Things are looking up!

[manc-mag 1]

Any detail that Ashley wasn't meticulously aware of is entirely his own fault.

[Guest alex]

That's one deal he definitely didn't 'play hardball' on anyway. I can't fucking believe what he paid for the club when you factor in the debt.

[LeazesMag 0]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

 

There's a reason for this too. It's because they had no respect for the institution. There's a reason for that too.

 

I'll let you have a stab at it.

 

just think, instead of aiming for success and playing in the Champions League, europe regularly, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals and filling an expanded stadium every game, we could have been relegated and promoted umpteen times in front of a half full stadium, gave free tickets away and never qualified for europe once by not taking financial risks, just like the mackems.

 

Who also in fact, were in such financial shit street that they were sold for, what was it, about 10m quid

[manc-mag 1]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

 

There's a reason for this too. It's because they had no respect for the institution. There's a reason for that too.

 

I'll let you have a stab at it.

 

just think, instead of aiming for success and playing in the Champions League, europe regularly, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals and filling an expanded stadium every game, we could have been relegated and promoted umpteen times in front of a half full stadium, gave free tickets away and never qualified for europe once by not taking financial risks, just like the mackems.

 

Who also in fact, were in such financial shit street that they were sold for, what was it, about 10m quid

 

Because obviously they're the only two alternatives.

 

Rather than the Mackem example (not really sure of the relevance btw unless you consider us to be meaningfully comparable), it's more of an indictment that we were able to sign players who demonstrably could win trophies elsewhere but didn't here. Over an extended period of years and managers that fact speaks for itself tbh.

[Phil 6]

He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Unfortunately he took the option that we're still paying for.

 

That's not to say that Ashley would've spent more had we not had the debts we had.

 

I think people seem to believe that Ashley bought the club and on day 2 was told "oh theres another £150m debt you didnt know about".

 

Thats not the case, he knew exactly what the debt position was, he merely didnt know that some of it had to be paid back immediately.

 

Being asked to pay £57 million is a big deal....

[LeazesMag 0]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

 

There's a reason for this too. It's because they had no respect for the institution. There's a reason for that too.

 

I'll let you have a stab at it.

 

just think, instead of aiming for success and playing in the Champions League, europe regularly, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals and filling an expanded stadium every game, we could have been relegated and promoted umpteen times in front of a half full stadium, gave free tickets away and never qualified for europe once by not taking financial risks, just like the mackems.

 

Who also in fact, were in such financial shit street that they were sold for, what was it, about 10m quid

 

Because obviously they're the only two alternatives.

 

Rather than the Mackem example (not really sure of the relevance btw unless you consider us to be meaningfully comparable), it's more of an indictment that we were able to sign players who demonstrably could win trophies elsewhere but didn't here. Over an extended period of years and managers that fact speaks for itself tbh.

 

Lots of other clubs sign players who have won trophies elsewhere, but we demonstrably did better than most, especially when there are only 3 domestic ones to be won.

 

Disagree or not ?

 

Playing in the Champions League and europe as often as we did, the profile it gave us and the popularity of the Keegan and Robson years especially wasn't so bad.

 

Who exactly do you blame for these players not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big important games, any of which could have made the big breakthrough, by the way ?

[Christmas Tree 4433]

And throw into the mix what if Arry had said yes.........

[manc-mag 1]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

 

There's a reason for this too. It's because they had no respect for the institution. There's a reason for that too.

 

I'll let you have a stab at it.

 

just think, instead of aiming for success and playing in the Champions League, europe regularly, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals and filling an expanded stadium every game, we could have been relegated and promoted umpteen times in front of a half full stadium, gave free tickets away and never qualified for europe once by not taking financial risks, just like the mackems.

 

Who also in fact, were in such financial shit street that they were sold for, what was it, about 10m quid

 

Because obviously they're the only two alternatives.

 

Rather than the Mackem example (not really sure of the relevance btw unless you consider us to be meaningfully comparable), it's more of an indictment that we were able to sign players who demonstrably could win trophies elsewhere but didn't here. Over an extended period of years and managers that fact speaks for itself tbh.

 

Lots of other clubs sign players who have won trophies elsewhere, but we demonstrably did better than most, especially when there are only 3 domestic ones to be won.

 

Disagree or not ?

 

Playing in the Champions League and europe as often as we did, the profile it gave us and the popularity of the Keegan and Robson years especially wasn't so bad.

 

Who exactly do you blame for these players not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big important games, any of which could have made the big breakthrough, by the way ?

 

 

 

How many "great" players "turned shit" when they signed for the Toon? More than any other 'top' club tbh, happened as a matter of routine. It's what happens when you have no respect for your employer.

 

Why do you think this is such an extremist view btw and why do you counter it with absurd examples?

[LeazesMag 0]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

 

There's a reason for this too. It's because they had no respect for the institution. There's a reason for that too.

 

I'll let you have a stab at it.

 

just think, instead of aiming for success and playing in the Champions League, europe regularly, reaching 2 FA Cup Finals and filling an expanded stadium every game, we could have been relegated and promoted umpteen times in front of a half full stadium, gave free tickets away and never qualified for europe once by not taking financial risks, just like the mackems.

 

Who also in fact, were in such financial shit street that they were sold for, what was it, about 10m quid

 

Because obviously they're the only two alternatives.

 

Rather than the Mackem example (not really sure of the relevance btw unless you consider us to be meaningfully comparable), it's more of an indictment that we were able to sign players who demonstrably could win trophies elsewhere but didn't here. Over an extended period of years and managers that fact speaks for itself tbh.

 

Lots of other clubs sign players who have won trophies elsewhere, but we demonstrably did better than most, especially when there are only 3 domestic ones to be won.

 

Disagree or not ?

 

Playing in the Champions League and europe as often as we did, the profile it gave us and the popularity of the Keegan and Robson years especially wasn't so bad.

 

Who exactly do you blame for these players not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals and numerous other big important games, any of which could have made the big breakthrough, by the way ?

 

 

 

How many "great" players "turned shit" when they signed for the Toon? More than any other 'top' club tbh, happened as a matter of routine. It's what happens when you have no respect for your employer.

 

Why do you think this is such an extremist view btw and why do you counter it with absurd examples?

 

rubbish.

 

Who are these "great" players [give "examples"] and who do you blame for players not performing in 2 FA Cup Finals and other big games ? The directors ?

 

Tell us how many other clubs bought all these "great players" and qualified for europe more than we did too.

 

It isn't an "extremist view" btw, just one used by the likes of you to beat the previous owners with any stick you can think of. It is quite amazing that, having seen what has happened in the last few years, the penny still hasn't dropped with you.

[PaddockLad 16505]

And throw into the mix what if Arry had said yes.........

 

Bournemouth,West Ham,Pompey and Southampton.....he's managed them all, and they're all,or have been very recently, financially ruined....he's a fuckin jinx at best, and just happens, along with Sasha Gaydamak, to own significant amounts of land surrounding Fratton Park.....who'd have thought it?

[Craig 6575]

Sad thing is, Pompey fans still worship him and he couldn't give a fuck about them - what was his comment when he joined Spurs? My last chance to manage a big club - talk about a kick in the teeth.

 

And people think we were blinkered when it came to Keegan....

[Craig 6575]

FWIW despite what evidence there's been since to make me doubt anything that comes out of a Mike Ashley administered NUFC, I still believe Redknapp was talking bollocks when he claims he was offered a contract by us....

[Guest Insider]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

 

 

Sigh.

 

They back their chosen appointment. Understand ? Why would you appoint a manager then choose not to back him...errrmm....we have an owner now who does that very thing, unfortunately. In any walk of life, you appoint someone to a job and back him. Don't you ?

 

Get it ? Probably not.

 

 

So why didn't they get into debt and back Robson that summer instead of getting into debt and backing Souness? Is that a good decision?

[PaddockLad 16505]

Sad thing is, Pompey fans still worship him and he couldn't give a fuck about them - what was his comment when he joined Spurs? My last chance to manage a big club - talk about a kick in the teeth.

 

And people think we were blinkered when it came to Keegan....

 

I worked in Pompey in a shipyard for 6 months up until xmas and its seriously 50/50.....he dumped them twice, the first time because of Mandaric wanting to bring in a director of football, the poisition he was appointed to when he first went to the club. Then he went to Saints, never a good move regardless of the outcome in some fans' eyes...Milking the betting market when he went back, then deserting them again when bad times looked likely....in return for an FA cup win?

 

Why would Mort talk to him if he wasnt going to offer him the job?...I just think he didnt fancy the commute,and could probably work out for himself that ashley was a bit of a twat......but in saying that its a 6 hour round trip from Poole to north east London and back.

 

I think he was offered the job and I also think we dodged a bullet....Spurs fans must be fuckin bricking it

[LeazesMag 0]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

 

 

Sigh.

 

They back their chosen appointment. Understand ? Why would you appoint a manager then choose not to back him...errrmm....we have an owner now who does that very thing, unfortunately. In any walk of life, you appoint someone to a job and back him. Don't you ?

 

Get it ? Probably not.

 

 

So why didn't they get into debt and back Robson that summer instead of getting into debt and backing Souness? Is that a good decision?

 

 

in the summer of 2003 ? They spend the budget in the January on Woodgate ie forward planning and all of that....

 

Did they have the money at that time, that they later gave to Souness ?

 

You can't have it both ways ie slate them for not spending money they didn't have, then slate them for doing it

 

In hindsight [great thing this] maybe the booing of Sir Bob for only finishing 5th by the mongs sums up a lot of the expectation [and lack of appreciation] at that time ....

[Craig 6575]

Sad thing is, Pompey fans still worship him and he couldn't give a fuck about them - what was his comment when he joined Spurs? My last chance to manage a big club - talk about a kick in the teeth.

 

And people think we were blinkered when it came to Keegan....

 

I worked in Pompey in a shipyard for 6 months up until xmas and its seriously 50/50.....he dumped them twice, the first time because of Mandaric wanting to bring in a director of football, the poisition he was appointed to when he first went to the club. Then he went to Saints, never a good move regardless of the outcome in some fans' eyes...Milking the betting market when he went back, then deserting them again when bad times looked likely....in return for an FA cup win?

 

Why would Mort talk to him if he wasnt going to offer him the job?...I just think he didnt fancy the commute,and could probably work out for himself that ashley was a bit of a twat......but in saying that its a 6 hour round trip from Poole to north east London and back.

 

I think he was offered the job and I also think we dodged a bullet....Spurs fans must be fuckin bricking it

 

My ex-in-laws are from there - they're all Pompey fans and trust me, he's worshipped like a fucking saint although fuck knows why.

 

We talked to Redknapp - of that I have no doubt but I think he jumped to conclusions that it was the prelude to an offer. Whether we were going to offer him the job will never be known but I suspect that the presumption on his part resulted in Mort etc. sticking two fingers up to him...

[ChezGiven 0]

That's one deal he definitely didn't 'play hardball' on anyway. I can't fucking believe what he paid for the club when you factor in the debt.

 

Market value. Price per share x Number of shares. Not a lot of leeway when ownership was spread about so many brokers.

 

Shepherd was actively purchasing shares in the run up to the sale, this is sometime be referred to as 'buy-back' and can be used to reduce the supply of shares and keep the price at a certain level. There are many reasons for this but its often to do with a target price, which in turn comes from a need for investors to be comfortable with the product (the 'share' product - not the club).

[Matt 0]

He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Unfortunately he took the option that we're still paying for.

 

That's not to say that Ashley would've spent more had we not had the debts we had.

 

I think people seem to believe that Ashley bought the club and on day 2 was told "oh theres another £150m debt you didnt know about".

 

Thats not the case, he knew exactly what the debt position was, he merely didnt know that some of it had to be paid back immediately.

 

Being asked to pay £57 million is a big deal....

 

That's what happens when you don't do even the most basic of research- he moaned about the sponsorship cash having been paid up front- maybe he should have read the balance sheet before he bought the club then.

[Guest Insider]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

 

 

Sigh.

 

They back their chosen appointment. Understand ? Why would you appoint a manager then choose not to back him...errrmm....we have an owner now who does that very thing, unfortunately. In any walk of life, you appoint someone to a job and back him. Don't you ?

 

Get it ? Probably not.

 

 

So why didn't they get into debt and back Robson that summer instead of getting into debt and backing Souness? Is that a good decision?

 

 

in the summer of 2003 ? They spend the budget in the January on Woodgate ie forward planning and all of that....

 

Did they have the money at that time, that they later gave to Souness ?

 

You can't have it both ways ie slate them for not spending money they didn't have, then slate them for doing it

 

In hindsight [great thing this] maybe the booing of Sir Bob for only finishing 5th by the mongs sums up a lot of the expectation [and lack of appreciation] at that time ....

 

 

But they could have got into debt for Robson in the summer (buying a player in the prior January doesn't justify not strengthening in the summer) but instead chose to do so for Souness. Was this a good decision?

 

Yes or no.

[Guest Insider]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

 

 

Sigh.

 

They back their chosen appointment. Understand ? Why would you appoint a manager then choose not to back him...errrmm....we have an owner now who does that very thing, unfortunately. In any walk of life, you appoint someone to a job and back him. Don't you ?

 

Get it ? Probably not.

 

 

So why didn't they get into debt and back Robson that summer instead of getting into debt and backing Souness? Is that a good decision?

 

 

in the summer of 2003 ? They spend the budget in the January on Woodgate ie forward planning and all of that....

 

Did they have the money at that time, that they later gave to Souness ?

 

You can't have it both ways ie slate them for not spending money they didn't have, then slate them for doing it

 

In hindsight [great thing this] maybe the booing of Sir Bob for only finishing 5th by the mongs sums up a lot of the expectation [and lack of appreciation] at that time ....

 

 

Perhaps those 'mongs' at the time wondered why were hemorrhaging money in transfer fees compared to other clubs yet clubs on an even and in some cases, lesser, financial keel at the time were winning trophies and we weren't.

[LeazesMag 0]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

 

 

Sigh.

 

They back their chosen appointment. Understand ? Why would you appoint a manager then choose not to back him...errrmm....we have an owner now who does that very thing, unfortunately. In any walk of life, you appoint someone to a job and back him. Don't you ?

 

Get it ? Probably not.

 

 

So why didn't they get into debt and back Robson that summer instead of getting into debt and backing Souness? Is that a good decision?

 

 

in the summer of 2003 ? They spend the budget in the January on Woodgate ie forward planning and all of that....

 

Did they have the money at that time, that they later gave to Souness ?

 

You can't have it both ways ie slate them for not spending money they didn't have, then slate them for doing it

 

In hindsight [great thing this] maybe the booing of Sir Bob for only finishing 5th by the mongs sums up a lot of the expectation [and lack of appreciation] at that time ....

 

 

But they could have got into debt for Robson in the summer (buying a player in the prior January doesn't justify not strengthening in the summer) but instead chose to do so for Souness. Was this a good decision?

 

Yes or no.

 

Forget the personalities.

 

Is it a good idea to go into debt and aim for the Champions League ? My opinion is that if you want to compete at the highest levels like this you have to be prepared to go into debt or lose some money.

 

The personalities don't come into it, and I would not criticise them for trying it either in the event of it going wrong.

 

Are you going to answer your own question, without the personalities, this is a principle here, because you either back your chosen appointment or you do not.

Edited February 23, 2010 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Its all well and good criticising for going into debt because you want to push for success but the simple fact is that unless unless you have a sugar daddy then its the only way to do it.

 

People who are saying that we have swept the boards and can "rebuild" don't get it, when the time comes to go for success again, IF it comes, they are just going to have to go into debt again and just like last time no guarantee whatsoever that it will succeed. Relatively speaking, we actually did very well ie we had regular european football, 2 FA Cup Finals, lots of top quality players, but didn't even win the League Cup.

 

Personally, I blame the players for not performing in certain games, and the manager for picking wrong teams and tactics in certain games, but in no way whatsoever can I blame the board who fulfilled their part completeley by backing all their managers to the hilt and having teams good enough to have won something.

 

I think you're spot on tbh leazes

 

 

I don't. I remember that summer. We felt like we were closing in on something special. A couple of big players and we're challengers.

 

We signed Lee Bowyer.

 

From there... downhill.

 

 

We signed Woodgate in the January 2003 for 9m quid, instead of the summer when we may have had serious competition and the price would have gone up accordingly. Out of the budget, or forward planning, or whatever you want to call it.

 

I hope you aren't going to criticise them for not spending money they didn't have during that summer, instead of trying to continue to build while exercising sensible financial constraints ?

 

So you're saying it's sensible to not spend money we don't have after a season when we've just qualified for the Champions League, but acceptable to do so when not in the Champions League and Souness is our manager?

 

 

Sigh.

 

They back their chosen appointment. Understand ? Why would you appoint a manager then choose not to back him...errrmm....we have an owner now who does that very thing, unfortunately. In any walk of life, you appoint someone to a job and back him. Don't you ?

 

Get it ? Probably not.

 

 

So why didn't they get into debt and back Robson that summer instead of getting into debt and backing Souness? Is that a good decision?

 

 

in the summer of 2003 ? They spend the budget in the January on Woodgate ie forward planning and all of that....

 

Did they have the money at that time, that they later gave to Souness ?

 

You can't have it both ways ie slate them for not spending money they didn't have, then slate them for doing it

 

In hindsight [great thing this] maybe the booing of Sir Bob for only finishing 5th by the mongs sums up a lot of the expectation [and lack of appreciation] at that time ....

 

 

Perhaps those 'mongs' at the time wondered why were hemorrhaging money in transfer fees compared to other clubs yet clubs on an even and in some cases, lesser, financial keel at the time were winning trophies and we weren't.

 

Mongs is the correct word, for booing a team coming 5th in the league, and taking such a postion for granted, due to the higher standards that had been set for the preceding 12 years.

 

The 87 other clubs who had not qualified for europe as often as us during that period would have swapped positions with us, such was the "waste of money"

[Deano 0]

This has turned into one of the best threads on here in a LONG time!

[LeazesMag 0]

This has turned into one of the best threads on here in a LONG time!

 

all bow down to me

[Deano 0]

This has turned into one of the best threads on here in a LONG time!

 

all bow down to me

 

You and many others with very good points.

 

Iv not contributed even though i do have an opinion as i feel i may not know as much as some of you lot.

 

Very good read though!