Mort is new Chairman - Shepherd leaves

[macbeth]

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the club to spend the money it earns.

 

Macbeth, what do you say to those people who believe (although mostly it is stated as an absolute truth) that the only way Ashley (or anyone who had taken over) can make money, and the only reason they would have bought the club is to invest heavily in the playing staff to eventually have us playing in the champions league? I don't think they're talking about an extra £4m per year on transfers and wages due to not taking a dividend either, their talking about making even heavier loses in the short term against hopefully making higher profits in the long term. All but the most naive of supporters realise that spending money does not guarantee success, so theoretically this spending over profit must go on indefinitely until a successful manager/team combination are found.

 

Do you agree with this view, or think that they are wrong?

 

the extra money, and therefore profits, can only come from the CL. In 2003 we had a turnover of £96m due to being int he CL, last year it was £83m. The rewards have grown hugely since 2003, with Chelsea getting £16m last season in appearance money never mind TV and gate receipts, and increased merchandising sales.

 

The extra money from Sky for the next few years will help all clubs, but will probably just all end up in the pockets of the players.

 

I don't believe anyone can get mega-rich owning a football club given how much it costs to buy them. Shepherd and Hall took the absolute maximum out that was feasible, any more and it would have collapsed.

 

That didn't answer the question at all.

 

 

Okay, sorry I ended up answering the question "do you think Ashley can only make money if the club is playing in the CL". You had too many bracketed comments in the question 

 

If you weren't asking whether you could only make money that way, but were actually asking whether Ashley would have to invest to get better players then...

 

Yes, of course. We seem unable as a club to bring any young players through to be first team regulars, so we have to buy in to improve on, or even maintain where we are. Shepherd tried to do that but could only do it by borrowing more and more money, increasing our debt so that even if we if last year we'd finished 4th then the money from a single season in the CL still wouldn't cover the previous years borrowings.

 

Hopefully Ashley's buy out means the interest payments that Shepherd had lumbered the club with will disappear, (Shepherd left us with £70m worth of debt currently paying interest at over 7.5%, or £5m per year) also there is £4m per year in dividends will too. So instantly ~£10m extra available. Then the Sky money goes up (for everyone) by £10m per year.

 

So without doing much Ashley will have given the club £20m per year extra to play with.

 

The downside of course is the contracts that Shepherd gave the players. The club were running at a loss of about £18m per year, so the Ashley sort out mentioned means we are just back to a flat picture.

 

With the wages structure Shepherd left the club with the income would need to increase to about £120m to be profitable. This is way above what we have ever managed, even in the CL.

 

So Ashley will have to dip into his back pocket and help if he wants the playing squad to improve and to get into the CL. No one has invested money in the club since 1997, it has been a one-way bleed since then.

 

[macbeth]

the only reason it was sensible was that the club was in such a mess that they just HAD to do it. There was no continued, planned-for growth, no steady building, it was a panic situation both with Owen then with Martins.

 

The hope has to be that Allardyce will have the confidence to build it up, to build a club, rather than build a signing. For Shepherd to be say that he was most proud of signing Shearer and Owen suggested that he was satisfied with trophy signings, rather than trophies.

 

If you "plan" to have a decent backup for your main ("trophy signing") striker being injured for a season you have to have 2 "trophy signing" strikers on the books or just buy cheaper strikers who are not as good. I don't see how you can blame the chairman for Owen's injury causing a shift in the transfer targets.

 

If we'd have won a trophy I'm sure that would have been what he was most proud of. Did you expect him to say losing a couple of cup finals or coming 3rd in the league was his proudest moment?

 

But why the fixation with a trophy signing ??

 

Of course I don't blame the chairman for Owen's injury. I do blame him for spending all that money on one player, to the detriment of the rest of the squad.

 

It's lovely to have these players to watch, but the total emphasis on must-have attacking players (Owen, Luque, Emre,  Parker, Duff, Martins) is that in the same period we also invest in  Craig Moore, Olivier Bernard, Gooch, Ronnie Johnsen, Babayaro (and Bungsong). It's a team game.

 

As I've mentioned before  the cost of Michael Owen and Oba Martins could easily have been covered by the chairman and the Halls investing the money in the club, in the way we are expecting Ashely to. H&S took £35m out, lets hope Ashley doesn't.

[macbeth]

Finishing 3rd with SBR as manager, was a cracking achivement.  Then he chucked it all away by not spending to improve the team.  And here we are now.

 

I'm sure Macbeth will be along in a moment to tell you that not spending then was exactly the right thing to do as the profit that year (before dividends) was only £4.3m, and the previous year it was -£3.1m (we spent £27.6m that year).

 

At the time everything looked great. Wages under control, team improving, ready for another year in the CL. That was the time to build on the success.

 

Instead the club spent nothing at all on players. They had invested well in the year before, but that summer not a penny was spent on improving the squad.

 

In the meantime that summer the club did spend £8.5m. Not on players, not on the ground, not on anything that improved the club. Instead the club spent £4m on giving money away to shareholders. It then spent £4.5m buying back shares from the Hall family.

 

That summer defined the priorities of the board for me. £8.5m to the Hall and Shepherd families, and nothing to stregthen the side.

 

Either there was no money to spend so it should have gone nowhere, or there was money to spend and it should have gone to strengthening the squad. (That £8m was borrowed to give away, up till Ashley, we were still paying £500,000 per year in interest payments on those borrowings)

 

I'm pretty sure that at this point NE5 will say £8.5m would only buy a Marcelino, so it would therefore make no difference. The "logic" behind that is that we should never buy players, we shoudl just give away £8.5m every year to shareholders instead.

[UV]

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I want the club to spend the money it earns.

 

Macbeth, what do you say to those people who believe (although mostly it is stated as an absolute truth) that the only way Ashley (or anyone who had taken over) can make money, and the only reason they would have bought the club is to invest heavily in the playing staff to eventually have us playing in the champions league? I don't think they're talking about an extra £4m per year on transfers and wages due to not taking a dividend either, their talking about making even heavier loses in the short term against hopefully making higher profits in the long term. All but the most naive of supporters realise that spending money does not guarantee success, so theoretically this spending over profit must go on indefinitely until a successful manager/team combination are found.

 

Do you agree with this view, or think that they are wrong?

 

the extra money, and therefore profits, can only come from the CL. In 2003 we had a turnover of £96m due to being int he CL, last year it was £83m. The rewards have grown hugely since 2003, with Chelsea getting £16m last season in appearance money never mind TV and gate receipts, and increased merchandising sales.

 

The extra money from Sky for the next few years will help all clubs, but will probably just all end up in the pockets of the players.

 

I don't believe anyone can get mega-rich owning a football club given how much it costs to buy them. Shepherd and Hall took the absolute maximum out that was feasible, any more and it would have collapsed.

 

That didn't answer the question at all.

 

 

Okay, sorry I ended up answering the question "do you think Ashley can only make money if the club is playing in the CL". You had too many bracketed comments in the question 

 

If you weren't asking whether you could only make money that way, but were actually asking whether Ashley would have to invest to get better players then...

 

Yes, of course. We seem unable as a club to bring any young players through to be first team regulars, so we have to buy in to improve on, or even maintain where we are. Shepherd tried to do that but could only do it by borrowing more and more money, increasing our debt so that even if we if last year we'd finished 4th then the money from a single season in the CL still wouldn't cover the previous years borrowings.

 

Hopefully Ashley's buy out means the interest payments that Shepherd had lumbered the club with will disappear, (Shepherd left us with £70m worth of debt currently paying interest at over 7.5%, or £5m per year) also there is £4m per year in dividends will too. So instantly ~£10m extra available. Then the Sky money goes up (for everyone) by £10m per year.

 

So without doing much Ashley will have given the club £20m per year extra to play with.

 

The downside of course is the contracts that Shepherd gave the players. The club were running at a loss of about £18m per year, so the Ashley sort out mentioned means we are just back to a flat picture.

 

With the wages structure Shepherd left the club with the income would need to increase to about £120m to be profitable. This is way above what we have ever managed, even in the CL.

 

So Ashley will have to dip into his back pocket and help if he wants the playing squad to improve and to get into the CL. No one has invested money in the club since 1997, it has been a one-way bleed since then.

 

 

Still doesn't really address what I asked. The first sentence of the last paragraph is pretty much the only one which is relevant to the future of the club. Can I assume you agree with the principal that Ashley should run the club at a loss until we are in the CL? Can I assume you agree with the assumption that Ashley will run the club at a loss until we are in the CL? (I used 2 separate questions to avoid confusing brackets this time).

 

I want to address the rest of your post in detail too but unfortunately don't have time. I'll just say that I think your view of the club debt and how it now gone is all wrong - Ashley has spent over £200m on the club  if you include the debt. If he'd put it in low risk investments he'd get better than 7.5%. If he doesn't make over that on profits/increased value of the club then it's effectively a loss to him.

[macbeth]

Still doesn't really address what I asked. The first sentence of the last paragraph is pretty much the only one which is relevant to the future of the club. Can I assume you agree with the principal that Ashley should run the club at a loss until we are in the CL?

 

I think he will have to run the club at a loss, because of what he has inherited. It would be a clever trick to turn well over £1m per month loss into a break-even situation.

 

Can I assume you agree with the assumption that Ashley will run the club at a loss until we are in the CL? (I used 2 separate questions to avoid confusing brackets this time).

 

Same answer I think. He has no choice. I'm 100% sure he doesn't intend to have that as a long-term plan though. He isn't noted for giign money away.

 

I want to address the rest of your post in detail too but unfortunately don't have time. I'll just say that I think your view of the club debt and how it now gone is all wrong - Ashley has spent over £200m on the club  if you include the debt. If he'd put it in low risk investments he'd get better than 7.5%. If he doesn't make over that on profits/increased value of the club then it's effectively a loss to him.

I agree. He has a lost opportunity to gain on other potential investments, but he wouldn't necessarily be losing money, just opportunity.

[UV]

 

But why the fixation with a trophy signing ??

 

 

I'm not the one with the fixation. I can't think of one player the club has bought who was a "trophy player". A trophy player to me is say Ravanelli for the 'boro. Owen is exactly the sort of player we will have to buy if we want to get in the CL.

 

Of course I don't blame the chairman for Owen's injury. I do blame him for spending all that money on one player, to the detriment of the rest of the squad.

 

It's lovely to have these players to watch, but the total emphasis on must-have attacking players (Owen, Luque, Emre,  Parker, Duff, Martins) is that in the same period we also invest in  Craig Moore, Olivier Bernard, Gooch, Ronnie Johnsen, Babayaro (and Bungsong). It's a team game.

 

It's a myth that the defense are as poor or indeed as important as are made out. Spurs nearly got into the CL with a defense much worse than ours. But anyway that's a totally different argument I'm not going into, and also - it's the manager's choice.

 

As I've mentioned before  the cost of Michael Owen and Oba Martins could easily have been covered by the chairman and the Halls investing the money in the club, in the way we are expecting Ashely to. H&S took £35m out, lets hope Ashley doesn't.

 

That's bollocks actually as you're completely ignoring wages, and over 8 years wouldn't cover the cost of an extra Luque.

[UV]

Still doesn't really address what I asked. The first sentence of the last paragraph is pretty much the only one which is relevant to the future of the club. Can I assume you agree with the principal that Ashley should run the club at a loss until we are in the CL?

 

I think he will have to run the club at a loss, because of what he has inherited. It would be a clever trick to turn well over £1m per month loss into a break-even situation.

 

All you do is buy better players on lower wages isn't it? Simple!

 

Can I assume you agree with the assumption that Ashley will run the club at a loss until we are in the CL? (I used 2 separate questions to avoid confusing brackets this time).

 

Same answer I think. He has no choice. I'm 100% sure he doesn't intend to have that as a long-term plan though. He isn't noted for giign money away.

 

But what happens if (due to circumstances beyond his control, eg injuries, other teams spending above themselves, etc) we're still not in the CL in 5 years time? This could happen due to circumstances beyond his control, eg injuries, other teams spending above themselves, etc.

 

I want to address the rest of your post in detail too but unfortunately don't have time. I'll just say that I think your view of the club debt and how it now gone is all wrong - Ashley has spent over £200m on the club  if you include the debt. If he'd put it in low risk investments he'd get better than 7.5%. If he doesn't make over that on profits/increased value of the club then it's effectively a loss to him.

I agree. He has a lost opportunity to gain on other potential investments, but he wouldn't necessarily be losing money, just opportunity.

 

Do you keep your savings under the matress instead of in the bank? My grandma did that.

 

[macbeth]

As I've mentioned before  the cost of Michael Owen and Oba Martins could easily have been covered by the chairman and the Halls investing the money in the club, in the way we are expecting Ashely to. H&S took £35m out, lets hope Ashley doesn't.

 

That's bollocks actually as you're completely ignoring wages, and over 8 years wouldn't cover the cost of an extra Luque.

 

But the money taken out by H&S would also have gained the club interest rather than having to pay it out. A win-win !

 

A better option (and one that takes the emotion out of players being worth it or not) for the dividend money would have been paying off the stadium mortgage. If the cash had been used for that instead of givign it away then the club would have no mortgage, rather than still owing lots off.

[NE5]

what a load of cack as usual by macbeth, and everything UV says is spot on.

 

 

[Guest optimistic nit]

what exactly did shepheard do to gain such loyalty and what has ashley done to gain such schepticism?

 

Signing better players on lower wages is not simple, it is very hard as allardyce has shown over the last few weeks, and i doubt very much we could sign players with the quality required to improve the squad at wages low enough to make the club break even. We still need 8-10 players to have a full squad, without losing any. What impact will that have on our finances?

I don't mind if Ashley doesn't invest his own money, he has no obligation too, although i think it would be in the long run benneficial to him and us if he did in this window. I do want the money earnt by the club to be reinvested though.

Shepheard was appointed chairman in 1997, in his first full season in charge we dropped from 2nd to 13th, and stayed there for another 2 seasons. we then made 3 top 5 finishes before dropping back there. Robson's time here was the only stage in 10 years of his chairmanship when we have been anything but a yoyo mid table club, and with the resources and oppertunities he has had available i deem that unacceptable.

[macbeth]

what a load of cack as usual by macbeth, and everything UV says is spot on.

 

 

 

i've just seen your little by-line under your posts. The "The only way to get a top manager, like Souness, when he is already in a top job, is to pay his club huge compensation for their loss. - macbeth 16th April 2007"

 

Thank you !! I'm sitting here giggling like a little girl, close to tears.  mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

I have to admit you win. Every negative thought I've ever had about you, as just been taken away. I will always smile when I think of you now. 

 

What a wonderful way to start the weekend  :celb:

[NE5]

what a load of cack as usual by macbeth, and everything UV says is spot on.

 

 

 

i've just seen your little by-line under your posts. The "The only way to get a top manager, like Souness, when he is already in a top job, is to pay his club huge compensation for their loss. - macbeth 16th April 2007"

 

Thank you !! I'm sitting here giggling like a little girl, close to tears.  mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

I have to admit you win. Every negative thought I've ever had about you, as just been taken away. I will always smile when I think of you now. 

 

What a wonderful way to start the weekend  :celb:

 

As I suspected, you don't read, its been there for ages.

 

Some admission that mind, "giggling like a little girl" 

[macbeth]

what a load of cack as usual by macbeth, and everything UV says is spot on.

 

 

 

i've just seen your little by-line under your posts. The "The only way to get a top manager, like Souness, when he is already in a top job, is to pay his club huge compensation for their loss. - macbeth 16th April 2007"

 

Thank you !! I'm sitting here giggling like a little girl, close to tears.  mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

I have to admit you win. Every negative thought I've ever had about you, as just been taken away. I will always smile when I think of you now. 

 

What a wonderful way to start the weekend  :celb:

 

As I suspected, you don't read, its been there for ages.

 

Some admission that mind, "giggling like a little girl" 

 

it's cos I love ya  :smitten:

[NE5]

what a load of cack as usual by macbeth, and everything UV says is spot on.

 

 

 

i've just seen your little by-line under your posts. The "The only way to get a top manager, like Souness, when he is already in a top job, is to pay his club huge compensation for their loss. - macbeth 16th April 2007"

 

Thank you !! I'm sitting here giggling like a little girl, close to tears.  mackems.gif mackems.gif mackems.gif

 

I have to admit you win. Every negative thought I've ever had about you, as just been taken away. I will always smile when I think of you now. 

 

What a wonderful way to start the weekend  :celb:

 

As I suspected, you don't read, its been there for ages.

 

Some admission that mind, "giggling like a little girl" 

 

it's cos I love ya  :smitten:

 

Well, I can tell you aren't secretly my wife or daughter, they actually talk sense most of the time

 

 

[NE5]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

 

bump

 

 

[NE5]

why didn't we have a full stadium before the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

I realise this will escape you.

 

 

 

In 1991 we were in the old 2nd Division, the teams listed below were all in the 1st (top) division.

 

why was this ?

 

Why was the share issue aborted ?

 

Why was there so little interest the club couldn't even sell 2.5m worth of shares ?

 

Why did Leeds who were 4th top of the 1st division only have 12,000 on average more than we did in 1991?  Why did Villa only have 9,000 more in the same division as Leeds?  Why did Chelsea who were 5th in the 1st Division only average 5,000 more than we did in 1991?

 

Why do they all have higher gates on average today than they had in 1991?

 

In 1991 Liverpool were 2nd in the 1st Division, why did they finish 3rd last season yet still have a higher average crowd?  In 1991 Arsenal won the 1st Division, how come they finished 4th last season yet had an average crowd that was almost double that of 1991?

 

Last season (edit: should have been season before last) Man U finished eactly in the same position as they did in 1992, they had almost 24,000 more fans in this time round.

 

I could go on but don't see the point.

 

shot yourself in the foot, predictably. Why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting higher gates than we were, at the time you mention, but don't now ?

 

You are getting into that area where you are going to claim that Newcastle United needed the sky TV money to exist in the premiership, and get above the likes of Oxford, Southampton, Swindon, Oldham, Ipswich, Port Vale, Hull, Watford, Plymouth, Barnsley, Brighton, QPR, Millwall, Charlton, Luton, Norwich, Bristol City, Millwall,  Notts County, Bristol Rovers etc were ALL above us in the league during the period when we were in the old 2nd division ?

 

You're a bigger joke than ever, for making such a pathetic, and stupid claim.

 

If you aren't then please tell us how this was the case anyway ?

 

What is the point of you ?

 

 

bump

[Mick]

why didn't we have a full stadium before the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

I realise this will escape you.

 

 

 

In 1991 we were in the old 2nd Division, the teams listed below were all in the 1st (top) division.

 

why was this ?

 

Why was the share issue aborted ?

 

Why was there so little interest the club couldn't even sell 2.5m worth of shares ?

 

Why did Leeds who were 4th top of the 1st division only have 12,000 on average more than we did in 1991?  Why did Villa only have 9,000 more in the same division as Leeds?  Why did Chelsea who were 5th in the 1st Division only average 5,000 more than we did in 1991?

 

Why do they all have higher gates on average today than they had in 1991?

 

In 1991 Liverpool were 2nd in the 1st Division, why did they finish 3rd last season yet still have a higher average crowd?  In 1991 Arsenal won the 1st Division, how come they finished 4th last season yet had an average crowd that was almost double that of 1991?

 

Last season (edit: should have been season before last) Man U finished eactly in the same position as they did in 1992, they had almost 24,000 more fans in this time round.

 

I could go on but don't see the point.

 

shot yourself in the foot, predictably. Why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting higher gates than we were, at the time you mention, but don't now ?

 

You are getting into that area where you are going to claim that Newcastle United needed the sky TV money to exist in the premiership, and get above the likes of Oxford, Southampton, Swindon, Oldham, Ipswich, Port Vale, Hull, Watford, Plymouth, Barnsley, Brighton, QPR, Millwall, Charlton, Luton, Norwich, Bristol City, Millwall,  Notts County, Bristol Rovers etc were ALL above us in the league during the period when we were in the old 2nd division ?

 

You're a bigger joke than ever, for making such a pathetic, and stupid claim.

 

If you aren't then please tell us how this was the case anyway ?

 

What is the point of you ?

 

 

bump

 

I'm surprised you bumped that without editing some of those teams who we had to "get above" when they were never actually above us anyway.  

 

I'm also surprised that you bumped a post where you were asking about our poor crowds before Hall & Shepherd only to be shown that most other clubs were also having problems with lack of crowds. 

[macbeth]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

 

I would have preferred us to sign Martins out of money that had gone into the club. If H&S had not taken £35m out in the previous 8 years we could have signed Martins and re-signed Woodgate, and still had £15m left over. We had to borrow money to buy Martins, we shouldn't have needed to borrow. He didn't just cost £13m, he cost £13m plus a pile of interest.

 

 

 

bump.

 

I like bumping with NE5, he's so funny, he makes me feel happy inside 

[NE5]

why didn't we have a full stadium before the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

I realise this will escape you.

 

 

 

In 1991 we were in the old 2nd Division, the teams listed below were all in the 1st (top) division.

 

why was this ?

 

Why was the share issue aborted ?

 

Why was there so little interest the club couldn't even sell 2.5m worth of shares ?

 

Why did Leeds who were 4th top of the 1st division only have 12,000 on average more than we did in 1991?  Why did Villa only have 9,000 more in the same division as Leeds?  Why did Chelsea who were 5th in the 1st Division only average 5,000 more than we did in 1991?

 

Why do they all have higher gates on average today than they had in 1991?

 

In 1991 Liverpool were 2nd in the 1st Division, why did they finish 3rd last season yet still have a higher average crowd?  In 1991 Arsenal won the 1st Division, how come they finished 4th last season yet had an average crowd that was almost double that of 1991?

 

Last season (edit: should have been season before last) Man U finished eactly in the same position as they did in 1992, they had almost 24,000 more fans in this time round.

 

I could go on but don't see the point.

 

shot yourself in the foot, predictably. Why were Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool getting higher gates than we were, at the time you mention, but don't now ?

 

You are getting into that area where you are going to claim that Newcastle United needed the sky TV money to exist in the premiership, and get above the likes of Oxford, Southampton, Swindon, Oldham, Ipswich, Port Vale, Hull, Watford, Plymouth, Barnsley, Brighton, QPR, Millwall, Charlton, Luton, Norwich, Bristol City, Millwall,  Notts County, Bristol Rovers etc were ALL above us in the league during the period when we were in the old 2nd division ?

 

You're a bigger joke than ever, for making such a pathetic, and stupid claim.

 

If you aren't then please tell us how this was the case anyway ?

 

What is the point of you ?

 

 

bump

 

I'm surprised you bumped that without editing some of those teams who we had to "get above" when they were never actually above us anyway.    

 

I'm also surprised that you bumped a post where you were asking about our poor crowds before Hall & Shepherd only to be shown that most other clubs were also having problems with lack of crowds.   

 

Still no reply though is there ? Why are those teams not now getting better crowds than us ?

 

 

[NE5]

Macbeth - Would you have preferred us to sign Martins last summer or no striker at all?

 

I would have preferred us to sign Martins out of money that had gone into the club. If H&S had not taken £35m out in the previous 8 years we could have signed Martins and re-signed Woodgate, and still had £15m left over. We had to borrow money to buy Martins, we shouldn't have needed to borrow. He didn't just cost £13m, he cost £13m plus a pile of interest.

 

 

 

bump.

 

I like bumping with NE5, he's so funny, he makes me feel happy inside 

 

As was mentioned by UV [i think, without looking back because I can't really be arsed], it isn't really a reply is it ? Do you think the club should have bought Martins from the funds available at the time, or not ?

 

People are sussing out your obsessed agenda now BTW ....... 

 

 

[Mick]

 

 

Still no reply though is there ? Why are those teams not now getting better crowds than us ?

 

 

 

Why do you think?

[NE5]

 

Still no reply though is there ? Why are those teams not now getting better crowds than us ?

 

 

Why do you think?

 

I don't think, I know.

 

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm not surprised in the slightest you either don't know the answer, or aren't prepared to admit it.

 

 

[Mick]

 

I don't think, I know.

 

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm not surprised in the slightest you either don't know the answer, or aren't prepared to admit it.

 

 

 

Excellent, enlighten us.

[NE5]

 

I don't think, I know.

 

It is obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm not surprised in the slightest you either don't know the answer, or aren't prepared to admit it.

 

 

 

Excellent, enlighten us.

 

Well, as you clearly don't know, and you may tell the younger lads the wrong answer, being a bit of a bandwagon jumper, basically its because nobody was interested in the club, because they sold all their best players, who all wanted to go, spent years in the 2nd division, considered a promotion battle as fighting for honours, and once achieved, were happy to stay up, as cheaply as possible. [macbeth would like this sort of approach]

 

Of course, when you sell your best players and buy 2nd rate players - for years and years - and consider 15th in the old 1st division and staying up to be the height of ambition and success, then the fans who have higher ambitions sort of stop going to watch the club. I mean, who wants to support a club who sell their best players and get relegated and spend years in the old 2nd division buying players out of the 3rd and 4th divisions on a regular basis.

 

A cousin of mine spent 10-15 years telling me that I was mad for watching "that rubbish"  All of a sudden, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club and appointed Keegan, he - and thousands of others - started going to the match again. They were attracted back by a board who they now slate. They also say they have "always supported the club".

 

In fact, his name isn't Mick, or I could suspect you were him.

 

Please feel free to make something up, I'm expecting it  mackems.gif

[macbeth]

A team of 2m or 3m quid players may satisfy your desire to look after the accounts first and foremost, but it sure as hell won't give us a half decent team.

 

 

 

only just noticed this one

 

Do you think a team that has finished below 9th over the last ten season his half decent ? Under Shepherd we have spent about a net £100m on players, and we still only have a half decent side. How much more do you think Shepherd should have borrowed to get a side that could get in the top half more than the bottom half ? Woudl £10m be right, or £20m, or £35m.

 

You keep assuming that I didn't want to spend money. You'll never find me having said that. You will find me questioning how the people running the club could get us in such a bad position financially that we were losing £1m a month, and every summer we just HAD to borrow more because of the desperate situation we were in.

 

I still love you though. Simple folk make me smile  :smitten: