Ambition

[Mick]

I don't know whether AC will score goals at L'pool  or what but I would think our players are very down about this regardless of him not being available for several weeks anyway. But Pardew has to deal with it and get results, that is why he was appointed.

 

I don't like Pardew, having said that, his job has become much tougher this week as he's been handed a shit set of cards to play with.  Selling your top scorer is bad enough, doing so without replacing him is like playing Russian roulette with our club.

[quayside]

But the point is we have the potential to be one of the top clubs in England.  We should show the ambition to realise that potential.

 

It wasn't so long ago we were getting 52,000 every week with a 10,000 waiting list - we have already lost the best part of 20,000 potential fans per game

 

Sadly the fanbase will decline a lot more next season - Ashley wants nothing more than survival in the premier league - he has turned us into a run of the mill premier league club

 

Its shameful  - we have the potential to be a top four club but that will never ever be realised with this w***** in charge

 

So find a new owner who can pay the price required to buy the club and will not only provide survival money but also is happy to stick money in to move it on.

which is really nothing to do with our potential. had abramovich took over colchester and went about things the way he has at chelsea they would have won the premier league by now and be chasmps league regulars.

 

Hmm don't know about that. There was some infrastructure at Chelsea before Roman (more than there is at Colchester) and, of course, Chelsea is a lush location for.... I'll not get drawn on this and just call him a foreign investor. Ashley really isn't Roman, he hasn't got that sort of money to burn. Of course there was potential with us but who was around to buy us for a totally stupid price when any due diligence would have had anyone sensible not going anywhere near?

[alpal78]

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?

 

f***ing hell.

 

 

f*** 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...

 

One of the best comebacks I've seen :clap:

 

Ridiculous to the point of being stupid to claim that quality of squad = position in league. A team's position at the end of the season is a result of many factors, quality of squad is just one of many and when we got relegated, that was probably one of the smaller factors. Those players were good enough to stay up but were managed poorly (and subsequently played badly for that short period of time) by a combination of Kinnear, Shearer and the shockingly good Hughton

[JH]

I wish I could - but what Ashley is doing is shameful and I cannot understand how some people (not you) still try to defend him

 

[jdckelly]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life 

[Carlito]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life 

 

If they're under contract then we can hold onto them. We don't have any obligation to sell to bigger clubs at all.

[jdckelly]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life 

 

If they're under contract then we can hold onto them. We don't have any obligation to sell to bigger clubs at all.

thats when you see players handing in transfer requests and openly saying they want out

[Carlito]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life  

 

If they're under contract then we can hold onto them. We don't have any obligation to sell to bigger clubs at all.

thats when you see players handing in transfer requests and openly saying they want out

 

And they can be rejected. Simples. Look at Blackpool for example with the whole Charlie Adam to Liverpool saga.

[madras]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life 

 

If they're under contract then we can hold onto them. We don't have any obligation to sell to bigger clubs at all.

thats when you see players handing in transfer requests and openly saying they want out

 

And they can be rejected. Simples. Look at Blackpool for example with the whole Charlie Adam to Liverpool saga.

or he was on his way to spurs but it couldn't be done in time.

[Dave]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life 

 

If they're under contract then we can hold onto them. We don't have any obligation to sell to bigger clubs at all.

thats when you see players handing in transfer requests and openly saying they want out

 

And they can be rejected. Simples. Look at Blackpool for example with the whole Charlie Adam to Liverpool saga.

or he was on his way to spurs but it couldn't be done in time.

 

Not what Ian Holloway says.

 

And as for player commitment, he looked pretty fucking committed to me when he scored the other night.

[jdckelly]

All clubs are selling clubs at some point, which is why the term is a nonsense.

 

Man United when Real Madrid come looking for Ronaldo? Off he goes. Spurs with Berbatov when Man United come? Off he goes.

 

Any club in the top flight when Man City come and start waving insane money at their best players? Off they go.

this, the money the cl offers gives the clubs in it way more spending power than the rest of the league can summon (apart from arsenal where wenger is allergic to spending money), combined with the prestige being in the cl offers means players want to join these clubs to play at the highest level and get the wages those clubs can offer thanks to cl money. The only ways to break in are either one of the cl clubs having a nightmare of a season (by their standards not ours) or a billionaire owner, the former doesn't happen often the latter option is being closed off by uefa so the big clubs remain big and everyone else is merely their feeder clubs.

Fact is if man utd real madrid barcelona etc come along for tiote or enrique or whoever we are not going to be able to keep our players, don't like it but its a fact of football life  

 

If they're under contract then we can hold onto them. We don't have any obligation to sell to bigger clubs at all.

thats when you see players handing in transfer requests and openly saying they want out

 

And they can be rejected. Simples. Look at Blackpool for example with the whole Charlie Adam to Liverpool saga.

as madras said he was on his way to spurs but beaten by clock but rejecting a transfer request only delays a move, as a contract runs down and said player won't sign new deal any club will get to the point where it will sell to get something for him rather than lose on a free

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

£12m for milner was fantastic business at the time, and £35m for Carroll makes him the most expensive english player ever.

 

We sold a reliable young English player who was improving all the time because £12m was over the odds, apparently.

 

This led to us losing our trusted manager, getting relegated (costing the club - what, £50m?), and Milner being worth £28m two years later and now in a team competing for the League title.

 

Selling Milner, like selling Carroll?, seemed 'good business' to some at the time - but it was emphatically proven not to be.

 

 

Years earlier we sold Gazza for good money, bought 4 replacements, and got relegated.

 

 

The only bit of 'good business' was selling Andy Cole, and that was because we already had plenty in reserve and then went and bought 3 better strikers.

[taxfree]

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.

 

 

 

True, but Pardew doesn't seem to care about others advice. Wanting to sign almost only old players already in the Premier League....ugh.

[Guest]

£12m for milner was fantastic business at the time, and £35m for Carroll makes him the most expensive english player ever.

 

We sold a reliable young English player who was improving all the time because £12m was over the odds, apparently.

 

This led to us losing our trusted manager, getting relegated (costing the club - what, £50m?), and Milner being worth £28m two years later and now in a team competing for the League title.

 

Selling Milner, like selling Carroll?, seemed 'good business' to some at the time - but it was emphatically proven not to be.

 

 

Years earlier we sold Gazza for good money, bought 4 replacements, and got relegated.

 

 

The only bit of 'good business' was selling Andy Cole, and that was because we already had plenty in reserve and then went and bought 3 better strikers.

From memory we finished that season with Beardsley and Kitson as our only 2 senior strikers and slipped out of the European places.

[cp40]

ambition.

[quayside]

ambition.

 

The ambition must be to get a 4-4 draw I suppose 

[cp40]

ambition.

 

The ambition must be to get a 4-4 draw I suppose 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah thats what i was getting at

[maze]

Mike Ashley + ambition does not add up...