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

[Mick]

 

OK then. Please tell us that Ashley is doing as well as the old regime in terms of qualifying for europe more often than anybody else in the last 50 years.

 

I think this must be a case of you either stalling, or not having the balls to give a straight reply.

 

 

 

That's a moronic, if not surprising post to be honest.

[NE5]

 

OK then. Please tell us that Ashley is doing as well as the old regime in terms of qualifying for europe more often than anybody else in the last 50 years.

 

I think this must be a case of you either stalling, or not having the balls to give a straight reply.

 

 

 

That's a moronic, if not surprising post to be honest.

 

don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you pass up the chance to put the record straight, again.

 

 

[Guest fading star]

It basically means that he doesn't understand the difference between debt that is sustainable out of operating profit, and debt that is spiralling out of control due to financial irresponsibility.

Nor do you.

[Mick]

 

What proof do you have that we were going to keep spending under Fred and Sam Allardyce?  i think there would have been a period where we stabilise and push on up afterwards.  Allardyce got Bolton into Europe with next to nothing, that was in Fred's thinking upon appointment of the guy i'm pretty sure.  He knew couldn't borrow much ore.

 

With such reckless spending how come we didn't go broke sooner?  Fred was a chairmen for how long?  He achieved so much and was always ambitious without going too far ie: summer of bowyer and woodgate sale.  You right as if it is fact that Freddy was always going to spend and assume he didn't know what he was doing.  The fact is - we didnt go broke, we don't know what would of happened. 

 

What makes you think Allardyce would have done any better under Shepherd than Mort?

 

Also, the clubs finances are proof that he did go too far, we have less coming in than going out and only pay bills now because Ashley puts his hand into his own pocket.  Would Sir John and shepherd have done that if still at the club?

[NE5]

It basically means that he doesn't understand the difference between debt that is sustainable out of operating profit, and debt that is spiralling out of control due to financial irresponsibility.

 

What proof do you have that we were going to keep spending under Fred and Sam Allardyce?  i think there would have been a period where we stabilise and push on up afterwards.  Allardyce got Bolton into Europe with next to nothing, that was in Fred's thinking upon appointment of the guy i'm pretty sure.  He knew couldn't borrow much ore.

 

With such reckless spending how come we didn't go broke sooner?  Fred was a chairmen for how long?  He achieved so much and was always ambitious without going too far ie: summer of bowyer and woodgate sale.  You right as if it is fact that Freddy was always going to spend and assume he didn't know what he was doing.  The fact is - we didnt go broke, we don't know what would of happened. 

 

he doesn't know we would have carried on spending. He was unhappy about something though, so encouraged and agreed with protesting about it.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,31195.msg582620.html#msg582620

 

He also backed the club bankrolling Souness and kicking out Bellamy and Robert, right up to the day they sacked him, so he can't really complain about the repercussions of that now ie the financial situation of which this was the start. It is however correct when you say we didn't go broke, and the club appointed Allardyce for the reasons you state, to re-group and then try again, I completely agree with you on that point.

 

We are still waiting for Mike Ashley to move the club forward again though, 2 years into his "plan". Time to protest again I would say, unless people are still confident Ashley will deliver of course, although at the moment it does look like we are sliding nearer the likes of Sheffield Wednesday and Leeds.

 

 

[NE5]

 

What proof do you have that we were going to keep spending under Fred and Sam Allardyce?  i think there would have been a period where we stabilise and push on up afterwards.  Allardyce got Bolton into Europe with next to nothing, that was in Fred's thinking upon appointment of the guy i'm pretty sure.  He knew couldn't borrow much ore.

 

With such reckless spending how come we didn't go broke sooner?  Fred was a chairmen for how long?  He achieved so much and was always ambitious without going too far ie: summer of bowyer and woodgate sale.  You right as if it is fact that Freddy was always going to spend and assume he didn't know what he was doing.  The fact is - we didnt go broke, we don't know what would of happened. 

 

What makes you think Allardyce would have done any better under Shepherd than Mort?

 

Also, the clubs finances are proof that he did go too far, we have less coming in than going out and only pay bills now because Ashley puts his hand into his own pocket.  Would Sir John and shepherd have done that if still at the club?

 

 

What makes you think he wouldn't. Fact is, the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50, and showed they understood how to be successful and qualify regularly for europe, fill the stadium, and keep the revenue up.

 

Meanwhile, as I said, don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you - again - pass up the chance to put the record straight. Its up to you. Do you accept the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50 or not ?

 

A different thing altogether is if you are prepared to give Ashley more time. You might be, I don't. I've seen more than enough, I'd seen enough by about October 2007, my hopes only sightly raised that I was wrong by the appointment of Keegan, and that only lasted for the first couple of months when it became obvious that there was a split and Keegan wasn't happy, and would never last the distance with him.

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

What makes you think he wouldn't. Fact is, the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50, and showed they understood how to be successful and qualify regularly for europe, fill the stadium, and keep the revenue up.

 

Meanwhile, as I said, don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you - again - pass up the chance to put the record straight. Its up to you. Do you accept the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50 or not ?

 

A different thing altogether is if you are prepared to give Ashley more time. You might be, I don't. I've seen more than enough, I'd seen enough by about October 2007, my hopes only sightly raised that I was wrong by the appointment of Keegan, and that only lasted for the first couple of months when it became obvious that there was a split and Keegan wasn't happy, and would never last the distance with him.

 

 

 

Shepherd didn't give us 15 years of anything.  Stop trying to use Sir John to mask what was 3 good years under Shepherd.  Shepherd took us from 2nd to 13th within 12 months and reduced us from being a club with cash to one with almost as much debt as resale value.  Shepherd took over us in 2nd and 10 years later left us in the same position as after his first 12 months in charge, 13th.

 

All of the above are facts.

 

I will give Ashley more time because he's having to turn a club around that was going one way and that wasn't up.

[DJ_NUFC]

 

 

What makes you think he wouldn't. Fact is, the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50, and showed they understood how to be successful and qualify regularly for europe, fill the stadium, and keep the revenue up.

 

Meanwhile, as I said, don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you - again - pass up the chance to put the record straight. Its up to you. Do you accept the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50 or not ?

 

A different thing altogether is if you are prepared to give Ashley more time. You might be, I don't. I've seen more than enough, I'd seen enough by about October 2007, my hopes only sightly raised that I was wrong by the appointment of Keegan, and that only lasted for the first couple of months when it became obvious that there was a split and Keegan wasn't happy, and would never last the distance with him.

 

 

 

Shepherd didn't give us 15 years of anything.  Stop trying to use Sir John to mask what was 3 good years under Shepherd.  Shepherd took us from 2nd to 13th within 12 months and reduced us from being a club with cash to one with almost as much debt as resale value.  Shepherd took over us in 2nd and 10 years later left us in the same position as after his first 12 months in charge, 13th.

 

All of the above are facts.

 

I will give Ashley more time because he's having to turn a club around that was going one way and that wasn't up.

 

Whilst applauding either party embroiled in a NE5 argument is as futile as clutching the walls along one's descent down a pit of intellectual hell, credit is due nonetheless for moments of clarity:

 

[NE5]

 

 

What makes you think he wouldn't. Fact is, the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50, and showed they understood how to be successful and qualify regularly for europe, fill the stadium, and keep the revenue up.

 

Meanwhile, as I said, don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you - again - pass up the chance to put the record straight. Its up to you. Do you accept the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50 or not ?

 

A different thing altogether is if you are prepared to give Ashley more time. You might be, I don't. I've seen more than enough, I'd seen enough by about October 2007, my hopes only sightly raised that I was wrong by the appointment of Keegan, and that only lasted for the first couple of months when it became obvious that there was a split and Keegan wasn't happy, and would never last the distance with him.

 

 

 

Shepherd didn't give us 15 years of anything.  Stop trying to use Sir John to mask what was 3 good years under Shepherd.  Shepherd took us from 2nd to 13th within 12 months and reduced us from being a club with cash to one with almost as much debt as resale value.  Shepherd took over us in 2nd and 10 years later left us in the same position as after his first 12 months in charge, 13th.

 

All of the above are facts.

 

I will give Ashley more time because he's having to turn a club around that was going one way and that wasn't up.

 

Tripe. The team did well on the field, because of the manager. KEEGAN. Chosen by Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd who wanted him and outvoted and forced Sir John to sack Ardiles and appoint Keegan.

 

This is a FACT. It is in Keegan's book. The Halls, Shepherd and Fletcher [until Fletcher left] ran the club for all the time they were the majority shareholders. It was impossible for anyone else to have run the club or had any say on anything.

 

You like to spout business logic when it suits you, well this is what it is in this case.

 

You will be made to look a proper fool in the end re your support of Ashley, but it isn't surprising, given that you are blind to anything that Shepherd did and won't give him credit for anything just because he embarrassed you with a few PR gaffes. You poor little dear.

 

You are an even bigger fool if you think Sir John Hall allowed Shepherd to run the club single handed, and his mutli million business at that. Because there is one thing he wasn't, and thats a fool, and thats what he would have been if he had allowed someone else to have a free hand in making the big decisions and come and tell him later.

 

Biggest hoot I've ever read, and the most embarrassing thing of all - is the fact that you keep spouting such rubbish.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

What makes you think he wouldn't. Fact is, the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50, and showed they understood how to be successful and qualify regularly for europe, fill the stadium, and keep the revenue up.

 

Meanwhile, as I said, don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you - again - pass up the chance to put the record straight. Its up to you. Do you accept the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50 or not ?

 

A different thing altogether is if you are prepared to give Ashley more time. You might be, I don't. I've seen more than enough, I'd seen enough by about October 2007, my hopes only sightly raised that I was wrong by the appointment of Keegan, and that only lasted for the first couple of months when it became obvious that there was a split and Keegan wasn't happy, and would never last the distance with him.

 

 

 

Shepherd didn't give us 15 years of anything.  Stop trying to use Sir John to mask what was 3 good years under Shepherd.  Shepherd took us from 2nd to 13th within 12 months and reduced us from being a club with cash to one with almost as much debt as resale value.  Shepherd took over us in 2nd and 10 years later left us in the same position as after his first 12 months in charge, 13th.

 

All of the above are facts.

 

I will give Ashley more time because he's having to turn a club around that was going one way and that wasn't up.

 

Whilst applauding either party embroiled in a NE5 argument is as futile as clutching the walls along one's descent down a pit of intellectual hell, credit is due nonetheless for moments of clarity:

 

 

Agenda > Logic and facts, with you too then  mackems.gif

[Mick]

 

 

Tripe. The team did well on the field, because of the manager. KEEGAN. Chosen by Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd who wanted him and outvoted and forced Sir John to sack Ardiles and appoint Keegan.

 

This is a FACT. It is in Keegan's book. The Halls, Shepherd and Fletcher [until Fletcher left] ran the club for all the time they were the majority shareholders. It was impossible for anyone else to have run the club or had any say on anything.

 

You like to spout business logic when it suits you, well this is what it is in this case.

 

You will be made to look a proper fool in the end re your support of Ashley, but it isn't surprising, given that you are blind to anything that Shepherd did and won't give him credit for anything just because he embarrassed you with a few PR gaffes. You poor little dear.

 

You are an even bigger fool if you think Sir John Hall allowed Shepherd to run the club single handed, and his mutli million business at that. Because there is one thing he wasn't, and thats a fool, and thats what he would have been if he had allowed someone else to have a free hand in making the big decisions and come and tell him later.

 

Biggest hoot I've ever read, and the most embarrassing thing of all - is the fact that you keep spouting such rubbish.

 

 

 

If it was tripe then list the 10 league finishes with Shepherd as Chairman, also list the last league finish under Sir John.  Once you've done that, tell us the financial position when Shepherd took over as chairman and when he left.

 

Do that and you'll have proven me wrong then I'll admit that my post was tripe.  Failure to do so will just confirm what most people already know about you.

[Dan Gleebals]

NE5, I am sure this has been asked of you before.  IF and thats a clear IF, the Ashley regime was to actually win something in the next three years, would that comparitively speaking make this regime more or less successful that the Shepperd/Hall times in your eyes.  I know the answer is fairly clear - YES, however, I suspect you would say no.

 

Seems to me the logic of most on here is a bit more thought through than yours.  Okay we had some good times under Sheppard/Hall/Keegan etc but the truth remains - we won fuck all and in the process have amased debt that could have crippled us.

 

Football aside, that is hardly success is it?

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

Tripe. The team did well on the field, because of the manager. KEEGAN. Chosen by Hall Jnr, Fletcher and Shepherd who wanted him and outvoted and forced Sir John to sack Ardiles and appoint Keegan.

 

This is a FACT. It is in Keegan's book. The Halls, Shepherd and Fletcher [until Fletcher left] ran the club for all the time they were the majority shareholders. It was impossible for anyone else to have run the club or had any say on anything.

 

You like to spout business logic when it suits you, well this is what it is in this case.

 

You will be made to look a proper fool in the end re your support of Ashley, but it isn't surprising, given that you are blind to anything that Shepherd did and won't give him credit for anything just because he embarrassed you with a few PR gaffes. You poor little dear.

 

You are an even bigger fool if you think Sir John Hall allowed Shepherd to run the club single handed, and his mutli million business at that. Because there is one thing he wasn't, and thats a fool, and thats what he would have been if he had allowed someone else to have a free hand in making the big decisions and come and tell him later.

 

Biggest hoot I've ever read, and the most embarrassing thing of all - is the fact that you keep spouting such rubbish.

 

 

 

If it was tripe then list the 10 league finishes with Shepherd as Chairman, also list the last league finish under Sir John.  Once you've done that, tell us the financial position when Shepherd took over as chairman and when he left.

 

Do that and you'll have proven me wrong then I'll admit that my post was tripe.  Failure to do so will just confirm what most people already know about you.

 

sorry to disappoint you, but the chairmen of football clubs don't kick the ball around on the pitch. They - on behalf of the board as a whole - appoint the managers, and back them [if they choose to].

 

Trouble with you, or part anyway, is that you can't quite grasp this, because your agenda means you can't see anything other than the "embarrassing fat bastard".......and would almost slate him if it rains.

 

I always knew that you were one of these simple minded souls but you're now even more so than I thought. The vast majority of supporters who supported the club in the 1970's and 1980's now disagree with you, it may have taken Keegan leaving to wake them up to this regime and direction Ashley has put into place, but at least they did in the end.

 

Quite incredulous that you don't even attempt to debate the point that Hall Snr must be stupid to allow someone else to run the club single handed and just tell him later when he has sacked and appointed managers. I would expect an 8 year old to believe such tripe, but somehow.....I'm just not surprised in the slightest that you have failed to take the chance to refute this.

 

Its you and others like you who deserve knackers like Ashley

[Guest fading star]

NE5, I am sure this has been asked of you before.  IF and thats a clear IF, the Ashley regime was to actually win something in the next three years, would that comparitively speaking make this regime more or less successful that the Shepperd/Hall times in your eyes.  I know the answer is fairly clear - YES, however, I suspect you would say no.

 

Seems to me the logic of most on here is a bit more thought through than yours.  Okay we had some good times under Sheppard/Hall/Keegan etc but the truth remains - we won f*** all and in the process have amased debt that could have crippled us.

 

Football aside, that is hardly success is it?

 

 

Like what? The Champions League? The FA Cup? The Johnstone's Paint Trophy?

[NE5]

NE5, I am sure this has been asked of you before.  IF and thats a clear IF, the Ashley regime was to actually win something in the next three years, would that comparitively speaking make this regime more or less successful that the Shepperd/Hall times in your eyes.  I know the answer is fairly clear - YES, however, I suspect you would say no.

 

Seems to me the logic of most on here is a bit more thought through than yours.  Okay we had some good times under Sheppard/Hall/Keegan etc but the truth remains - we won fuck all and in the process have amased debt that could have crippled us.

 

Football aside, that is hardly success is it?

 

 

depends. Do you want the club to win something and be relegated ? It has been pointed out before - to MICK when he absurdly insinuated that Lord Westwood was the best chairman we have had because we won the Fairs Cup, that using such a criteria means people such as Maurice Evans, Joe Royle, Bobby Gould, Steve McLaren and Ray Harford were better managers than Keegan because they had won a domestic trophy. Utter bollocks whichever way you look at it. But such insinuations are borne out of sheer desperation, only a complete idiot can't see that.

 

One shot an inch to the left by Alan Shearer, and we could have won the 1998 Cup Final. One failure to track Poyet by Nobby Solano and we could have beaten Chelsea in the 2000 Semi Final. Such are the margins in football.

 

To repeat, only an utter imbecile would argue against such things, and say that Lord Westwood was a better chairman than the Halls and Shepherd.

 

ACtually, I bet MICK now says I am putting words into his mouth. So let him clarify this issue, does he think this is the case or not, or admit that his comment was utter tripe.

 

If Mike Ashley qualifies for the Champions League then of course I will admit he's done a great job and has been a worthy successor to his predecessors. The cups are a bonus, the quality of your team and the way you run your club and back your manager is borne out of consistent league performance. Too many people on here harp on about finance as if they honestly think that all those champions league games, european qualifications, top quality footballers, expanded stadium, capaity crowds, massively increased value of the club and revenue, and profile, are all things which they would rather now not have happened in this quest for "financial solvency".

 

Completely sad, and deluded. This sort of success is what football is all about. If we even finish the ridiculed 7th that we did when Roeder was manager with Mike Ashley still here, most of you lot will be jumping through hoops proclaiming how his pathetic "plan" [Arsenal, now Villa, who next ?] has "worked"

 

Clueless. As I've just said, such attitudes deserve a tosspot like Ashley.

 

 

 

 

[Shearergol]

 

my, you've got it in for me haven't you 

 

 

 

Nope, not at all. The funny thing is, I've agreed with 80% of what you've said over the years on forums. My difficulty with you is not a footballing disagreement, it's more the fact that I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you gave straight answers and acknowledge that other people have opinions.

[DJ_NUFC]

quote author=NE5 link=topic=60100.msg1718487#msg1718487 date=1235670135]

 

 

What makes you think he wouldn't. Fact is, the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50, and showed they understood how to be successful and qualify regularly for europe, fill the stadium, and keep the revenue up.

 

Meanwhile, as I said, don't complain about people "putting words into your mouth" when you - again - pass up the chance to put the record straight. Its up to you. Do you accept the last regime gave you by far the best 15 years of the last 50 or not ?

 

A different thing altogether is if you are prepared to give Ashley more time. You might be, I don't. I've seen more than enough, I'd seen enough by about October 2007, my hopes only sightly raised that I was wrong by the appointment of Keegan, and that only lasted for the first couple of months when it became obvious that there was a split and Keegan wasn't happy, and would never last the distance with him.

 

 

 

Shepherd didn't give us 15 years of anything.  Stop trying to use Sir John to mask what was 3 good years under Shepherd.  Shepherd took us from 2nd to 13th within 12 months and reduced us from being a club with cash to one with almost as much debt as resale value.  Shepherd took over us in 2nd and 10 years later left us in the same position as after his first 12 months in charge, 13th.

 

All of the above are facts.

 

I will give Ashley more time because he's having to turn a club around that was going one way and that wasn't up.

 

Whilst applauding either party embroiled in a NE5 argument is as futile as clutching the walls along one's descent down a pit of intellectual hell, credit is due nonetheless for moments of clarity:

 

 

Agenda > Logic and facts, with you too then  mackems.gif

 

Obviously, why do you think I spend so much time in GC?

[NE5]

 

my, you've got it in for me haven't you 

 

 

 

Nope, not at all. The funny thing is, I've agreed with 80% of what you've said over the years on forums. My difficulty with you is not a footballing disagreement, it's more the fact that I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you gave straight answers and acknowledge that other people have opinions.

 

Sometimes things are more complex than a yes or no, but I try to give such answers when its possible. For instance, Mike Ashley is a shit owner who hasn't got a clue what he's doing, and Shola AMeobi will never be a premiership footballer while he has a hole in his arse. I've repeated these statements quite often when people have said differently, and it isn't because I don't acknowledge they have opinions, you could say they don't acknowledge I have one too. Unfortunately Mike Ashley is now proving he's a shit owner without a clue and Shola Ameobi has shown over the past 2 years that those who said he was a ready replacement for Shearer were talking crap. I said Luque was shit after his first game, and got all sorts of grief for that, it was my opinion, I stuck to it, but didn't tell anybody they weren't allowed to disagree ?? So what do you mean exactly.

 

I'll admit that I got it wrong over Allardyce, but I still think he is a good manager and it just didn't work out for him here for whatever reasons.

 

I'll admit that also giving Roeder a chance was a mistake, but at the time I thought it had merit, I'm not one of those who goes down the hindsight route in a state of denial. Having said that, we still finished 7th, which was a rare event before 1992 and if Ashley does this then plenty of people will be doing cartwheels, just like they cheered Souness for finishing 14th after booing Bobby Robsons team for only finishing 5th.

 

Still, as you say, they had an opinion. Pity it was bollocks eh ?

 

Just like Ashley now in fact. He's a disaster. This club is heading for relegation under him, its just a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

 

my, you've got it in for me haven't you 

 

 

 

Nope, not at all. The funny thing is, I've agreed with 80% of what you've said over the years on forums. My difficulty with you is not a footballing disagreement, it's more the fact that I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you gave straight answers and acknowledge that other people have opinions.

 

Sometimes things are more complex than a yes or no, but I try to give such answers when its possible. For instance, Mike Ashley is a s*** owner who hasn't got a clue what he's doing, and Shola AMeobi will never be a premiership footballer while he has a hole in his arse. I've repeated these statements quite often when people have said differently, and it isn't because I don't acknowledge they have opinions, you could say they don't acknowledge I have one too. Unfortunately Mike Ashley is now proving he's a s*** owner without a clue and Shola Ameobi has shown over the past 2 years that those who said he was a ready replacement for Shearer were talking crap. I said Luque was s*** after his first game, and got all sorts of grief for that, it was my opinion, I stuck to it, but didn't tell anybody they weren't allowed to disagree ?? So what do you mean exactly.

 

I'll admit that I got it wrong over Allardyce, but I still think he is a good manager and it just didn't work out for him here for whatever reasons.

 

I'll admit that also giving Roeder a chance was a mistake, but at the time I thought it had merit, I'm not one of those who goes down the hindsight route in a state of denial. Having said that, we still finished 7th, which was a rare event before 1992 and if Ashley does this then plenty of people will be doing cartwheels, just like they cheered Souness for finishing 14th after booing Bobby Robsons team for only finishing 5th.

 

Still, as you say, they had an opinion. Pity it was bollocks eh ?

 

Just like Ashley now in fact. He's a disaster. This club is heading for relegation under him, its just a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

all you have to do now is address the financial situation the club was in,in the spring of 2007 and i think we could have this thread wrapped up for good tonight.

[NE5]

 

my, you've got it in for me haven't you 

 

 

 

Nope, not at all. The funny thing is, I've agreed with 80% of what you've said over the years on forums. My difficulty with you is not a footballing disagreement, it's more the fact that I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you gave straight answers and acknowledge that other people have opinions.

 

Sometimes things are more complex than a yes or no, but I try to give such answers when its possible. For instance, Mike Ashley is a s*** owner who hasn't got a clue what he's doing, and Shola AMeobi will never be a premiership footballer while he has a hole in his arse. I've repeated these statements quite often when people have said differently, and it isn't because I don't acknowledge they have opinions, you could say they don't acknowledge I have one too. Unfortunately Mike Ashley is now proving he's a s*** owner without a clue and Shola Ameobi has shown over the past 2 years that those who said he was a ready replacement for Shearer were talking crap. I said Luque was s*** after his first game, and got all sorts of grief for that, it was my opinion, I stuck to it, but didn't tell anybody they weren't allowed to disagree ?? So what do you mean exactly.

 

I'll admit that I got it wrong over Allardyce, but I still think he is a good manager and it just didn't work out for him here for whatever reasons.

 

I'll admit that also giving Roeder a chance was a mistake, but at the time I thought it had merit, I'm not one of those who goes down the hindsight route in a state of denial. Having said that, we still finished 7th, which was a rare event before 1992 and if Ashley does this then plenty of people will be doing cartwheels, just like they cheered Souness for finishing 14th after booing Bobby Robsons team for only finishing 5th.

 

Still, as you say, they had an opinion. Pity it was bollocks eh ?

 

Just like Ashley now in fact. He's a disaster. This club is heading for relegation under him, its just a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

all you have to do now is address the financial situation the club was in,in the spring of 2007 and i think we could have this thread wrapped up for good tonight.

 

I've answered you. The Ashley way is not the way back, its only the way to relegation and more years of grief, far worse than the last few.

 

You got your wish, the Halls and Shepherd have now gone, I hope you think the club is in better hands, because I don't.

[madras]

 

my, you've got it in for me haven't you 

 

 

 

Nope, not at all. The funny thing is, I've agreed with 80% of what you've said over the years on forums. My difficulty with you is not a footballing disagreement, it's more the fact that I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for you if you gave straight answers and acknowledge that other people have opinions.

 

Sometimes things are more complex than a yes or no, but I try to give such answers when its possible. For instance, Mike Ashley is a s*** owner who hasn't got a clue what he's doing, and Shola AMeobi will never be a premiership footballer while he has a hole in his arse. I've repeated these statements quite often when people have said differently, and it isn't because I don't acknowledge they have opinions, you could say they don't acknowledge I have one too. Unfortunately Mike Ashley is now proving he's a s*** owner without a clue and Shola Ameobi has shown over the past 2 years that those who said he was a ready replacement for Shearer were talking crap. I said Luque was s*** after his first game, and got all sorts of grief for that, it was my opinion, I stuck to it, but didn't tell anybody they weren't allowed to disagree ?? So what do you mean exactly.

 

I'll admit that I got it wrong over Allardyce, but I still think he is a good manager and it just didn't work out for him here for whatever reasons.

 

I'll admit that also giving Roeder a chance was a mistake, but at the time I thought it had merit, I'm not one of those who goes down the hindsight route in a state of denial. Having said that, we still finished 7th, which was a rare event before 1992 and if Ashley does this then plenty of people will be doing cartwheels, just like they cheered Souness for finishing 14th after booing Bobby Robsons team for only finishing 5th.

 

Still, as you say, they had an opinion. Pity it was bollocks eh ?

 

Just like Ashley now in fact. He's a disaster. This club is heading for relegation under him, its just a matter of time.

 

 

 

 

all you have to do now is address the financial situation the club was in,in the spring of 2007 and i think we could have this thread wrapped up for good tonight.

 

I've answered you. The Ashley way is not the way back, its only the way to relegation and more years of grief, far worse than the last few.

 

You got your wish, the Halls and Shepherd have now gone, I hope you think the club is in better hands, because I don't.

you don't see the last few seasons as a progression...i (and a few others) do.

 

you said yourself what allardyce was brought in to do,that is what ashley is having to do. the idea of spending (borrowing more) to compete was gone...the risk failed.

 

 

my answer to you is that from our position,borrowing more wasn't the way back,only backwards and very quickly.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Ironically, over a year after he was sacked, we are in more need of an Allardyce type operator now than when he was actually appointed.

 

We can pin the blame on Freddy Shepherd regarding the financial state of the club as much as we like but the real reason why we haven't progressed financially since the day we appointed Big Sam (an admission by Shepherd that we could no longer carry on as we had done prior to Big Sam arriving with the reckless spending) is due to Mike Ashley not carrying out any form of due diligence which most of his decisions since taking over (mostly all counter productive and backfiring) have resulted from.

 

Had he, he'd have quickly lost his interest in buying the club, allowing Shepherd's plan to get the club out of the mire on and off the pitch, to go on as he had intended with his appointment of Big Sam. It is a matter of debate of course but we could theoretically be almost 2 season's down that line of gradual progress under Shepherd and his choice of manager. Now you could argue with great justification that we are actually behind from where FS left us which was with an on-side crowd, a competent and qualified manager the majority of fans were pleased with and importantly a squad of players who could see something ahead of them, content players. Shay Given certainly didn't complain, nor did Charles N'Zogbia!

 

The complete opposite of what we have now basically, on the pitch and in the dugout anyway. We are in a much worse state now then we were when FS was last making decisions at the club. 

 

Ashley isn't even doing anything new either because FS was well into a period of frugality which started with the decision not to spend any money in the January transfer window before Souness was sacked (when many were calling for him to "back or sack", myself included), the decision to keep Roeder on permanently, subsequently under funding him and then the real admission - appointing Big Sam. All measures designed to cut back spending and to move the club forward in a different way to the usual spend spend spend nature under FS which at his most reckless came with Souness as manager.

 

Ashley has had almost 2 seasons to build on that but has reversed it to the point now where we have to start all over again. This time with Kinnear as manager and a broken team that has lost its world-class 'keeper, a promising winger and in the summer its record signing among other players who will want out or be sold. And maybe a division down too!

 

At least FS had other plans to turn around the club with land redevelopment and stadium expansion plans which would have seen companies pay the club to expand the ground's capacity. Also as a PLC there was always options to seek further investment from shareholders if the worst ever came to the worst.

 

Ashley via his various mouthpieces keep banging on about inheriting all these problems and all this debt, well Mike, in you we have inherited the owner equivalent.

 

If only we had the option of being able to carry out due diligence on Mike Ashley. Me? I'd have stuck with Shepherd thankyou, at least he had a workable plan to get us out of the shit in Big Sam/ground developments and had the club's best interests at heart.

 

FS nor our debt before the takeover has forced Ashley into running the club the way he intends, not doing due diligence has and all those other fuck-ups he's made since, each impacting the other.

 

That and the Cockney Mafia out banner of course

 

[Tooj]

That does make for a good read. However you're forgetting how bad Big Sam actually was when in charge here.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

That does make for a good read. However you're forgetting how bad Big Sam actually was when in charge here.

 

I've seen much worse this season to be honest and while I can't disagree with anyone who claims Big Sam was in general pretty rubbish in his time here I believed in time even under Ashley he'd have turned us around in terms of top 8 which we would all kill for right now.

 

Not that my points are about Big Sam himself, more what his appointment meant in terms of how FS saw the future, recognised the past and his plans to turn the club around on and off the pitch. Lets remember when he was appointed most fans were in favour and even those that didn't like him or rate him highly nor wanted him here recognised that what he believed in, science, diet, fitness, scouting, building from the back and his experience at working with small budgets was very much inline with what was needed at the club and indeed required.

 

I believe the arrival of a man worth £2bn lifted expectations and upped the preasure levels. I mean as soon as Ashley took over many on here were debating what that meant for Big Sam and whether the goalposts had moved and did we now require a different type of manager. That was always in the backs of fans' heads, not all of course but a good number, increasing the likelihood of less patience. Mind the loss to Derby didn't do him any fabours, nor his tactics and some of the team's performances.

 

All I know is I was happy when he was appointed, could see some sense in it all and some hope for the future, a one that was better than what we had seen under Souness and Roeder. Today I have zero hope and see no sense in any of Ashley's so-called plans. I guarantee they will fail unless he appoints a competent manager and gives that man full control and even then there is no guarantee.

[Tooj]

That does make for a good read. However you're forgetting how bad Big Sam actually was when in charge here.

 

I've seen much worse this season to be honest and while I can't disagree with anyone who claims Big Sam was in general pretty rubbish in his time here I believed in time even under Ashley he'd have turned us around in terms of top 8 which we would all kill for right now.

 

 

I think we would have been relegated last season if he was still in charge.