Ambition

[Optimistic Nut]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

[Wullie]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

[fredbob]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

The reason we went down was becasue we sold the shot stopping skills of Given? Yes, the consistent creativity and industry of N'Zogbia? Hmmm and the pin point crossing and penatrations of Milner? No

 

Like we'd have needed them to perform every week to get one more point.

 

Go and have a lie down.

 

[Optimistic Nut]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

We've got a manager who also signed the likes of Ashton & Benayoun. If he can find the equivalents for us again this summer it won't be too bad eh?

[Wullie]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

We've got a manager who also signed the likes of Ashton & Benayoun. If he can find the equivalents for us again this summer it won't be too bad eh?

 

Aye, Dean Ashton, what a find!

 

I think he'll waste every penny that he's given personally.

[quayside]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

 

[Guest Recoba]

What will happen this summer is the £35 million will be spent on a new £9 million number 9 along with a £40K per week 4 year contract.  Plus another player for maybe £3.5 million plus £40K for four years, then maybe a third signed on a free (that lad from Rennes?) on maybes £30K per week - and there you are, the full £35 million spent.

 

Pardew and Llambias can be technically correct in saying the Carroll money was reinvested in the team.

 

Dont expect any more than that.

[fredbob]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

Yeh, that was the reason why we want down. 

 

For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.

 

P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.

 

What the hell's an internet warrior?

 

I judge the success of transfers on what they do on the field, not what price you get for them at the end of it. The reason we went down was because the players weren't good enough - that's the players that we bought, you know, from transfers? And we didn't benefit from the ones we didn't have, because, you know, we'd transferred them?

 

Fucking hell.

 

 

Fuck me - managing a club made easy by Wullie.

 

So in your world the squad that went down was at least the 18th worst in the premiership?! 

 

I'm almost 100% certain that if Wenger left in the circumstances that Keegan did and Arsenal appointed Joe Kinnear then they'd go down too, in your world that would make there players not good enough either! Obviously this is all relatively moot as there's no way of knowing for sure but its laughable to suggest that the quality of the players was the reason we went down. The squad that went down was almost identical to the one that went up.

 

You laugh as if they didn't go down ffs.

 

Aye, Arsenal would have gone down, sensible comparison.

 

West Brom have been relegated and subsequently promoted with the same squad about five times, does that mean they were actually good enough each time they got relegated, just badly managed? I'm actually embarrassed for you.

 

Simple question was the squad the 18th worst in the premiership?! Yes or no will do.

[Dave]

Well that's why we were relegated, so er, yes.

[Mick]

We've got a manager who also signed the likes of Ashton & Benayoun. If he can find the equivalents for us again this summer it won't be too bad eh?

 

I hope not, he averaged 15 games and 5 goals a season for West Ham.

[Wullie]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

[TheGuv]

Well that's why we were relegated, so er, yes.

 

Have we this season though?

 

No.

 

But with our strikers it's going to be nervy

 

 

[Wullie]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

Yeh, that was the reason why we want down. 

 

For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.

 

P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.

 

What the hell's an internet warrior?

 

I judge the success of transfers on what they do on the field, not what price you get for them at the end of it. The reason we went down was because the players weren't good enough - that's the players that we bought, you know, from transfers? And we didn't benefit from the ones we didn't have, because, you know, we'd transferred them?

 

Fucking hell.

 

 

Fuck me - managing a club made easy by Wullie.

 

So in your world the squad that went down was at least the 18th worst in the premiership?! 

 

I'm almost 100% certain that if Wenger left in the circumstances that Keegan did and Arsenal appointed Joe Kinnear then they'd go down too, in your world that would make there players not good enough either! Obviously this is all relatively moot as there's no way of knowing for sure but its laughable to suggest that the quality of the players was the reason we went down. The squad that went down was almost identical to the one that went up.

 

You laugh as if they didn't go down ffs.

 

Aye, Arsenal would have gone down, sensible comparison.

 

West Brom have been relegated and subsequently promoted with the same squad about five times, does that mean they were actually good enough each time they got relegated, just badly managed? I'm actually embarrassed for you.

 

Simple question was the squad the 18th worst in the premiership?! Yes or no will do.

 

http://i43.tinypic.com/9kujgl.jpg

[fredbob]

Well that's why we were relegated, so er, yes.

 

Im not sure what to say to that - the squad had viduka, martins, owen, barton, beye, collo, saylor, enrique given, players all of european calibre, i jjust dont know how anyone can say they were worse players than the likes of the hull city squad, becasue thats essentially what you're saying.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They weren't worse, they just performed worse for a while.

[Dave]

They weren't worse, they just performed worse for a while.

 

What's the difference? You don't get points for how good your players could be.

[johnnypd]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

 

Graham Carr wasn't even at the club when Keegan sent Hughton over to holland to watch Tiote. 

[fredbob]

They weren't worse, they just performed worse for a while.

 

What's the difference? You don't get points for how good your players could be.

 

So who's job is it to get the players playing as good as they could be?!

[quayside]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

 

I am sure you are right that Ferguson and Wenger rely on their scouts. My point was that Graham Carr became our chief scout in February 2010 since when the players we have paid money to buy have been Ben Arfa and Tiote. Hughton may have gone but Carr is still here.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They weren't worse, they just performed worse for a while.

 

What's the difference? You don't get points for how good your players could be.

 

Obviously, I know. But a player can't just be judged on a six-month period.

 

Torres has been playing shit recently, but I still reckon he's better than Gary Taylor-Fletcher.

 

Anyway, slightly pointless argument, I just think that on paper we had the players to stay up despite selling Milner and Given (although I personally think the Given sale should have been milked for much more money).

[Wullie]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

 

Graham Carr wasn't even at the club when Keegan sent Hughton over to holland to watch Tiote. 

 

Expert scout and expert mind control, Carr is a jack of all trades.

[fredbob]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

Yeh, that was the reason why we want down. 

 

For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.

 

P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.

 

What the hell's an internet warrior?

 

I judge the success of transfers on what they do on the field, not what price you get for them at the end of it. The reason we went down was because the players weren't good enough - that's the players that we bought, you know, from transfers? And we didn't benefit from the ones we didn't have, because, you know, we'd transferred them?

 

Fucking hell.

 

 

Fuck me - managing a club made easy by Wullie.

 

So in your world the squad that went down was at least the 18th worst in the premiership?! 

 

I'm almost 100% certain that if Wenger left in the circumstances that Keegan did and Arsenal appointed Joe Kinnear then they'd go down too, in your world that would make there players not good enough either! Obviously this is all relatively moot as there's no way of knowing for sure but its laughable to suggest that the quality of the players was the reason we went down. The squad that went down was almost identical to the one that went up.

 

You laugh as if they didn't go down ffs.

 

Aye, Arsenal would have gone down, sensible comparison.

 

West Brom have been relegated and subsequently promoted with the same squad about five times, does that mean they were actually good enough each time they got relegated, just badly managed? I'm actually embarrassed for you.

 

Simple question was the squad the 18th worst in the premiership?! Yes or no will do.

 

http://i43.tinypic.com/9kujgl.jpg

 

Guess this little 'misunderstadning' boils down to each persons definition of "quality of squad" becasue by yours and Dave's definition Fulham had a better squad than Spurs and Man City...

[quayside]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

 

Graham Carr wasn't even at the club when Keegan sent Hughton over to holland to watch Tiote. 

 

I'll take your word for it that Tiote was first scouted then. So Tiote was a Keegan/Hughton spot.

 

And if Best and Perch don't work out they have to be down to Hughton of course.

 

 

[Wullie]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

 

Graham Carr wasn't even at the club when Keegan sent Hughton over to holland to watch Tiote. 

 

I'll take your word for it that Tiote was first scouted then. So Tiote was a Keegan/Hughton spot.

 

And if Best and Perch don't work out they have to be down to Hughton of course.

 

Absolutely. Nobody ever claimed otherwise, although Best was signed as an emergency resort to help get us out of the CCC (which we didn't ultimately need when Carroll stepped his game up), and it is slightly unfair to judge him as a Premier League player, especially one who we're now depending on to keep us up. Similar to Routledge really who may have failed in the top flight but I'd argue was an excellent signing.

 

IMO a manager should be judged on his results, not his transfers. If a manager signs 100 shit/average players and 10 good ones and wins the league, then he's done his job.

[johnnypd]

If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.

 

The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.

 

Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.

 

Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.

 

If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.

 

Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?

 

How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.

 

Thats a question to anyone bytheway.

 

 

Don't sell the best players?

 

Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.

 

If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.

 

Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.

 

We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.

 

We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.

 

We'd have also stayed up if between them, Owen, Viduka, Nolan, Martins, etc. had managed one more goal between them which really shouldn't have been too much to ask?

 

That's the second totally irrelevant reply you've made Nut.

 

They didn't, so obviously it was too much to ask. If you go down, you go down. They don't let you off because it was a close shave.

 

What was irrelevant about the first reply? You said we went down due to bad transfers, all I'm saying is that since we've came back we've made some very good ones.

 

You're including Stephen Ireland on loan?

 

We've just sold our most important player, you might have missed that. I think that tips the balance.

 

So we'll see in the summer if they've returned to form (Jan 2009), or whether the signings his summer will follow what's happened more recently.

 

Well the manager who made the good ones is now gone, so what's your money on?

 

The scout who found them is still here though.

 

Nah I'm not having that like. Just because it's Chris Hughton, he doesn't get credit for his signings?

 

Who finds Man Utd's players then? Or Arsenal's? Not them two clowns in charge, I bet.

 

That is unfair and ridiculous.

 

Graham Carr wasn't even at the club when Keegan sent Hughton over to holland to watch Tiote. 

 

I'll take your word for it that Tiote was first scouted then. So Tiote was a Keegan/Hughton spot.

 

And if Best and Perch don't work out they have to be down to Hughton of course.

 

 

 

who cares who "spotted" him? scouts don't sign players (or at least they shouldn't but we know what happened with that policy) managers do. Scouts will have specifically watched and have files on hundreds of players, and followed up on a few that they've identified with a manager, but the scout isn't going to be sanctioning bids, never mind coaching players, motivating them, fitting them into a system or getting the best or worst out of them in games.

 

even in a case like n'zogbia where charlie woods had him brought to his attention by a contact, it still took a trial with us for SBR to make a move, and we have plenty of players coming here on trail.