Llambias Q&A with Chronicle: OP updated with Thursday's articles

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Apologies if you've already told us NE5, I know how much you keep saying you hate repeating yourself, but have you joined NUSC?

 

did I say that I had ?

 

I live out of the area, so can't attend the meetings. I have however, been asked for some input, and gave it.

 

 

 

I have no idea if you have said, that's why I'm asking you.

 

Have you joined NUSC?

[NE5]

The old board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - fine.

The new board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - not fine.

 

Why?

 

They won't show the ambition to go forward again. Didn't I say ages ago too - long before Keegan triggered all this and opened some eyes  ?

 

You're not doing a u-turn are you  ?

 

2 years into his "plan", and it still isn't obvious ?

 

 

 

this your new catchphrase now then?

 

every time I have this hope that, despite you sticking to your guns in terms of what you believe, that you are able to have some sort of constructive discussion with people who disagree with you. every time you have gone and proved that it isn't possible. fucking pathetic.

 

 

I've quite deservedly pointed out the absurdity of people talking about "plans" for quite a while now. The only "plan" that counts, is backing your manager, hoping he makes good judgements, and bringing the best players possible to the club when they are available.

 

If you think its "pathetic", its only because people didn't listen, and still don't. Thats pathetic like, especially after the fortunes and events of the last 18 months.

[madras]

 

not half so funny as you saying the Halls and Shepherd were "just the same" as their predecessors  mackems.gif

 

No doubt you have proof to back that claim up?  No, I thought not.

 

You know what you have said. You'll disappear even if I did find some of the things you've said, just like when you gave me the toonarama link yourself that proved you wrong about Gordon Lee  mackems.gif

 

the quotes in my sig are proof enough of your personality agenda and cluelessness.

 

 

i'd like to think i'm the only one without a personality based agenda then. praised fred when he was doing well. criticised him when he stopped doing well and wanted his removal when i thought he was too far gone to change things.

[NE5]

 

not half so funny as you saying the Halls and Shepherd were "just the same" as their predecessors  mackems.gif

 

No doubt you have proof to back that claim up?  No, I thought not.

 

You know what you have said. You'll disappear even if I did find some of the things you've said, just like when you gave me the toonarama link yourself that proved you wrong about Gordon Lee  mackems.gif

 

the quotes in my sig are proof enough of your personality agenda and cluelessness.

 

 

i'd like to think i'm the only one without a personality based agenda then. praised fred when he was doing well. criticised him when he stopped doing well and wanted his removal when i thought he was too far gone to change things.

 

but you are unrealistic about decisions. You think they should pay the price for appointing Souness and Roeder, well they have, but you keep going on about it ? Whats your point now ? You got what you wanted, so has it worked out for the best or not ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

You know what you have said. You'll disappear even if I did find some of the things you've said, just like when you gave me the toonarama link yourself that proved you wrong about Gordon Lee  mackems.gif

 

the quotes in my sig are proof enough of your personality agenda and cluelessness.

 

 

 

I've never disappeared yet so why start now, and like I keep saying, I stand by what I've said in the context in which they were made, what about my sig?

[Guest toonlass]

The old board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - fine.

The new board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - not fine.

 

Why?

 

This is exactly my question to NE5, and he will not answer it except to say Ashley is a clueless knobjockey etcetera etcetera

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

He won't answer because he can't answer it. Just keep on harping back to the 70's and 80's and the glory champions league nights which none of us have the slightest clue about.

[madras]

 

not half so funny as you saying the Halls and Shepherd were "just the same" as their predecessors  mackems.gif

 

No doubt you have proof to back that claim up?  No, I thought not.

 

You know what you have said. You'll disappear even if I did find some of the things you've said, just like when you gave me the toonarama link yourself that proved you wrong about Gordon Lee  mackems.gif

 

the quotes in my sig are proof enough of your personality agenda and cluelessness.

 

 

i'd like to think i'm the only one without a personality based agenda then. praised fred when he was doing well. criticised him when he stopped doing well and wanted his removal when i thought he was too far gone to change things.

 

but you are unrealistic about decisions. You think they should pay the price for appointing Souness and Roeder, well they have, but you keep going on about it ? Whats your point now ? You got what you wanted, so has it worked out for the best or not ?

 

 

not just those decisions but the financial mess they left aswell.

 

 

 

has it worked out for the best ?   i think we probably aren't any worse off than if fred had stayed. i could see allardyce releagting us and if we hadn't the banks would be pulling the plug on further credit by now.

 

the fact that i was willing to give ashley a go shows how far beyond bringing us back i thought fred was for all he had done previously.

 

now.........

Do you really think that we could have continued how we were going, building up debt, maintaining a huge wage bill and making consistent losses, or did things need to change?

[Unbelievable]

This year the Premier League has been tight as a duck's chuff, especially down the bottom. I think depending on the club you can fit the reason for their position into a certain category. Obviously you've got the three promoted teams who are trying to bridge the massive gulf in quality. You've got your teams who have or are in the process of selling off their assets in the first team and are regressing as a consequence, take Portsmouth or Blackburn as an example. You've got the teams consolidating after avoiding the drop last year like your Sunderlands and Boltons. And you've got your teams who just aren't doing enough to get to the next level and as a consequence are playing catch up with those above. This includes Middlesborough.

 

Now I know these are broad categories, we aren't ran in the same way but both clubs are similar in the way they just seem to be floating, not progressing, not regressing and as a consequence they've been caught up in the s***, obviously the quality we already had at the club seems to put us in a more favourable position. Now I know Ashley financially plugging gaps right left and centre but I know what NE5 is trying to say.

 

If you want to get to the top and you want to get there quickly, you have to get your hand in your pocket. Take a look at Chelsea and probably sooner or later Man City, they're racking up huge debts, turning over massive losses but as a consequence they'll win trophies and qualify for Europe. Qualifying for Europe brings the club more fans and sponsors world wide. The more popular the club becomes the more revenue generate and slowly but sooner or later the debt is payed off.

 

You also have to consider the consequences of getting it wrong, the example I missed in Spurs. They have rich owners who spent big and nearly got into the Champions League but after continuing to add to the squad they made no progress. They shuck things up last season while near enough breaking even and this put them in a worse position still with the threat of relegation growing by the game. I suppose this is what we tried to do after the glory years under Shepherd and it's one of the reasons are finances are in such a mess now. We budgeted big and got it wrong.

 

Now taking these examples you've got to ask is this club in the position and does Ashley have the wealth to take the gamble of budgeting for Europe? We're already in pretty poor financial shape so is it really worth poking more holes in the ship without considering the consequences of getting it wrong? Ashley is talking of modelling ourselves on Villa, but you've got to remember Ellis ran a pretty tight ship before Lerner built on that foundation. Perhaps it would be sensible to get ourselves on steady financial ground before taking another gamble just in case it does go wrong.

 

Personally I'm willing to give Ashley the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't done a great job so far but currently he's keeping the club afloat. If he does intend to increase investment as we steady the ship then I'm OK with that. However if he wants to carry on spending next to nothing year after year he needs to sell up now or this club will go down sooner or later. To progress you have to spend money in some kind of capacity, will Ashley do this? I don't know, I’m not a mind reader, but if he doesn't start soonish the rats will start leaving the sinking ship and staying in this league will become harder still.

 

 

This post stands out like a diamond amongst the dirt surrounding it. Well done.

[NE5]

The old board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - fine.

The new board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - not fine.

 

Why?

 

This is exactly my question to NE5, and he will not answer it except to say Ashley is a clueless knobjockey etcetera etcetera

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

He won't answer because he can't answer it. Just keep on harping back to the 70's and 80's and the glory champions league nights which none of us have the slightest clue about.

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

Now, toonlass. I know I said this yesterday, but rather than get accused by somebody of "derailing the thread" when I didn't, I'll at least try to make it debateable now that its gone in this direction.

 

Genuine question.

 

You have yourself, Colos short and curlies [sorry if thats not quite right mate I still think of you as Scott parkers 60's haircut], madras, whatthefunk, a few others, taking the side of outright prudency in one corner. In the other, you have me, UV, Spence [maybe], johnnypd, and one or two others, and Dave sort of in the middle but wavering over to "our" side because he's very bothered by the current position and other things.

 

We were all very pleased when Keegan walked through the door, weren't we ? [apart from one or two like ozzie and Baggio who have expressed their opinions of him ie quitter and all of that bollocks, IMO]. Why were you pleased. Was it because you envisaged the club spending some money to back him and getting back into europe and better ? If that were still the case, what would you now be saying ?

 

Also - if Ashley had kept Given, and spent say 20m quid not just to get away from the foot of the table, but with a concrete desire to improve the fortunes of the club, which also improve the financial position if these new players are successful [which is the key].

 

What would you be saying ? Would you be pleased, or would you be saying that we shouldn't be doing this because of the debts ?

 

I'm going out now, I don't give a toss about the snow. I don't want to derail, but hopefully there will be some good honest replies.

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

why's that then?

[madras]

The old board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - fine.

The new board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - not fine.

 

Why?

 

This is exactly my question to NE5, and he will not answer it except to say Ashley is a clueless knobjockey etcetera etcetera

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

He won't answer because he can't answer it. Just keep on harping back to the 70's and 80's and the glory champions league nights which none of us have the slightest clue about.

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

Now, toonlass. I know I said this yesterday, but rather than get accused by somebody of "derailing the thread" when I didn't, I'll at least make it debateable now that its gone in this direction.

 

Genuine question.

 

You have yourself, Colos short and curlies [sorry if thats not quite right mate I still think of you as Scott parkers 60's haircut], madras, whatthefunk, taking the side of outright prudency in one corner. In the other, you have me, UV, Spence [maybe], johnnypd, and one or two others in the other, and Dave sort of in the middle but wavering over to "our" side because he's very bothered by the current position and other things.

 

We were all very pleased when Keegan walked through the door, weren't we ? [apart from one or two like ozzie and Baggio who have expressed their opinions of him ie quitter and all of that bollocks, IMO]. Why were you pleased. Was it because you envisaged the club spending some money to back him and getting back into europe and better ? If that were still the case, what would you now be saying ?

 

Also - if Ashley had kept Given, and spent say 20m quid not just to get away from the foot of the table, but with a concrete desire to improve the fortunes of the club, which also improve the financial position if these new players are successful [which is the key].

 

What would you be saying ? Would you be pleased, or would you be saying that we shouldn't be doing this because of the debts ?

 

I'm going out now, I don't give a toss about the snow. I don't want to derail, but hopefully there will be some good honest replies.

 

 

madras's prudency ?...MADRAS'S PRUDENCY ? (in a brian blessed type voice)

 

i have no problem with taking on debt and taking a risk.............they done it and failed which leads me to.............

Do you really think that we could have continued how we were going, building up debt, maintaining a huge wage bill and making consistent losses, or did things need to change?

 

i think they ran up more debt than was sustainable (or at least more than it was safe to add to). answer the darn question.

[Dr Venkman]

The old board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - fine.

The new board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - not fine.

 

Why?

 

This is exactly my question to NE5, and he will not answer it except to say Ashley is a clueless knobjockey etcetera etcetera

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

He won't answer because he can't answer it. Just keep on harping back to the 70's and 80's and the glory champions league nights which none of us have the slightest clue about.

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

Now, toonlass. I know I said this yesterday, but rather than get accused by somebody of "derailing the thread" when I didn't, I'll at least make it debateable now that its gone in this direction.

 

Genuine question.

 

You have yourself, Colos short and curlies [sorry if thats not quite right mate I still think of you as Scott parkers 60's haircut], madras, whatthefunk, taking the side of outright prudency in one corner. In the other, you have me, UV, Spence [maybe], johnnypd, and one or two others in the other, and Dave sort of in the middle but wavering over to "our" side because he's very bothered by the current position and other things.

 

We were all very pleased when Keegan walked through the door, weren't we ? [apart from one or two like ozzie and Baggio who have expressed their opinions of him ie quitter and all of that bollocks, IMO]. Why were you pleased. Was it because you envisaged the club spending some money to back him and getting back into europe and better ? If that were still the case, what would you now be saying ?

 

Also - if Ashley had kept Given, and spent say 20m quid not just to get away from the foot of the table, but with a concrete desire to improve the fortunes of the club, which also improve the financial position if these new players are successful [which is the key].

 

What would you be saying ? Would you be pleased, or would you be saying that we shouldn't be doing this because of the debts ?

 

I'm going out now, I don't give a toss about the snow. I don't want to derail, but hopefully there will be some good honest replies.

 

 

madras's prudency ?...MADRAS'S PRUDENCY ? (in a brian blessed type voice)

 

i have no problem with taking on debt and taking a risk.............they done it and failed which leads me to.............

Do you really think that we could have continued how we were going, building up debt, maintaining a huge wage bill and making consistent losses, or did things need to change?

 

i think they ran up more debt than was sustainable (or at least more than it was safe to add to). answer the darn question.

 

as a couple of others have alredy pointed out it seems that he has answered it in his own way, but its not ok for ashley to be undertaking a period of modest re-building because he's just starting out and has no track record we can judge his intentions on, whereas the previous owners did, so it would have been ok for them to do it.

[madras]

The old board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - fine.

The new board taking stock and trying to get back on a sound financial footing - not fine.

 

Why?

 

This is exactly my question to NE5, and he will not answer it except to say Ashley is a clueless knobjockey etcetera etcetera

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

He won't answer because he can't answer it. Just keep on harping back to the 70's and 80's and the glory champions league nights which none of us have the slightest clue about.

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

Now, toonlass. I know I said this yesterday, but rather than get accused by somebody of "derailing the thread" when I didn't, I'll at least make it debateable now that its gone in this direction.

 

Genuine question.

 

You have yourself, Colos short and curlies [sorry if thats not quite right mate I still think of you as Scott parkers 60's haircut], madras, whatthefunk, taking the side of outright prudency in one corner. In the other, you have me, UV, Spence [maybe], johnnypd, and one or two others in the other, and Dave sort of in the middle but wavering over to "our" side because he's very bothered by the current position and other things.

 

We were all very pleased when Keegan walked through the door, weren't we ? [apart from one or two like ozzie and Baggio who have expressed their opinions of him ie quitter and all of that bollocks, IMO]. Why were you pleased. Was it because you envisaged the club spending some money to back him and getting back into europe and better ? If that were still the case, what would you now be saying ?

 

Also - if Ashley had kept Given, and spent say 20m quid not just to get away from the foot of the table, but with a concrete desire to improve the fortunes of the club, which also improve the financial position if these new players are successful [which is the key].

 

What would you be saying ? Would you be pleased, or would you be saying that we shouldn't be doing this because of the debts ?

 

I'm going out now, I don't give a toss about the snow. I don't want to derail, but hopefully there will be some good honest replies.

 

 

madras's prudency ?...MADRAS'S PRUDENCY ? (in a brian blessed type voice)

 

i have no problem with taking on debt and taking a risk.............they done it and failed which leads me to.............

Do you really think that we could have continued how we were going, building up debt, maintaining a huge wage bill and making consistent losses, or did things need to change?

 

i think they ran up more debt than was sustainable (or at least more than it was safe to add to). answer the darn question.

 

as a couple of others have alredy pointed out it seems that he has answered it in his own way, but its not ok for ashley to be undertaking a period of modest re-building because he's just starting out and has no track record we can judge his intentions on, whereas the previous owners did, so it would have been ok for them to do it.

only half of what i am getting at as ne5 never seems to have understood the position fred left us in let alone ashleys actions since taking over of which even i am critical of some.

[indi]

Get back in your own thread NE5.

 

nowt to say then ?

 

 

Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton.

 

on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him.

 

When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ?

 

 

 

It's a lottery getting a good manager?

 

No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill.

 

is it now ?

 

We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson.

 

Or Everton replace Moyes ..........

 

 

 

Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory.

 

Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual.

 

you mean "realistic", as usual. Which also, as usual, too many people fail to grasp.

 

 

were you happy with the kinnear appointment ?

 

hey getting a good manager is a lottery right,surely theres as much chance getting a s*** one to turn out good results as there is a good one turning out bad to your thinking or maybe you are piffling again in anattempt to detect any criticism from the your beloved fred ?

 

(conversly it must work with players aswell...shevchenko,veron,woodgate at real,keane at liverpool......good players who didn't do it so surely it means it's pointless spending big as these players prove it works)

 

 

i'll stop you in your tracks........."back your manager"............what with ? where was the money going to come from......at this point you mention the debt of others and as always i mention the debt of the top 4 is different to ours as they are making money aside from those with sugar daddies where as we have consistently made losses (not a good scenario when begging to the banks with few assets left to hock). look at the other clubs who,like us have lived beyond their means,they are all cutting right back and ask yourself what liverpools or arsenals spending would be like if they missed out on the champs league for 3 or 4 years ?

 

often on here you have alluded to others having thir heads in the sand but it is clear the one one doing an ostrich is yourself in relation to the position fred left us in.

 

silly.

 

Especially when there are still people hell bent on defending Ashley to the bitter end, and I mean bitter end = relegation and with little chance of coming back.

 

Pleased for you that you still appear to write off all those european qualifications and champions league appearances and the manner in which they were achieved.

 

Still, nobody is "embarrassing us" any more, right ?

 

 

BORING !

 

we've covered the euro qualifications to death as that has little to do with the position we were in spring 2007.

 

defending ashley to the bitter end......like you defending fred ?

 

i never mentioned being embarassed by fred's utterences.

 

 

nice to see you keep your head in the sand re our position when fred left.

 

you mentioned Shepherd, not me, with a silly childish comment.

 

Yep, I will "defend" anybody who gave me the only 15 years out of 45 that tried to compete at the levels this club should always compete at, and thus gave me the best most consistent and highest league positions as a result.  As I've said before. 

 

 

 

Then you should be happy that your season ticket money is going towards paying the bills he racked up in the process.

 

The alternative is of course, only supporting the club when they are winning, as you did when the Halls and Shepherd took over [if you even did that]

 

 

Was that the Hall/Shepherd era where we were nearly relegated from the 1st division? Or the Hall/Shepherd era where we were finishing 13th in the league despite the big spending?

 

nah, the Hall/Shepherd who took over a club days from bankruptcy, getting 15000 gates and couldn't be sold for 1.25m quid, that became a club filling a 52000 all seater stadium, playing in the champions league, qualifying for europe more than anybody but 4 clubs, and was valued at anything between 100m and 200m quid.

 

I am sorry you feel the need to scorn the big spending that did all of that, what a shame you would have preferred solvency and 2nd division obscurity instead of beating Barcelona and playing in the San Siro.

 

 

 

You really are one blinkered old man aren't you. Who said I didn't appreciate the wonderful football we have experienced, but you paint the Hall/Shepherd days with such rose-tinted spectacles. You fail to see what it has cost this club to get these things. You know I wouldn't prefer to be in the 2nd division, but a happy medium of the club not being whored out to pay for the fabulous football we saw would have been nice, do you not think? As for the £100-£200 million quid. Are you happy that Sir John Hall and Fred Shepherd pocketed over £180 million between them when this club was sold, especially since Sir John Hall stood on the steps of St James when he first bought the club and stated he wasn't in it for the money! YEAH RIGHT!

 

oh dear. Resorting to insults. How old are you ? I'm not old you daft bugger, and I'm in good health too. If you don't want to listen to others who have seen things [without meaning to sound patronising] then you really do have a serious problem, and are talking like a naive teenager.

 

I don't believe you saw the mediocrity of the 1970's and 1980's if you think the souness, Roeder and Allardyce league positions were mediocre league positions.

 

Sorry like, but I don't. I believed you at first but your own comments have gave me the impression I now have.

 

I have no idea what makes you think I am happy with money going out of the club. All I have said is that the Halls and Shepherd are by far the best owners we have had in 50 years, in fact, the ONLY good owners in that time. To that extent, they deserved something, for the job they did and the initial risks they took, taking over the club in the state it was in.

 

And don't compare the state of the club in 1991 to now, because believe me, it was miles apart.

 

 

 

but we're in the same league position now as we were when shepherd left, so its not the league positions you care about? but how much money we spend? seems weird.

 

I don't ever remember us being in such a relegation scrap under Shepherd's tenure though.

 

point taken, but remember we're always only one or two results away from being out of it (just as much as the opposite is true i understand). but to criticise ashley on current league position while stating that the souness roeder allardyce finishes were not mediocre is hypocritical, whereas to criticise ashley on financial grounds is at best naive and at worst a blatant agenda.

 

I really don't know how many times this has to be said. A board that backs their manager and shows ambition will always be better than one who choose not to.

 

 

i agree, however i feel thats over simplifying the issue somewhat, dont you? in light of the clubs current financial status?

 

You mean seeing 2 of our best players, one of whom has been a fabric of the club and couldn't wait to get away, and our captain to follow soon, is over-simplifying ? I don't think so. In fact, its frightening.

 

 

 

no thats not what i mean because thats not what i said. i dont really think thats relevant to backing the manager? as it opens a whole load of other issues regarding whether jfk wanted given and n'zogbia to stay, what the club did to keep them etc, so lets not side track. i agree with you that boards should back their managers financially, but given the clubs finances at present, how should the board be providing more than they currently are?

 

I'm not sure either, but maybe Shay Given could shed some light on it ? As well as Keegan and Owen ? Don't you find their actions tell you something ?

 

 

i reckon they'd tell you they left cos the club aint going to be challenging anytime soon (and i would say it it was down to the financial mess we are in)

 

you would say we should have kept on borrowing to keep these players ,cross your fingers and hope we find success before the banks say "no" or "err can we have our money back please"

 

I understand what you and the others are saying. You wish we hadnt' played in the Champions League rather than aim for a relegation and solvency, and you think every club except us is successful, always appoint the right man, and make profits at the same time

 

 

oh we know that trick,the one where you try to make out someone said something they didn't.

 

 

what i am saying (and you well know it) is that after dropping out the champs league you can gamble a bit to get back in,but if you fail and you keep on gambling and failing.....you end up like all other gamblers who fail.

 

still awaiting your answer by the way of where the money would come from year on year when making losses year on year and do you understand that you can't keep borrowing for ever.

 

Simple difference is, I don't believe Ashley has a clue about football, or how to succeed, nor the desire to do what it takes even if this belief is incorrect. Whereas I have no doubt whatsoever that the Halls and Shepherd would have re-grouped and had another go, and probably had some success too.

 

 

do you feel you can draw a fair comparison at this point? given that ashley has only had the club for a small fraction of time compared to the last lot? the challenges he faces are different to the ones they faced when taking over, wouldnt you say?

 

Aye, Ashley is in a far better position.

 

In some ways and in other ways not.

 

The club is in far superior position now than it was in the early 90's.

 

It's true that there are loads of things that are better about the club and the situation it finds itself in now than in the early 90s:

 

Bigger, better SJP; better league position; better squad; higher profile; larger crowds; more TV money; more revenue full-stop; improved training facilities; and so-on.

 

However there are a number of things about the club and the current situation that are worse:

 

Bigger debt; higher supporter expectations (therefore increased demand for success, less patience, etc); huge wage bill; players are much more powerful when it comes to contracts, etc meaning it is harder to get rid of players you don't want and bring in players you do; hugely inflated transfer fees and player wages; bigger, stronger opposition, some with money's-no-object budgets; much less room for improvement, especially relative improvement compared to other Premiership clubs; the global "Credit Crunch"; a somewhat tarnished reputation; less obvious ways of improving things, and so-on.

 

So, I don't think it's true that Ashley's in a far better position, some things are better, others are worse, which is easier or more difficult is hard to judge, the problems are different, but there are still problems.

[Parky]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

[madras]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

yes but it starts afresh every year

[Parky]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

yes but it starts afresh every year

 

Every fucking week more like. 

[bealios]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

yes but it starts afresh every year

Otherwise in 2013 they would have to go to the Chronicle and tell them we have a 1 year plan

 

[madras]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

yes but it starts afresh every year

Otherwise in 2013 they would have to go to the Chronicle and tell them we have a 1 year plan

 

pretty sure the "5 year plan" is just an attempt to cash in on the contempt for capitalism at the moment.

[binnsy]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

 

Mort said they had a 5 yr plan when they took over,  its not looking too good if this is the situation we find ourselves in almost 2 years into the plan

 

If they are now embarking on a new 5 year plan now then surely having a 62 year old manager with a history of health problems was not a good start!!  Surely it needed a young manager to see the  yr plan through.

[Parky]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

 

Mort said they had a 5 yr plan when they took over,  its not looking too good if this is the situation we find ourselves in almost 2 years into the plan

 

If they are now embarking on a new 5 year plan now then surely having a 62 year old manager with a history of health problems was not a good start!!  Surely it needed a young manager to see the  yr plan through.

 

I think we can only resign ourselves to the idea that they are either clueless or couldn't care less. Sad business. But change will come it always does. 

[Thespence]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

 

Yeah & there always 5 years away from its completion.

 

If we do have a 5 year plan, is it the end on day 1 the 5 years is up.

 

Has it started yet? If yes, when did it start?

[bealios]

I was taking the piss a little bit. I think the 5 year plan was genuine, but it was a very business orientated plan based upon turnover/expenditure i.e. stop paying a bunch of useless twats shit loads of cash per week for doing bugger all, but reduce it over 5 years. Replace them with a bunch of people who want to actually play and make their name in the game.

 

Appointing Keegan (and then forcing him out) may have caused the plan to need a bit of tweaking.

[madras]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

 

Mort said they had a 5 yr plan when they took over,  its not looking too good if this is the situation we find ourselves in almost 2 years into the plan

 

If they are now embarking on a new 5 year plan now then surely having a 62 year old manager with a history of health problems was not a good start!!  Surely it needed a young manager to see the  yr plan through.

 

I think we can only resign ourselves to the idea that they are either clueless or couldn't care less. Sad business. But change will come it always does. 

or even that they had a 5 year plan but have miscalculated. dull but more realistic.

[indi]

Do people seriously think there is a 5 year plan?

 

You run a business right?

 

Do you have any plans for the future of that business?

 

If you do, do you put a time-scale on those plans?

 

If you do and you were to hypothetically put a time-scale of, erm, let's say five years on those plans, how exact would you expect that time-scale to be? Do you think that there's a possibility you might refer to that plan as your "five-year plan"?

 

If a week after it's implementation you had a meeting and you mentioned that plan, would you refer to it as your "four-year 357-day 22-hours 35 minutes 46 and a half seconds plan" or would you have a life and call it your "five-year plan"?

 

Do you think that there's a possibility that due to amongst other things external market conditions, for example a global recession, your plan might change somewhat over time (I'm talking in more than just its name)?

 

Are you going to show up at 10.30am  27 Rue de Helder on 21st May?

 

 

If you are, don't tell me, I haven't got to that bit just yet and I don't want to spoil it.