Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Tbh, if Ashley was all about trying to make the club run on an even keel, why didn't he say that when he took over? Instead of buying fans drinks in Blu Bamboo, bringing back KK and telling everyone the money was there for KK to spend. I don't need an answer btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 As much as I love KK he was definately the wrong man. as evident by his results?...no by the way he got us playing?...no so what then? As evident by a chain of events that have lead to today. He was the wrong man, but not in the way you mean. He's not and never will be a 'yes' man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4857 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 As much as I love KK he was definately the wrong man. as evident by his results?...no by the way he got us playing?...no so what then? As evident by a chain of events that have lead to today. so KK was the wrong man because...he stood up to ashley when it became evident he was brought in under false pretences? or was it his fault that after he left (having been lied to and undermined) that ashley couldnt appoint a replacement capable of keeping us up? (including not having heart defects that prevented us from actually being managed for months) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Just wondering CT but could you explain how the same chain of events that demonstrate KK was the wrong man, also back up your claim Ashley is the owner the club needed? Seems a bit contradictory to me like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4827 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I think it's a tad unfair to lay all the blame at Ashleys door. My original point was had fred remained we could still be in the prem but in a much worse position (financially) or even worse, relegated and still financially fucked ( no interest free loans from freddy). I think the points you make about big wages, bonus payments etc only show an owner who at that time was prepared to sanction big deals. I think it went tits up with the KK appointment (which seemed rediculously rushed through). Had a proper appointment being made at this point in time then I think we would be in a much better situation today. As much as I love KK he was definately the wrong man. I only made the points about big wages because you were making a point about Ashley being the owner we needed, i.e. from a financial viewpoint, insinuating (it would seem) he was putting the club right even though all the big wage earners are on contracts he approved. Again, I'm sure you got all that but pretended otherwise. I see the point your making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4827 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Tbh, if Ashley was all about trying to make the club run on an even keel, why didn't he say that when he took over? Instead of buying fans drinks in Blu Bamboo, bringing back KK and telling everyone the money was there for KK to spend. I don't need an answer btw I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. He is the typical rich boy buying a good boozer and fucking it up. None of this takes away from the fact that had fat fred still been in charge during this further decline and financial crisis I think we would be royally fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Tbh, if Ashley was all about trying to make the club run on an even keel, why didn't he say that when he took over? Instead of buying fans drinks in Blu Bamboo, bringing back KK and telling everyone the money was there for KK to spend. I don't need an answer btw I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. He is the typical rich boy buying a good boozer and fucking it up. None of this takes away from the fact that had fat fred still been in charge during this further decline and financial crisis I think we would be royally fucked. Which initial actions were good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4827 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Just wondering CT but could you explain how the same chain of events that demonstrate KK was the wrong man, also back up your claim Ashley is the owner the club needed? Seems a bit contradictory to me like. not on an iPhone inbetween fares!!! But how do you think fred would have coped. We were already declining and fred would have just kept throwing good money after bad without any personal wealth to inject working capital. If we'd managed to stay up the wage bill would be even higher. Truly fucked IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4827 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Tbh, if Ashley was all about trying to make the club run on an even keel, why didn't he say that when he took over? Instead of buying fans drinks in Blu Bamboo, bringing back KK and telling everyone the money was there for KK to spend. I don't need an answer btw I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. He is the typical rich boy buying a good boozer and fucking it up. None of this takes away from the fact that had fat fred still been in charge during this further decline and financial crisis I think we would be royally fucked. Which initial actions were good? appointing mort, listenting to vans views and re-acting as in family section and singing sections. Trying to put some structure into the club.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 As much as I love KK he was definately the wrong man. as evident by his results?...no by the way he got us playing?...no so what then? As evident by a chain of events that have lead to today. He was the wrong man, but not in the way you mean. He's not and never will be a 'yes' man. That's about the crux of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Just wondering CT but could you explain how the same chain of events that demonstrate KK was the wrong man, also back up your claim Ashley is the owner the club needed? Seems a bit contradictory to me like. not on an iPhone inbetween fares!!! But how do you think fred would have coped. We were already declining and fred would have just kept throwing good money after bad without any personal wealth to inject working capital. If we'd managed to stay up the wage bill would be even higher. Truly fucked IMO Are you just going to keep changing the subject now you've tucked yourself in? I haven't even mentioned Shepherd. All you seem to be saying though is Ashley is good because there's an alternative scenario whereby Shepherd and the Halls could have gotten us into a worse state. I don't know how they'd have coped but they wouldn't have made a profit last January had we been we in a similar position with the old board in charge. Also, the noises coming out the club when they appointed Allardyce seemed to suggest they'd realised we were going to have to hold off on the spending a bit in any case. Most people were reasonably pleased with Allardyce only because it seemed he was an appropriate choice to work with a smaller budget (in the short to medium term anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Tbh, if Ashley was all about trying to make the club run on an even keel, why didn't he say that when he took over? Instead of buying fans drinks in Blu Bamboo, bringing back KK and telling everyone the money was there for KK to spend. I don't need an answer btw I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. He is the typical rich boy buying a good boozer and fucking it up. None of this takes away from the fact that had fat fred still been in charge during this further decline and financial crisis I think we would be royally fucked. Which initial actions were good? appointing mort , listenting to vans views and re-acting as in family section and singing sections. Trying to put some structure into the club.... rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Tbh, if Ashley was all about trying to make the club run on an even keel, why didn't he say that when he took over? Instead of buying fans drinks in Blu Bamboo, bringing back KK and telling everyone the money was there for KK to spend. I don't need an answer btw I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. He is the typical rich boy buying a good boozer and fucking it up. None of this takes away from the fact that had fat fred still been in charge during this further decline and financial crisis I think we would be royally fucked. Which initial actions were good? appointing mort, listenting to vans views and re-acting as in family section and singing sections. Trying to put some structure into the club.... Agree (apart from the structure) but that's all minor stuff with no positive impact on the actual team. The structure (i.e. mates he employed) was an absolute joke. If you try and do something with no idea how to implement it that's anything but a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Just wondering CT but could you explain how the same chain of events that demonstrate KK was the wrong man, also back up your claim Ashley is the owner the club needed? Seems a bit contradictory to me like. not on an iPhone inbetween fares!!! But how do you think fred would have coped. We were already declining and fred would have just kept throwing good money after bad without any personal wealth to inject working capital. If we'd managed to stay up the wage bill would be even higher. Truly fucked IMO Are you just going to keep changing the subject now you've tucked yourself in? I haven't even mentioned Shepherd. All you seem to be saying though is Ashley is good because there's an alternative scenario whereby Shepherd and the Halls could have gotten us into a worse state. I don't know how they'd have coped but they wouldn't have made a profit last January had we been we in a similar position with the old board in charge. Also, the noises coming out the club when they appointed Allardyce seemed to suggest they'd realised we were going to have to hold off on the spending a bit in any case. Most people were reasonably pleased with Allardyce only because it seemed he was an appropriate choice to work with a smaller budget (in the short to medium term anyway). Accurate. These blind anti-Halls and Shepherd comments will never cease.....shame because sometimes people make good posts until they start this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney 0 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 There's no way of knowing that Fred would have had the club financiallyfooked. The only evidence we have is of big spending and Mort's early soundbites. I'd take Freddy back today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4857 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 (edited) there seems to be an underlying assumption here that there are only two ways to run a football club and thats its either MA or halls/sheperd has anyone given thought to the idea that a third party(ie our next owner, whoever it may be) might do things differently to either, for better or worse Edited February 22, 2010 by Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I doubt there are many players on high money. Delboy has played hard ball on every contract, which is what led to Milner leaving and us getting 12m. The press make things up as they go along. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...uth/8519800.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney 0 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 there seems to be an underlying assumption here that there are only two ways to run a football club and thats its either MA or halls/sheperd has anyone given thought to the idea that a third party(ie our next owner, whoever it may be) might do things differently to either, for better or worse I know what you mean, but Shep has already spoken about buying us back. The problem, is that you look at Pompey, where the owners have seen a chance to make a quick profit, or have underestimated it as a play-thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I doubt there are many players on high money. Delboy has played hard ball on every contract, which is what led to Milner leaving and us getting 12m. The press make things up as they go along. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...uth/8519800.stm Barton, Nolan, Smith, Jonas, Enrique and Coloccini. Not to mention Geremi who we've only just shifted and only then because he was nearly out of contract (wouldn't be surprised if we paid the rest of his contract off in order to get rid). All on Ashley's watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. Surely that's a contradiction in itself? Coming into football club ownership for 'a bit of fun' is hardly good intentions and initial actions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. Surely that's a contradiction in itself? Coming into football club ownership for 'a bit of fun' is hardly good intentions and initial actions! Having good intentions means sweet fuck all anyway if you're clueless about what you're entering into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. Surely that's a contradiction in itself? Coming into football club ownership for 'a bit of fun' is hardly good intentions and initial actions! Having good intentions means sweet fuck all anyway if you're clueless about what you're entering into. Which, if I'm not mistaken, he basically admitted to last summer when he put us back on the market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I truly believe he did come into this for "a bit of fun" and that his intentions and initial actions were good. Surely that's a contradiction in itself? Coming into football club ownership for 'a bit of fun' is hardly good intentions and initial actions! Having good intentions means sweet fuck all anyway if you're clueless about what you're entering into. Which, if I'm not mistaken, he basically admitted to last summer when he put us back on the market? Unless he was lying to the fans. Again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 I have to say that I love the argument of "we'd be financially worse off under Shepherd", since when did Shepherd have to find £25m just to keep us alive for another few months? He didnt have to because he knew that out of everything that happens at the club, competing at the top level had to come first otherwise your balance sheets would be fooked. Shepherd never had to beg corporate box owners to renew, Shepherd never had to worry about getting the next sponsorship deal, More importantly Shepherd never ever had to find something to make up for Sky's payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Even if you argue the club was in big trouble financially under the previous regime it makes Ashley look an incompetent moron because he bought the thing without bothering to undertake due dilligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now