TheGuv Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It could have been so different if he had backed Keegan over Wise (such a retarded decision every time i think about it). But the real downfall seemed to be when Llambias came in for Mort in June 2008, since then it's been mishap after mishap. I did enjoy it though when he first came to the club. That first year or so was such an exciting team, he was in with the crowd, he seemed to be one of us and everything seemed to be going quite well on and off the field for that short period of time in his ownership Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It could have been so different if he had backed Keegan over Wise (such a retarded decision every time i think about it). But the real downfall seemed to be when Llambias came in for Mort in June 2008, since then it's been mishap after mishap. I did enjoy it though when he first came to the club. That first year or so was such an exciting team, he was in with the crowd, he seemed to be one of us and everything seemed to be going quite well on and off the field for that short period of time in his ownership Have to agree about Dekka coming in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Mort was well liked by the fans. The Chris Mort > Derek Llambias transition is definitely when Ashley started his downward spiral with the fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Mort was well liked by the fans. The Chris Mort > Derek Llambias transition is definitely when Ashley started his downward spiral with the fans. Bizarre thing is that Mort was as duplicitous as the rest of them when it came to the whole DoF/Wise thing. In fact wasn't it his idea? He was a great PR man mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Remember it was Mort that put in the managerial structure and recommended we got Wise in, he pushed many problems onto Llambias. Typical Lawyer bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I think he bought the club because as well as the extra advertising for SD, he wanted to be that guy we saw at the start. Popular owner, taking the club up to the top etc. Once he found out how much it was going to actually cost(through his own stupidity) he probably got a bit of a scare. He then made a number of idiotic decisions and the fans turned on him obviously and he didn't like that. Relegation quickly followed which again was down to his own mistakes and this has cost him a lot more money. Now he just wants it back one way or another and has pretty much washed his hands with the football side of things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yeah I think his primary motivation was that he assumed he'd be successful at it and loved the idea of having a football team. You only have to look at his behaviour when he first took over to see that. The question I think is whether his motivation changed in the wake of the hate campaign against him post-Keegan, and whether he now simply wants to claw back his investment and sell for the best possible price, or whether he's still determined to pull it round and make a real success of it. And I don't think we've seen enough yet to know which is the reality. I'm not sure what the real test of that would be, really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 If he ever sacked Dekka and brought in a football man to be our chairman and really turned things around from the board's point of view and became more competitive in transfer dealings (not being so stubborn) he could easilly regain a ton of support from the common fan, in my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yeah I think his primary motivation was that he assumed he'd be successful at it and loved the idea of having a football team. You only have to look at his behaviour when he first took over to see that. The question I think is whether his motivation changed in the wake of the hate campaign against him post-Keegan, and whether he now simply wants to claw back his investment and sell for the best possible price, or whether he's still determined to pull it round and make a real success of it. And I don't think we've seen enough yet to know which is the reality. I'm not sure what the real test of that would be, really. Really? I think it's fairly obvious from his (lack of) actions which of those two scenarios is the reality. The only "test" would be if somebody offered him his money back or thereabouts. He'd be off like a shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 If he ever sacked Dekka and brought in a football man to be our chairman and really turned things around from the board's point of view and became more competitive in transfer dealings (not being so stubborn) he could easilly regain a ton of support from the common fan, in my opinion. Remember the days when we chased David Dein. Oh my. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way. Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way. Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first? so ? why look at that financial aspect in isolation ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way. Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first? so ? why look at that financial aspect in isolation ? Because obviously it is rather telling when it comes to determining which of those two scenarios tollemache presented, i.e. just happy to tick over until taken over or still very much determined to try and make the club successful) is the more likely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc. While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts. There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc. While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts. There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo. It's more a question of where the balance should be struck though, isn't it? We are spending something, and we are attracting quality players. Ideally we would just like more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc. While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts. There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo. It's more a question of where the balance should be struck though, isn't it? We are spending something, and we are attracting quality players. Ideally we would just like more. Spot on Ian, just a little more for me. It does appear it's one target, if that fails we wait until the next window, while working on the replacement target building up to that window. I'm convinced that when Pardew says we have a list, it's not like my 7 year old chrimbo list.....a foot long. It's like mine, 1 or 2 things. They give themselves no options if things fail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc. While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts. There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo. totally agree- my thinking is moderate investment after finishing fifth, would surely have paid itself back in terms of revenues increasing through lifting the profile of the club. Im certain the club can achieve a higher turnover and still be sensibly run within that- yet be doing more than we are now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yeah I think his primary motivation was that he assumed he'd be successful at it and loved the idea of having a football team. You only have to look at his behaviour when he first took over to see that. The question I think is whether his motivation changed in the wake of the hate campaign against him post-Keegan, and whether he now simply wants to claw back his investment and sell for the best possible price, or whether he's still determined to pull it round and make a real success of it. And I don't think we've seen enough yet to know which is the reality. I'm not sure what the real test of that would be, really. If he wants to get the fans back onside again, he needs to invest in firstly the team - which he's shown signs of doing this window tbf - and secondly the manager. You can have all the quality players in the world, but they still need to be led and organised effectively. Ashley has gone for the cheap option in appointing Pardew, but that might undo all the work in the transfer market and end up costing far more than to pay for a well regarded manager in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way. Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first? So do Arsenal every year, by and large. It's a good way of doing things, if you possibly can, and if you rewound to the last days of Shepherd and asked fans "Would it be better if we adopted Arsenal's model in the transfer market?" then you'd have heard a loud "Yes" from a large majority of them. We shouldn't aim to make a loss! As long as good players keep arriving and the overall quality gets better and better, we shouldn't mind one bit if we turn a profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks. That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way. Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first? So do Arsenal every year, by and large. It's a good way of doing things, if you possibly can, and if you rewound to the last days of Shepherd and asked fans "Would it be better if we adopted Arsenal's model in the transfer market?" then you'd have heard a loud "Yes" from a large majority of them. We shouldn't aim to make a loss! As long as good players keep arriving and the overall quality gets better and better, we shouldn't mind one bit if we turn a profit. Heard an excellent interview with one of the Arsenal execs a while ago. He was basically saying that the only aim to make a profit as a club so that they can invest it all back into success. But that meant overall profit, not just profit from transfers. For me, I'm not bothered if we make a transfer profit at all. As long as the club isn't making overall profits every year and nobody is creaming the money off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 And I don't think it tells us whether or not Ashley just wants to sell, at all. All it tells us is that he thinks the club will end up more successful if it makes a profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks. That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it. It's sensible until you get into a crisis situation IMO. The problem is if you can't find a player in a certain position, and one of your existing players gets injured or turns out to be shit, you might not be able to find a new player who perfectly fits the criteria. I'm behind the transfer policy but I hope we flex it to get a CB and CF because we desperately need them. On the other hand, you could argue a policy becomes pointless if you're always making exceptions to it. I'm not 100% sure about it TBH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts