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

[Syrette]

I don't think he cares enough about the club to want genuine success on the pitch.

 

 

What do you think he wants then? Failure?

[NE5]

 

and you thought Ashley - or anybody - would be better than the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

 

You can't find links to what I say so you now claim to read minds. 

 

so are you prepared to accept that the Halls and Shepherd have been by far the best owners in 50 years or not ?

 

 

 

In terms of football on the field yes, in terms of managing to line their own pockets yes, in terms of landing us with crippling debts yes.

 

So the answer there is yes.

 

so, as in what I asked last night, were you pleased when we appointed Keegan, and if we were now backing him and were doing better, would you be saying it was wrong because he should have addressed the debts instead ? If you do say this, then you are also saying by default you accept the reasons why Keegan left too by the way.

 

Genuine question.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

Did you think that before Keegan-gate? When things seemed to be going along nicely and we'd made a good start to the season?

 

 

He thought we'd finish above Arsenal last season when we had Allardyce.

 

 

and you thought Ashley - or anybody - would be better than the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

Don't see why that's a stupid point of view, I certainly thought Ashley would be a great owner, as did many people.

 

It doesn't seem to be ridiculed now everyone is saying anything would be better than Ashley, even though they haven't got any idea who it might be.

 

Considering only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, automatically assuming "anyone" - or Ashley - would be better, is a stupid point of view.

 

 

I know we had some success on the pitch, everyone accepts that... it's impossible to argue against.

 

Don't want to start another massive argument about the merits of each board, but my opinion is that by the end of the Shepherd regime they had become a laughing stock and a disaster for the club, and I had every right to expect Ashley to be a better owner.

 

Edit: By the way, if you can only judge a board over a period of 10+ years then how come Ashley is due so much stick from you already?

 

rubbish.

 

I've told you why Ashley is getting stick from me, because I don't think he knows what he is doing and because I don't think he cares enough about the club to want genuine success on the pitch.

 

 

Fair enough, but what I'm saying is... how can you know that in such a short time?

 

If you're saying Shepherd shouldn't be judged on the last couple of years, but on the whole of his reign, then surely Ashley must be given the same chance before he can be compared?

 

 

[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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

[Mick]

 

 

I don't. All I have seen is a load of fudged nonsense, skirting the issue, and then ending up back to making excuses for Ashley.

 

Why not answer my quite genuine question about Keegan from last night. Would you be happy if he had been backed and we were doing better, or would you be saying he shouldn't be doing this because of the debt ? You WERE happy when Keegan was re-appointed I take it ? And if so, then you must have expected him to be backed by Ashley which would be part of you being pleased about it ?

 

 

 

You answer my question about how our shareholders would have made up the difference between money going out and money coming in if Ashley hadn't bought the club, which I asked before the one you've just asked and I will answer it.  I'll also provide a link to where you've asked about, and was given an answer about the success of Hall and Shepherd, again.

[NE5]

 

Did you think that before Keegan-gate? When things seemed to be going along nicely and we'd made a good start to the season?

 

 

He thought we'd finish above Arsenal last season when we had Allardyce.

 

 

and you thought Ashley - or anybody - would be better than the Halls and Shepherd.

 

 

Don't see why that's a stupid point of view, I certainly thought Ashley would be a great owner, as did many people.

 

It doesn't seem to be ridiculed now everyone is saying anything would be better than Ashley, even though they haven't got any idea who it might be.

 

Considering only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, automatically assuming "anyone" - or Ashley - would be better, is a stupid point of view.

 

 

I know we had some success on the pitch, everyone accepts that... it's impossible to argue against.

 

Don't want to start another massive argument about the merits of each board, but my opinion is that by the end of the Shepherd regime they had become a laughing stock and a disaster for the club, and I had every right to expect Ashley to be a better owner.

 

Edit: By the way, if you can only judge a board over a period of 10+ years then how come Ashley is due so much stick from you already?

 

rubbish.

 

I've told you why Ashley is getting stick from me, because I don't think he knows what he is doing and because I don't think he cares enough about the club to want genuine success on the pitch.

 

 

Fair enough, but what I'm saying is... how can you know that in such a short time?

 

If you're saying Shepherd shouldn't be judged on the last couple of years, but on the whole of his reign, then surely Ashley must be given the same chance before he can be compared?

 

 

why, when everything he has done has been a shambles, and senior players at the club are expressing their dismay, not to mention Keegan leaving.

 

What would you be saying if he had backed Keegan and we were doing better ?

[NE5]

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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I guarantee that unless they find some cash to inject into the team, change their transfer policy, drop their system and appoint a good manager they will not suceed in creating a winning football team out on the pitch and as a result of that they will also fail to succeed financially too because to increase turnover and profit a good football team is required above all else. Without one gates will drop, TV revenue will drop, sponsorship will drop and alternative revenue streams from European competitions will be snapped up by other clubs.

 

Adding a line of communication to fans to their plans will not make them any better.

 

Reading through the answers and between the lines as well as the physical reality of their plans (which is what they have basically served up since taking over) it seems even more clear to me that they do not have the first clue how to run a football club nor understand just how critical the manager is to it all.

 

How anyone whether pro Ashley or not can still have any confidence in this regieme delivering what we all want which is a winning football team knowing they regard (or did) Joe Kinnear as integral to their plans, is beyond me.

 

I am willing to accept they are here to stay and equally willing to accept that they are trying to acheive something but I don't support their plans nor hold out any hope whatsoever of seeing a winning football team under them, not by design anyway, because to be quite frank their plans are as hopeless as they have been at running the club and I guarantee we will be seeing a lot more of this hopelessness in both the short and long-term.

 

Unless of course they drop their plans completely and appoint a good manager, hand over full control to that manager and back him in a reasonable fashion financially because that is what is required.

 

There really is no point to a Dennis Wise or his role, nor a rigid recruitment policy. Or a manager even if all he is there to do is motivate and coach.

 

What this club requires is a good manager who can build a team in his own image and spirit, a team he can work with, develop and grow based on the challenge ahead which canges all the time because football really is a fickle business.

 

You cannot plan for such changes and fickleness. You have to leave everything in the hands of the man who knows best which will always be the manager, and not some DOF or Spanish based scout.

 

Ironically their system is actually the way forward for the academy but ought to stop at the doors of the first-team dressing room or rather the manager's office.

[oldtype]

In some ways I kinda wish Mike Ashley hadn't failed so miserably in his first two years here just to see how NE5 would have adapted.

[NE5]

 

 

I don't. All I have seen is a load of fudged nonsense, skirting the issue, and then ending up back to making excuses for Ashley.

 

Why not answer my quite genuine question about Keegan from last night. Would you be happy if he had been backed and we were doing better, or would you be saying he shouldn't be doing this because of the debt ? You WERE happy when Keegan was re-appointed I take it ? And if so, then you must have expected him to be backed by Ashley which would be part of you being pleased about it ?

 

 

 

You answer my question about how our shareholders would have made up the difference between money going out and money coming in if Ashley hadn't bought the club, which I asked before the one you've just asked and I will answer it.  I'll also provide a link to where you've asked about, and was given an answer about the success of Hall and Shepherd, again.

 

Football is all about success, only success brings in revenue. As you appear to be unable to draw on the state of the club pre-1992 to show it, read my Bob Murray link, now he was a smart lad, he knew how to run a company because he understand accounts [but not football], unless you think he ran a superior club to our ex owners that didn't ?

 

 

[NE5]

In some ways I kinda wish Mike Ashley hadn't failed so miserably in his first two years here just to see how NE5 would have adapted.

 

silly boy.

 

Fancy hoping the club fail.

 

[Syrette]

I don't think he cares enough about the club to want genuine success on the pitch.

 

 

What do you think he wants then? Failure?

[NE5]

I don't think he cares enough about the club to want genuine success on the pitch.

 

 

What do you think he wants then? Failure?

 

he wants a profit, but doesn't understand that what he is doing will not succeed on the pitch.

 

Pretty basic stuff. Why does it have to be explained again.

 

 

[Mick]

 

Football is all about success, only success brings in revenue. As you appear to be unable to draw on the state of the club pre-1992 to show it, read my Bob Murray link, now he was a smart lad, he knew how to run a company because he understand accounts [but not football], unless you think he ran a superior club to our ex owners that didn't ?

 

 

 

You can't answer it, can you?

 

We weren't in a position to splash cash and you've seen yourself how poor a job Allardyce did.  We were in no position to wait for success to come along, the last set of accounts covered virtually 6 months of Allardyce who was failing and 6 months of Keegan who wouldn't have been here without Ashley.

 

Think about it, nothing really could have been done by the previous shareholders to have brought about some instant success as we had nothing to offer anybody to entice them here and that is why Sir John jumped ship.

 

[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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

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.

[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.

 

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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

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.

 

the debt must be an issue, i fail to see how it cant be

[NE5]

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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

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.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

Football is all about success, only success brings in revenue. As you appear to be unable to draw on the state of the club pre-1992 to show it, read my Bob Murray link, now he was a smart lad, he knew how to run a company because he understand accounts [but not football], unless you think he ran a superior club to our ex owners that didn't ?

 

 

 

You can't answer it, can you?

 

We weren't in a position to splash cash and you've seen yourself how poor a job Allardyce did.  We were in no position to wait for success to come along, the last set of accounts covered virtually 6 months of Allardyce who was failing and 6 months of Keegan who wouldn't have been here without Ashley.

 

Think about it, nothing really could have been done by the previous shareholders to have brought about some instant success as we had nothing to offer anybody to entice them here and that is why Sir John jumped ship.

 

 

Tell me, if you are making excuses for Ashley, which you are, why were you so pleased to see Keegan back, unless you seriously thought he would have settled for Ashleys type of mediocrity and you were happy with that knowledge ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Tell me, if you are making excuses for Ashley, which you are, why were you so pleased to see Keegan back, unless you seriously thought he would have settled for Ashleys type of mediocrity and you were happy with that knowledge ?

 

 

 

I'm not making up excuses for anybody, what I'm saying is true.  If you know how we'd have paid our bills without Ashley then let us know how.

 

Regarding Keegan, once he arrived I thought that they would have backed him and allowed him to take us forwards, they didn't for some reason, possibly because they couldn't.  Personally, I'd be more than happy to see Keegan spending what money we had as I trust him based on what he's done here before.

 

Edit,

 

I'm sure Keegan was questioned after coming back about leaving previously and claiming that the job wasn't what it said in the brochure and said that this time he wasn't given a brochure.

[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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

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.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

[NE5]

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.

 

not a single thing is worse than in 1991. Nothing.

 

 

 

Would you like offer some evidence or arguments to refute the points I made then? Because without that your statement has no validity.

 

you've listed all the improvements yourself !

 

What else is there ?

 

You can't call expectations and the other things you have listed as "worse" when they are all by-products of the huge improvements and comparative success ?

 

The only thing I would pick out is "tarnished repuation", but to be honest, even that is nowhere near the appalling standing the club had in 1991.

 

 

 

I asked you about the problems not the improvements, so will you address the ones I've highlighted below, please:

 

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.

 

I don't get you, as I said, most of them are by products of being more successul.

 

Players being more powerful is a football problem, including transfer fees and wages. Do you think differently ?

 

 

 

But as a football club, football's problems are our problems, are they not?

 

When the Halls and Shepherd took over they had to deal with the external conditions also. Ashley did not take over a perfect club in a perfect market, did he. Therefore there were problems and issues that needed (and still need) to be dealt with, something you seem to be denying. As I said, the problems may not be the same, but there are still problems. To deny that is to deny the obvious and it only takes away from the valid points of your argument.

 

I'm not denying anything. I can't see how you think we or anybody can address bigger issue football wide problems, unless you are advocating a maverick approach, and who is going to do that and run the risk of abject failure, because you must realise that if the big clubs adopt a hard line approach to wages, contracts, etc, the player will just go somewhere else.

 

To slightly move this debate further, I don't know if it is possible to do anything about this, but in the UK at least, nothing would happen without the PFA urging its big hitters to exercise restraint - what I have in mind here is a wage cap of sorts where they would agree to donate money into a pool to look after football[ers] and therefore clubs further down the ladders ?

 

Can't see it happening personally though.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Tell me, if you are making excuses for Ashley, which you are, why were you so pleased to see Keegan back, unless you seriously thought he would have settled for Ashleys type of mediocrity and you were happy with that knowledge ?

 

 

 

I'm not making up excuses for anybody, what I'm saying is true.  If you know how we'd have paid our bills without Ashley then let us know how.

 

Regarding Keegan, once he arrived I thought that they would have backed him and allowed him to take us forwards, they didn't for some reason, possibly because they couldn't.  Personally, I'd be more than happy to see Keegan spending what money we had as I trust him based on what he's done here before.

 

Edit,

 

I'm sure Keegan was questioned after coming back about leaving previously and claiming that the job wasn't what it said in the brochure and said that this time he wasn't given a brochure.

 

I don't accept a club with the 17th biggest turnover [down from 14th] couldn't back a newly appointed manager with even a relative small amount to send out signals that they intended to pursue success as best they could.

 

As it is, I'm sure even you will agree that their actions will continue to lessen the clubs revenue, which is hardly going to arrest the problem. Or maybe you won't. At least you half-admit that you wanted them to back Keegan, despite harping on about the debts now that he's gone, which is sort of my point ie you change your stance depending who you are talking about.

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

I don't think he cares enough about the club to want genuine success on the pitch.

 

 

What do you think he wants then? Failure?

 

he wants a profit, but doesn't understand that what he is doing will not succeed on the pitch.

 

Pretty basic stuff. Why does it have to be explained again.

 

 

 

So did Sir John and Shepherd!

[ikri]

In some ways I kinda wish Mike Ashley hadn't failed so miserably in his first two years here just to see how NE5 would have adapted.

 

silly boy.

 

Fancy hoping the club fail.

 

 

Is English your 2nd language?

 

You've taken his post to mean exactly the opposite to what he meant.

 

Either you failed to comprehend basic English or your drunk.

[Mick]

 

I don't accept a club with the 17th biggest turnover [down from 14th] couldn't back a newly appointed manager with even a relative small amount to send out signals that they intended to pursue success as best they could.

 

As it is, I'm sure even you will agree that their actions will continue to lessen the clubs revenue, which is hardly going to arrest the problem. Or maybe you won't. At least you half-admit that you wanted them to back Keegan, despite harping on about the debts now that he's gone, which is sort of my point ie you change your stance depending who you are talking about.

 

 

 

Having the 17th biggest income (dropping for a number of years) is not enough when the costs of servicing your debts are greater than the income and that doesn't change if you refuse to accept that or not.

 

Ashley might not have been able to spend more, I don't know how much you are worth but I'll guess most of your wealth is tied up in your house, try spending it.  As an example, say you have £200,000 tied up, go down to your local car sales tomorrow and try to buy a £20,000 car and tell them you're worth £200, 000 which is tied up but you'll pay them once the house is sold.  I can assure you that you'll drive home in your old car.

 

I don't half admit that I wanted them to back Keegan, I fully admit that I wanted that, in reality you don't always get what you want out of life and have to live knowing that.  That isn't a stance that I've changed but I have an understanding that maybe what I wanted might have been impossible.