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

February 16, 2009

There’s a world of difference between not spending big money and spending fuck all.

And there is a world of difference between spending fuck all and spending £10m on a first choice centre back but recouping that money through selling players who don't want to play for the club.

If we hadn't sold Milner, hadn't got £6m for Dyer, £7m for Parker, £4m (ish) for Emre, £6m for Zoggy etc etc, instead lets say like under the old board we got a couple of million each for them would you be more satisfied with the outgoings?

We've essentially broken even in transfer windows pre January due to good negotiating in the sales of players - the vast majority of who most people were happy to see leave and even more happy with the fees we brought in.

Is Colo better than Bramble? Bassong better than Rozenthal? Is Beye better than Carr? Jonas better than Milner?

Of course I'd loved to see us bring in a pair of dynamic centre midfielders, you would have to be stupid not to. But in general our lack of spending has improved on what was there before

And lets not forget the fantastic piece of business which saw insomnia get his dream move to a big club, and us get a player who can not only beat the first man at a corner for the first time in years but has actually given us the ability to score from set pieces too.

Parky · February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

:spit: I can't even remember the last time I hear MA speak, never mind "whine incessantly".

Parky · February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

I can't even remember the last time I hear MA speak, never mind "whine incessantly".

That's cause he's got a high pitched Kenneth Williams level cockernee shreik (according to the Mirror bloke). :lol:

February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

I can't even remember the last time I hear MA speak, never mind "whine incessantly".

That's cause he's got a high pitched Kenneth Williams level cockernee shreik (according to the Mirror bloke).

When was the last time you heard him speak Parky?

indi · February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

Who said it wasn't.

What does "incessantly" mean in Parkenese, because in English it means "continuing without interruption", which simply doesn't relate to reality.

Parky · February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

I can't even remember the last time I hear MA speak, never mind "whine incessantly".

That's cause he's got a high pitched Kenneth Williams level cockernee shreik (according to the Mirror bloke).

When was the last time you heard him speak Parky?

:pow:

Parky · February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

Who said it wasn't.

What does "incessantly" mean in Parkenese, because in English it means "continuing without interruption", which simply doesn't relate to reality.

My mistake.

February 16, 2009

Has NE5 gone for his nightly wander to the pub? Funny how he seems to disappear at the same time every night.

indi · February 16, 2009

Why can't you f***ing 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.

the key word here is approach. the approach was of spend now worry later, which has gotten us into a mess. so given that the finances are in such a mess, thanks to the old board, why is it surprising that people are scorning it? its completely deserving of scorn.

you scorned the champions league qualifications ? Spending big is the only way to get there.

absolutely not. but the champions league qualifications were a result of the big spending, had it been big spending that was manageable then there'd be no need for scorn, but it wasnt manageable, it was reckless. and thats why we are where we are.

ah, now. I was one of the few people on here who urged caution when loads of posters were urging the club to "splash the cash" after every defeat, and to back Souness, because they said he would get it right just like Alex Ferguson did at ManU. Probably the same people who are now condemning this approach for what it caused. But I don't do hindsight, thats for others, so are denying u-turns and double standarsds.

Fact is, whatever the circumstance, you don't succeed in football without spending. I don't want the club to behave like the charltons of this world and - having the 17th biggest turnover [courtesy of the last regime, and down from 14th since Ashley came in, a downturn which will continue and will drop significantly if nothing is done to arrest it] I think it is not the course we should be taking either.

17th biggest turnover.

i wonder how many of those numbered 1 to 16 run at a loss even with those turnovers ?

For the 10 millionth time half the PL are in debt and most struggle to cover player wages. FACT.

Resorting to the dreaded "FACT" now are we? For shame Parkster, for shame.

Just because everyone's fucked doesn't make it okay, especially as we're more fucked than they are despite having bigger resources and a higher turnover.

So basically you accept PL club ownership is a high risk game?

MA's a big lad wonder why he whines incessantly.

Who said it wasn't.

What does "incessantly" mean in Parkenese, because in English it means "continuing without interruption", which simply doesn't relate to reality.

My mistake.

It was.

NE5 · February 17, 2009

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.

BUMP

I answered him. Again

Does he agree or not, and why

madras · February 17, 2009

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.

BUMP

I answered him. Again

Does he agree or not, and why

i'll answer.........

take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ?

NE5 · February 17, 2009

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.

BUMP

I answered him. Again

Does he agree or not, and why

i'll answer.........

take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ?

what are you blabbing on about ? You show me a successful club anywhere in the world who isn;t in debt

madras · February 17, 2009

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.

BUMP

I answered him. Again

Does he agree or not, and why

i'll answer.........

take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ?

what are you blabbing on about ? You show me a successful club anywhere in the world who isn;t in debt

been here.....don't you remember ?

having debt is one thing,losing money all the time and building more debt is another..........ie they can afford to finance their debt, you know this already

fredbob · February 17, 2009

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.

BUMP

I answered him. Again

Does he agree or not, and why

i'll answer.........

take a look. more and more clubds are having to do that. we took our risk with our bit cash and failed,the risk didn't pay off and we are now at a point where we have to live with it........which other clubs who are making a yearly loss are going on spending sprees ?

what are you blabbing on about ? You show me a successful club anywhere in the world who isn;t in debt

Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful?

Find me an unsuccessful club with ambition anywhere in the world who is able to cope with the level of wages and debt that were are paying for?

Leeds? Zaragoza? Who else? Who else has been unsuccessful and yet paid out the wages we've paid out without reprecussion?

indi · February 17, 2009

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.

BUMP

I answered him. Again

Does he agree or not, and why

He got bored with the page after page of childish bickering and gave up on the thread. He may or may not respond to this post tonight when he has the time to do so, depending upon how much arse-gravy he has to wade his way through to find it.

Dr Venkman · February 17, 2009

madras' and fredbobs posts above are worthy of answering btw, if ne5 or parky would like to do that i'd be genuinely interested to read

NE5 · February 17, 2009

madras' and fredbobs posts above are worthy of answering btw, if ne5 or parky would like to do that i'd be genuinely interested to read

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only.

"Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? "

THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who".

Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply.

NE5 · February 17, 2009

Has NE5 gone for his nightly wander to the pub? Funny how he seems to disappear at the same time every night.

whats funny about going to the pub ?

Why don't you try it.

Dr Venkman · February 17, 2009

Has NE5 gone for his nightly wander to the pub? Funny how he seems to disappear at the same time every night.

whats funny about going to the pub ?

Why don't you try it.

Dr Venkman · February 17, 2009

madras' and fredbobs posts above are worthy of answering btw, if ne5 or parky would like to do that i'd be genuinely interested to read

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only.

"Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? "

THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who".

Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply.

but would you agree that when you get to the point where the debt is crippling you that it becomes very very dangerous to gamble on that next player that 'might' be the one that drags you out of it? its unlikely that one man can do that himself is it? surely a period of re-building is acceptable once things get to a certain point?

you seem to have acknowledged that freddy was doing this with allardyce. is it just a case of not trusting ashley to do it because he has no previous form in football and you're judging him on his first act? seems a bit unfair.

NE5 · February 17, 2009

madras' and fredbobs posts above are worthy of answering btw, if ne5 or parky would like to do that i'd be genuinely interested to read

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only.

"Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? "

THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who".

Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply.

but would you agree that when you get to the point where the debt is crippling you that it becomes very very dangerous to gamble on that next player that 'might' be the one that drags you out of it? its unlikely that one man can do that himself is it? surely a period of re-building is acceptable once things get to a certain point?

you seem to have acknowledged that freddy was doing this with allardyce. is it just a case of not trusting ashley to do it because he has no previous form in football and you're judging him on his first act? seems a bit unfair.

of course, that is what they recognised when they appointed Allardyce. I don't trust Ashley, and I don't believe he has any real desire to do anything with the club other than selll it on, and now I think he never did have any other motive. He thought the 50,000 crowds would come along whatever happened and he would fatten it up for a sale, but like many other people who think that 50000 crowds were always the case, he is wrong. Capacity crowds have only been the norm since 1992, they were very rare for years previous to that, even in a smaller stadium.

The season ticket sales next season are going to be a shock to him, and if we go down, the folly of his judgement and lack of action will bite him on the arse, and he's only got himself to blame, because if he had backed his own appointed manager, we would now be a club on the up and looking at a much better future.

fredbob · February 17, 2009

madras' and fredbobs posts above are worthy of answering btw, if ne5 or parky would like to do that i'd be genuinely interested to read

I've answered the point by madras many times. Nobody wants to go into receivership. As for buying players, the next player may be the one who repays his fee and makes a big difference to the team. You have no way of knowing this in advance, apart from those who deal in hindsight and hindsight only.

"Are they successful becasue they are in debt or are they coping with debt because they are successful? "

THIS comment is nicely phrased, the answer is a bit of both - but the way to go is the same as I've just said. I don't understand why people want us to operate like clubs such as Charlton. They will soon have what they want though, just like when they said we would be better off with a change of owner "no matter who".

Shame indi has bowed out - for now - as he can make some decent points even if I don't agree. The reason for "childishness" if you can call it that IMO is brought about by people asking the same things and not understanding the reply.

So what happens if those clubs were no longer successful?

February 17, 2009

Has NE5 gone for his nightly wander to the pub? Funny how he seems to disappear at the same time every night.

whats funny about going to the pub ?

Why don't you try it.

Are you alcohol dependent? Do you need to drink every night?

NE5 · February 17, 2009

Has NE5 gone for his nightly wander to the pub? Funny how he seems to disappear at the same time every night.

whats funny about going to the pub ?

Why don't you try it.

Are you alcohol dependent? Do you need to drink every night?

you're not a left wing, freak, hand wringing school teacher are you ?

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

Recommended Posts

Guest toonlass

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest toonlass

Link to post

Share on other sites

Link to post

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in