Ashley is great because he's restored the clubs financial stability...

[Cajun]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

 

Enron was probably one of the most succesful companies going for a short period too 

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

 

Enron was probably one of the most succesful companies going for a short period too 

 

aye, and you say the club is now being run like a good business. So thats alright then.

 

 

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

[Yorkie]

Cheers for posting the article - interesting read that, especially for someone who isn't all that clued up on the intricacies of the financial side of things.

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

[Cajun]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

 

Enron was probably one of the most succesful companies going for a short period too 

 

aye, and you say the club is now being run like a good business. So thats alright then.

 

 

 

Same old, same old.

 

Find a post from me saying that, bet you don't.

 

Not like you to claim others said something they haven't NE5....

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

 

Enron was probably one of the most succesful companies going for a short period too 

 

aye, and you say the club is now being run like a good business. So thats alright then.

 

 

 

Same old, same old.

 

Find a post from me saying that, bet you don't.

 

Not like you to claim others said something they haven't NE5....

 

I don't know if YOU did or didn't say it, but the vast majority of people on here DID say it and claimed that we would be better off without the Halls and Shepherd.

 

And whats more, you know it.

 

 

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

[Cajun]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

 

Enron was probably one of the most succesful companies going for a short period too 

 

aye, and you say the club is now being run like a good business. So thats alright then.

 

 

 

Same old, same old.

 

Find a post from me saying that, bet you don't.

 

Not like you to claim others said something they haven't NE5....

 

I don't know if YOU did or didn't say it, but the vast majority of people on here DID say it and claimed that we would be better off without the Halls and Shepherd.

 

And whats more, you know it.

 

 

 

See bold

 

So I can have a go at you for saying anyone will be better than Shepherd because the majority of the board said it? Right 

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

 

Enron was probably one of the most succesful companies going for a short period too 

 

aye, and you say the club is now being run like a good business. So thats alright then.

 

 

 

Same old, same old.

 

Find a post from me saying that, bet you don't.

 

Not like you to claim others said something they haven't NE5....

 

I don't know if YOU did or didn't say it, but the vast majority of people on here DID say it and claimed that we would be better off without the Halls and Shepherd.

 

And whats more, you know it.

 

 

 

See bold

 

So I can have a go at you for saying anyone will be better than Shepherd because the majority of the board said it? Right 

 

I don't keep a list of who said it 

[Cajun]

Don't need to when its easier to accuse everyone

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

 

you have what you wanted.

 

We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too.

 

 

[Rich]

Are we playing at the minute? Or am I just having a nightmare that we're getting bummed by Liverpool?

 

(I do recognise the irony of this post.)

[Shak]

Are we playing at the minute? Or am I just having a nightmare that we're getting bummed by Liverpool?

 

(I do recognise the irony of this post.)

 

These issues are crucial though Rich, and always will be.

 

We know you love a good bumming btw.

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

 

you have what you wanted.

 

We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too.

 

 

been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ?

 

oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that.

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

 

you have what you wanted.

 

We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too.

 

 

been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ?

 

oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that.

 

what about the Halls and "Freds" other 14 seasons ? Cherry picking. When exactly do you think Ashley - or anybody - will get us back into europe again ?

 

You have what you wanted. Be happy.

 

 

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

 

you have what you wanted.

 

We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too.

 

 

been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ?

 

oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that.

 

what about the Halls and "Freds" other 14 seasons ? Cherry picking. When exactly do you think Ashley - or anybody - will get us back into europe again ?

 

You have what you wanted. Be happy.

 

 

no idea,but fred wasn't going to get us back there.

 

obviuosly fred and co wern't a patch on westwood,westwood won something eh ?

 

ridsdale done a great job at leeds (if you forget where he left them)

[NE5]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

 

you have what you wanted.

 

We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too.

 

 

been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ?

 

oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that.

 

what about the Halls and "Freds" other 14 seasons ? Cherry picking. When exactly do you think Ashley - or anybody - will get us back into europe again ?

 

You have what you wanted. Be happy.

 

 

no idea,but fred wasn't going to get us back there.

 

obviuosly fred and co wern't a patch on westwood,westwood won something eh ?

 

ridsdale done a great job at leeds (if you forget where he left them)

 

Ridsdale ? Cherry picking again. Why Leeds, why not Arsenal or Liverpool ?

 

Inferring Westwood was better than the Halls and Liverpool is most laughable thing you've ever posted btw

 

 

[madras]

It still astounds me that someone has come into this club and ripped its heart out, and I do blame John Hall for his part in this. He sold to Mike Ashley, not caring that due dilligence had not been done, if he loved this club like he claimed then he would have sold it to someone who would be able to nurture it. Instead we get Ashley, who seems to think that a "Casino" manager is the person to run our business, and who hasn't got a clue about what a football club is, never mind how it should be run. I feel really sad that the team that really is a people's club, which affects so many over the north-east and beyond is being prostituted to make the Halls, Shepherds and now Ashley some money.

 

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it.

 

Which always astounded me, tbh

 

 

more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

 

the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they.

 

 

been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

 

don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you.

 

 

and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

 

please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal.

Oooooh easy ones first. goody.

 

through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans.

 

through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover)

 

through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill  in a failed attempt to catch up.

 

through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

 

 

rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ?

 

No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales.

 

 

i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention.

 

re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

 

I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better".

 

 

 

i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round .

 

speculative.

 

We had good owners, now we have bad owners

 

 

we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce.

 

neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

 

only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story.

 

 

what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half  and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ?

 

freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

 

club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza.

 

Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ?

 

Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners.

 

 

 

 

yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you.

 

says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

 

have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted.

 

 

we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

 

have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does.

 

Still, you have what you wanted.

 

 

the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before.

 

link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

 

what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking.

 

Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining.

 

 

of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's.

 

freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th.

 

do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

 

you have what you wanted.

 

We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too.

 

 

been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ?

 

oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that.

 

what about the Halls and "Freds" other 14 seasons ? Cherry picking. When exactly do you think Ashley - or anybody - will get us back into europe again ?

 

You have what you wanted. Be happy.

 

 

no idea,but fred wasn't going to get us back there.

 

obviuosly fred and co wern't a patch on westwood,westwood won something eh ?

 

ridsdale done a great job at leeds (if you forget where he left them)

 

Ridsdale ? Cherry picking again. Why Leeds, why not Arsenal or Liverpool ?

 

Inferring Westwood was better than the Halls and Liverpool is most laughable thing you've ever posted btw

 

 

because some spent more than they could afford (us and leeds). lets see if any if those drop out the top 4 for a couple of seasons. think they'd spend and build up wages like we did ?. they were clever and built when in the top 4.

 

sorry about putting questions in there. i know you don't do answers.

 

edit. the westwood bit was taking the piss out of your view of things. ie they done well ages a go so they couldn't be shit now.