit ......I'm unrealistic ?

 

guess whats coming

 

 

 

mackems.gif

[OzzieMandias]

We should have a sticky for all of the questions NE5 is too chickenshit to answer.

[madras]

We should have a sticky for all of the questions NE5 is too chickenshit to answer.

think of the bandwidth

[OzzieMandias]

[Offshore]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

 

The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing.

 

My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't.

 

 

Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me.

[madras]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

 

The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing.

 

My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't.

 

 

Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me.

NE5 will slaughter you for your timescale

[Mick]

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

 

You've probably missed the thread regarding the clubs latest accounts where Ernst & Young added the following:

 

At 30th June 2008 the Group had net liabilities of £36.3m, which includes loans from Mr M J W Ashley totalling £100m.  Net liabilities were £22.6m.  Subsequent to the year and the ultimate controlling party, Mr M J W Ashley, has provided additional funding of £10m.  This funding, together with newly agreed bank facilities, has been incorporated into the Directors' cash flow forecast for the Group.  These forecasts indicate that the Group can continue to meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements.  The Directors have also received a commitment from its parent undertaking.  St James Holdings Limited and from ultimate controlling party Mr M J W Ashley that they will continue to provide the Group with financial support so that it can meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements or up until the date of any change in control.  On this basis, the Directors have prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis.

 

Basically, without the money Ashley has put in and has promised to carry on doing so, we would be out of business as you can't trade while insolvent.

[OzzieMandias]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

 

The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing.

 

My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't.

 

 

Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me.

 

Between Dalglish arriving and the end of his first summer (and leading up to our first CL season) we'd sold about £17 million's worth of players (including Sir Les and Ginola, and Kitson who went in January) and brought in about £8.5 million's worth (Given, JDT, Pistone) plus a bunch of frees (Barnes, Pearce, the clapped-out Ian Rush).

 

 

[Offshore]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

 

The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing.

 

My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't.

 

 

Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me.

 

Between Dalglish arriving and the end of his first summer (and leading up to our first CL season) we'd sold about £17 million's worth of players (including Sir Les and Ginola, and Kitson who went in January) and brought in about £8.5 million's worth (Given, JDT, Pistone) plus a bunch of frees (Barnes, Pearce, the clapped-out Ian Rush).

 

 

 

Thats the one.

[JJ7]

NE5 just talks shit all the time. Lets face facts, both Shepherd AND Ashley have been pretty shite. The reasons have been discussed over and over.

 

The most important thing a chairman/owner has to do is appoint a decent manager. Shepherd blundered on that account time and time again. Robson was a good one, but his other 3-5 were shite.  Fucka, even I could get it right one in five. We can slaver on about finances and shit forever more, but success on the field usually follows with success off the field. A decent appointment after Robson might have kept us up there, a decent appointment after Souness might have returned us to an Everton, Villa type position. However we continued to make shocking appointments.

 

Look at Villa. They made a brilliant appointment in Martin O'Neill and he is basically building a club back up. Weve just made a mess of everything for years. Its bad management, and its from both Shepherd AND Ashley.

[Kitman]

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

 

You've probably missed the thread regarding the clubs latest accounts where Ernst & Young added the following:

 

At 30th June 2008 the Group had net liabilities of £36.3m, which includes loans from Mr M J W Ashley totalling £100m.  Net liabilities were £22.6m.  Subsequent to the year and the ultimate controlling party, Mr M J W Ashley, has provided additional funding of £10m.  This funding, together with newly agreed bank facilities, has been incorporated into the Directors' cash flow forecast for the Group.  These forecasts indicate that the Group can continue to meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements.  The Directors have also received a commitment from its parent undertaking.  St James Holdings Limited and from ultimate controlling party Mr M J W Ashley that they will continue to provide the Group with financial support so that it can meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements or up until the date of any change in control.  On this basis, the Directors have prepared the financial statements on a going concern basis.

 

Basically, without the money Ashley has put in and has promised to carry on doing so, we would be out of business as you can't trade while insolvent.

 

I expect that's true of all the privately owned clubs in the prem, so what?  He should have known what he was in for when he bought the club.  If he can't afford it, he should sell to someone who can.