Rafa Benítez (now unemployed)

[magvicar]

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

He spent a negative amount of money.

He spent money that was brought into the club.

He was handed a good old pot of money to get deals done.

 

If you want to buy a car with no cash but you have a gold watch that will cover the cost then it's still a buy for what the buy was if someone else offered cash.

 

This net spend is just a smokescreen.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

@magvicar - they on about you here?

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, magvicar said:

Aye it was fantastic. I loved him and what he did for us.

I sang his praises from the rooftops.

Prove this isn't you, magvicar - tell me you don't think the ISS is fake.

 

I mean, obviously 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landings were shot in a studio, and JFK was assassinated from the grassy knoll.  No-one is going to argue those.

[Pandamninator]

2 minutes ago, magvicar said:

He spent money that was brought into the club.

He was handed a good old pot of money to get deals done.

 

If you want to buy a car with no cash but you have a gold watch that will cover the cost then it's still a buy for what the buy was if someone else offered cash.

 

This net spend is just a smokescreen.

 

Is this a kink?

 

You know you can get people to hurl abuse you and degrade you in real life right. 

 

They'll even dress up in leather and stick a gag in your mouth if you pay extra.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pandamninator

[magvicar]

8 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

@magvicar - they on about you here?

 

 

Aye most likely.

[magvicar]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

 

Prove this isn't you, magvicar - tell me you don't think the ISS is fake.

 

I mean, obviously 9/11 was an inside job, the moon landings were shot in a studio, and JFK was assassinated from the grassy knoll.  No-one is going to argue those.

Why do I have to prove anything?

 

 

[magvicar]

3 minutes ago, Pandamninator said:

Is this a kink?

 

You know you can get people to hurl abuse you and degrade you in real life right. 

 

They'll even dress up in leather and stick a gag in your mouth if you pay extra.

 

 

 

Whatever floats your boat.

[Pixelphish]

Creased

[Pixelphish]

Is this the new Womble?

[MrRaspberryJam]

4 minutes ago, magvicar said:

Aye most likely.

 

Class, you keep doing you. hope you had a canny 4 day weekend! 

[LV]

How do you end up as someone like this? Childhood trauma?
 

Creating your own forum to to talk to yourself on ffs  

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by LV

[gbandit]

This is class, great plot twist with the flashback post

[MrRaspberryJam]

Might delete it if its going to cause a pile on in hindsight, ffs. If he's got his own views on Rafa and thats what he wants to believe then so be it. 

[MrRaspberryJam]

Removed. You keep being you @magvicarand do what makes you happy

[LV]

1 minute ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

Might delete it if its going to cause a pile on in hindsight, ffs. If he's got his own views on Rafa and thats what he wants to believe then so be it. 

He’d created his own pile on long before you posted that. 

[MrRaspberryJam]

Just now, LV said:

He’d created his own pile on long before you posted that. 

 

Aye over football opinions. Felt a bit guilty when folk on other forums were calling him a weirdo and that.

[magvicar]

5 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Aye over football opinions. Felt a bit guilty when folk on other forums were calling him a weirdo and that.

People are more than entitled to their opinion, even on what they think I may or may not be. I'm absolutely fine with it all.

 

[MrRaspberryJam]

Just now, magvicar said:

People are more than entitled to their opinion, even on what they think I may or may not be. I'm absolutely fine with it all.

 

 

Magvicar it just didn't sit comfortably with me the moment I posted the link. I should have known it could have caused a pile-on and I regret it, please accept my apologies. I am happy to discuss with you whatever you want, even if I think your views on Benitez are a wee bit crazy.

[Conjo]

 

Reddit ffs  It's like RTG on speed. Slightly better moderated twitter shit storm of people making new posts for the smallest thing. Thank god for N-O.

[Chris_R]

31 minutes ago, magvicar said:

He spent money that was brought into the club.

He was handed a good old pot of money to get deals done.

 

If you want to buy a car with no cash but you have a gold watch that will cover the cost then it's still a buy for what the buy was if someone else offered cash.

 

This net spend is just a smokescreen.

 

 

What a nonsense argument.

 

If the club had sold, I dunno, say the training ground and invested in the team, then sure the net spend argument would be redundant if we tried to count the sale of the training ground in the net spend - That's your "selling a watch to buy a car" argument where the sale item is irrelevant to the purchase.

 

But that's not what happened here. Here the team was weakened by sales, then strengthened by purchases and so net spend absolutely is relevant. Here it's more about looking at a collection of cars and assessing its worth. If you sell your watches to buy a few new cars, of course the car collection gets better. But if you sell some cars to buy some cars then the "net spend" is relevant in assessing whether you made good purchases. I can't believe I'm having to explain this with crayons like this, so I can only assume you're trolling at this point. Discounting net spend is laughable because it's 100% related to what he could field on the pitch vs if he bought without selling.

 

You can't genuinely say with a straight face that our squad we got promoted with was identical in strength to that promoted squad PLUS Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Townsend, Janmaat, Cabella, Cissé etc as if we had never sold them, because that's just nonsense.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Chris_R

[magvicar]

Just now, MrRaspberryJam said:

 

Magvicar it just didn't sit comfortably with me the moment I posted the link. I should have known it could have caused a pile-on and I regret it, please accept my apologies. I am happy to discuss with you whatever you want, even if I think your views on Benitez are a wee bit crazy.

I have no issues with what you put up.

[magvicar]

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

What a nonsense argument.

 

If the club had sold, I dunno, say the training ground and invested in the team, then sure the net spend argument would be redundant if we tried to count the sale of the training ground in the net spend - That's your "selling a watch to buy a car" argument where the sale item is irrelevant to the purchase.

 

But that's not what happened here. Here the team was weakened by sales, then strengthened by purchases and so net spend absolutely is relevant. Discounting net spend is laughable because it's 100% related to what he could field on the pitch vs if he bought without selling.

 

You can't genuinely say with a straight face that our squad we got promoted with was identical in strength to that promoted squad PLUS Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Townsend, Janmaat, Cabella, Cissé etc as if we had never sold them, because that's just nonsense. So of course net spend is important. It's ridiculous to suggest it isn't.

Why did we sell them?

Was it to weaken the team or was it because those players wanted nothing to do with championship football?

So we sell them and tell the manager to go and get players who will get us out of the championship. A massive gamble that paid off.

 

It has to be looked at in more than just one way.

[Chris_R]

1 minute ago, magvicar said:

Why did we sell them?

Was it to weaken the team or was it because those players wanted nothing to do with championship football?

So we sell them and tell the manager to go and get players who will get us out of the championship. A massive gamble that paid off.

 

It has to be looked at in more than just one way.

 

Of course they didn't want to play Championship football, but we could have - in theory - forced them to. They had contracts.

 

Net spend is absolutely relevant. You may not like to admit it, but it is. Benitez had to sell to buy, and he did. If we'd kept say Sissoko for whatever reason, as we absolutely could have done, then he'd have had less to spend. The 2 things are inextricably linked. If you cannot see that, you must either be trolling or stupid. Either way I'd rather do something else than continue this conversation.

[TheBrownBottle]

35 minutes ago, magvicar said:

Why do I have to prove anything?

 

 

The argument of the conspiracy theorist right there  

[Paully]

I genuinely can't get my head around any NUFC fan having a go at Rafa! It's mental!

 

Never mind what he did as manager for us - he brought Amanda to the table - no Rafa, no takeover, simple.

 

Mental some people!

[magvicar]

2 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Of course they didn't want to play Championship football, but we could have - in theory - forced them to. They had contracts.

 

Net spend is absolutely relevant. You may not like to admit it, but it is. Benitez had to sell to buy, and he did. If we'd kept say Sissoko for whatever reason, as we absolutely could have done, then he'd have had less to spend. The 2 things are inextricably linked. If you cannot see that, you must either be trolling or stupid. Either way I'd rather do something else than continue this conversation.

It's pointless forcing players to play in the championship who want away. At best you get half hearted unhappy players and at worst you get a player value that massively diminishes.

 

Whether you're a club that hands out cash on the hip or sells to buy it all comes down to the same thing in terms of getting players over the line.

Of course if we sell players that do not want to go and would be beneficial to progress, then obviously it becomes a major issue, especially if we don't replace with like for like and as good if not better.

 

Of course at times this has happened but generally players wanted out and there's only so much you can do when players want out.

 

As I said there's more than one way of looking at this.