Financial meltdown?

[Skirge]

If we go down 11 top earners to be axed bey beye most of the 1st team., I get the feeling even those that want to stay and help us get back up will be sold anyway, BIg Mikes Big plan PROFFIT!!

[madras]

that link you posted....liverpool £56mill of debt and they have all that champs league money aswell.

 

 

look at most of the others. those with a lot of debt (like us) and without champs league size income (like us) are fastening their belts in a good bit tighter.

 

 

good link that really. proves what most of us have been saying for a while. thanks for that.

 

it doesn't prove what you have said, and many others. What it shows is that going by comments made on numerous occasions by people on here, the entire premiership is at deaths door.

 

 

who said at deaths door ?

 

drastic belt tightening certainly. who outside the top 4 is finding fresh cash to try and compete with those.

 

all that link proved was that those with the biggest turnover to wages can finance (afford to have) the bigger debt. thats what you've been carping on about all these months isn't it "oooohhhh look at the debt on them" in a brians mam from the life of brian type voice. our debt and wages wouldn't be so bad if we were bringing in a lot extra revenue.

 

do you think liverpool or arsenal would carry on as they are now if they dropped out the champs league for 5 seasons ?

 

 

 

 

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........shit i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

[themanupstairs]

that link you posted....liverpool £56mill of debt and they have all that champs league money aswell.

 

 

look at most of the others. those with a lot of debt (like us) and without champs league size income (like us) are fastening their belts in a good bit tighter.

 

 

good link that really. proves what most of us have been saying for a while. thanks for that.

 

it doesn't prove what you have said, and many others. What it shows is that going by comments made on numerous occasions by people on here, the entire premiership is at deaths door.

 

 

who said at deaths door ?

 

drastic belt tightening certainly. who outside the top 4 is finding fresh cash to try and compete with those.

 

all that link proved was that those with the biggest turnover to wages can finance (afford to have) the bigger debt. thats what you've been carping on about all these months isn't it "oooohhhh look at the debt on them" in a brians mam from the life of brian type voice. our debt and wages wouldn't be so bad if we were bringing in a lot extra revenue.

 

do you think liverpool or arsenal would carry on as they are now if they dropped out the champs league for 5 seasons ?

 

 

 

 

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We failed to speculate to accumulate. We spent fuck all. We kept our powder dry. Fuck all. Nada. Zip. Nothing. Fuck all + Lee Bowyer on a free 

[OzzieMandias]

The Tooth Fairy?

 

first class contribution.

 

 

 

Yes, it was, wasn't it? A very economical way of pointing out that anyone who believes Keegan is likely to return, or that the Keegan of today, in the football climate of today, would be likely to repeat his successes of 15 or more years ago, is living in a total fantasy world.

 

Even Keegan knows it, as his outburst after the Chelsea match made very clear to anyone not blinded by sentiment and an inability to distinguish 2009 from 1992.

 

no it wasn't, it was childish in the extreme, and pretty daft IMO by you, again.

 

You are right about the need to succeed, and you are right about Keegan knowing it, but did you say this at the time, or have you cottoned on yet that Ashley - unlike his predecessors - doesn't understand what it takes to be successful ?

 

 

 

So you think that football today is the same as it was in 1992, and that Keegan, even though he explicitly does not believe so himself, would have the same impact on a league now ruled by CL revenue and mega-investment?

 

If so, sorry, but you're completely deluded.

[themanupstairs]

The Tooth Fairy?

 

first class contribution.

 

 

 

Yes, it was, wasn't it? A very economical way of pointing out that anyone who believes Keegan is likely to return, or that the Keegan of today, in the football climate of today, would be likely to repeat his successes of 15 or more years ago, is living in a total fantasy world.

 

Even Keegan knows it, as his outburst after the Chelsea match made very clear to anyone not blinded by sentiment and an inability to distinguish 2009 from 1992.

 

no it wasn't, it was childish in the extreme, and pretty daft IMO by you, again.

 

You are right about the need to succeed, and you are right about Keegan knowing it, but did you say this at the time, or have you cottoned on yet that Ashley - unlike his predecessors - doesn't understand what it takes to be successful ?

 

 

 

So you think that football today is the same as it was in 1992, and that Keegan, even though he explicitly does not believe so himself, would have the same impact on a league now ruled by CL revenue and mega-investment?

 

If so, sorry, but you're completely deluded.

 

Absolutely. Forget the foreign imports. They haven't had as much of an effect on football as has the expansion of the CL. Back in the day when it was 1 or 2 teams that qualified, it kept things competitive. Since the expansion, the cream with the cream have floated to the top, and that's been that.

 

 

[thomas]

The Tooth Fairy?

 

first class contribution.

 

 

 

Yes, it was, wasn't it? A very economical way of pointing out that anyone who believes Keegan is likely to return, or that the Keegan of today, in the football climate of today, would be likely to repeat his successes of 15 or more years ago, is living in a total fantasy world.

 

Even Keegan knows it, as his outburst after the Chelsea match made very clear to anyone not blinded by sentiment and an inability to distinguish 2009 from 1992.

 

no it wasn't, it was childish in the extreme, and pretty daft IMO by you, again.

 

You are right about the need to succeed, and you are right about Keegan knowing it, but did you say this at the time, or have you cottoned on yet that Ashley - unlike his predecessors - doesn't understand what it takes to be successful ?

 

 

 

So you think that football today is the same as it was in 1992, and that Keegan, even though he explicitly does not believe so himself, would have the same impact on a league now ruled by CL revenue and mega-investment?

 

If so, sorry, but you're completely deluded.

You're both right.

 

He's not deluded about football in this one regard actually.  It's the same now as it was then.  If you want to win in football you do it through buying the best players and backing your manager.  I know he didn't say this in the post but I don't think he'd deny it was what he was driving at, at least that's my guess based on prior discussion.

 

And you're also correct.  1992 had a much smaller gap between top and bottom in terms of off the field finances and on the field ability.  The intervening 18 years have seen that gulf widen and widen and widen to the point where, barring an abromovichian one off type investment, closing it is nigh impossible.

 

The goalposts might not have moved in those 18 years, but the pitch got a lot fucking longer than 100m.

[UV]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........shit i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

[Unbelievable]

Another great post UV. Seems some want to have their cake and eat it too with regards to the finances from the previous regime.

[Stu]

not really, the old board tried to gamble with the clubs finances but did it at completely the wrong time and under the wrong manager(s).

 

Other mistakes contributed to the ensuing financial troubles, but to say that they got the financial approach in the summer of 04 right is way off the mark

[Unbelievable]

not really, the old board tried to gamble with the clubs finances but did it at completely the wrong time and under the wrong manager(s).

 

Other mistakes contributed to the ensuing financial troubles, but to say that they got the financial approach in the summer of 04 right is way off the mark

 

What you are saying is in hindsight we know they did it at the wrong time. Perhaps they had stretched as far as they could financially to get us into the CL qualifying round that year, and only found money available for further investment later, at which time they made it available to the manager, which is all they could do. Of course, in hindsight we now that manager more or less squandered the 50 million, much to our detriment. This also partly explains our current predicament. What you fail to see however is that the old board backed their managers when they could and maybe even a little too much in hindsight. What we are witnessing now is the exact opposite: we are at the brink of relegation due to a lack of backing their choice of manager (and that's not even taking into account that their eye for a good manager seems even worse than Shepherd's..)

[themanupstairs]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

[Unbelievable]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

No, you back a manager by allowing him to build his own team within pre-set financial constraints. Hanging onto an underperforming manager at the expense of the club itself and its followers is an entirely different thing and coincidentally is what we are currently witnessing.

[themanupstairs]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

No, you back a manager by allowing him to build his own team within pre-set financial constraints. Hanging onto an underperforming manager at the expense of the club itself and its followers is an entirely different thing and coincidentally is what we are currently witnessing.

 

Can you build a team in one and a half seasons? Shepherd backed a manager who had a history of heart problems, a reputation for being confrontational, and paid a fee to sign him on from a club that was bottom of the table. He gave Souness the 50m to spend in the hope that we'd win the Carling cup as he'd done with Blackburn. It was Shepherd's last call, hoping he'd go out all guns blazing. Shepherd had no intention of backing Souness to build a team. He wanted to live the pipe dream of being the one to win that elusive trophy for NUFC.

 

 

[Unbelievable]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

No, you back a manager by allowing him to build his own team within pre-set financial constraints. Hanging onto an underperforming manager at the expense of the club itself and its followers is an entirely different thing and coincidentally is what we are currently witnessing.

 

Can you build a team in one and a half seasons? Shepherd backed a manager who had a history of heart problems, a reputation for being confrontational, and paid a fee to sign him on from a club that was bottom of the table. He gave Souness the 50m to spend in the hope that we'd win the Carling cup as he'd done with Blackburn. It was Shepherd's last call, hoping he'd go out all guns blazing. Shepherd had no intention of backing Souness to build a team. He wanted to live the pipe dream of being the one to win that elusive trophy for NUFC.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I can clearly see Shepherd's mistakes. Just how can you blame him for being ambitious and wanting to win throphies with NUFC is beyond me though. Shepherd bit off more than he could chew in the end, but he got very close to reaching the level we aspire to. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with his predecesor who also bit off much more than he can chew and it looks like he doesn't even have the ambition or nouse to get us where we should be aiming for. You can call a club like us winning something a pipe dream as much as you like, but the harsh fact is that for a club of our size and potential, winning trophies should be part of the game. Right now, it feels like we are much further removed from that aim than we have been for a while.

[NE5]

The Tooth Fairy?

 

first class contribution.

 

 

 

Yes, it was, wasn't it? A very economical way of pointing out that anyone who believes Keegan is likely to return, or that the Keegan of today, in the football climate of today, would be likely to repeat his successes of 15 or more years ago, is living in a total fantasy world.

 

Even Keegan knows it, as his outburst after the Chelsea match made very clear to anyone not blinded by sentiment and an inability to distinguish 2009 from 1992.

 

no it wasn't, it was childish in the extreme, and pretty daft IMO by you, again.

 

You are right about the need to succeed, and you are right about Keegan knowing it, but did you say this at the time, or have you cottoned on yet that Ashley - unlike his predecessors - doesn't understand what it takes to be successful ?

 

 

 

So you think that football today is the same as it was in 1992, and that Keegan, even though he explicitly does not believe so himself, would have the same impact on a league now ruled by CL revenue and mega-investment?

 

If so, sorry, but you're completely deluded.

 

the principles are the same. You can't do more than compete at the top level in your era. Keegan said that the club in its present setup would not compete at the level he did the last time, and it was dismissed by many people, maybe you maybe not.

 

For the record, I posted on here that it was obvious Keegan was being deadly serious and was unhappy.

 

As for deluded, you only need to see the comment in my sig to see who is deluded. Do you still think anybody with upwards of a 100m quid to buy the club would be automatically more clued up than the current owners ? Where's your hindsight now? Why not use it, or do you still think this is the case.

 

It could be years, a decade or more before we are in europe again, maybe longer. And until that happens, noboby, nobody can be said to be "better" than the Halls and Shepherd, and you STILL won't acknowledge it.

 

Back your own appointed manager, compete like a club which is one of the biggest in the country, and that is the ONLY way to do it, it always has been, and always will be.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ?

 

Oh wait.......

 

 

[NE5]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........shit i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

exactly. Which they have done re Owen, Luque, but curiously not in the case of Sibierski and Martins. Its as if we can all look into the future slate and the board - not the manager - for buying players who don't work out and saying they shouldn't have speculated.......while of course we have an owner doing precisely that and the result is certain relegation unless he can sell or changes his approach.

 

It always makes me smile when people either forget about Woodgate signing in advance of that summer, and slate the board for not buying anybody, then slate the club for overspending, or presume that any other new players would have guaranteed we had beaten Partizan. In fact, in the away leg of that tie, Given made some superb saves and it could have been all over after the first leg anyway.

 

 

[themanupstairs]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

No, you back a manager by allowing him to build his own team within pre-set financial constraints. Hanging onto an underperforming manager at the expense of the club itself and its followers is an entirely different thing and coincidentally is what we are currently witnessing.

 

Can you build a team in one and a half seasons? Shepherd backed a manager who had a history of heart problems, a reputation for being confrontational, and paid a fee to sign him on from a club that was bottom of the table. He gave Souness the 50m to spend in the hope that we'd win the Carling cup as he'd done with Blackburn. It was Shepherd's last call, hoping he'd go out all guns blazing. Shepherd had no intention of backing Souness to build a team. He wanted to live the pipe dream of being the one to win that elusive trophy for NUFC.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I can clearly see Shepherd's mistakes. Just how can you blame him for being ambitious and wanting to win throphies with NUFC is beyond me though. Shepherd bit off more than he could chew in the end, but he got very close to reaching the level we aspire to. Unfortunately, we are now stuck with his predecesor who also bit off much more than he can chew and it looks like he doesn't even have the ambition or nouse to get us where we should be aiming for. You can call a club like us winning something a pipe dream as much as you like, but the harsh fact is that for a club of our size and potential, winning trophies should be part of the game. Right now, it feels like we are much further removed from that aim than we have been for a while.

 

Totally agree with you there mate. I do not in any way blame Shepherd for having the ambition!! On the contrary! I just think he fucked up big style, and we're paying for it.

[themanupstairs]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ?

 

Oh wait.......

 

 

 

And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd.

[NE5]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ?

 

Oh wait.......

 

 

 

And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd.

 

Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

[themanupstairs]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ?

 

Oh wait.......

 

 

 

And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd.

 

Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

 

Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet...

[NE5]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ?

 

Oh wait.......

 

 

 

And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd.

 

Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

 

Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet...

 

what about his sales ?

 

What a load of bollocks. Sorry like.

 

Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy.

 

 

[johnnypd]

i usually agree with UV but shepherd not spending that summer was a huge mistake. it's not just that we'd have a few extra players for the game, more that it would change our whole approach - the wait and see approach breeded tension and anxiety and, having no new blood in the squad meant that things got a bit stagnant with less competition for places and less novelty to pre-season training as everyone tries to impress everyone else. 18 months after shepherd would commit £50m to souness (£36m net), much of that a gamble with money we didnt have when we werent even in the Uefa cup never mind the CL. now i dont disagree with spending that money, it's only bad because it was spent by a poor manager on poor players. but had some of that money or the more risky approach been given to Robson then it wouldve increased our chances of not only beating partizan but qualifying for the CL the next season (we finishd 4pts of liverpool) or at least keeping our squad competitive for the post-robson era. you can't guarantee that new signings will help your chances of qualifying for CL (or avoiding relegation in our current case) but you can guarantee that no new signings will damage those chances.

[WhatTheFunk]

we were once in a position to speculate like that, you've been going a long time can you help me remember the actions of the board last time we qualified for the champs league, we bought woodgate in the winter before qualifying then in the summer of actually qualifying.........s*** i can't remember, will someone please help me out ?

 

We didn't qualify for the CL though did we.

 

Arguably in part due to spending the Summer budget early and buying Woodgate we had our highest finish under Robson and finished in a CL qualifying round position, but by no means were we guaranteed the money from getting into the CL proper. We lost out in a 2 legged game, didn't qualify, and didn't get the cash bonus that would have paid for the players you are suggesting we bought. Anyone who goes on about not spending that Summer is advocating being far more reckless with the clubs finances than the old board is ever accused of being. What you are saying is that we should have gambled money that the club couldn't budget for without the CL money in the hope that the player(s) bought with that money would make a significant difference in their first couple of competitive games for us (ie would be the difference between losing the tie with the existing established players and winning it with the new one's involvement). That's a ridiculous risk to take.

 

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, especially when it's combined with the surety that doing something differently would have had a positive outcome - if only we'd bought unidentified player X he'd have stopped the Partizan goal/scored the home equaliser/scored the pen that Shearer or Dyer or Woodgate or Hughes missed. Bollocks. New players not fully integrated are as likely to cost you a game as win you one.

 

The hilarious irony is that had we spent more money that Summer in the assumption that we were going to qualify, and had we still lost that tie, you and those like you would be slating the old board (not the manager who would have chosen the player btw, but the board) for spending that money before we were guaranteed the income.

 

What was the official line from Shepherd though? "keeping our powder dry" is what I remember. Nowt about waiting to see if we got into the CL proper, and more of an indication that a crocked Woodgate was the final piece of SBR's jigsaw - a complete and competitive squad with enough depth to cover for injuries, loss of form and suspensions, and push on for successive top 4 finishes regardless of the Partizan game. Risky business? damn right it was, as the squad was nowhere near complete to be competitive.

 

Good post though it is, I can also look at things from the above perspective and critique as I wish.

 

Oh, also, was Shepherd thinking that a reactive appointment like Souness was worth "backing" with 50m quid? Did he really think Souness had the credentials and quality to finish in the top 4? IMO he spent the 50m to pacify the criticism he got for the whole Rooney saga, sale of Woodgate and for undermining Sir Bobby. If I were chairman and truly believed that Souness was worth backing with 50m, I wouldn't have sacked him when Shepherd did, and I would have stuck by him. THAT is what backing a manager really means. You do not back a manager with an obscene amount of money, then sack him a year later for anything other than gross misconduct or breach of contract.

 

do you seriously think a club appoints a manager with the intention not to back him ?

 

Oh wait.......

 

 

 

And your point is? Ashley has done it, and so did Shepherd.

 

Shepherd [and the Halls] appointed a manager and decided not to show ambition and back him ?

 

I don't think so.

 

 

 

Yes. Souness. Giving him 50m to spend and then sacking him some months later is not called backing your man. Unless they were doing the buying and he was just a puppet...

 

what about his sales ?

 

What a load of bollocks. Sorry like.

 

Do you think we should have kept faith with Souness then ? You're not the only one who backed him right to the end, so don't be shy.

 

 

 

I backed him right to the end??? don't be a troll NE5!! I was mortified at his very appointment and wanted him out before he was in!!! I'm just highlighting the point about "backing managers". When you give your manager 50m to spend, you clearly have faith in him to spend it wisely and give you and the club a return on investment. Correct? Well by sacking him so soon after said investment, Shepherd clearly didn't have any faith in Souness and realized it was a big mistake. Unless Shepherd had another agenda for spending that money....which I speculate about in my previous posts.

[Mowen]

If we go down 11 top earners to be axed bey beye most of the 1st team., I get the feeling even those that want to stay and help us get back up will be sold anyway, BIg Mikes Big plan PROFFIT!!

 

Come on Skirgey, everyone knows that getting relegated is hardly a profitable plan.