Lack Of Fund Next Season Won't Be The Worst Thing For Newcastle

[Dr Gloom 22345]

clearly there has to be a balance between chasing the dream and making sure the club can survive if things go tits up.

[Guest alex]

clearly there has to be a balance between chasing the dream and making sure the club can survive if things go tits up.

Clearly, aye. But you mentioned carrying on the way we were could have led to financial meltdown or whatever which seems to imply things have gotten better rather than worse.

[Dr Gloom 22345]

clearly there has to be a balance between chasing the dream and making sure the club can survive if things go tits up.

Clearly, aye. But you mentioned carrying on the way we were could have led to financial meltdown or whatever which seems to imply things have gotten better rather than worse.

 

 

i hoped that the implication was some kind of balance between fat fred and ashley. in other words, spending some money (unlike mike), but not stupid money you don't have a'la fred.

 

i certainly wouldn't say things are better now than under fat fred. for all of shepherd's faults, he did have some ambition. there seems to be none of that now we're back in the top flight if the latest statement out of the club is to be believed.

 

looking at the debt levels at the club, i'm not convinced we wouldn't have turned into pompey if we had carried on spending the stupid money on wages and fees that we were under fat fred without champions league income.

[Dr Gloom 22345]

not spending silly money is wise

 

not spending any money is scary

 

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ?

 

 

smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start

 

so its with hindsight then ?

 

We could have overruled the manager though .......

 

money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded.

 

and if your signings are a success ?

 

fred was havign a punt though wasn't he? not quite at risdale levels but not far off. i agree most owners need to gamble to achieve success in football unless you have a multi-billionaire bankrolling it, but it should be a more calculated risk perhaps than the one fred was taking.

[Guest alex]

clearly there has to be a balance between chasing the dream and making sure the club can survive if things go tits up.

Clearly, aye. But you mentioned carrying on the way we were could have led to financial meltdown or whatever which seems to imply things have gotten better rather than worse.

 

 

i hoped that the implication was some kind of balance between fat fred and ashley. in other words, spending some money (unlike mike), but not stupid money you don't have a'la fred.

 

i certainly wouldn't say things are better now than under fat fred. for all of shepherd's faults, he did have some ambition. there seems to be none of that now we're back in the top flight if the latest statement out of the club is to be believed.

 

looking at the debt levels at the club, i'm not convinced we wouldn't have turned into pompey if we had carried on spending the stupid money on wages and fees that we were under fat fred without champions league income.

I think the noises made by Shepherd himself in the summer the club was bought and the employment of Allardyce suggested he'd realised we needed to tighten our belts a bit, in fairness to the previous regime. Roeder didn't get loads to spend either. Obviously the less said about Souness the better. The rest is supposition but I don't see us as being that similar to Portsmouth who were essentially a small club living way beyond their means and income streams.

Edited May 12, 2010 by alex

[LeazesMag 0]

not spending silly money is wise

 

not spending any money is scary

 

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ?

 

 

smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start

 

so its with hindsight then ?

 

We could have overruled the manager though .......

 

money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded.

 

and if your signings are a success ?

 

fred was havign a punt though wasn't he? not quite at risdale levels but not far off. i agree most owners need to gamble to achieve success in football unless you have a multi-billionaire bankrolling it, but it should be a more calculated risk perhaps than the one fred was taking.

 

 

It's got nowt to do with Fat Fred, or anybody. I'm not mentioning him at all or anybody else, so why are you doing it? The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't. This is just hindsight you are using here. Supporting your manager to the tune of the 3rd biggest club in the country and behaving like it is what you should be wanting.

[Dr Gloom 22345]

not spending silly money is wise

 

not spending any money is scary

 

how do you define "silly money". With hindsight ?

 

 

smith, vidulka, and for his contributions to the circus, barton....for a start

 

so its with hindsight then ?

 

We could have overruled the manager though .......

 

money that would threaten the club's future. obviously clubs don't survive without debt but it has to debt that is sustainable. if we'd carried on the way we were we could have imploded.

 

and if your signings are a success ?

 

fred was havign a punt though wasn't he? not quite at risdale levels but not far off. i agree most owners need to gamble to achieve success in football unless you have a multi-billionaire bankrolling it, but it should be a more calculated risk perhaps than the one fred was taking.

 

 

It's got nowt to do with Fat Fred, or anybody. I'm not mentioning him at all or anybody else, so why are you doing it? The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't. This is just hindsight you are using here. Supporting your manager to the tune of the 3rd biggest club in the country and behaving like it is what you should be wanting.

 

well yes, you can only tell the true value of a player at the end of his contract when you can look at his return vs what he cost.

 

... and i'd agree it's worth getting into some debt to chase some success - football ownership is all about gambling and i'd rather our owner took some punts and gave our manager some money to invest....unlike the current situation.

 

but debt has to be manageable. assuming an arab billionaire with an open cheque book doesn't buy the club any time soon, i would like to see us operate from a position somewhere inbetween our current owner and our previous owner. we've gone from extreme to another - reckless investment to zero investment.

[Ugly Mackems 134]

Despite the board stating that there will be no money for transfers next season I think that given the ability of Newcastle's sqaud that will still be fine in the Premiership.

 

http://www.footballfancast.com/football-bl...erned-by-stance

 

 

When was that said? I must have missed it completely.

[sammynb 3608]

The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't.

 

The thing that always gets me is NUFC's recent history, the last 10 years or so, is the persistence to take a punt on fuckwits and crocks.

Bowyer, Barton, Smith, Viduka, Woodgate and Bellamy (although he was a great player for us) even Carr, Dyer (we kept him when we should have sold him) and Owen.

They all had histories with loads of baggage and yet someone obviously thought, fuck it the fresh NE air will obviously clear their minds/attitudes/injuries let's sign them and pay them a kings ransom to sit in our treatment room or the local nick.

I realise anyone can turn out to be a crock or trouble but why the hell sign someone that already has that history?

Edited May 13, 2010 by sammynb

[sweetleftpeg 0]

We have a recent history of paying way over the odds for players who don't deliver for whatever reasons, and now we have a regime who want to spend fuck all. You can be sensible without being tight.

[Dr Gloom 22345]

We have a recent history of paying way over the odds for players who don't deliver for whatever reasons, and now we have a regime who want to spend fuck all. You can be sensible without being tight.

 

....is the point i was labouring to make

[Holden McGroin 6853]

Appreciate the thought, but you're wrong.

 

I agree, I think he is very wrong.

The nucleus of players we have are the ones who contributed to our downfall.

The influx of new players are not the same quality of the ones who left the sunken ship.

Simpson is nowhere near tha standard of Beye.

Williamson is questionable in regards to Bassong.

Best hasn't come even close to Martins.

Routledge might be a winner in regards to Duff or Milner.

Without additional quality players I honestly can't see us staying up with what we have.......but I'd like to think so.

 

Seriously? Duff is attempting to get fit for a Europa Cup Final tomorrow and Milner was included in Capello's 30 man squad. You could make a case for Routledge being as good as or slightly better than Duff, but definitely not for Milner.

 

Routledge has already shown that he can't cut it in the premier league. He's still in the group of players that are championship quality until he shows otherwise IMO.

 

He had one good season a Crystal Palace in PL so he might be able to cut it if he is on top of his game.

[Kitman 2207]

The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't.

 

The thing that always gets me is NUFC's recent history, the last 10 years or so, is the persistence to take a punt on fuckwits and crocks.

Bowyer, Barton, Smith, Viduka, Woodgate and Bellamy (although he was a great player for us) even Carr, Dyer (we kept him when we should have sold him) and Owen.

They all had histories with loads of baggage and yet someone obviously thought, fuck it the fresh NE air will obviously clear their minds/attitudes/injuries let's sign them and pay them a kings ransom to sit in our treatment room or the local nick.

I realise anyone can turn out to be a crock or trouble but why the hell sign someone that already has that history?

 

I think sometimes we've had to gamble on heed-the-balls and crocks to get the quality we wanted. Gambles which by and large haven't paid off. In fact Barton's been both a crock and trouble, yet we stil hope and pray he'll come good 'cos there's no-one else. tbf I don't think Dyer had a bad injury record when we signed him from Ipswich. Take your point though.

[sammynb 3608]

The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't.

 

The thing that always gets me is NUFC's recent history, the last 10 years or so, is the persistence to take a punt on fuckwits and crocks.

Bowyer, Barton, Smith, Viduka, Woodgate and Bellamy (although he was a great player for us) even Carr, Dyer (we kept him when we should have sold him) and Owen.

They all had histories with loads of baggage and yet someone obviously thought, fuck it the fresh NE air will obviously clear their minds/attitudes/injuries let's sign them and pay them a kings ransom to sit in our treatment room or the local nick.

I realise anyone can turn out to be a crock or trouble but why the hell sign someone that already has that history?

 

I think sometimes we've had to gamble on heed-the-balls and crocks to get the quality we wanted. Gambles which by and large haven't paid off. In fact Barton's been both a crock and trouble, yet we stil hope and pray he'll come good 'cos there's no-one else. tbf I don't think Dyer had a bad injury record when we signed him from Ipswich. Take your point though.

 

Dyer didn't when we signed him but when Leeds allegedly offered a huge transfer fee for him, he was starting to exhibit a liking for both the treatment table and spending nights on the quayside, hence why I included him, especially as at the time he was given a new contract on huge money.

[LeazesMag 0]

We have a recent history of paying way over the odds for players who don't deliver for whatever reasons, and now we have a regime who want to spend fuck all. You can be sensible without being tight.

 

....is the point i was labouring to make

 

 

amazing how you cherry pick .......

[LeazesMag 0]

The point is that if a player performs then it is money well spent, if he doesn't then it isn't.

 

The thing that always gets me is NUFC's recent history, the last 10 years or so, is the persistence to take a punt on fuckwits and crocks.

Bowyer, Barton, Smith, Viduka, Woodgate and Bellamy (although he was a great player for us) even Carr, Dyer (we kept him when we should have sold him) and Owen.

They all had histories with loads of baggage and yet someone obviously thought, fuck it the fresh NE air will obviously clear their minds/attitudes/injuries let's sign them and pay them a kings ransom to sit in our treatment room or the local nick.

I realise anyone can turn out to be a crock or trouble but why the hell sign someone that already has that history?

 

I think sometimes we've had to gamble on heed-the-balls and crocks to get the quality we wanted. Gambles which by and large haven't paid off. In fact Barton's been both a crock and trouble, yet we stil hope and pray he'll come good 'cos there's no-one else. tbf I don't think Dyer had a bad injury record when we signed him from Ipswich. Take your point though.

 

When we signed Dyer he was arguably the hottest property outside the premiership, with no injury record at all hardly.

 

The manager at the time, Allardyce, thought he could man-manage Barton so it is quite right to back him. I wouldn't argue with Viduka. Bellamy was a fantastic signing and should never have been sold. Smith, bowyer and Woodgate [all ex Leeds ?] were quality players at varying degrees, nobody at the time argued against them especially Woodgate. Same with Owen. The club needed a replacement for Shearer, injury record or not, nobody could have foreseen him missing a whole season and picking up such a bad injury he was not the same again.

 

I would accept we paid too much wages for some players but again you have to pay the going rate if you want to sign good players, and keep good players.

 

We should not be competing at the levels of the likes of Bolton, Wigan etc