NUSC write up of Llambias attendance at the Supporters Panel meeting

[Syrette]

When someone is as moronic as this id have a hard time wanting to "reconcile" with them also.

 

I agree. However if the NUSC want to attain a better working relationship with the club then they need to find the middle ground between getting their points across and being civil and positive towards people like Llambias. It's counter-productive to attack him so much even if they disagree with his views. You can't have one without the other - you either stick to your points aggressively and realise that this won't endear you to the club, or you loosen the agenda and attempt to reconcile with them. Both ways will get you heard but only a compromise would get the club on your side.

[Guest VegasToon]

Nice to see NUSC members on this forum attacking individuals who don't agree with them.

[Jayson]

Not a NUSC member, i dont even like the group. Clearly they are biased & going out of their way to criticize everything possible.

 

At the same time Llambias failed to answer some simple question with good answers quite clearly.

 

[quayside]

Not a NUSC member, i dont even like the group. Clearly they are biased & going out of their way to criticize everything possible.

 

At the same time Llambias failed to answer some simple question with good answers quite clearly.

 

 

He did skate round some issues but, to be fair to him, I was surprised at the level of some of the information that he did pass on. A couple of examples: The stuff about Xisco and Gonzalez was interesting if not earth shatteringly surprising. What was more surprising was that he said anything at all considering its high relevance to the Keegan dispute. Also the situation with Given was that clearly Given wanted to go, Man City knew that and expoited it. And it isn't a good idea to hang on to a player who wants out especially when it is one of the more senior (and probably inflential) players in the squad. 

 

 

[Shearergol]

Pretty much like you were with people who didn't want Robson booted out, eh?

 

Care to show evidence of that ?

As I recall it, I had been sniped at myself and responded in kind.

Odd how you lot seem to think that you can snipe, but the sniped  AT can't reply.

 

You think that was the plan with Keegan too then?

 

I deft anyone to find someone who can blame Ashley for this "plan". Of course he's going to want to make as much as possible if he sells. Didn't we, the supporters, all want him to sell anyway?

 

You really do have a pie-in-the-sky image of NUFC mate.

Normally when someone wants to sell a club or a business it is actually quite sane to have the club seemingly in good health and a viable healthy purchase, in the hands of a man guiding them well.

Please point out where this applies with NUFC if you don't mind. Or do you regard THIS as having a go at you ?

And please note - this is in answer to a little dig FROM you.

Which, if you can bother yourself to recall, was my original point.

 

Hang on a minute, haven't you just proved my point? Where was my dig?

 

As for the second part, it looks to me that Ashley is trying to get the club on a stable footing, rather than losing 30-50m a year. Eventually (and it's a risk with the threat of relegation) it will be a much brighter prospect for someone to purchase.

[Big Geordie]

Can I just agree with the point that the local hacks seem back onside with the club, so I don't expect to hear any reports that offer anything apart from licking the clubs arse, as with what happened with Oliver and Shepherd.

 

Has anyone got anymore info on this Michael Teasdale lad - perhaps he hasn't helped himself with his 'report', but is it enough to justify him being cut to pieces on here? Does he even post on here and therefore able to answer criticism?

[indi]

So NUSC have now managed to piss off the local press and thereby go quite a long way towards alienating, yet another group that will be essential to their ability to realise their aims and objectives. Well done lads.

 

I was worried about what damage they might do to the club, but it seems that they're even better at doing damage to themselves, so perhaps there's nothing to worry about after all.

[James]

Can I just agree with the point that the local hacks seem back onside with the club, so I don't expect to hear any reports that offer anything apart from licking the clubs arse, as with what happened with Oliver and Shepherd.

 

Has anyone got anymore info on this Michael Teasdale lad - perhaps he hasn't helped himself with his 'report', but is it enough to justify him being cut to pieces on here? Does he even post on here and therefore able to answer criticism?

 

iirc, it was the same guy that accused Mike Ashley of undermining the Sir Bobby fundraiser.

[OzzieMandias]

Can I just agree with the point that the local hacks seem back onside with the club, so I don't expect to hear any reports that offer anything apart from licking the clubs arse, as with what happened with Oliver and Shepherd.

 

Has anyone got anymore info on this Michael Teasdale lad - perhaps he hasn't helped himself with his 'report', but is it enough to justify him being cut to pieces on here? Does he even post on here and therefore able to answer criticism?

 

iirc, it was the same guy that accused Mike Ashley of undermining the Sir Bobby fundraiser.

 

No, I think that was a Michael Ord.

 

They don't seem to have any shortage of spokesmen totally lacking in media savvy.

[Stu]

Teasdale = Teasy?

[indi]

Doubt it.

[macphisto]

What ever your view on NUSC, it's quite funny to read the responses to Ryder's post on his blog! It willl be interesting to see if he responds!

[indi]

Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?

[macphisto]

Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?

 

Yeah it's full of mongs slagging off Ryder the mong for taking the side Llambias the mong!

 

Is there really any need to call people mongs for criticising Ryder's journalism?

[indi]

Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?

 

Yeah it's full of mongs slagging off Ryder the mong for taking the side Llambias the mong!

 

Is there really any need to call people mongs for criticising Ryder's journalism?

 

So what was funny about the comments then? I can only see someone quoting Monty Python and someone do the Coalition of United Newcastle Team Supporters thing, but totally fuck it up by putting "Fans" instead of "Supporters" and also missing out "Team". Fuck me, that's hilarious, isn't it!?! 

 

So I can only assume that you find it hilarious because people have criticised Ryder's journalism and if you're entitled to find that funny, then I'm entitled to ask the question:

 

"Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?"

 

and it was a question as I hadn't read it beforehand, you could have simply answered: "No, but some of the comments are funny", if that had been the case, but it wasn't was it, some mongs had indeed slagged him off and you'd hoped that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.", but that didn't happen and now you've got all upset and offended about my use of a mildly insulting term. Never mind, have a keyring, that'll make everything all better.

 

 

Yes, I know, how condescending of me, I'm disappointed in myself, I really am.

[Happy Face]

Nice to see members on this forum attacking individuals who don't agree with them.

 

FYP

 

It's been mentioned earlier in the thread, and it's not just NUSC membership that categorises the people calling each other morons and mongs and that.

[ChezGiven]

 

NUSC asked some clear questions & Llambias said a whole lot of nonsense.

 

He didnt answer why we didnt hold given till the end of the season with Man City offering such a low price.

He didnt answer why they pay out all our money upfront, when other clubs will not do the same.

 

His quote of "If I could tell you the number of top class manager’s banging on my door right now...Top, top”."

 

Means he's either lying, doesnt know the definition of a top manager or Ashleys a complete moron for keeping Kinnear on & supposedly offering him a new contract

 

 

If this forum was a toolbox, you'd be the hammer.

 

Given was forced to hand in a transfer request as instread of accepting Man City's shitty offer, we counter-offered a deal worth 15m to Given over the length of a new contract. As he wanted to move, he had to hand in the request which meant he was not eligible to the loyalty clause from the transfer.

 

Given was pissed off as he probably thought he had been loyal enough over 11 years and that he shouldnt have been forced to hand in the request. You can think what you like about that but you and NUSC clearly didnt pay that much attention in january as this was all fairly obvious from the press.

 

As for the paying money upfront, i think i can understand why they are doing it but then i'm a trained economist and work in a high performance business. I doubt you're average fan would understand and to be fair to Llambias, he wont make decisions on these things, the CFO will. Its even possible he just takes this direction from the CFO without really getting it completely and tbh, thats not an issue for me.

 

The objective of the CFO will be to turn the business into an operating concern, meaning that 'money in' is greater than 'money out'. In any given year, it is acceptable to make a loss if the trend is moving towards profit (so revenues are trending upwards and costs downwards). If we know that player wages will be reduced in future years, it may be the CFO doesn not want to offset the wage reductions with deferred transfer payments. If in 2010, we reduce wages by 10m but have deferred payments of 10m then we are at the same level of operating profit. Take the hit this year (which is complicated by the sources of funding for the 'hit') and that makes the business look better in years to come, changes our ability to get credit and also sell the club to prospective buyers, something the NUSC actually want.

 

Why not say that in a fan's forum? You'd need a flip-chart and about 20 minutes to go over the actual figures. Most people were there for the fucking free buffet

[NJS]

You may be right on the financial reasoning Chez but the fact is the strategy is harming the football side of the club (as Ashley won't spend money till it arrives) - and to many fans that's indictative of the approach - business before football at all costs.

 

 

[NG32]

You may be right on the financial reasoning Chez but the fact is the strategy is harming the football side of the club (as Ashley won't spend money till it arrives) - and to many fans that's indictative of the approach - business before football at all costs.

 

 

 

Yup, the plan needs to change asap.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

You may be right on the financial reasoning Chez but the fact is the strategy is harming the football side of the club (as Ashley won't spend money till it arrives) - and to many fans that's indictative of the approach - business before football at all costs.

 

 

 

True but i dont think deferring the payments would free up any more cash for transfers than exists already. If we had spent more (which we should have done) then it would have been because Ashley loaned the club more money. On the basis of the reasoning above, he would have not deferred the payment of the loan to the club, he would have done it the same way as the Nolan money.

 

Someone like M'Bia might have helped us get more points from Everton and Bolton so am in agreement that he should have spent more money.

[NJS]

You may be right on the financial reasoning Chez but the fact is the strategy is harming the football side of the club (as Ashley won't spend money till it arrives) - and to many fans that's indictative of the approach - business before football at all costs.

 

 

 

True but i dont think deferring the payments would free up any more cash for transfers than exists already. If we had spent more (which we should have done) then it would have been because Ashley loaned the club more money. On the basis of the reasoning above, he would have not deferred the payment of the loan to the club, he would have done it the same way as the Nolan money.

 

Someone like M'Bia might have helped us get more points from Everton and Bolton so am in agreement that he should have spent more money.

 

They should work like banks imo - if you know you have £6m being paid on July 1st then you position yourself to be paying out that amount on that date - that means deferring payments to other clubs. I can't see how going against the market helps.

 

 

[macphisto]

Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?

 

Yeah it's full of mongs slagging off Ryder the mong for taking the side Llambias the mong!

 

Is there really any need to call people mongs for criticising Ryder's journalism?

 

So what was funny about the comments then? I can only see someone quoting Monty Python and someone do the Coalition of United Newcastle Team Supporters thing, but totally f*** it up by putting "Fans" instead of "Supporters" and also missing out "Team". f*** me, that's hilarious, isn't it!?!  

 

So I can only assume that you find it hilarious because people have criticised Ryder's journalism and if you're entitled to find that funny, then I'm entitled to ask the question:

 

"Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?"

 

and it was a question as I hadn't read it beforehand, you could have simply answered: "No, but some of the comments are funny", if that had been the case, but it wasn't was it, some mongs had indeed slagged him off and you'd hoped that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.", but that didn't happen and now you've got all upset and offended about my use of a mildly insulting term. Never mind, have a keyring, that'll make everything all better.

 

 

Yes, I know, how condescending of me, I'm disappointed in myself, I really am.

 

There’s a lot of hysteria in that answer, are you OK? Do you really think I posted so that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.",? All I can do is plead guilty to that one.

 

Actually the real reason for posting it is that I did find some of the remarks such as the Monty Python one and  for example the reference to Steven Taylor quite humorous together with the whole awkwardness of a blog where people openly disagree with the writer! Very Alan Partridge!

 

Yes I could have responded to your question as "No, but some of the comments are funny" just like you could have responded to my question in a more adult fashion. Maybe it’s just different moral standards but I just find it sad that you call people mongs without first having a look at what they said. You want to be careful that you don’t become what you mock.

 

I’ll give the NUSC keyring a miss as I’m quite happy with my Handala one for now!

 

 

[Happy Face]

What ever your view on NUSC, it's quite funny to read the responses to Ryder's post on his blog! It willl be interesting to see if he responds!

 

"Lee Ryder was an American porn star who performed in gay pornography films from 1981 to 1986. With his bad-boy good looks and slim body, Lee Ryder became one of the first gay porn superstar during a period when the pornography industry was making its transition from film to video in the early 1980s."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Ryder

 

 

 

[indi]

Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?

 

Yeah it's full of mongs slagging off Ryder the mong for taking the side Llambias the mong!

 

Is there really any need to call people mongs for criticising Ryder's journalism?

 

So what was funny about the comments then? I can only see someone quoting Monty Python and someone do the Coalition of United Newcastle Team Supporters thing, but totally f*** it up by putting "Fans" instead of "Supporters" and also missing out "Team". f*** me, that's hilarious, isn't it!?!  

 

So I can only assume that you find it hilarious because people have criticised Ryder's journalism and if you're entitled to find that funny, then I'm entitled to ask the question:

 

"Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?"

 

and it was a question as I hadn't read it beforehand, you could have simply answered: "No, but some of the comments are funny", if that had been the case, but it wasn't was it, some mongs had indeed slagged him off and you'd hoped that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.", but that didn't happen and now you've got all upset and offended about my use of a mildly insulting term. Never mind, have a keyring, that'll make everything all better.

 

 

Yes, I know, how condescending of me, I'm disappointed in myself, I really am.

 

There’s a lot of hysteria in that answer, are you OK? Do you really think I posted so that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.",? All I can do is plead guilty to that one.

 

Actually the real reason for posting it is that I did find some of the remarks such as the Monty Python one and  for example the reference to Steven Taylor quite humorous together with the whole awkwardness of a blog where people openly disagree with the writer! Very Alan Partridge!

 

Yes I could have responded to your question as "No, but some of the comments are funny" just like you could have responded to my question in a more adult fashion. Maybe it’s just different moral standards but I just find it sad that you call people mongs without first having a look at what they said. You want to be careful that you don’t become what you mock.

 

I’ll give the NUSC keyring a miss as I’m quite happy with my Handala one for now!

 

 

 

Fair enough, but you have mistaken hysteria for cynicism and a profound weariness of this whole situation. I'm tired of having to argue against people who are impervious to logic and are driven purely by emotion, who are determined to act, yet have not considered the consequences of their actions, who want the best for the club, but haven't thought about it long enough to know what that is. So given that, you're just going to have to forgive me (or not), if the language I use to describe some of the more extreme members of that group is a little colourful and derogatory. Anyway, do you not find it just a little hypocritical to have a go at me for rudely criticising people that you were lording for doing the exact same thing? I'd be a bit wary of getting up on your high-horse, just at the moment.

[Guest fading star]

Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?

 

Yeah it's full of mongs slagging off Ryder the mong for taking the side Llambias the mong!

 

Is there really any need to call people mongs for criticising Ryder's journalism?

 

So what was funny about the comments then? I can only see someone quoting Monty Python and someone do the Coalition of United Newcastle Team Supporters thing, but totally f*** it up by putting "Fans" instead of "Supporters" and also missing out "Team". f*** me, that's hilarious, isn't it!?!  

 

So I can only assume that you find it hilarious because people have criticised Ryder's journalism and if you're entitled to find that funny, then I'm entitled to ask the question:

 

"Why, have a load of mongs gone on there and slagged him off?"

 

and it was a question as I hadn't read it beforehand, you could have simply answered: "No, but some of the comments are funny", if that had been the case, but it wasn't was it, some mongs had indeed slagged him off and you'd hoped that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.", but that didn't happen and now you've got all upset and offended about my use of a mildly insulting term. Never mind, have a keyring, that'll make everything all better.

 

 

Yes, I know, how condescending of me, I'm disappointed in myself, I really am.

 

There’s a lot of hysteria in that answer, are you OK? Do you really think I posted so that everyone would have gone "Oh yes macphisto, we all agree with you those comments are comedy genius.",? All I can do is plead guilty to that one.

 

Actually the real reason for posting it is that I did find some of the remarks such as the Monty Python one and  for example the reference to Steven Taylor quite humorous together with the whole awkwardness of a blog where people openly disagree with the writer! Very Alan Partridge!

 

Yes I could have responded to your question as "No, but some of the comments are funny" just like you could have responded to my question in a more adult fashion. Maybe it’s just different moral standards but I just find it sad that you call people mongs without first having a look at what they said. You want to be careful that you don’t become what you mock.

 

I’ll give the NUSC keyring a miss as I’m quite happy with my Handala one for now!

 

 

Fair enough, but you have mistaken hysteria for cynicism and a profound weariness of this whole situation. I'm tired of having to argue against people who are impervious to logic and are driven purely by emotion, who are determined to act, yet have not considered the consequences of their actions, who want the best for the club, but haven't thought about it long enough to know what that is. So given that, you're just going to have to forgive me (or not), if the language I use to describe some of the more extreme members of that group is a little colourful and derogatory. Anyway, do you not find it just a little hypocritical to have a go at me for rudely criticising people that you were lording for doing the exact same thing? I'd be a bit wary of getting up on your high-horse, just at the moment.

That’s what being a football supporter is all about. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t fork out large amounts of money to watch 22 blokes kick a ball around in sub zero temperatures, for two hours.

 

You’re whole stance on Ashley is based on the assumption supporters are Vulcans, that they shouldn’t respond to what’s going on at the club in an emotional way.