madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) There's absolutely nothing 'financially stable' about being relegated with our wage bill. If his gamble had paid off and we'd managed to stay up you might have had a case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) There's absolutely nothing 'financially stable' about being relegated with our wage bill. If his gamble had paid off and we'd managed to stay up you might have had a case. Disagree entirely, we were staring down financial suicide under Shepherd, the guy had totally misread the economic climate (ok, he wasn't the only one) but it's not as though he'd given the club any financial cushion with which to manouvere. We'll never be able to prove this as (thankfully, IMO) Ashley came along and bailed Shepherd out. For all the paper talk of Shepherd feeling 'betrayed' and 'forced out' - Ashley's done more for his reputation in the NE than Shepherd ever could have. EDIT: As for relegation...the last 12 months have been a shambles tbh, no-one is without blame, no-one escapes the shithole that was 2008-09, including me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Staring down financial suicide? What do you think we are now like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Staring down financial suicide? What do you think we are now like? ashley knows the club has to stay alive for him to get anything back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Ashley and stability shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. Ashley's financial plan was more reckless than anything Shepherd ever attempted. What was needed was a long-term strategy to work with the debt, ie, what Shepherd had for the majority of the debt which was related to the stadium expansion. Instead Ashley decided to take a big hit all at one time, a gigantic risk as it impacted on our on-field performance and led to relegation leading to greater financial instability than ever leading to him wanting to sell up. what a disaster. sometimes a business trying to turn a profit by cutting costs often just turns off its customers and lessens productivity, leading to greater losses than they ever tried to avoid. especially if the cost cutting is done indiscriminitely by people who know fuck all about that particular business. sooner or later you have to invest to boost revenue. Also some of the criticism of Shepherd is a bit over the top, the other day someone claimed that something like Asprilla's hat-trick over barca was mortaged on our future ffs, total bullshit. that was 10 years before and has little to do with the particular financial instability a decade later. Likewise Robson's success was built on the stadium expansion - an intelligent and calculated manouevre that paid off for us. also worth noticing that during Robson's success our turnover was up there with Liverpool and Arsenal's and our wage to turnover ratio the second lowest in the league after Man Utd's. Things were pretty damn healthy on and off the field. Were things went sour was with Shepherd's poor footballing decisions in removing Robson and appointing bad managers after him, and then committing excessive funds to such crap managers. Had he given the money to a top calibre manager we'd probably be doing pretty well right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Ashley and stability shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. Ashley's financial plan was more reckless than anything Shepherd ever attempted. What was needed was a long-term strategy to work with the debt, ie, what Shepherd had for the majority of the debt which was related to the stadium expansion. Instead Ashley decided to take a big hit all at one time, a gigantic risk as it impacted on our on-field performance and led to relegation leading to greater financial instability than ever leading to him wanting to sell up. what a disaster. sometimes a business trying to turn a profit by cutting costs often just turns off its customers and lessens productivity, leading to greater losses than they ever tried to avoid. especially if the cost cutting is done indiscriminitely by people who know f*** all about that particular business. sooner or later you have to invest to boost revenue. Also some of the criticism of Shepherd is a bit over the top, the other day someone claimed that something like Asprilla's hat-trick over barca was mortaged on our future ffs, total bullshit. that was 10 years before and has little to do with the particular financial instability a decade later. Likewise Robson's success was built on the stadium expansion - an intelligent and calculated manouevre that paid off for us. also worth noticing that during Robson's success our turnover was up there with Liverpool and Arsenal's and our wage to turnover ratio the second lowest in the league after Man Utd's. Things were pretty damn healthy on and off the field. Were things went sour was with Shepherd's poor footballing decisions in removing Robson and appointing bad managers after him, and then committing excessive funds to such crap managers. Had he given the money to a top calibre manager we'd probably be doing pretty well right now. the auditors probably wouldn't have signed the accounts off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Ashley and stability shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. Ashley's financial plan was more reckless than anything Shepherd ever attempted. What was needed was a long-term strategy to work with the debt, ie, what Shepherd had for the majority of the debt which was related to the stadium expansion. Instead Ashley decided to take a big hit all at one time, a gigantic risk as it impacted on our on-field performance and led to relegation leading to greater financial instability than ever leading to him wanting to sell up. what a disaster. sometimes a business trying to turn a profit by cutting costs often just turns off its customers and lessens productivity, leading to greater losses than they ever tried to avoid. especially if the cost cutting is done indiscriminitely by people who know fuck all about that particular business. sooner or later you have to invest to boost revenue. Also some of the criticism of Shepherd is a bit over the top, the other day someone claimed that something like Asprilla's hat-trick over barca was mortaged on our future ffs, total bullshit. that was 10 years before and has little to do with the particular financial instability a decade later. Likewise Robson's success was built on the stadium expansion - an intelligent and calculated manouevre that paid off for us. also worth noticing that during Robson's success our turnover was up there with Liverpool and Arsenal's and our wage to turnover ratio the second lowest in the league after Man Utd's. Things were pretty damn healthy on and off the field. Were things went sour was with Shepherd's poor footballing decisions in removing Robson and appointing bad managers after him, and then committing excessive funds to such crap managers. Had he given the money to a top calibre manager we'd probably be doing pretty well right now. That is utterly ridiculous, I can't comment on that, Shepherd made some poor footballing decisions after Robson but he made far worse errors with his financial...'planning' (I'm loathe to use that word as there's little evidence of any sustainable plan, bar qualifying for Champs League group stage within 2 years of Allardyce and avoiding the credit crunch). Ashley balls'd up big style post-Keegan but at least he's turned around and admitted that he was out of his depth. Shepherd's never uttered a single apologetic word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a cunt for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the shite. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the shite. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. The point is, Ashley had plenty of time, money and opportunity to protect his investment once he had got rid of Shepherd. If he failed to do that who's fault is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. The point is, Ashley had plenty of time, money and opportunity to protect his investment once he had got rid of Shepherd. If he failed to do that who's fault is that? he did. i've said that aswell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. But we’ll never know if you were right or wrong. Why can’t you judge Ashley on what has actually happened, instead of what might have happened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. But we’ll never know if you were right or wrong. Why can’t you judge Ashley on what has actually happened, instead of what might have happened? one post above man. following that premise can we say mckeag and forbes et al would have eventually took the gamble and we'd have made the prem anyway.......no we can't as we'd never know. the best we can do is look at what was happening and look at the financial mess fred had us in....granted as i've posted above, ashley has fucked up to. that doesn't mean we were headed in the right direction with fred. we were heasded here both ways,ashley could have done something about it, fred got us to the position where there was little he cou;ld have done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. But well never know if you were right or wrong. Why cant you judge Ashley on what has actually happened, instead of what might have happened? one post above man. following that premise can we say mckeag and forbes et al would have eventually took the gamble and we'd have made the prem anyway.......no we can't as we'd never know. the best we can do is look at what was happening and look at the financial mess fred had us in....granted as i've posted above, ashley has fucked up to. that doesn't mean we were headed in the right direction with fred. we were heasded here both ways,ashley could have done something about it, fred got us to the position where there was little he cou;ld have done. except sell us to someone even more clueless than himself...which was my point in any case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. But we’ll never know if you were right or wrong. Why can’t you judge Ashley on what has actually happened, instead of what might have happened? one post above man. following that premise can we say mckeag and forbes et al would have eventually took the gamble and we'd have made the prem anyway.......no we can't as we'd never know. the best we can do is look at what was happening and look at the financial mess fred had us in....granted as i've posted above, ashley has f***ed up to. that doesn't mean we were headed in the right direction with fred. we were heasded here both ways,ashley could have done something about it, fred got us to the position where there was little he cou;ld have done. Are you saying relegation was unavoidable? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? There was merit in Ashley trying to put the club on a stable footing, obviously Shepherd's money was blown by Souness and it put the club in a bad position, but at least we were in the Premier. Ashley's blunders over Keegan, his stupid cheap option managerial oppointments and worst of all his failure to protect the club's Premiership future by investing in the squad backfired spectacularly. Shepherd wuld have acted far more decisively in the market in those crucial transfer windows and it would have kept us up. So yes, in comparison to Ashley he's a financial genius. what would shepherd have acted with ? He always semed to produce funds from somewhere. Failing that he could always sell to a clueless fat oaf who likes a gamble. thats it though...you can't go on losing money for ever, as i've said a zillion times theres nowt wrong with debt, i just dont think the banks would've been so obliging to let us do it forever. Yet Shepherd sold the club and made a handsome profit out of the deal, which just backs up the view that Ashley is a financial dimwit as far as football is concerned. Not just that, he's a c*** for wasting money on daft bets while refusing to invest crucial funds on the squad when it would have kept us up. so basically both left us in the s****. ashleys lost financially and fred gained finacially.....both left us in the clarts. I'd rather be in the Premiership clarts though. i don't think we'd be there...alardyce as manager, no money to spend and the banks circling.. fred set the boat hurtling towards the rocks...ashley came in and kept the same course. But we’ll never know if you were right or wrong. Why can’t you judge Ashley on what has actually happened, instead of what might have happened? one post above man. following that premise can we say mckeag and forbes et al would have eventually took the gamble and we'd have made the prem anyway.......no we can't as we'd never know. the best we can do is look at what was happening and look at the financial mess fred had us in....granted as i've posted above, ashley has f***ed up to. that doesn't mean we were headed in the right direction with fred. we were heasded here both ways,ashley could have done something about it, fred got us to the position where there was little he cou;ld have done. Are you saying relegation was unavoidable? not unavoidable, it wasn't unavoidable at the start of last season either. shit it wasn't unavoidable in january. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So it’s not Shepherd’s fault we got relegated? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So it’s not Shepherd’s fault we got relegated? did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless cunt immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 whats does everyone think of the rest of stupeedos post ? The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... it does work that way for a few. same as thinking fred played his part in fucking us over makes one an ashley apologist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now