gram

Legally correct, however, economically you are so wrong it is untrue! A football club without fans has very little income whether that be direct or indirect income. The fans are the ones who pay for merchandise, tickets , food and that is so significant that if it was lost to the club then it wouldnt have a bloody ground (note that the loan for the expansion was based on future season ticket sales amongst other things). Without a ground I suspect we would struggle to get SKY along and any monies there would be lost. Basically the club cant operate without its core customers. To say that fans expenditure doesnt pay for the players wages isnt economically correct. It does. I have 2 economics degrees and am an professional economist so consider myself an expert in this field tbh. You pay to watch the match. Once you have seen it, then you have received the service you paid for. Of course revenue contributes to the cost base and therefore all sources of revenue are relevant to how a company remunerates its employees. However, from a purely economical point of view, the fan pays to see the game. Once the club has allowed you entrance onto its property, you have exchanged a service for your cash. The value of that service (seeing the game) is implicit in the price of the ticket. Its called 'making a market'. If you dont understand the nature of exchange in a market then there are a number of GCSE textboooks i could look up for you. Paying for a ticket does not entitle you to owt else apart from a seat at the match. If you pay to go and see a Scorsese film, do you think that entitles you to a say in how he makes his next film? No, it entitles you to a seat in the cinema and that is it. Same principle applies here. Where did you get those degrees from? WH Smiths? I am an economist too funnily enough and have taught economics for years. Your point was that the fan doesnt pay for the wage. I agre that directly he/she doesnt. However, without the fan there is little point in a ticket being printed. Simple as that. The fan base (or customer) will always indirectly pay the wages of the player. It really is that simple. We could wrap it up in all kinds of nonsense but the simple fact is that revenue generated from fans is the base of that market. Without that there is no player. Nb: Please don't use degrees like they are Top Trumps. Its hardly a recommendation these days. Well i'm glad i'm not one of your students as your understanding of markets is atrocious. Of course financially all markets are paid for by their customers but that is not the point of a market. You exchange something for money. Hoping not to sound like a certain cuntface who used to manage our club, i'm sure on the ticket it doesnt say give up your £600 for a voice in the running of the business. That is what it says on a share though when you buy one of those. I'm tearing off my brown cardigan and putting on my steel toe-duster sandals as we speak You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

I have real fucking patches on my jacket elbows mate, none of your trendy make believe shite

Exception that proves the rule shirley Not really. Market orientation always wins out. Simon Cowell is proof of that.

Legally correct, however, economically you are so wrong it is untrue! A football club without fans has very little income whether that be direct or indirect income. The fans are the ones who pay for merchandise, tickets, food and that is so significant that if it was lost to the club then it wouldnt have a bloody ground (note that the loan for the expansion was based on future season ticket sales amongst other things). Without a ground I suspect we would struggle to get SKY along and any monies there would be lost. Basically the club cant operate without its core customers. To say that fans expenditure doesnt pay for the players wages isnt economically correct. It does. I have 2 economics degrees and am an professional economist so consider myself an expert in this field tbh. You pay to watch the match. Once you have seen it, then you have received the service you paid for. Of course revenue contributes to the cost base and therefore all sources of revenue are relevant to how a company remunerates its employees. However, from a purely economical point of view, the fan pays to see the game. Once the club has allowed you entrance onto its property, you have exchanged a service for your cash. The value of that service (seeing the game) is implicit in the price of the ticket. Its called 'making a market'. If you dont understand the nature of exchange in a market then there are a number of GCSE textboooks i could look up for you. Paying for a ticket does not entitle you to owt else apart from a seat at the match. If you pay to go and see a Scorsese film, do you think that entitles you to a say in how he makes his next film? No, it entitles you to a seat in the cinema and that is it. Same principle applies here. Where did you get those degrees from? WH Smiths? I am an economist too funnily enough and have taught economics for years. Your point was that the fan doesnt pay for the wage. I agre that directly he/she doesnt. However, without the fan there is little point in a ticket being printed. Simple as that. The fan base (or customer) will always indirectly pay the wages of the player. It really is that simple. We could wrap it up in all kinds of nonsense but the simple fact is that revenue generated from fans is the base of that market. Without that there is no player. Nb: Please don't use degrees like they are Top Trumps. Its hardly a recommendation these days.

Legally correct, however, economically you are so wrong it is untrue! A football club without fans has very little income whether that be direct or indirect income. The fans are the ones who pay for merchandise, tickets, food and that is so significant that if it was lost to the club then it wouldnt have a bloody ground (note that the loan for the expansion was based on future season ticket sales amongst other things). Without a ground I suspect we would struggle to get SKY along and any monies there would be lost. Basically the club cant operate without its core customers. To say that fans expenditure doesnt pay for the players wages isnt economically correct. It does.

He isnt anywhere near the outstanding as Alan Oliver likes to call him. Nor has he been of late. Still think the best centre half performance of the season was Titus at Arsenal. Thats why he is so frustrating. Any mong can see he has way more to his game than the likes of Ramage will ever have but he has burnt his bridges here. Gemmill is right though and I have mentioned several times that most of his cock ups tend to come later in the game when he is getting mentally fatigued. Taylor needs to be careful with believing his own hype. He has dropped a fair few clangers and the Geordie boy superman shite is still strong enough with some to sway their judgement. He will be fine if he gets his ego sorted.

I can just see Rio Ferdinand and John Terry now, fighting like fuck to hold onto the 0-0 draw, swamped by the opposition because the forwards and midfield players keep giving the ball away. Maybe they would improve the 4% possession we had in the Spurs last 3rd of the pitch or whatever it was last sunday. I'm sure it would be money well spent at the moment. I can just see Henry and Rooney now, twiddling their thumbs as the ball time and again rattles into the back of their net, devoid of possesion because their centre halves frantically fail to get to grips with the game at all. Maybe they would get a touch on the ball and improve on the 1-5 deficit we fell to against Birmingham, if their midfielders were able to spend more time supporting the attack instead of trying desperately to assist an ailing back four? I'm sure it would be money well spent. and those defenders would score as many goals as Watford if we are lucky and those strikers would be as stout in defence as sunderland, no doubt. seriously, you can't see that defenders are the priority and while we DO need strikers we should direct our attention to the weakest area of our squad? Once he digs a hole he believes the best way out is to keep digging. You should know that Gejon. Don't expect much sense

From your telescope in far off Canada, perhaps you could tell us all the clubs with great directors who have spent mega millions on players more than us at this stage Me telescope's in southern California, Anaheim to be exact, just doon the road from Disneyland. Mebbe ye should change yer name to Goofy fer yer F in geography. California, Canada ? Who cares, its a crap view in both cases, perhaps you could answer my question and tell us all these better directors than ours that have bought players while we haven't ? So you are saying that the board are having the last say on players? Gets better

you obviously wouldn't be one of those who stuck around when we were competing for the old 2nd division title when we had shit directors. Just to remind you. We qualified for europe 4 times in over 30 years, only one of which was by finishing in the top 5. Lets hope the next board will be better than that one ......... Maybe they wont see us getting hammered 1-5 at home to a side a division below us? How many other chairmen have that dubious honour amongst the top clubs?

From your telescope in far off Canada, perhaps you could tell us all the clubs with great directors who have spent mega millions on players more than us at this stage Still think we dont need defenders then?

Look man, none of these kids are fucking good enough. They'll never make it, they got shown up for what they were last night. Maybe so but that doesn't warrant the abuse or ironically the high expectations, if they are all indeed shite and we are shite, why the big outrage when one of those shite players plays shite or when we get beat 5-1. If anything, everyone is overachieving or playing beyond their ability, no? They arent good enough at the moment tbh. Taylor is decent. No better or worse at the moment. Some would have us believe he has been outstanding but I cant agree with that.Ramage was never cut out to be a Premiership footballer. That we are looking to put kids into a situation where they play on adrenalin for a while then say they are better than xyz is indicative of the average football fan. Its been that way for years. Too many to mention. I couldnt argue with the lad who reckoned Hutington will be at Darlo in years. Some of the mistakes that lot have made have gone unchallenged cos we want them to do well. If senior players do that then they get hammered. Thats the way it is. Rightly so maybe. However, its far from obvious that any of the kids we have will play at the top all of their career. As fans of a large club we deserve better. If it was managed correctly then this discussion wouldnt occur.

Too many to mention: Bournmouth in the cup in 1992 Charlton at home when we led 3-0 and lost Chester - losing 2-0 and Ian Rush scored We got hammered by Liverpool on telly 4-0 and Steve Nichol scored a hattrick. I was stood in piss from the overflowing portaloos when they were building the Milburn Stand. Partizan Belgrade wasnt embarrasing but it was (if you know what I mean) Wimbledon in the cup when Mirandihna kicked Beasant up the arse and me dad nearly had a fight with Bobby Gould.(we used to stand next to the away dugout)

Very true.

Been waiting to happen tbh. We have a weak squad, simple as that. We have too many average players and to many are content with them.

Think yourself lucky you didnt witness Bill McGarrys reign

He isnt quick enough in thought or on the ground. Seriously though, we do need a change of personnel. Too many average and weak players. You think pattison has got what it takes tho. Really? I wasnt aware of that. Or did you just make that up? Have a trawl through the spurs match thread No need to retard. Fully aware that I havent expressed that opinion. Please prove the point numbnuts. You may have more difficulty with that than you would do understanding Oedipus.

He isnt quick enough in thought or on the ground. Seriously though, we do need a change of personnel. Too many average and weak players. You think pattison has got what it takes tho. Really? I wasnt aware of that. Or did you just make that up?

He isnt quick enough in thought or on the ground. Seriously though, we do need a change of personnel. Too many average and weak players.

His final ball couldnt have been that bad in his first spell could it? Its about consistency obviously. You would have be blind not to recognise that Milner cannot consistently cross a ball. Some like him but they are mistaken if they think he is goo enough for a regular spot at club like ours. Clubs pulling in 50,000 people shouldnt be looking at players like him, put it that way. Not good enough and never will be. Consistent like SWP? Funny how his final ball is just as bad, but everyone seems to want to sign him. Unfortunately I think Gerrard and Ronaldo are unavailable, despite the size of our crowd. Who would you sign btw? Who mentioned SWP? Whoever we sign needs to be better than Milner thats for certain. If you think Milner is consistently good enough for us then I think you need to look a bit closer. Solano plays a decent ball more oten than not and certainly did an excellent job when he was a bit younger on the right. Sufficient for the worlds best team at the time - Madrid - to be interested in him. Somehow I doubt they will be after Milner. That is the least we deserve. Not someone like this kid. I know you didn't mention him, but he's the player most consistently linked with us. We're in a position where we have little or no money. I'd like to know your realistic option for replacing Milner. I'd rather have better players at the club (than most of the 11 tbh) but it's not gonna happen. If everyone is fit I would probably play Zog on the left and let him find his form as he is twice the player Milner will ever be, likewise Duff (who I would play on the right). Other options include wasting Dyer there or getting Nobby back up the pitch if we got a right back with some pace (which would help Nobby indirectly). I would, of course, prefer to replace him in the summer and keep him as backup - cant fault the kids work rate. As I dont play FM or have a scouting system akin to a Premier league club I have no idea who is playing in leagues around the world. I wasnt aware of the existence of Solano when he was at Boca. Perhaps there are players about.....that is their job, not mine. So the point of your constant criticism is to point out that there might be better players available out there? Ooh, you should be a pundit He's our best option at the moment. When we sign Joaquin we'll all be happy. There ARE better players out there. He is the best option when we have fuck all else. Hardly a commendation is it? That isn't the case when players are fit. If people are content with the level of performance from that kid then so be it. I'm not. Nor should you be.

Appalling. Better than Titus though

His final ball couldnt have been that bad in his first spell could it? Its about consistency obviously. You would have be blind not to recognise that Milner cannot consistently cross a ball. Some like him but they are mistaken if they think he is goo enough for a regular spot at club like ours. Clubs pulling in 50,000 people shouldnt be looking at players like him, put it that way. Not good enough and never will be. Consistent like SWP? Funny how his final ball is just as bad, but everyone seems to want to sign him. Unfortunately I think Gerrard and Ronaldo are unavailable, despite the size of our crowd. Who would you sign btw? Who mentioned SWP? Whoever we sign needs to be better than Milner thats for certain. If you think Milner is consistently good enough for us then I think you need to look a bit closer. Solano plays a decent ball more oten than not and certainly did an excellent job when he was a bit younger on the right. Sufficient for the worlds best team at the time - Madrid - to be interested in him. Somehow I doubt they will be after Milner. That is the least we deserve. Not someone like this kid. I know you didn't mention him, but he's the player most consistently linked with us. We're in a position where we have little or no money. I'd like to know your realistic option for replacing Milner. I'd rather have better players at the club (than most of the 11 tbh) but it's not gonna happen. If everyone is fit I would probably play Zog on the left and let him find his form as he is twice the player Milner will ever be, likewise Duff (who I would play on the right). Other options include wasting Dyer there or getting Nobby back up the pitch if we got a right back with some pace (which would help Nobby indirectly). I would, of course, prefer to replace him in the summer and keep him as backup - cant fault the kids work rate. As I dont play FM or have a scouting system akin to a Premier league club I have no idea who is playing in leagues around the world. I wasnt aware of the existence of Solano when he was at Boca. Perhaps there are players about.....that is their job, not mine.

His final ball couldnt have been that bad in his first spell could it? Its about consistency obviously. You would have be blind not to recognise that Milner cannot consistently cross a ball. Some like him but they are mistaken if they think he is goo enough for a regular spot at club like ours. Clubs pulling in 50,000 people shouldnt be looking at players like him, put it that way. Not good enough and never will be. Consistent like SWP? Funny how his final ball is just as bad, but everyone seems to want to sign him. Unfortunately I think Gerrard and Ronaldo are unavailable, despite the size of our crowd. Who would you sign btw? Guess you just summed it up for yourself. Who mentioned SWP? Whoever we sign needs to be better than Milner thats for certain. If you think Milner is consistently good enough for us then I think you need to look a bit closer. Solano plays a decent ball more oten than not and certainly did an excellent job when he was a bit younger on the right. Sufficient for the worlds best team at the time - Madrid - to be interested in him. Somehow I doubt they will be after Milner. That is the least we deserve. Not someone like this kid.

Some are fickle, one halfway decent cross isnt gonna sway my opinion. I just look at what a player does and assess whether he is going to do us any good long term. This kid is doing us a favour at the moment but he will never be the answer. I hope he proves me wrong. He isnt good enough for the (regular first team) shirt, like good few others. He seems a nice lad and tries hard. Nobody can complain about his work rate but even his Dad couldnt claim he did well on Sunday. He was very poor. Not for the first time.

His final ball couldnt have been that bad in his first spell could it? Its about consistency obviously. You would have be blind not to recognise that Milner cannot consistently cross a ball. Some like him but they are mistaken if they think he is goo enough for a regular spot at club like ours. Clubs pulling in 50,000 people shouldnt be looking at players like him, put it that way. Not good enough and never will be.

Quite.