NJS

How about we can't affford to be anything else in 2011 without a rich underwriter? Where will the money for your push-on come from?

I've said on numerous occasions that the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance a change of direction was needed [same as after Gullit and Dalglish]. The point is, the new owner, "hasn't done better" has he ? There is NO excuse for NUFC becoming a selling club again, selling our best players above the managers head and not backing him with the cash, and settling for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn. I would like an oil Sheikh or a Russian mega billionaire just like anybody else, but the new owner has not done better, and these people ALL said that anybody would do better. They wanted someone who would stop buying trophy players, stay out of the limelight, stop renting warehouses, taking small change dividends etc, but thought the ambition was automatic . My point was ALWAYS that the ambition was NOT automatic, so the next owner was not guaranteed to be better at all. And since he took over, we have been relegated, we set our sights lower, the profle and appeal of the club has gone down and accordingly revenues against our competitors, our best players look elsewhere to fulfill career ambitions. If THAT is better, and not a decline, what would they call a decline ? NJS is actually endorsing the fact that we shouldn't have spent more than 12.7m quid on transfers in over a decade, and shouldn't have expanded the stadium - or if he agrees with it, seems to think we should have done it without taking out a loan ? Does he think we should have saved the money up first ? It's mind boggling, and blind hatred gone mad. Maybe they HAD taken us as far as they could, but no way in the world would we have been relegated and settled for competing at the levels we do now. My point is that - during their time - they reached levels which may not be matched for decades, yes. As I've also said, comparing it to the era now, is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be as good as current players because he played with a heavier ball and heavier boots. You can only compete with the situation and competitors at the time. The new owner is not "better", despite the assertions that "anybody" would be. No he didn't ,and now you are stating it as fact. That's what I said - where' the endorsment of 12.7m LM?

It also needs to be combined with good management - as Villa and the Mackems testify. Spurs have hovered around 4th to 8th for the past 5 or 6 years with a decent squad - major transfer profits over a couple of years then allowed them to push on a bit. We'd need such a huge boot up even to their level. aye, sure. Anybody but Fred, you would have swapped their period 1992-2007 for ours How the fuck does that reply relate to anything? My point is they spent the millions you advocate now (without a source) and have got no return for it. Where do I say I'd rather have been a fan of those previously? Start reading the posts instead of just repeating your stock phrases or fucks sake.

Well if you're sticking to 2007 then you're arguments are even more screwed - I mentioned 96 as that when the profile/revenues were increasing drastically - by 2007 they were a dead end. "Worldwide audience" - yeah I can just imagine the entire US watching it - I did watch it and can't even remember any great booing - another cae of you seeing/hearing what you want. You've mentioned that 7th season as an argument against a decline on dozens of occasions on here - you've also used the phrase "regroup" regarding that time again and again I'll not embarass you by doing a search. Unfortunately as I said the fact that they were plotting their exit doesn't back up that view. Still waiting on how we're going to fund the push-on.

It also needs to be combined with good management - as Villa and the Mackems testify. Spurs have hovered around 4th to 8th for the past 5 or 6 years with a decent squad - major transfer profits over a couple of years then allowed them to push on a bit. We'd need such a huge boot up even to their level.

I'm 100% sure I went to more matches than you between 1980 and 2009 so you can cut that "weren't a fan" shit for starters - I didn't go to Shearer's testimonial because I was never a fan of the man. Ambition is fine but you should really read that article on the Premierleague - no clubs are competing based on revenues or by loans other than those underwritten. Liverpool now have twice the rurnover we ever had and still make a large loss which has to be underwritten. This is now. It's not 1996 when wages weren't that bad and having a bigger crowd meant more purchasing power. Over the entire length of the previous regime no profits were made which is perfectly fine as any spare money was spent on the team - great - we all want to see that. However money was also spent that was sourced from loans which is fine if success is "gauranteed" but by 2007 that wasn't the case - you are the only person on the planet who thinks finishing 7th heralded a brave new era - as proved by the 13th the next year. You also have to recognise that the Halls wanted out - if a new era was about to happen then that one act alone proves you wrong on that point. The one question you keep avoiding is the big one - how would you fund your push for the top? You keep mentioning revenues. If we got the full £40 from a strip and they ran a magical free marketing campaign and sold 250,000 thats £10m - enough for one Cheik Tiote with wages - how will you then fund the other 10 we need to compete?

The only people who said anyone but Fred were the voices in your head. no point going any further. You're on drugs you stupid arsehole. Wtf do you think they booed him at Shearers testimonial for ? Fuck me. You bury your head in the sand when you talk about politics, now you are doing the same when you talk about NUFC. Lovely edit to ignore the other points. I don't presume to speak for other fans the way you do - maybe a few spoilt kids were just pissed off with how shit we were by then?

Our highest ever profit was in 2003 of £4.3 Million Since 1998 (can't find further back) we've made profit in aggregate of £12.7 Million, in the same time the total losses aggregate at £143.2 Million. are you saying we shouldn't have spent more than 12.7 million quid in the transfer market since 1998 ? You can add the £56m debt they left to that. so you are saying they shouldn't have spent more than 12.7m quid in the transfer market since 1998 and shouldn't have expanded the stadium either ? They should have done but you have to accept that in 2007 with credit streams running out and a poor-ish squad that the debt would have become a problem - that's why they got out then. Of course as we've also said it was the managerial appointments that had led to declining performances that had pur pressure on them financially.

The only people who said anyone but Fred were the voices in your head. Why don't you address the point that all of the premier league clubs only survive through underwritten debt rather than by revenues? When will you get it through your head that nobody actually supports Ashley? When will you realise that everyone wants us to compete but realise it is impossible as it stands. When will you realise that football has changed and the Halls COULD NOT RUN THE CLUB NOW AS THEY DID THEN.

Our highest ever profit was in 2003 of £4.3 Million Since 1998 (can't find further back) we've made profit in aggregate of £12.7 Million, in the same time the total losses aggregate at £143.2 Million. are you saying we shouldn't have spent more than 12.7 million quid in the transfer market since 1998 ? You can add the £56m debt they left to that.

Doesn't matter. Almost every club in the premier league can't survive let alone compete based on revenues alone. This is the fact in 2011. As Chez pointed out they couldn't afford to do it in 2007 and that's why they sold. It's about the now not the then. no answer then ? You scorned regular european football, the signing of top players, and said anybody else would do better ? Did you ? No as I've said many times I enjoyed it as much as you (well more because I went to all the Eurpoean games give or take) - the thing is LM nobody but you thinks that anyone ever wanted rid of the Halls while they were in because we were on that rollercoaster - its only in hindsight we realise it was built on sand.

Howare you going to pay for it in 2011, given that there are no new revenue streams at the level required. Practicalities.

Listen, I've got to go out. I'm not interested in your excuses for Mike Ashley. If I knew how to raise money [like the Halls and Shepherd knew how to raise money] I'd be doing the job and bringing out the sort of salary that you despise anyway. As Mike Ashley is such a super businessman, I'm sure when he put in place measures which have lost revenues he had suitable alternatives to the ones the hopeless Halls and Shepherd put into place that brought european football and an expanded stadium ? Yes ? Is this too difficult for you ? If YOU are happy to be a 2nd rate selling club again, more fool you, but some of us don't under-sell the club. bump for NJS. As he is in selective response mode again. I replied to this - their methods won't work in 2011. Even if you increased reveunes by 50% it would be chicken feed comapred with the money spent, not just by Chelsea et al, but with that spent by Villa and Sunderland for no return. As I said their primary method for "raising money" was debt.

Doesn't matter. Almost every club in the premier league can't survive let alone compete based on revenues alone. This is the fact in 2011. As Chez pointed out they couldn't afford to do it in 2007 and that's why they sold. It's about the now not the then.

so he took us down into the 2nd division, where the Halls and Shepherd picked us up from the floor of, and started selling our best players again ? Nothing to do with the point - he meant new oweners as in the other clubs - classic phrase bot.

Listen, I've got to go out. I'm not interested in your excuses for Mike Ashley. If I knew how to raise money [like the Halls and Shepherd knew how to raise money] I'd be doing the job and bringing out the sort of salary that you despise anyway. As Mike Ashley is such a super businessman, I'm sure when he put in place measures which have lost revenues he had suitable alternatives to the ones the hopeless Halls and Shepherd put into place that brought european football and an expanded stadium ? Yes ? Is this too difficult for you ? If YOU are happy to be a 2nd rate selling club again, more fool you, but some of us don't under-sell the club. No acknowledgement of changed times as usual - do you really not realise the difference between 1994 and 2011? Lost revenues? - chicken feed in the scheme of things - even if it was 50m a year which it isn't how high would that get you? The Halls did not "raise money" - they used the expansion of the club from promotion with tv revenues as a platform to go public and then borrrowed, borrowed and borrowed again against the club. How will that work now in 2011?

Why can't you realise that most people know and accept that the previous regime ran the club well but: 1. Their methods wouldn't work now - just an acknowledgment would be good. 2. How would you raise the money to mount the challenge we all agree we should make?

I think it's LM's suggestion that there's nothing stopping Ashley (without using his personal wealth) from running the club the same way as previously and achieviing any kind of similar success in 2011 that is the most flabbergasting. I'm not sure what the maximum profit figure ever achieved was but I'm pretty sure whatever it was repeated over even 5 years wouldn't fund the squad improvement necessary.

The way he said it was crass but I think what he was trying to say was that in "date rape" cases which come down to his word against hers, juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of say a 20 year sentence (even if it gets that far) whereas if the bloke was persuaded to plead guilty for a 5 year sentence at least there's be some justice and more convictions. My view has always been that being raped by someone you know/trust "makes up" for the fear of death factor in knifepoint cases and makes them equal.

You could of course point out the logical fallacy of being "right" based on future predictions. I agree its unlikely we'll see success under Ashley but until his reign of terror is actually over you can't judge it in its entirety.

Taking advantage of experience/knowledge of the tides and sand banks to get day trippers to the beach into trouble was something else we did.

Too old but taking some certification exams over the next few weekends.

I think I've said before that in my darker moments I think losing a third of the human race (or more) might actually be good from a big picture angle - the only thing that would do that is something as big as a meteor/comet strike. Muslims? Boils down to a probable 3 choices in general terms: The "Third world" - most of Africa and maybe bits of South America and Asia. All religious fucktards of any and all types. Chinese + Indians - no prejudice really - just to keep it sort of neat (probably add the Yanks into that group just for a laugh) While were offending people, don't forget the gays and maybe the western underclasses. Nothing whatsoever against gays (with the added lack of breeding potential as well) - have thought about an IQ/fashion sense based cull in the UK specifically though.

Man City have spent about £300m to get to 3rd/4th. Villa and the Mackems have spent millions for almost no return. I think you need a comnbination of money and good management but sadly if Ashley won't invest and discarding a sale, all the increased profits in the viable world won't fund substantial resources. I agree we could and should be up there - practicalities is another thing.

I think I've said before that in my darker moments I think losing a third of the human race (or more) might actually be good from a big picture angle - the only thing that would do that is something as big as a meteor/comet strike. Muslims? Boils down to a probable 3 choices in general terms: The "Third world" - most of Africa and maybe bits of South America and Asia. All religious fucktards of any and all types. Chinese + Indians - no prejudice really - just to keep it sort of neat (probably add the Yanks into that group just for a laugh)