Toonpack

We may yet spend our (ridiculously high) windfall, and no he's not implying owt man!, he's keeping the players in question motivated, that's sort of his job !!!! Based on current league position, we're having our best season since 2004 thus far.

Chelsea's cash, and the little he got from Babel (or was it the other bloke). It wasnt new money. and what you want Pardew to say??? oh were fucked because they're shit

Better chance he stays if indeed that happens

I don't think you saw enough of Carr [prior to his knee recon], otherwise you wouldn't be throwing around such rash statements. ...................... btw we've signed players with dodgy fitness records as well under the previous regime, moves that payed dividends as well. A particular Andrew Cole springs to mind, and his record was shocking on this front before KK signed him. As said before they sometimes come off & sometimes they dont, that's the volatile nature of what is a speculative market. Life must be a beautiful living within the exclusive clours of black & white, when one views life through hindsight tinted glasses. Carr cost us £2m. sigh. The same summer Carr was bought [2m], Bobby Robson bought Milner [5m], Kluivert [free, but allegedly on a good contract which is the name of the game nowadays], and Butt [2.5]. Previous years to that, he bought Woodgate [9m], Bowyer [free], Viana [8m], Bramble [6m], and speculated on the potential of Ambrose. It's difficult to see how you equate such backing with that of the current owner, there is no comparison as to who backed their manager most and who attempted to show the ambition to keep the club riding high. You constantly harp on about not spending money we don't have, then complain that they should have spent more ie in the case of Carr. These signings were, as a group, all players the manager wanted to bring to the club, within sensible and acceptable financial constraints of the club, varying between speculative ones and proven ones to try and stay in europe and compete at the top levels. You either preach sensible spending or you don't. Missing the point completely, as per, comprehension boy you're a fuckin arsehole, no comprehension problems there lad. You're senile and your marbles are so long gone they've been reincarnated into full life spans of 12 different goldfish I'm right and you know it. You don't even know what the conversation is about most of the time just keep digging Are you starting to think of a new username yet Digging what? I'm laughing at you, you tool. You came on this morning with a reply completely unrelated to the conversation, as per. You're the forum's very own joke monkey. You just type random stuff. Like keep digging. Wtf omg In previous years, this week we were 2004 5th 2005 13th 2006 14th 2007 10th 2008 13th 2009 13th 2010 n/a 2011 9th Borrowed from Leazes being dismantled elsewhere (again)

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league. What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club. I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible. When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias. I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold. What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football. Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred From a totally independent/review/source http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

5un1uns Accounts: Key highlights are; Turnover is flat at £65m. However in there you have TV revenue +11% being offset by reductions in gate receipts (-9%), sponsorship (-4%), conferencing (-22%) and retail (-16%). Wages:Turnover ratio has increased to 82.2%, up from 76.8% in 2009. Loss for the year has increased to -£27.9m, up from a loss of -£26.5m in 2009. The 4 directors (Quinn, Walton, Callaghan & Byrne) paid themselves £1.12m, down from £1.94m the previous year. The highest paid director (doesn't state who) earned £326k (down from £888k in 2009). Ellis Short wrote off £19m of existing loans due from the club and invested a further £22.4m in the year to July 2010. These are interest free unsecured loans. Due to the losses made, Sunderland's directors have had to request a commitment from Ellis Short that he is willing and able to continue to support the operations of the company for the foreseeable future. Short has provided this. The club spent £39.3m in transfer fees in the year and recouped £12.0m. The club still owes £15.5m on transfer fees plus potentially another £6.5m depending on performance of players bought.

Not sure I agree on the worse pitches tbh, the modern grass is an evil bastard, let's face it, it trips up these millionaire superstars anytime they go near another player.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential. Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises. exactly. He's another dope who doesn't seem to get it and takes a point to the extremes. If you don't need to show ambition, why do the successful clubs do it ? What a prick. At least he's not responding to me this time Tbf Leazes, you're guilty of that too. You oversimplify the matter at hand and take it to extremes too. I agree with your sentiment but ASM's view (or some of his views) have merit too. As do manc-mag's. You can just say 'ambition' is required then not qualify that. You can't just point to the previous regime as they couldn't have done things in the same way in the current climate. That's not a defence of Ashley but, on the whole, ASM doesn't defend Ashley either. manc-mag certainly doesn't. Just saying like. While I accept what you say, ASM cherry picks and genuinely thinks you can put together a good team and reach the heights of the ex board by buying exclusively from the lower leagues and bargain basements, which is simply not possible, it has never happened. MancMag too, seems to think that all I want is big money players, I've stated numerous times that buying the best proven players from other clubs is only part of it, but it lays down statements, it increases your profile and status [see maximising financial potential] and attracting other top footballers. Both come under the same barrier. Success costs money, consistent success costs big money, this has ALWAYS been the way. MancMag has made reference to "trophy players" in the thread about Benny Arentoft, then tried to say it is me derailing the thread. Pathetic. The winners take gambles, the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. Look through history, including our own, and you will see this is the reality of football. Have you said where the stake for the gamble's comming from yet ?? (if we hadn't sold Carroll) I'd love us to plash the cash and maybe we will in the summer, no excuse if we don't as we actually have some spare cash. BTW Liverpool (the gamblers) broke even on dealings in January, which is what the owners insisted on.

Was Hughtons job all but signed but he got greedy with a demand for a "keep them up" bonus, so they blew him off.

He's had/got the flu, but didn't want it to be known before the game according to the blokey who beat him

This. It's obscene that anyone gets more in a week for kicking a ball than a doctor gets in a year, but that's the going rate for top players. What you going to do about it? Salary cap? Much more complicated to apply to football than it is to the big four American sports, because players can move to different countries with different currencies, standards of living and tax laws. For a salary cap to work properly you also need a limit on squad sizes, transparency on wages & contracts (which will never happen) and a draft system (which will definitely never happen). Agree re the salary cap difficulties, the only thing that could be done IMO, is to revenue share completely evenly, i.e. all competition and TV dosh is shared between all the teams (including the Champs League riches) but teams should be able to keep their own generated income (matchday and merchandise) that way supporting your team actually counts for something.

smashing bloke too. I remember his "favoured" position in my Newcastle affections, as a kid, was reinforced when I got a new Newcastle Subbuteo team and one of the players hadn't had his hair painted - Instant Bene

One of my first ever favourite players

From a Gallowgate regular

because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ??? "Turnover" Ah that thing we were spending 80%-ish of on player wages He's fucking gormless

because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ???

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ??

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ??

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 that isn't what I asked either. He has explained all the other clubs are in debt, where do they get their money from, would they swap places with debt free clubs ? I suspect you already know the answer to that one, seeing as you don't reply. Do you understand the concept of speculate to accumulate in football or would you rather go completely back to the days of Seymour and Mckeag ? Where can the stash we're going to speculate with coming from Leazes, FFS'd bled our original stake dry, so REALLY simple question, where's the money comming from ????

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... But currently we are not, so where's the money come from ???

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ????

Ashley wasn't spending... Shepherd would be spending long-term, Ashley isn't and will not. Like he did the summer we got Bowyer in, that summer which started our decline

Utter Utter shit

Who else are we going to get? I will take Freddy in a heartbeat. Cracking justification Seriously, have a fucking word man! Are you really going to deny that under Shepherd we weren't experiencing good times? How can you possibly see him as a bad chairman? Yes he ran up debt, but any club doing well in the modern day (without a billionaire needs to be in debt). Times change. We had good times under Shepherd primarily because of the appointments of KK and SBR. The absolute abominations we were served up under Dalglish, Gullit, Souness and Roeder proves it was fuck all to do with Shepherd. He'd be a fucking disaster coming back now. Why do you think we could appoint world class managers like SBR? With Ashley, Hughton was as good as it gets and look what happened to him. Seriously, we will never ever attract a good manager under Ashley. Shepherd for all he was, could do that. Moreover, we had Keegan. He fucked off soon after he realised what he was dealing with regards to Ashley. We attracted two decent managers during Shepherd's time at the club. Both who had massive sentimental attachment to the club. All the rest were fucking garbage. Seriously, say Shepherd come in tomorrow. Who are you telling me he'd appoint as manager? I'd love to know. Whoever the administrator would let him Administrator? What the fuck are you going on about? If FFS was in charge the Administrator wouldn't be far behind