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

[TRon]

 

I couldn't give a toss. It beats selling your best players and competing for years at the level of the Charltons of this world any day. Did all those who faked mock outrage give up their Cup Final tickets a few months later, and the season after, out of principle ?

 

 

 

Without Ashley, how would we have paid our bills?

 

They planned to put some of their own money in.

 

Oh man I just spat Grolsch out my nose

 

Banks don't do loans you can't pay for very often - you have to guarantee it.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ridsdales-grand-dreams-bankrupted-by-debts-on-balance-sheet-596293.html

 

Ridsdale's grand dreams bankrupted by debts on balance sheet

 

By Nick Harris

 

 

Saturday, 1 February 2003

 

On 26 September 2001, Leeds United considerably extended their debts by issuing £60m in 25-year "loan notes" effectively taking out a £60m mortgage, guaranteed against future season-ticket sales.

 

 

On 26 September 2001, Leeds United considerably extended their debts by issuing £60m in 25-year "loan notes" effectively taking out a £60m mortgage, guaranteed against future season-ticket sales. The money was borrowed at a fixed annual interest rate of 7.695 per cent. The first repayment of interest on the loan was more than £4m. Capital repayments will not start until September 2004. The annual repayments will then be around £7m. But that's for the future.

 

The minutiae in the loan agreement speaks volumes about the current financial crisis at Elland Road. The club, with chairman Peter Ridsdale as gambler-in-chief, paid £890,000 in fees to arrange the loan. It borrowed money even to pay those fees. Ridsdale, incidentally, has been paid £1m by the club in the past two years. A million here, a million there, so the debts have risen. But the loan was only necessary in the first place because of spending by David O'Leary, with Ridsdale's backing on players and wages.

 

By the end of the 1999-00 season, O'Leary, who had taken over from George Graham in late 1998, had bought 11 players costing around £34.4m, having sold players for around £19m. His purchases included Danny Mills, Michael Bridges and Olivier Dacourt. It seemed a good deal because Leeds finished third and gained access to the Champions' League.

 

During the season that saw the run to the Champions' League semi-final in 2001, O'Leary signed five more players, including Mark Viduka, Rio Ferdinand and Robbie Keane, for a total outlay of £36m. He sold nine players for £9m. The deficit of £27m was made worse by a huge rise in the wage bill. The damage was already being done. Failure to qualify for the following season's Champions' League, in 2001-02 (and again the next year), only compounded the situation. No Champions' League meant a reduction in annual income of around £15m per year. O'Leary paid with his job.

 

Since O'Leary took over at Elland Road, Leeds have spent around £90m on players. Revenue from sales, before yesterday's offloading of Jonathan Woodgate to Newcastle, had been around £68m. Even this does not tell the whole story. That £68m in receipts might not actually materialise. In the cases of Ferdinand and Robbie Fowler, for example, the full fee is contingent on the players' success. To be fair, that was also the case with Fowler's move from Liverpool to Elland Road and Keane's from Internazionale.

 

The increase in the club's wage bill in the last few years has also been crippling. In the year to June 2002, the wage bill was £53.6m, up £10m on the previous year. These figures come from Leeds' annual report of 2002. The same report showed that the club made a loss of £34m in the previous year. The club's net debts, on 30 June 2002, had risen to £77.9m, and that was after the sale of Ferdinand (£30m) and Keane (£7m).

 

No wonder Ridsdale sold Ferdinand to Manchester United. He was desperate for the cash, which made all the proclamations about Ferdinand's lack of loyalty shallow indeed. Keane's departure was another necessary sale. It helped curb the debts and also removed around £1m from the wage bill. Lee Bowyer's departure was also primarily a question of cutting the wage bill. Ditto Fowler, whose stay at Elland Road will see a net deficit of at least £5m in transfer fees, plus his wages for 14 months. Woodgate's departure will also cut the wage bill and the £9m fee will allow further stabilisation of the balance sheet.

 

How quickly things change. "Our aim is to become the clear No 2 club in the country behind Manchester United," Adam Pearson, then the Leeds commercial director, said in December 1999 as Leeds sat atop the Premiership. "The football is central to everything and Peter Ridsdale has had the bottle to push on rather than consolidate." Pearson is now running Hull City.

 

One last quote. "Of all the great clubs I have worked with in football, none have had the infrastructure, commitment and potential of Leeds United. The team has all the necessary qualities to become the country's best for years to come." So said Terry Venables, in inch-high letters that filled a whole page in the Leeds 2002 Annual Report

 

 

I noticed that the people who claim we should be borrowing money and spending big have kept very quiet about this article. Hardly surprising when you consider the results of Leeds gambling on their massive outlay providing guaranteed future success.

[johnnypd]

we were never in a Leeds type situation, as far as i can tell. leeds mortgaged off their own players ffs, had a far smaller turnover than us and a bigger debt.

[manorpark]

 

It is interesting that the very year that Abramovich bought Chelsea, the two clubs (Leeds and Chelsea) had almost IDENTICAL (amazingly identical figures) financial results (debts, losses etc).  To all intents and purposes, they were in an identical financial position.

 

They were both about to go the 'natural way' of all failing businesses.

 

Then for Chelsea the Russian Loans started (look where they are now and since) while, for Leeds the Russian - or any other - loans did NOT arrive, and they are now in the 3rd Division ('League One', as it is now called!!).

 

Just an interesting comparison, I thought.  (ie - The difference a billionaire sugardaddy CAN make . . . )

[johnnypd]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - fucking great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

[TRon]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - fucking great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

 

It seems like that but the evidence doesn't point to that necessarily. Ashley did originally sanction Allardyce's expensive buys of Barton, Smith and Enrique, not to mention Viduka, Cacapa and Geremi on big wages. Since then we've sold players and purchased players without weakening the squad drastically...in fact it's a lot better than the one Shepherd left behind. As money is released from shifting deadwood it's possible that more money will be re-invested into the squad year on year rather than at the end of a period of four years belt-tightening.

[johnnypd]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - fucking great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

 

It seems like that but the evidence doesn't point to that necessarily. Ashley did originally sanction Allardyce's expensive buys of Barton, Smith and Enrique, not to mention Viduka, Cacapa and Geremi on big wages. Since then we've sold players and purchased players without weakening the squad drastically...in fact it's a lot better than the one Shepherd left behind. As money is released from shifting deadwood it's possible that more money will be re-invested into the squad year on year rather than at the end of a period of four years belt-tightening.

 

its happening so i cant see how we can deny it. its not the only cause but, imo, one of the biggest. all of the allardyce signings came from sales, though you are right about ashley paying big wages for dross when he first came in. he feels he got his hands burnt, rightly in all honestly, but that's life and allardyce may have bought better had he been able to land some of his first choices. in hindsight ashley shouldve went for a new manager right away, thats another mistake, though since he was new to the game then ill let him off.

[NE5]

As NE5 would say. "But we are Newcastle, we have had European football, we would never get debts we couldn't afford to repay. We had lovely, beautiful football. We were never in a state where we couldn't afford to repay it back."

 

Aye bollocks NE5, we could have (and still could be) the next Leeds for the very same reason.

 

Is the correct answer that everyone who keeps biting should realize instead of continuing to waste bandwith on the forum out of some unlikely hope that he'll ever admit to being wrong.

gave up on that a while back.......a straight answer would do me.

 

You should know by now that the chances of you getting either are approximately 0.

 

If no one responds to NE5, no more threads get hijacked, and he doesn't get the attention he so craves.

 

He'll disappear on his own.

i don't want him to disappear. i think he's a canny bloke with an achiles heel (we all have them). this place wouldn't be the same without an ne5 baiting corner.

 

i'd like him to post on other things though aswell.

 

Would be one of the best posters on here if he didn't waste all his time arguing over something that will NEVER be resolved.

 

Unfortunately, relegation should do the trick

 

It won't though because in your head everyone but you thinks:

 

The old board were a bunch of cunts, never did anything right and never brought relative success to the club.

 

Ashley is the saviour and can do no wrong, he is going to get us challenging for the league again within a couple of years.

 

 

There is no grey area for you, it is simply black and white. If people claim the old board weren't faultless then they must be Ashley fanboys. You have spent soo long defending Shepherd and co you can't stop. You are so im the mindset its you vs everyone else you refuse to believe/ignore what you are reading on the forum.

 

Fact is most people think the old board did well for a period of time, they did make some big mistakes and there were worries about where we were heading financially.

 

Most people think Ashley has fucked up big time, most people believe he is the devil, he has had too many chances and there is no fixing it now. Some believe he has fucked up but can see what he is trying to do, the are willing (hoping) to give him a chance as realistically that is all they can do, he has tried to sell the club but no-one wants to buy so what can we do? Protests are pointless now imo as he isn't going to give the club away.

 

Your post did sum up everything you believe though. If we get relegated you won't be proved right because no-one has actually said what you claim they have.

 

Anyway, have fun arguing this for another year. As said, this will never be resolved so I look forward to your contribution to the forum in 2009 being exactly the same as 2008, 2007 and 2006.

 

I think you would be better off seeing things more in the black and white that you condemn. I've never said  I would be against a better board in fact I always said - just like most other people - that I would welcome anybody better, anything else is a no brainer, but I said to people like you - of whom there were numerous - that replacing with better would be very difficult, given that only 5 other clubs did better in the country, during the time they ran the club. There is no grey area here, you didn't see this and you thought that anybody who came into the club would automatically back managers and show ambition, because you were used to seeing it and couldn't comprehend anything else.

 

The fact that they made mistakes, which everyone does, the biggest one being to appoint Souness and then again to stick with him so long - doesn't detract from the fact that they ticked boxes which only good boards do. There is no grey area when you make these sort of judgements. I just hope if Ashley sells to a good owner you will appreciate them more, warts and all.

 

I think that for as long as Mike Ashley runs this club, people like you will spout the same blind supportive rubbish by the way. If we stay up, next season will be just like this one. You might realise after 6 or 7 years that his "5 year plan" isn't working 

 

 

[Pilko]

Someone please call Age Concern.

[Cajun]

As NE5 would say. "But we are Newcastle, we have had European football, we would never get debts we couldn't afford to repay. We had lovely, beautiful football. We were never in a state where we couldn't afford to repay it back."

 

Aye bollocks NE5, we could have (and still could be) the next Leeds for the very same reason.

 

Is the correct answer that everyone who keeps biting should realize instead of continuing to waste bandwith on the forum out of some unlikely hope that he'll ever admit to being wrong.

gave up on that a while back.......a straight answer would do me.

 

You should know by now that the chances of you getting either are approximately 0.

 

If no one responds to NE5, no more threads get hijacked, and he doesn't get the attention he so craves.

 

He'll disappear on his own.

i don't want him to disappear. i think he's a canny bloke with an achiles heel (we all have them). this place wouldn't be the same without an ne5 baiting corner.

 

i'd like him to post on other things though aswell.

 

Would be one of the best posters on here if he didn't waste all his time arguing over something that will NEVER be resolved.

 

Unfortunately, relegation should do the trick

 

It won't though because in your head everyone but you thinks:

 

The old board were a bunch of cunts, never did anything right and never brought relative success to the club.

 

Ashley is the saviour and can do no wrong, he is going to get us challenging for the league again within a couple of years.

 

 

There is no grey area for you, it is simply black and white. If people claim the old board weren't faultless then they must be Ashley fanboys. You have spent soo long defending Shepherd and co you can't stop. You are so im the mindset its you vs everyone else you refuse to believe/ignore what you are reading on the forum.

 

Fact is most people think the old board did well for a period of time, they did make some big mistakes and there were worries about where we were heading financially.

 

Most people think Ashley has fucked up big time, most people believe he is the devil, he has had too many chances and there is no fixing it now. Some believe he has fucked up but can see what he is trying to do, the are willing (hoping) to give him a chance as realistically that is all they can do, he has tried to sell the club but no-one wants to buy so what can we do? Protests are pointless now imo as he isn't going to give the club away.

 

Your post did sum up everything you believe though. If we get relegated you won't be proved right because no-one has actually said what you claim they have.

 

Anyway, have fun arguing this for another year. As said, this will never be resolved so I look forward to your contribution to the forum in 2009 being exactly the same as 2008, 2007 and 2006.

 

I think you would be better off seeing things more in the black and white that you condemn. I've never said  I would be against a better board in fact I always said - just like most other people - that I would welcome anybody better, anything else is a no brainer, but I said to people like you - of whom there were numerous - that replacing with better would be very difficult, given that only 5 other clubs did better in the country, during the time they ran the club. There is no grey area here, you didn't see this and you thought that anybody who came into the club would automatically back managers and show ambition, because you were used to seeing it and couldn't comprehend anything else.

 

The fact that they made mistakes, which everyone does, the biggest one being to appoint Souness and then again to stick with him so long - doesn't detract from the fact that they ticked boxes which only good boards do. There is no grey area when you make these sort of judgements. I just hope if Ashley sells to a good owner you will appreciate them more, warts and all.

 

I think that for as long as Mike Ashley runs this club, people like you will spout the same blind supportive rubbish by the way. If we stay up, next season will be just like this one. You might realise after 6 or 7 years that his "5 year plan" isn't working 

 

 

 

If you can provide a single post from me to back this us then I will concede you are infact correct. I am 100% certain you won't though and you will probably find posts from me telling people not to get too excited just because a billionaire has bought us because his personal wealth doesn't mean he is going to go all Roman on us.

 

[NE5]

As NE5 would say. "But we are Newcastle, we have had European football, we would never get debts we couldn't afford to repay. We had lovely, beautiful football. We were never in a state where we couldn't afford to repay it back."

 

Aye bollocks NE5, we could have (and still could be) the next Leeds for the very same reason.

 

Is the correct answer that everyone who keeps biting should realize instead of continuing to waste bandwith on the forum out of some unlikely hope that he'll ever admit to being wrong.

gave up on that a while back.......a straight answer would do me.

 

You should know by now that the chances of you getting either are approximately 0.

 

If no one responds to NE5, no more threads get hijacked, and he doesn't get the attention he so craves.

 

He'll disappear on his own.

i don't want him to disappear. i think he's a canny bloke with an achiles heel (we all have them). this place wouldn't be the same without an ne5 baiting corner.

 

i'd like him to post on other things though aswell.

 

Would be one of the best posters on here if he didn't waste all his time arguing over something that will NEVER be resolved.

 

Unfortunately, relegation should do the trick

 

It won't though because in your head everyone but you thinks:

 

The old board were a bunch of cunts, never did anything right and never brought relative success to the club.

 

Ashley is the saviour and can do no wrong, he is going to get us challenging for the league again within a couple of years.

 

 

There is no grey area for you, it is simply black and white. If people claim the old board weren't faultless then they must be Ashley fanboys. You have spent soo long defending Shepherd and co you can't stop. You are so im the mindset its you vs everyone else you refuse to believe/ignore what you are reading on the forum.

 

Fact is most people think the old board did well for a period of time, they did make some big mistakes and there were worries about where we were heading financially.

 

Most people think Ashley has fucked up big time, most people believe he is the devil, he has had too many chances and there is no fixing it now. Some believe he has fucked up but can see what he is trying to do, the are willing (hoping) to give him a chance as realistically that is all they can do, he has tried to sell the club but no-one wants to buy so what can we do? Protests are pointless now imo as he isn't going to give the club away.

 

Your post did sum up everything you believe though. If we get relegated you won't be proved right because no-one has actually said what you claim they have.

 

Anyway, have fun arguing this for another year. As said, this will never be resolved so I look forward to your contribution to the forum in 2009 being exactly the same as 2008, 2007 and 2006.

 

I think you would be better off seeing things more in the black and white that you condemn. I've never said  I would be against a better board in fact I always said - just like most other people - that I would welcome anybody better, anything else is a no brainer, but I said to people like you - of whom there were numerous - that replacing with better would be very difficult, given that only 5 other clubs did better in the country, during the time they ran the club. There is no grey area here, you didn't see this and you thought that anybody who came into the club would automatically back managers and show ambition, because you were used to seeing it and couldn't comprehend anything else.

 

The fact that they made mistakes, which everyone does, the biggest one being to appoint Souness and then again to stick with him so long - doesn't detract from the fact that they ticked boxes which only good boards do. There is no grey area when you make these sort of judgements. I just hope if Ashley sells to a good owner you will appreciate them more, warts and all.

 

I think that for as long as Mike Ashley runs this club, people like you will spout the same blind supportive rubbish by the way. If we stay up, next season will be just like this one. You might realise after 6 or 7 years that his "5 year plan" isn't working 

 

 

 

If you can provide a single post from me to back this us then I will concede you are infact correct. I am 100% certain you won't though and you will probably find posts from me telling people not to get too excited just because a billionaire has bought us because his personal wealth doesn't mean he is going to go all Roman on us.

 

 

no. You know a lot of people took this view. If you say you didn't then I'll take your word for it. So why do you keep harping on and supporting Ashley when its obvious as fcuk that he is taking the club down to where the Halls and Shepherd found it and saved it.

 

Its as obvious as night becomes day that to succeed in football you have to spend, and its as obvious also that those people who defend Ashley on the basis that the last regime "were doing a Leeds", are in fact getting their names and owners mixed up.

 

 

[NE5]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - fucking great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

 

It seems like that but the evidence doesn't point to that necessarily. Ashley did originally sanction Allardyce's expensive buys of Barton, Smith and Enrique, not to mention Viduka, Cacapa and Geremi on big wages. Since then we've sold players and purchased players without weakening the squad drastically...in fact it's a lot better than the one Shepherd left behind. As money is released from shifting deadwood it's possible that more money will be re-invested into the squad year on year rather than at the end of a period of four years belt-tightening.

 

its happening so i cant see how we can deny it. its not the only cause but, imo, one of the biggest. all of the allardyce signings came from sales, though you are right about ashley paying big wages for dross when he first came in. he feels he got his hands burnt, rightly in all honestly, but that's life and allardyce may have bought better had he been able to land some of his first choices. in hindsight ashley shouldve went for a new manager right away, thats another mistake, though since he was new to the game then ill let him off.

 

I've wondered for ages now if Ashley, like many others who didn't know too much about the club or even football, thought that the club had always had 50,000 crowds - not realising these crowds had only came about courtesy of the ambition shown by the last regime - looked at the turnover, and decided he would take it, spend less money, and hover around the mid table positions until some rich Arab came in and bought it from him to pocket a profit.

 

The more I have thought about this, the more I think this was his "plan".

 

Ignoring the first team is a recipe for outright disaster, even these young players he is bringing may all turn out to be the biggest load of crap imagineable. What then ? He is going to shit himself when the season ticket renewals come in, and if we are relegated it will be running down his legs .........

 

 

[NE5]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - fucking great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

 

exactly.

 

I've just said in the other thread, these people who are backing Ashley on the basis that the old regime were "doing a Leeds" are getting their owners mixed up.

 

 

[Cajun]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - fucking great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

 

exactly.

 

I've just said in the other thread, these people who are backing Ashley on the basis that the old regime were "doing a Leeds" are getting their owners mixed up.

 

 

 

Was this thread, a couple of posts up  *glug glug*

 

Although tbf, the amount of threads you have attempted to turn into the same old argument its easy to get mixed up.

[Kitman]

I agree with a lot of what johnnypd says. 

 

I don't think the comparisons with Leeds hold water;  Leeds is an extreme example of a club going on tilt.  It's obvious we needed some sort of restructuring to rebalance our books though, having failed to get back into the big time for years.  But some judicious spending on the first team was hugely called for in January, this seems obvious to me, but the impression we have is that they did too little too late.  For such avid planners, some of the reported dealings were farcical, for instance the Richardson offer - was that really serious?

 

imo he's gambling we can get through to the summer without getting relegated, he's gambling that people will keep buying season tickets, he's gambling that the best players won't leave, he's gambling against injuries and suspensions.  That's without talking about the managerial situation.  Personally I think a better gamble would have been to bring forward some of the summer transfer spending on the first team which will be undertaken (according to Llambias).  If they'd been organised and determined, I'd hope we could have got 2 more players in, and I'm talking about limited investment here not galactico signings.  As it is we're just hoping for the best.

 

I love the emphasis on youth policy, long overdue, but it's no substitute for an adequate first team squad.

[sicsfingeredmong]

 

I couldn't give a toss. It beats selling your best players and competing for years at the level of the Charltons of this world any day. Did all those who faked mock outrage give up their Cup Final tickets a few months later, and the season after, out of principle ?

 

 

 

Without Ashley, how would we have paid our bills?

 

They planned to put some of their own money in.

 

Oh man I just spat Grolsch out my nose

 

Banks don't do loans you can't pay for very often - you have to guarantee it.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ridsdales-grand-dreams-bankrupted-by-debts-on-balance-sheet-596293.html

 

Ridsdale's grand dreams bankrupted by debts on balance sheet

 

By Nick Harris

 

 

Saturday, 1 February 2003

 

On 26 September 2001, Leeds United considerably extended their debts by issuing £60m in 25-year "loan notes" – effectively taking out a £60m mortgage, guaranteed against future season-ticket sales.

 

 

On 26 September 2001, Leeds United considerably extended their debts by issuing £60m in 25-year "loan notes" – effectively taking out a £60m mortgage, guaranteed against future season-ticket sales. The money was borrowed at a fixed annual interest rate of 7.695 per cent. The first repayment of interest on the loan was more than £4m. Capital repayments will not start until September 2004. The annual repayments will then be around £7m. But that's for the future.

 

The minutiae in the loan agreement speaks volumes about the current financial crisis at Elland Road. The club, with chairman Peter Ridsdale as gambler-in-chief, paid £890,000 in fees to arrange the loan. It borrowed money even to pay those fees. Ridsdale, incidentally, has been paid £1m by the club in the past two years. A million here, a million there, so the debts have risen. But the loan was only necessary in the first place because of spending – by David O'Leary, with Ridsdale's backing – on players and wages.

 

By the end of the 1999-00 season, O'Leary, who had taken over from George Graham in late 1998, had bought 11 players costing around £34.4m, having sold players for around £19m. His purchases included Danny Mills, Michael Bridges and Olivier Dacourt. It seemed a good deal because Leeds finished third and gained access to the Champions' League.

 

During the season that saw the run to the Champions' League semi-final in 2001, O'Leary signed five more players, including Mark Viduka, Rio Ferdinand and Robbie Keane, for a total outlay of £36m. He sold nine players for £9m. The deficit of £27m was made worse by a huge rise in the wage bill. The damage was already being done. Failure to qualify for the following season's Champions' League, in 2001-02 (and again the next year), only compounded the situation. No Champions' League meant a reduction in annual income of around £15m per year. O'Leary paid with his job.

 

Since O'Leary took over at Elland Road, Leeds have spent around £90m on players. Revenue from sales, before yesterday's offloading of Jonathan Woodgate to Newcastle, had been around £68m. Even this does not tell the whole story. That £68m in receipts might not actually materialise. In the cases of Ferdinand and Robbie Fowler, for example, the full fee is contingent on the players' success. To be fair, that was also the case with Fowler's move from Liverpool to Elland Road and Keane's from Internazionale.

 

The increase in the club's wage bill in the last few years has also been crippling. In the year to June 2002, the wage bill was £53.6m, up £10m on the previous year. These figures come from Leeds' annual report of 2002. The same report showed that the club made a loss of £34m in the previous year. The club's net debts, on 30 June 2002, had risen to £77.9m, and that was after the sale of Ferdinand (£30m) and Keane (£7m).

 

No wonder Ridsdale sold Ferdinand to Manchester United. He was desperate for the cash, which made all the proclamations about Ferdinand's lack of loyalty shallow indeed. Keane's departure was another necessary sale. It helped curb the debts and also removed around £1m from the wage bill. Lee Bowyer's departure was also primarily a question of cutting the wage bill. Ditto Fowler, whose stay at Elland Road will see a net deficit of at least £5m in transfer fees, plus his wages for 14 months. Woodgate's departure will also cut the wage bill and the £9m fee will allow further stabilisation of the balance sheet.

 

How quickly things change. "Our aim is to become the clear No 2 club in the country behind Manchester United," Adam Pearson, then the Leeds commercial director, said in December 1999 as Leeds sat atop the Premiership. "The football is central to everything and Peter Ridsdale has had the bottle to push on rather than consolidate." Pearson is now running Hull City.

 

One last quote. "Of all the great clubs I have worked with in football, none have had the infrastructure, commitment and potential of Leeds United. The team has all the necessary qualities to become the country's best for years to come." So said Terry Venables, in inch-high letters that filled a whole page in the Leeds 2002 Annual Report

 

 

I noticed that the people who claim we should be borrowing money and spending big have kept very quiet about this article. Hardly surprising when you consider the results of Leeds gambling on their massive outlay providing guaranteed future success.

 

I never advocated the sort of borrowing - or spending levels - some touted when Ashley first brought the club. There was talk of a possible 100m spending spree when he first took the reigns, but never did i anticipate the sort of 80's reminiscent 'grocery store'/buy, swap & sell transfer policy in the wake of the previous regime's departure.

 

Back to your point. And the sort of spending during the Summers of 01/02 and 02/03 was by no means silly, although somebody like an Ashley - or a Llambl'arse - would have despised the notion of picking a 'Woodgate'-type player on credit, or paying the fee via two instalments, despite the potential of that particular signing to be a major difference maker down the season's final stretch.

 

In addition. IMO there was/is a major difference in borrowing the amount Risdale acquired in a bid to secure one of just four places on the table, and banking the club's financial future on the outcome..............  as opposed to borrowing - say 10-15m in Jan, which would have eliminated the need for Kinnear to sell first - in order secure any finish above the bottom 3 and the ensuing financial catastrophe which is associated with relegation.

 

At the start of the Jan transfer window we had points in the bag - and a little bit of breathing room between ourselves and the bottom 3 - with a favorable fixture list on the horizon during the window as our injury woes began to bite into the squad's apparent lack of depth.

 

It would've been a shorter odds gamble if Ashley showed a hint of guts in January - with roughly half a season to be played - in comparison to Risdale's gamble where there were too many intangibles in play. A couple of those intangibles being: not taking into account the sort of spending that was to be carried out by their immediate rivals, and whether or not a bolter - ourselves in 01/02, Villa this season, Everton the year before - would arise from the mid-table ranks to provide a serious threat to what was a high stakes bet on a 'one season result'.

[BottledDog]

From the webchat -

 

1:11 [Comment From Morty]

Afternoon gents! You said that Llambias came accross as a businessman, how did he differ in comparison to other, more experienced chairmen that you've interviewed in the past? And did his positive view for the future of the club sound sincere? 

1:12 Luke Edwards:  He was better than Freddie

 

Well I guess that's positive.

 

[sugoinufc]

ashley wouldve been better off drawing up a long term plan to deal with the debt that so it didnt leave us hamstrung in the transfer market for the medium term, which has contributed to ruining our onfield performance (along with the rest of his incompetent decisions)

 

it seems the plan is to have a 4 year period of belt tightening, yet this is seeing onfield performance collapse during this time, see us lose our best players, commercial revenues drop, attendances evaporate, possible relegation, putting us in a very difficult position to rebuild from when that period of belt tightening is over, with the possibility that the financial side of things becomes far, far worse than it ever was in the event of relegation and declining revenue from some sectors. this seems to be the plan, hoping that at the end of the period there'll be some superstars ready and waiting in the reserves side (a side that has no manager, bit like the first team really - f***ing great planning that) and that the damage wont be that bad - perhaps by sugar coating the period with the appointment of an old fan's favourite.

 

woulve been better for us to keep some of the long-term debt by shifting it elsewhere and put more money into transfers, helping to better onfield performance, retain our best players, seeing commercial revenues rise instead of fall, attendances keep up, possibility of UEFA cup, putting us in a better position in sheer turnover and on the pitch. obviously that is not guaranteed and it wouldve meant long-term commitment from ashley but had we given keegan a bit more money and backed his judgement im pretty sure we'd be in the top half of the table with the strong possibility of uefa football in the next year or two, in the same way that ashley's mistakes now mean relegation remains a strong posibility in the next year or two.

 

It seems like that but the evidence doesn't point to that necessarily. Ashley did originally sanction Allardyce's expensive buys of Barton, Smith and Enrique, not to mention Viduka, Cacapa and Geremi on big wages. Since then we've sold players and purchased players without weakening the squad drastically...in fact it's a lot better than the one Shepherd left behind. As money is released from shifting deadwood it's possible that more money will be re-invested into the squad year on year rather than at the end of a period of four years belt-tightening.

 

I like the plan....i dont mind some years without big signings, getting rid of deadwood and hopefully see a few youngsters break through!

 

...BUT if the plan should work we need a new manager (right know) to make it happen. A manager and good coaches for the reserves and youngsters to kickstart the concept of football Ashley wants us to play the next many years! And  when we get a new manager after the next....the club and squad is in balance and dosen´t need someone to come in with totally different ideas!

[NE5]

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

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

 

Why?

 

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

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

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

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

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

 

Genuine question.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

well, this is now 4 days later, and it would appear nobody ie those who continue to say that I'm wrong and they are right, has replied to what was a genuine question.

[Dave]

Why can't you fucking understand that people can be unhappy with Shepherd and it doesn't automatically mean they approve of Ashley?

 

That's a genuine question too.

[Shearergol]

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

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

 

Why?

 

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

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

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

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

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

 

Genuine question.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

well, this is now 4 days later, and it would appear nobody ie those who continue to say that I'm wrong and they are right, has replied to what was a genuine question.

 

 

Even you know why nobody answers you, right?

 

As I've said before (and you've said you don't care), you'd get a lot more respect if you took time to answer questions rather than being the smug, intolerant, self righteous old man you've become.

[NE5]

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

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

 

Why?

 

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

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

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

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

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

 

Genuine question.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

well, this is now 4 days later, and it would appear nobody ie those who continue to say that I'm wrong and they are right, has replied to what was a genuine question.

 

 

Even you know why nobody answers you, right?

 

As I've said before (and you've said you don't care), you'd get a lot more respect if you took time to answer questions rather than being the smug, intolerant, self righteous old man you've become.

 

silly comments like that only show me that its pointless debating anything with you.

 

The reason why they haven't answered it, is because if he had backed his manager, they would be jumping up and down and not giving a toss about this debt that they are so outraged about, and they know it.

 

 

[oldtype]

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

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

 

Why?

 

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

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

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

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

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

 

Genuine question.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

well, this is now 4 days later, and it would appear nobody ie those who continue to say that I'm wrong and they are right, has replied to what was a genuine question.

 

 

Even you know why nobody answers you, right?

 

As I've said before (and you've said you don't care), you'd get a lot more respect if you took time to answer questions rather than being the smug, intolerant, self righteous old man you've become.

 

Become?

 

He was probably born from his mother's womb screaming "what do you think of a manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards?" to the doctor instead of crying.

[NE5]

Why can't you fucking understand that people can be unhappy with Shepherd and it doesn't automatically mean they approve of Ashley?

 

That's a genuine question too.

 

so why are they defending and backing Ashley ? Don't say they aren't, because they are.

 

Thing is Dave, the point I made a few years ago on numerous occasions "replacing the current directors with someone of similar calibre will be more difficult than people think" still stands, but they still defend Ashley. They should realise now that their unhappiness with the last regime was badly misplaced.

 

I find it particularly sad that people are scorning the approach which gave them all those european qualifications, champions league run, stadium expansion, and the top quality footballers we signed that got us there in the first place, in favour of financial prudency when the same situation applied when Bobby Robson was manager and they were happy enough with what followed later through backing him.

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

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

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

 

Why?

 

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

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

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

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

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

 

Genuine question.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

well, this is now 4 days later, and it would appear nobody ie those who continue to say that I'm wrong and they are right, has replied to what was a genuine question.

 

 

Even you know why nobody answers you, right?

 

As I've said before (and you've said you don't care), you'd get a lot more respect if you took time to answer questions rather than being the smug, intolerant, self righteous old man you've become.

 

silly comments like that only show me that its pointless debating anything with you.

 

The reason why they haven't answered it, is because if he had backed his manager, they would be jumping up and down and not giving a toss about this debt that they are so outraged about, and they know it.

 

 

 

that's a moot point though. for whatever reason keegan left, and so we're adapting to it and everyone's deciding which parts of whats going on they can come to terms with and understand. i personally can understand a cut back in spending at this point, whereas i cannot understand the handing of a long term contract to kinnear. in the same way that i was unhappy with shepherds time as chairman and i'm also unhappy with ashleys time as owner so far.

 

its not always one way or the other you know, there are many grey areas, how have you got through life so far not realising this?

[NE5]

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

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

 

Why?

 

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

 

Looks like you're right. Oh well.

 

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

 

eeerrr.....exactly.

 

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

 

Genuine question.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

well, this is now 4 days later, and it would appear nobody ie those who continue to say that I'm wrong and they are right, has replied to what was a genuine question.

 

 

Even you know why nobody answers you, right?

 

As I've said before (and you've said you don't care), you'd get a lot more respect if you took time to answer questions rather than being the smug, intolerant, self righteous old man you've become.

 

Become?

 

He was probably born from his mother's womb screaming "what do you think of a manager who has won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards?" to the doctor instead of crying.

 

silly. And dragging the place down. Its no good you shouting about making good posts when you post stuff like that.