Guest toonlass Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. exactly my point, but I'm not surprised that baggy turned it into a ridiculous direction ....... The bigger picture concerns those who for some reason appear to think the only club that gets something wrong, is us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. exactly my point, but I'm not surprised that baggy turned it into a ridiculous direction ....... The bigger picture concerns those who for some reason appear to think the only club that gets something wrong, is us. Give over man, the fact you're trying to compare the situation of someone who missed a penalty to someone who ran the club financially into the ground over a period of years is even more laughable than the rest of the bollocks you've come out with in the thread to try a deflect the blame from Shepherd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. exactly my point, but I'm not surprised that baggy turned it into a ridiculous direction ....... The bigger picture concerns those who for some reason appear to think the only club that gets something wrong, is us. Give over man, the fact you're trying to compare the situation of someone who missed a penalty to someone who ran the club financially into the ground over a period of years is even more laughable than the rest of the bollocks you've come out with in the thread to try a deflect the blame from Shepherd. byeee....matthew lad. Keep refusing to admit your DOF bollocks, is exactly that. I'll be watching to see when you next hoy your toys out of the pram, just like you criticise Keegan for doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. exactly my point, but I'm not surprised that baggy turned it into a ridiculous direction ....... The bigger picture concerns those who for some reason appear to think the only club that gets something wrong, is us. Give over man, the fact you're trying to compare the situation of someone who missed a penalty to someone who ran the club financially into the ground over a period of years is even more laughable than the rest of the bollocks you've come out with in the thread to try a deflect the blame from Shepherd. byeee....matthew lad. Keep refusing to admit your DOF bollocks, is exactly that. I'll be watching to see when you next hoy your toys out of the pram, just like you criticise Keegan for doing. Typical rubbish from you to try and avoid the points people have put to you. What next? Comparing the Holocaust to appointing Souness? "It wasn't a good idea in hindsight but plenty of people supported it at the time, so you can't blame Hitler for it now" mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Even Everton had trouble covering their wage bill. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. exactly my point, but I'm not surprised that baggy turned it into a ridiculous direction ....... The bigger picture concerns those who for some reason appear to think the only club that gets something wrong, is us. Give over man, the fact you're trying to compare the situation of someone who missed a penalty to someone who ran the club financially into the ground over a period of years is even more laughable than the rest of the bollocks you've come out with in the thread to try a deflect the blame from Shepherd. byeee....matthew lad. Keep refusing to admit your DOF bollocks, is exactly that. I'll be watching to see when you next hoy your toys out of the pram, just like you criticise Keegan for doing. Typical rubbish from you to try and avoid the points people have put to you. What next? Comparing the Holocaust to appointing Souness? "It wasn't a good idea in hindsight but plenty of people supported it at the time, so you can't blame Hitler for it now" mackems.gif I've told you what it takes to be successful. It doesn't involve selling your best players, it doesn;t involve replacing them with cheap replacements, but most of all it doesn't involve appointing a director of football to undermine your manager. You've seen 100 games at 27 years old. The only NUFC you know is one that fills a stadium and tries to compete with the other top clubs. Come back and talk to me when you've seen a few more matches and know what you are talking about. If ever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Ok NE5, 1 Question only. Do not avoid, or cloud the issue with crap. Just answer the question straight without hyperbole, without talking about anything else. Do you accept that (at least partially) Freddy Shepherd is the reason that we are in the state we are in now? I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time. exactly my point, but I'm not surprised that baggy turned it into a ridiculous direction ....... The bigger picture concerns those who for some reason appear to think the only club that gets something wrong, is us. Give over man, the fact you're trying to compare the situation of someone who missed a penalty to someone who ran the club financially into the ground over a period of years is even more laughable than the rest of the bollocks you've come out with in the thread to try a deflect the blame from Shepherd. byeee....matthew lad. Keep refusing to admit your DOF bollocks, is exactly that. I'll be watching to see when you next hoy your toys out of the pram, just like you criticise Keegan for doing. Typical rubbish from you to try and avoid the points people have put to you. What next? Comparing the Holocaust to appointing Souness? "It wasn't a good idea in hindsight but plenty of people supported it at the time, so you can't blame Hitler for it now" mackems.gif I've told you what it takes to be successful. It doesn't involve selling your best players, it doesn;t involve replacing them with cheap replacements, but most of all it doesn't involve appointing a director of football to undermine your manager. You've seen 100 games at 27 years old. Come back and talk to me when you've seen a few more matches and know what you are talking about. If ever. NE5 bringing out all of the insults now, the toys are definitely out of the pram. mackems.gif The fact you've dodged answering every question put to you by Madras about if you think the club should keep borrowing while making massive losses says it all, yoo know you can't continue spending and the club needs to sort it's finances out but you've backed yourself into a corner with your constant rimming of fat Fred's arsehole for the past few years. I expect this to be followed with the usual "But Man Utd and Arsenal have debt " even though the difference has been explained to you god knows how many times and then the circle of your constant gibberish to start all over again. Good luck trying to get out of that hole you keeping digging yourself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Just skimming PL finances... Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. Villa. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. Blackburn 85% wages to turnover. 8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues. 9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio. 10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone. Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios. Ashley is fucking with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ? I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 Just skimming PL finances... Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. Villa. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. Blackburn 85% wages to turnover. 8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues. 9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio. 10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone. Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios. Ashley is f***ing with you. man city are now bankrolled by multi billionaires,villa are now backed by lerner.....watch the spending patterns of the rest you mention (in fact a grerat article last week about west ham...the pattern runs,at the time,sell McArtney and buy illunga. make a profit on the transfers and bring the player in on lower wages and if they've done their scouting work, and a few of their fans say this, get a better player to boot. seems the same may have been done re bellamy £14mill=£9mill out) as for the first 4 you mention....lets see if they maintain that level without champs league football for a couple of years or do you think they'll cut their cloth accordingly ? didn't man utd have nearly a billion in debt...looks like they are making an effort to clear it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no. no chance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 27, 2009 Share Posted January 27, 2009 How many PL clubs run at a profit with no debt? I'd be more curious to know which clubs run at a loss WITH debt. Half the PL?? How many have owners who guarantee the debt? Just saying you can't have your cake and eat it. Buying and selling players, hiring managers is a lottery. Look at the state Spurs are in and Liverpool will be in if they don't qual CL this season. Thats the point, Liverpool will be in pretty much the same place as we are in now if they dont quaify. If that were to happen, they would go 2 ways, they will gamble like we did and pump more money in (if possilbe) or they'll sell players, id hazard a guess and say they'd sell. What happened in 2004 to us, will be pretty much the saem situation that Liverpool would be in should they fail to qualify. The decisoin to appoint Souness is the key to this whole arguement, the decision toback him heavily compunds that decison as it backfired spectacularly. If a manager with merit was appointed and the gamble was the same, you'd still get your morons ciriticisng the appoinment and backing but the sensible ones will see the merits of the decison. their current manager will certainly demand they buy, and their supporters would back him up Providing he's hasnt been sacked for not qualifying... he's been on the brink for the last 2 years for not winning the league, and I'm sure you'll take notice of that. I dont think him not winning the league has anything to do with him "being on the brink", you're probably right about the fans wanting them to gamble - still wouldnt make the decision a correct one. What do you think the fans would do if they sacked Rafa for failing to qualifiy then replaced him with Souness? I haven't got a clue, maybe they will try replacing him with Roy Evans ? You havent got a clue? I think you do but you dont want to admit it sonny, jimbob. Well, yes, but the real question is if they will suffer the disgrace of "going backwards", or if they have a divine right to stay where they are forever. Do you think any scousers would then trace their demise down to signing Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Masherano, and say it shouldn't have been done ? I dont see anyone saying the demise was down to signing Robert, Bellamy or Shearer, I see the majority of the people saying it was down to appointing Souness, backing him with so much money compunded that decision. you can't criticise the decision, and the buys and sales he made, when you agreed with it all and backed it all right up the end. Not saying you did, I don't know if you did or not [did you say the other day that you did ?] but plenty of people DID, such as mandiarse for one. The bigger picture being that they didn't purposely appoint a manager they knew would fuck up, he was THEIR choice, and they backed their choice. Shame soopa Mike didn't back his own appointment in the same way ? Oops, I forgot. You agreed with soopa mike that we shouldn't spend ie waste, any money, didn't you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now