Howaythelads Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Would it be a terrible faux pas to point out that it doesn't really matter what we think about the possibility of new ownership, any offer will be accepted or refused based on cash? OMG, the Board will be slaughtered for that idea by the wankers who call them worse than shite. Ironic, eh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 because most boards are so shit they can't get the money together - for Englands current number 1 goalscorer ? Now, if Beardsley was so well known as you say, why didn't more clubs try to buy him for what was at the time, an extremely small transfer fee ? You continue to show you are nothign but a liar and know nothing about this period, having not supported the club. Steve, How well known did I say Beardsley was? Remind me exactly what I said if you don't mind losing face yet again. bluebiggrin.gif haha...hey thickmick, you're a liar. Peter Beardsley wasn't well known enough, so he went to Vancouver ..... why did he go to Vancouver, and not Liverpool or one of the other top clubs that were playing in europe, unlike us ...... Please tell us why Liverpool didn't buy him for 150,000 and chose to wait until he cost a british transfer record of 2m a few years later, don't tell us he was well known to the top club in the country, were 40 miles down the road but hadn't heard of him ..... you continue to be a joke as well as a liar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Would it be a terrible faux pas to point out that it doesn't really matter what we think about the possibility of new ownership, any offer will be accepted or refused based on cash? OMG, the Board will be slaughtered for that idea by the wankers who call them worse than shite. Ironic, eh. The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Would it be a terrible faux pas to point out that it doesn't really matter what we think about the possibility of new ownership, any offer will be accepted or refused based on cash? OMG, the Board will be slaughtered for that idea by the wankers who call them worse than shite. Ironic, eh. The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 haha...hey thickmick, you're a liar. Peter Beardsley wasn't well known enough, so he went to Vancouver ..... why did he go to Vancouver, and not Liverpool or one of the other top clubs that were playing in europe, unlike us ...... Please tell us why Liverpool didn't buy him for 150,000 and chose to wait until he cost a british transfer record of 2m a few years later, don't tell us he was well known to the top club in the country, were 40 miles down the road but hadn't heard of him ..... you continue to be a joke as well as a liar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 haha...hey thickmick, you're a liar. Peter Beardsley wasn't well known enough, so he went to Vancouver ..... why did he go to Vancouver, and not Liverpool or one of the other top clubs that were playing in europe, unlike us ...... Please tell us why Liverpool didn't buy him for 150,000 and chose to wait until he cost a british transfer record of 2m a few years later, don't tell us he was well known to the top club in the country, were 40 miles down the road but hadn't heard of him ..... you continue to be a joke as well as a liar. no response then ? I'm sure everyone can see why you don't reply ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. The business results are amongst the worst in the country, strangely the shareholders have done spectacularly well though :confused: .... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. The business results are amongst the worst in the country, strangely the shareholders have done spectacularly well though :confused: .... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif bluesleep.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. The business results are amongst the worst in the country, strangely the shareholders have done spectacularly well though :confused: .... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif bluesleep.gif is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 This is becoming the longest running saga in forum history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 The board will make any decision on future ownership by looking at what is the best deal for the shareholders, not necesarily what is the best deal for the club. This is how they justified giving away the revenue from 10,000 fans every season. It was best for the shareholders business. As you keep saying, its a business. With performance results among the top in the country. The business results are amongst the worst in the country, strangely the shareholders have done spectacularly well though :confused: .... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/divide10.gif bluesleep.gif is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again. you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 This is becoming the longest running saga in forum history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 This is becoming the longest running saga in forum history. WOOP! WOOP! ANOTHER BORING ALERT!!!!!!! bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif gay.gif tongue.gif blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 This is becoming the longest running saga in forum history. WOOP! WOOP! ANOTHER BORING ALERT!!!!!!! bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif gay.gif tongue.gif blueyes.gif bluebigrazz.gif You're getting me mixed up with BooBoo... should I take that as a compliment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 This is becoming the longest running saga in forum history. WOOP! WOOP! ANOTHER BORING ALERT!!!!!!! bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif bluesleep.gif gay.gif tongue.gif blueyes.gif bluebigrazz.gif You're getting me mixed up with BooBoo... should I take that as a compliment? No, I'm not. I know I'm copying what the idiot posted, I'm applying it to you anarl, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Genius, that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 Genius, that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 HTL's gone off the boil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 HTL's gone off the boil bluesleep.gif coffee.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbeth Posted December 5, 2006 Share Posted December 5, 2006 is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again. you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif sorry that's too subtle, who was my "monkey", and who admires whom ? As there was no message boards, I wrote to the chairman to complain, I criticised him in fan magazines, I tried to change people's sycophantic views of the board. There were still people around who argued that McKeag was better than Westwood, and that we should be careful what we wished for as it could always be worse. McKeag spent £2m in 1988, backing his manager, no other chairman had backed his manager like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again. you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif sorry that's too subtle, who was my "monkey", and who admires whom ? As there was no message boards, I wrote to the chairman to complain, I criticised him in fan magazines, I tried to change people's sycophantic views of the board. There were still people around who argued that McKeag was better than Westwood, and that we should be careful what we wished for as it could always be worse. McKeag spent £2m in 1988, backing his manager, no other chairman had backed his manager like that. complete rubbish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again. you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif sorry that's too subtle, who was my "monkey", and who admires whom ? As there was no message boards, I wrote to the chairman to complain, I criticised him in fan magazines, I tried to change people's sycophantic views of the board. There were still people around who argued that McKeag was better than Westwood, and that we should be careful what we wished for as it could always be worse. McKeag spent £2m in 1988, backing his manager, no other chairman had backed his manager like that. complete rubbish. Mick will be here soon to back up his brother in this lie. I was definitely around at the time and I don't recall anybody making any such claims, never even heard of this suggestion before either. As you say, complete rubbish and indicates macbeth wasn't around at the time either. They really are like reformed smokers. Having deserted the club because we were crap they came back as 'life long supporters' on the back of a supposed promise of trophies, now babbling on like 5 year olds because it hasn't happened. They could always bugger off again......but then they won't do that until we're shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 haha...hey thickmick, you're a liar. Peter Beardsley wasn't well known enough, so he went to Vancouver ..... why did he go to Vancouver, and not Liverpool or one of the other top clubs that were playing in europe, unlike us ...... Please tell us why Liverpool didn't buy him for 150,000 and chose to wait until he cost a british transfer record of 2m a few years later, don't tell us he was well known to the top club in the country, were 40 miles down the road but hadn't heard of him ..... you continue to be a joke as well as a liar. no response then ? I'm sure everyone can see why you don't reply ... bluebiggrin.gif Yes they can see your stupid posts where you refuse to acknowledge that Man U bid £500,000 for Beardsley who was "unknown" - fact. They can also see that you try to change history, fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 haha...hey thickmick, you're a liar. Peter Beardsley wasn't well known enough, so he went to Vancouver ..... why did he go to Vancouver, and not Liverpool or one of the other top clubs that were playing in europe, unlike us ...... Please tell us why Liverpool didn't buy him for 150,000 and chose to wait until he cost a british transfer record of 2m a few years later, don't tell us he was well known to the top club in the country, were 40 miles down the road but hadn't heard of him ..... you continue to be a joke as well as a liar. no response then ? I'm sure everyone can see why you don't reply ... bluebiggrin.gif Yes they can see your stupid posts where you refuse to acknowledge that Man U bid £500,000 for Beardsley who was "unknown" - fact. They can also see that you try to change history, fact. you said 300,000 earlier the point is straightforward, if he was so well known, why didnt' someone else want him, especially Liverpool, rather than wait until he cost over 2m a few years later ? You know he wasn't, thats why he only cost us 125,000 quid, from Canada too. You're a liar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 is that a sign of you dozing thro it all again. you dozed thro the McKeag days refusing to critcise, now you're doing the same again. you're wrong, it was McKeag and your monkey, who he admires, that did that. I don't believe message board existed during the McKeag years, does that mean you weren't a fan of the club then either bluesleep.gif sorry that's too subtle, who was my "monkey", and who admires whom ? As there was no message boards, I wrote to the chairman to complain, I criticised him in fan magazines, I tried to change people's sycophantic views of the board. There were still people around who argued that McKeag was better than Westwood, and that we should be careful what we wished for as it could always be worse. McKeag spent £2m in 1988, backing his manager, no other chairman had backed his manager like that. complete rubbish. Mick will be here soon to back up his brother in this lie. I was definitely around at the time and I don't recall anybody making any such claims, never even heard of this suggestion before either. As you say, complete rubbish and indicates macbeth wasn't around at the time either. They really are like reformed smokers. Having deserted the club because we were crap they came back as 'life long supporters' on the back of a supposed promise of trophies, now babbling on like 5 year olds because it hasn't happened. They could always bugger off again......but then they won't do that until we're shit. Just because you and NE5 are brothers has no relevance to others being related, the two are unconnected apart from in your heads. Saying it as much as you want will not make the slightest difference. 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