January Transfer Window

[OzzieMandias]

your moaning anti-Newcastle shite

 

You think identifying Fat Fred as the architect of our club's slow demise is "anti-Newcastle shite"?

 

And you expect me to take you seriously? 

 

 

[Howaythelads]

your moaning anti-Newcastle shite

 

You think identifying Fat Fred as the architect of our club's slow demise is "anti-Newcastle shite"?

 

And you expect me to take you seriously? 

 

 

 

When you make a statement and someone replies with a comment backed up with solid fact I expect you to be adult enough to take part in a debate. I realise your anti-Newcastle stance makes it difficult for you to answer the question, being as how to answer it truthfully would show your previous comment to be total bollocks.

[OzzieMandias]

your anti-Newcastle stance

 

bluelaugh.gif

[Howaythelads]

your anti-Newcastle stance

 

bluelaugh.gif

 

Bump

 

Question Repeated

[Howaythelads]

Question from Mick, my full reply below" Post #155

 

<snip>

For 32 months from March 2001 through to Jan 2004 the only players who left the club were fringe players,

many new players were brought in to boost the team and also to boost the squad. In fact, the players who

departed weren’t even fringe players imo. There was an incoming transfer fee in March 2001 of  £3.5m for Goma,

the next significant incoming transfer fee was £2m for Cort in Jan 2004. The only other fees I can find record

of was £150,000 for Stuart Green and £150,000 for David Beharall when they left the club. Nobody else left for

a fee during that time.

 

During that same time period ~£45m was spent on the following players:

O’Brien, Bellamy, Robert, Distin (loan fee), Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate and Ambrose. Bowyer also joined

the club a few months later for nowt. These 10 players all draw wages, of course, increasing the wages/turnover

ratio etc.

 

I make that a deficit of £43.7 million in 32 months, but this propelled the club into achieving those 3 top 5 finishes,

positions where many of you claim we belong although we actually don't, it has to be earned. I think this expenditure

was well controlled, proven by the consolidation period of summer 2003. Don't forget that Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer all signed earlier that year, those signings could have been left to the summer to keep some of you happy, but they were brought in sooner for the greater benefit of the team, rather than later to satisfy the desire of some to sign a big name every summer.

<snip>

 

Wouldn't it be good if others would debate? Remember, we don't have to agree, just give it a shot at disputing this information without spit and bile. Given this expenditure tell me why the club is automatically slated for not bringing in more players in summer 2003, perhaps it really was a time for prudence, a time for consolidation. Think about that against the recent beating up of the Board regarding the latest financial report.

 

The source for this info was nufc.com, if it's incorrect then I'm happy to be told about it.

[Mick]

 

its called cherry picking the bits that suit you, or not knowing what he's talking about as he usually doesn't

 

 

 

If you want to see some good "cherry picking" at work then just look at most of your replies to questions. bluebiggrin.gif

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Question from Mick, my full reply below" Post #155

 

<snip>

For 32 months from March 2001 through to Jan 2004 the only players who left the club were fringe players,

many new players were brought in to boost the team and also to boost the squad. In fact, the players who

departed weren’t even fringe players imo. There was an incoming transfer fee in March 2001 of  £3.5m for Goma,

the next significant incoming transfer fee was £2m for Cort in Jan 2004. The only other fees I can find record

of was £150,000 for Stuart Green and £150,000 for David Beharall when they left the club. Nobody else left for

a fee during that time.

 

During that same time period ~£45m was spent on the following players:

O’Brien, Bellamy, Robert, Distin (loan fee), Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate and Ambrose. Bowyer also joined

the club a few months later for nowt. These 10 players all draw wages, of course, increasing the wages/turnover

ratio etc.

 

I make that a deficit of £43.7 million in 32 months, but this propelled the club into achieving those 3 top 5 finishes,

positions where many of you claim we belong although we actually don't, it has to be earned. I think this expenditure

was well controlled, proven by the consolidation period of summer 2003. Don't forget that Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer all signed earlier that year, those signings could have been left to the summer to keep some of you happy, but they were brought in sooner for the greater benefit of the team, rather than later to satisfy the desire of some to sign a big name every summer.

<snip>

 

Wouldn't it be good if others would debate? Remember, we don't have to agree, just give it a shot at disputing this information without spit and bile. Given this expenditure tell me why the club is automatically slated for not bringing in more players in summer 2003, perhaps it really was a time for prudence, a time for consolidation. Think about that against the recent beating up of the Board regarding the latest financial report.

 

The source for this info was nufc.com, if it's incorrect then I'm happy to be told about it.

 

I'd agree with the sentiment behind that reply, but to use Goma (£3.5m) and Cort (£2m) as examples of 'not even fringe players' but then include Ambrose in the list of players bought is not really fair.

[NE5]

 

its called cherry picking the bits that suit you, or not knowing what he's talking about as he usually doesn't

 

 

 

If you want to see some good "cherry picking" at work then just look at most of your replies to questions. bluebiggrin.gif

 

you mean like : Please tell us how you think staring at the 3rd division and selling your best players is the same as being 3rd bottom of the premiership for a few weeks. Or, please tell us how selling your best players and England players for decades is the same as buying England players ? Or, please tell us why Cox, Lee left Newcastle and saw Everton and Derby as upward moves in their managerial careers  ?

 

You could actually respond to his question, and tell us how you accidentally forgot to mention Martins and Duff 

[NE5]

Frankly, my Uncle Jim's parrot had a broader range of argument than you do.

 

it probably backed Souness like you did as well

 

 

 

Who's a naughty boy then? Pretty Freddy! Pretty Freddy!

 

Daft replies like this is ruining this forum. WUM to the end ....... why don't you respond to the points about Souness ?

 

 

[Cajun]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

[NE5]

your anti-Newcastle stance

 

bluelaugh.gif

 

like your anti Newcastle stance when you dished the dirt on the club to a scumbag London journo, who hates Newcastle, but I expect you must have known that having chose him

 

 

[NE5]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

 

Well, 2 years ago the wUM was insisting the club would be better off by selling the "cancer" and allowing Souness to spend a fortune until he had built his team.

 

The trouble is, he was wrong, dished the dirt on the club, disappeared for a while - out of shame or because we were winning - and hey presto has reappeared and having a good old whinge just like before, as well as refuse to confirm why he disappeared or admit he got it all stupidly wrong.

 

 

[Howaythelads]

Question from Mick, my full reply below" Post #155

 

<snip>

For 32 months from March 2001 through to Jan 2004 the only players who left the club were fringe players,

many new players were brought in to boost the team and also to boost the squad. In fact, the players who

departed weren’t even fringe players imo. There was an incoming transfer fee in March 2001 of  £3.5m for Goma,

the next significant incoming transfer fee was £2m for Cort in Jan 2004. [The only other fees I can find record

of was £150,000 for Stuart Green and £150,000 for David Beharall when they left the club. Nobody else left for

a fee during that time.

 

During that same time period ~£45m was spent on the following players:

O’Brien, Bellamy, Robert, Distin (loan fee), Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate and Ambrose. Bowyer also joined

the club a few months later for nowt. These 10 players all draw wages, of course, increasing the wages/turnover

ratio etc.

 

I make that a deficit of £43.7 million in 32 months, but this propelled the club into achieving those 3 top 5 finishes,

positions where many of you claim we belong although we actually don't, it has to be earned. I think this expenditure

was well controlled, proven by the consolidation period of summer 2003. Don't forget that Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer all signed earlier that year, those signings could have been left to the summer to keep some of you happy, but they were brought in sooner for the greater benefit of the team, rather than later to satisfy the desire of some to sign a big name every summer.

<snip>

 

Wouldn't it be good if others would debate? Remember, we don't have to agree, just give it a shot at disputing this information without spit and bile. Given this expenditure tell me why the club is automatically slated for not bringing in more players in summer 2003, perhaps it really was a time for prudence, a time for consolidation. Think about that against the recent beating up of the Board regarding the latest financial report.

 

The source for this info was nufc.com, if it's incorrect then I'm happy to be told about it.

 

I'd agree with the sentiment behind that reply, but to use Goma (£3.5m) and Cort (£2m) as examples of 'not even fringe players' but then include Ambrose in the list of players bought is not really fair.

 

Read it again mate. I'm not using Cort and Goma as 'fringe' players.

 

"The only other fees I can find record  of was £150,000 for Stuart Green and £150,000 for David Beharall when they left the club. Nobody else left for a fee during that time."

 

The sales of Cort and Goma were the start and end of that period, they were the significant sales before and after we entered a long period of bringing in a lot of players.

[Howaythelads]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

 

Why don't you ask the people who go on and on about summer 2003 why they keep bringing it up? I don't post my response until they babble on about it first. Hadn't you noticed? I mean, wtf would I put up a post showing the stuff I've just done totally out of the blue?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Question from Mick, my full reply below" Post #155

 

<snip>

For 32 months from March 2001 through to Jan 2004 the only players who left the club were fringe players,

many new players were brought in to boost the team and also to boost the squad. In fact, the players who

departed weren’t even fringe players imo. There was an incoming transfer fee in March 2001 of  £3.5m for Goma,

the next significant incoming transfer fee was £2m for Cort in Jan 2004. The only other fees I can find record

of was £150,000 for Stuart Green and £150,000 for David Beharall when they left the club. Nobody else left for

a fee during that time.

During that same time period ~£45m was spent on the following players:

O’Brien, Bellamy, Robert, Distin (loan fee), Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate and Ambrose. Bowyer also joined

the club a few months later for nowt. These 10 players all draw wages, of course, increasing the wages/turnover

ratio etc.

 

I make that a deficit of £43.7 million in 32 months, but this propelled the club into achieving those 3 top 5 finishes,

positions where many of you claim we belong although we actually don't, it has to be earned. I think this expenditure

was well controlled, proven by the consolidation period of summer 2003. Don't forget that Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer all signed earlier that year, those signings could have been left to the summer to keep some of you happy, but they were brought in sooner for the greater benefit of the team, rather than later to satisfy the desire of some to sign a big name every summer.

<snip>

 

Wouldn't it be good if others would debate? Remember, we don't have to agree, just give it a shot at disputing this information without spit and bile. Given this expenditure tell me why the club is automatically slated for not bringing in more players in summer 2003, perhaps it really was a time for prudence, a time for consolidation. Think about that against the recent beating up of the Board regarding the latest financial report.

 

The source for this info was nufc.com, if it's incorrect then I'm happy to be told about it.

 

I'd agree with the sentiment behind that reply, but to use Goma (£3.5m) and Cort (£2m) as examples of 'not even fringe players' but then include Ambrose in the list of players bought is not really fair.

 

Read it again mate. I'm not using Cort and Goma as 'fringe' players.

 

Apologies if taken out of context, I've highlighted where I took it from, reading it again I still took it the same way!

 

As I said though, agree with the sentiment of the post

[Howaythelads]

Question from Mick, my full reply below" Post #155

 

<snip>

For 32 months from March 2001 through to Jan 2004 the only players who left the club were fringe players,

many new players were brought in to boost the team and also to boost the squad. In fact, the players who

departed weren’t even fringe players imo. There was an incoming transfer fee in March 2001 of  £3.5m for Goma,

the next significant incoming transfer fee was £2m for Cort in Jan 2004. The only other fees I can find record

of was £150,000 for Stuart Green and £150,000 for David Beharall when they left the club. Nobody else left for

a fee during that time.

During that same time period ~£45m was spent on the following players:

O’Brien, Bellamy, Robert, Distin (loan fee), Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate and Ambrose. Bowyer also joined

the club a few months later for nowt. These 10 players all draw wages, of course, increasing the wages/turnover

ratio etc.

 

I make that a deficit of £43.7 million in 32 months, but this propelled the club into achieving those 3 top 5 finishes,

positions where many of you claim we belong although we actually don't, it has to be earned. I think this expenditure

was well controlled, proven by the consolidation period of summer 2003. Don't forget that Woodgate, Ambrose and Bowyer all signed earlier that year, those signings could have been left to the summer to keep some of you happy, but they were brought in sooner for the greater benefit of the team, rather than later to satisfy the desire of some to sign a big name every summer.

<snip>

 

Wouldn't it be good if others would debate? Remember, we don't have to agree, just give it a shot at disputing this information without spit and bile. Given this expenditure tell me why the club is automatically slated for not bringing in more players in summer 2003, perhaps it really was a time for prudence, a time for consolidation. Think about that against the recent beating up of the Board regarding the latest financial report.

 

The source for this info was nufc.com, if it's incorrect then I'm happy to be told about it.

 

I'd agree with the sentiment behind that reply, but to use Goma (£3.5m) and Cort (£2m) as examples of 'not even fringe players' but then include Ambrose in the list of players bought is not really fair.

 

Read it again mate. I'm not using Cort and Goma as 'fringe' players.

 

Apologies if taken out of context, I've highlighted where I took it from, reading it again I still took it the same way!

 

As I said though, agree with the sentiment of the post

 

I edited my reply to try to clear it up. I'm wondering how to rewrite it so that it's not ambiguous.

 

Anyway, thanks for agreeing.

[Cajun]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

 

Why don't you ask the people who go on and on about summer 2003 why they keep bringing it up? I don't post my response until they babble on about it first. Hadn't you noticed? I mean, wtf would I put up a post showing the stuff I've just done totally out of the blue?

 

I said "people" not HTL, why do you always assume every post is directed solely at you?

[Howaythelads]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

 

Why don't you ask the people who go on and on about summer 2003 why they keep bringing it up? I don't post my response until they babble on about it first. Hadn't you noticed? I mean, wtf would I put up a post showing the stuff I've just done totally out of the blue?

 

I said "people" not HTL, why do you always assume every post is directed solely at you?

 

FFS, just because I replied doesn't mean I think a post is directed SOLELY at me. Are you mental, or something? You said 'people' and I'm a person.

 

Doh!

[Cajun]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

 

Why don't you ask the people who go on and on about summer 2003 why they keep bringing it up? I don't post my response until they babble on about it first. Hadn't you noticed? I mean, wtf would I put up a post showing the stuff I've just done totally out of the blue?

 

I said "people" not HTL, why do you always assume every post is directed solely at you?

 

FFS, just because I replied doesn't mean I think a post is directed SOLELY at me. Are you mental, or something? You said 'people' and I'm a person.

 

Doh!

 

Your reply was very much a "why are you having a go at ME!? He started it"

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

Daft replies like this is ruining this forum

 

 

 

They is, is they?

 

Whereas running around trying to put words into other people's mouths, cackling at your own "jokes", setting up straw man after straw man and spouting the same old irrelevant shite over and over and over again is what makes it so wonderful, right?

 

why don't you respond to the points about Souness ?

 

If you're referring to "points" such as your remark about my Uncle Jim's parrot, it couldn't back Souness because it was dead.

 

Like your brain.

[Howaythelads]

Im not taking the piss or looking for an argument but don't you people get bored of having the same argument day in day out?

 

If we still had the boards from 3 years ago I bet there would still be pretty much exactly the same arguments going on for pages and pages...

 

Why don't you ask the people who go on and on about summer 2003 why they keep bringing it up? I don't post my response until they babble on about it first. Hadn't you noticed? I mean, wtf would I put up a post showing the stuff I've just done totally out of the blue?

 

I said "people" not HTL, why do you always assume every post is directed solely at you?

 

FFS, just because I replied doesn't mean I think a post is directed SOLELY at me. Are you mental, or something? You said 'people' and I'm a person.

 

Doh!

 

Your reply was very much a "why are you having a go at ME!? He started it"

 

Get a life, man. It was nothing like that at all. Talk about making shit up as you go along.......

[GM]

 

 

Daft replies like this is ruining this forum

 

 

 

They is, is they?

 

Whereas running around trying to put words into other people's mouths, cackling at your own "jokes", setting up straw man after straw man and spouting the same old irrelevant shite over and over and over again is what makes it so wonderful, right?

 

why don't you respond to the points about Souness ?

 

If you're referring to "points" such as your remark about my Uncle Jim's parrot, it couldn't back Souness because it was dead.

 

Like your brain.

 

Tedious.

[OzzieMandias]

 

 

Daft replies like this is ruining this forum

 

 

 

They is, is they?

 

Whereas running around trying to put words into other people's mouths, cackling at your own "jokes", setting up straw man after straw man and spouting the same old irrelevant shite over and over and over again is what makes it so wonderful, right?

 

why don't you respond to the points about Souness ?

 

If you're referring to "points" such as your remark about my Uncle Jim's parrot, it couldn't back Souness because it was dead.

 

Like your brain.

 

Tedious.

 

I agree.

[NE5]

 

 

Daft replies like this is ruining this forum

 

 

 

They is, is they?

 

Whereas running around trying to put words into other people's mouths, cackling at your own "jokes", setting up straw man after straw man and spouting the same old irrelevant shite over and over and over again is what makes it so wonderful, right?

 

why don't you respond to the points about Souness ?

 

If you're referring to "points" such as your remark about my Uncle Jim's parrot, it couldn't back Souness because it was dead.

 

Like your brain.

 

Still waiting for you to tell us if you are still backing your man souness or not ....

 

And confirm you were happy for the club to spend the money that you are now complaining they spent

 

 

[Howaythelads]

 

 

Daft replies like this is ruining this forum

 

 

 

They is, is they?

 

Whereas running around trying to put words into other people's mouths, cackling at your own "jokes", setting up straw man after straw man and spouting the same old irrelevant shite over and over and over again is what makes it so wonderful, right?

 

why don't you respond to the points about Souness ?

 

If you're referring to "points" such as your remark about my Uncle Jim's parrot, it couldn't back Souness because it was dead.

 

Like your brain.

 

Tedious.

 

I agree.

 

When are you going to reply to my earlier question? To get a proper debate going.....