NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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. so, you admit that you wanted him to back the manager, but now you are saying that you don't ? Heads you win, tails you lose. You are right when you say you don't always get what you want, shame you didn't apply that logic when we had a decent board running the club that did well for it, and gave you european football and far better league positions than anyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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. oh, I know my English, very well in fact and I never drink at lunchtimes other than one or two sometimes before going to a football match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 so, you admit that you wanted him to back the manager, but now you are saying that you don't ? Heads you win, tails you lose. You are right when you say you don't always get what you want, shame you didn't apply that logic when we had a decent board running the club that did well for it, and gave you european football and far better league positions than anyone else. I don't understand where you get the first sentence from. As for the old lot, they'd gone as far as they could and were going backwards. Unlike you with Ashley, I allowed Hall and Shepherd time to turn things around but they couldn't do it and they had clearly run out of ideas, something which Sir John admitted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorin Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Is the complete interviews official published? Where can I get it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 so, you admit that you wanted him to back the manager, but now you are saying that you don't ? Heads you win, tails you lose. You are right when you say you don't always get what you want, shame you didn't apply that logic when we had a decent board running the club that did well for it, and gave you european football and far better league positions than anyone else. I don't understand where you get the first sentence from. As for the old lot, they'd gone as far as they could and were going backwards. Unlike you with Ashley, I allowed Hall and Shepherd time to turn things around but they couldn't do it and they had clearly run out of ideas, something which Sir John admitted. pretty basic really - you say you supported Ashley when you thought he would back his manager, and now he isn't backing his manager, you support that too mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Is the complete interviews official published? Where can I get it? Check the opening post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 pretty basic really - you say you supported Ashley when you thought he would back his manager, and now he isn't backing his manager, you support that too mackems.gif Honestly, you're clueless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 pretty basic really - you say you supported Ashley when you thought he would back his manager, and now he isn't backing his manager, you support that too mackems.gif Honestly, you're clueless. really . You've called the Halls and Shepherd, and Ashley, just great haven't you mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear You think they didn't? Care to explain their salaries and the money they made when they sold their shares in the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 According to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at Newcastle and Everton but was put off by the clubs debts, quite clearly Llambias wasn't talking about being an exact copy of Villa though and was talking about being able to push on up the league like they have and try and crack the top 4, I'm sure Ashley would like to be in the position that Lerner is in and any money he puts into the club can go into strengthening the first team rather than helping pay for the day to day running of the club but we will get there soon enough. The clubs annual loses are slowly coming down from £34m in 2007 to £20m in 2008 and a predicted loss of £7m in 2009 so they are turning it around. that projected loss relies on the big gamble of avoiding relegation. personally i think ashley would have been better served releasing a bit to help the chances of staying up in order to protect his initial investment. we are getting somewhere here. where are we getting ? i'm quite happy for ashley to spend his personal cash on improving us but i wouldn't dream of having a go at him for not spending even more of his personal cash. can you tell the difference between that and borrowing more and more from the banks ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear You think they didn't? Care to explain their salaries and the money they made when they sold their shares in the club? she - and you - have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the rest of that post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 According to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at Newcastle and Everton but was put off by the clubs debts, quite clearly Llambias wasn't talking about being an exact copy of Villa though and was talking about being able to push on up the league like they have and try and crack the top 4, I'm sure Ashley would like to be in the position that Lerner is in and any money he puts into the club can go into strengthening the first team rather than helping pay for the day to day running of the club but we will get there soon enough. The clubs annual loses are slowly coming down from £34m in 2007 to £20m in 2008 and a predicted loss of £7m in 2009 so they are turning it around. that projected loss relies on the big gamble of avoiding relegation. personally i think ashley would have been better served releasing a bit to help the chances of staying up in order to protect his initial investment. we are getting somewhere here. where are we getting ? i'm quite happy for ashley to spend his personal cash on improving us but i wouldn't dream of having a go at him for not spending even more of his personal cash. can you tell the difference between that and borrowing more and more from the banks ? have it your way. We are going down, due to Ashley's cost cutting, and no doubt the 50,000 capacity crowds will cram into the ground just like before, and the revenue won't be affected in the slightest. Just carry on ignoring the fact that every successful club in the world is up to their neck in debt, while you and others want us to be run like clubs such as Charlton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear You think they didn't? Care to explain their salaries and the money they made when they sold their shares in the club? she - and you - have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the rest of that post. Really? So Sir John and Fred only got involved with Newcastle United for altruistic purposes? Shame I didn't read the articles that said they gave the profits that they made back to Newcastle United when they left! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 According to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at Newcastle and Everton but was put off by the clubs debts, quite clearly Llambias wasn't talking about being an exact copy of Villa though and was talking about being able to push on up the league like they have and try and crack the top 4, I'm sure Ashley would like to be in the position that Lerner is in and any money he puts into the club can go into strengthening the first team rather than helping pay for the day to day running of the club but we will get there soon enough. The clubs annual loses are slowly coming down from £34m in 2007 to £20m in 2008 and a predicted loss of £7m in 2009 so they are turning it around. that projected loss relies on the big gamble of avoiding relegation. personally i think ashley would have been better served releasing a bit to help the chances of staying up in order to protect his initial investment. we are getting somewhere here. where are we getting ? i'm quite happy for ashley to spend his personal cash on improving us but i wouldn't dream of having a go at him for not spending even more of his personal cash. can you tell the difference between that and borrowing more and more from the banks ? have it your way. We are going down, due to Ashley's cost cutting, and no doubt the 50,000 capacity crowds will cram into the ground just like before, and the revenue won't be affected in the slightest. so do you think we should have kept on borrowing,creating more and more debt until either success or bankruptcy ? (i've covered the debts others,i've said fred done well for a while,i thought dalglish was a good appointment and was got rid of too early..................................is there anything i haven't covered in your usual non-answers ?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear You think they didn't? Care to explain their salaries and the money they made when they sold their shares in the club? she - and you - have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the rest of that post. Really? So Sir John and Fred only got involved with Newcastle United for altruistic purposes? Shame I didn't read the articles that said they gave the profits that they made back to Newcastle United when they left! Well, they saved the club from bankruptcy and administration. Don't you remember ? In the meantime, the spending you scorn gave you one of the countries top teams, more european and Champions League qualifications than everybody but 4 clubs, world class footballers, an expanded and transformed ground filled to capacity, a new training complext which had been needed since world war 2, and an increase in the value of the club from less than 1.25m quid to somewhere between 100m and 200m quid. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion or any personalities though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 According to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at Newcastle and Everton but was put off by the clubs debts, quite clearly Llambias wasn't talking about being an exact copy of Villa though and was talking about being able to push on up the league like they have and try and crack the top 4, I'm sure Ashley would like to be in the position that Lerner is in and any money he puts into the club can go into strengthening the first team rather than helping pay for the day to day running of the club but we will get there soon enough. The clubs annual loses are slowly coming down from £34m in 2007 to £20m in 2008 and a predicted loss of £7m in 2009 so they are turning it around. that projected loss relies on the big gamble of avoiding relegation. personally i think ashley would have been better served releasing a bit to help the chances of staying up in order to protect his initial investment. we are getting somewhere here. where are we getting ? i'm quite happy for ashley to spend his personal cash on improving us but i wouldn't dream of having a go at him for not spending even more of his personal cash. can you tell the difference between that and borrowing more and more from the banks ? have it your way. We are going down, due to Ashley's cost cutting, and no doubt the 50,000 capacity crowds will cram into the ground just like before, and the revenue won't be affected in the slightest. so do you think we should have kept on borrowing,creating more and more debt until either success or bankruptcy ? (i've covered the debts others,i've said fred done well for a while,i thought dalglish was a good appointment and was got rid of too early..................................is there anything i haven't covered in your usual non-answers ?) Don't expect an answer to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well, they saved the club from bankruptcy and administration. Don't you remember ? What fantastic irony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well, they saved the club from bankruptcy and administration. Don't you remember ? What fantastic irony. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well, they saved the club from bankruptcy and administration. Don't you remember ? What fantastic irony. why ? Do you think the current situation is anywhere near as bad as 1991, because I can assure you that it is nowhere near. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear You think they didn't? Care to explain their salaries and the money they made when they sold their shares in the club? she - and you - have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the rest of that post. Really? So Sir John and Fred only got involved with Newcastle United for altruistic purposes? Shame I didn't read the articles that said they gave the profits that they made back to Newcastle United when they left! Well, they saved the club from bankruptcy and administration. Don't you remember ? In the meantime, the spending you scorn gave you one of the countries top teams, more european and Champions League qualifications than everybody but 4 clubs, world class footballers, an expanded and transformed ground filled to capacity, a new training complext which had been needed since world war 2, and an increase in the value of the club from less than 1.25m quid to somewhere between 100m and 200m quid. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion or any personalities though. They have nearly caused it too, leaving us with HUGE debts. Don't you remember? In the meantime you seem to forget that we finished 13th in the season before Ashley took over. Ok you can go on and on and on and on about the european football as much as you like, WE GET THE FUCKING MESSAGE and most of us agree that the football was amazing, but the club has been left in a financial crisis to get that football. We had just about exhausted our lines of credit. Are you so damn stupid that you cannot see that? Don't let the financial facts get in the way of your nostalgia by the way! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 According to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at Newcastle and Everton but was put off by the clubs debts, quite clearly Llambias wasn't talking about being an exact copy of Villa though and was talking about being able to push on up the league like they have and try and crack the top 4, I'm sure Ashley would like to be in the position that Lerner is in and any money he puts into the club can go into strengthening the first team rather than helping pay for the day to day running of the club but we will get there soon enough. The clubs annual loses are slowly coming down from £34m in 2007 to £20m in 2008 and a predicted loss of £7m in 2009 so they are turning it around. that projected loss relies on the big gamble of avoiding relegation. personally i think ashley would have been better served releasing a bit to help the chances of staying up in order to protect his initial investment. we are getting somewhere here. where are we getting ? i'm quite happy for ashley to spend his personal cash on improving us but i wouldn't dream of having a go at him for not spending even more of his personal cash. can you tell the difference between that and borrowing more and more from the banks ? have it your way. We are going down, due to Ashley's cost cutting, and no doubt the 50,000 capacity crowds will cram into the ground just like before, and the revenue won't be affected in the slightest. so do you think we should have kept on borrowing,creating more and more debt until either success or bankruptcy ? (i've covered the debts others,i've said fred done well for a while,i thought dalglish was a good appointment and was got rid of too early..................................is there anything i haven't covered in your usual non-answers ?) Don't expect an answer to that. the previous post contains all the facts. Don't let them change your opinion though, shame you can't remember Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 why ? Do you think the current situation is anywhere near as bad as 1991, because I can assure you that it is nowhere near. Turnover to debt were almost identical and we were coming out of a recession, not going into a potential depression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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! oh dear You think they didn't? Care to explain their salaries and the money they made when they sold their shares in the club? she - and you - have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the rest of that post. Really? So Sir John and Fred only got involved with Newcastle United for altruistic purposes? Shame I didn't read the articles that said they gave the profits that they made back to Newcastle United when they left! Well, they saved the club from bankruptcy and administration. Don't you remember ? In the meantime, the spending you scorn gave you one of the countries top teams, more european and Champions League qualifications than everybody but 4 clubs, world class footballers, an expanded and transformed ground filled to capacity, a new training complext which had been needed since world war 2, and an increase in the value of the club from less than 1.25m quid to somewhere between 100m and 200m quid. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion or any personalities though. They have nearly caused it too, leaving us with HUGE debts. Don't you remember? In the meantime you seem to forget that we finished 13th in the season before Ashley took over. Ok you can go on and on and on and on about the european football as much as you like, WE GET THE FUCKING MESSAGE and most of us agree that the football was amazing, but the club has been left in a financial crisis to get that football. We had just about exhausted our lines of credit. Are you so damn stupid that you cannot see that? Don't let the financial facts get in the way of your nostalgia by the way! don't let the fact that every successful club in the world has a shitload of debt change your opinion either, while you reject what you have seen since 1992 in favour of running the club like clubs such as Charlton Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 According to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at Newcastle and Everton but was put off by the clubs debts, quite clearly Llambias wasn't talking about being an exact copy of Villa though and was talking about being able to push on up the league like they have and try and crack the top 4, I'm sure Ashley would like to be in the position that Lerner is in and any money he puts into the club can go into strengthening the first team rather than helping pay for the day to day running of the club but we will get there soon enough. The clubs annual loses are slowly coming down from £34m in 2007 to £20m in 2008 and a predicted loss of £7m in 2009 so they are turning it around. that projected loss relies on the big gamble of avoiding relegation. personally i think ashley would have been better served releasing a bit to help the chances of staying up in order to protect his initial investment. we are getting somewhere here. where are we getting ? i'm quite happy for ashley to spend his personal cash on improving us but i wouldn't dream of having a go at him for not spending even more of his personal cash. can you tell the difference between that and borrowing more and more from the banks ? have it your way. We are going down, due to Ashley's cost cutting, and no doubt the 50,000 capacity crowds will cram into the ground just like before, and the revenue won't be affected in the slightest. so do you think we should have kept on borrowing,creating more and more debt until either success or bankruptcy ? (i've covered the debts others,i've said fred done well for a while,i thought dalglish was a good appointment and was got rid of too early..................................is there anything i haven't covered in your usual non-answers ?) Don't expect an answer to that. the previous post contains all the facts. Don't let them change your opinion though, shame you can't remember Shame you can't realise what a mess the Halls and Shepherds left us in. Were you proud of them when Fred was drinking in that spanish brothel slagging the Newcastle fans off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now