Robbie Keane

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

 

LeazesMag your argument would stand up so much better if Hall/Shepard had won anything or hadn't left us in the shit. It bugs the hell out of me that you attribute Keegan and Robson's good work to Hall/Shepard, while justifying it by comparing shit to shitter.

 

I don't attribute Keegans good work or Bobby Robsons to the Halls and Shepherd and you won't find a post saying so.

 

So why don't you bugger off and stop making things up.

 

Your first point is stupid too by the way, loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

Please explain why the trophy winners don't loan players instead of buying them if you think they are doing it wrong. Laughable.

 

As I've explained to thompers, unless you understand the shit the club was in when the previuos owners found it, and put it against the position it was in when they sold it, you are talking absolute bollocks too.

Edited August 30, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Gejon 2]

The forums broken, everytime I click on a link in the football thread I come back here.

 

Admin?

[Guest]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

 

LeazesMag your argument would stand up so much better if Hall/Shepard had won anything or hadn't left us in the shit. It bugs the hell out of me that you attribute Keegan and Robson's good work to Hall/Shepard, while justifying it by comparing shit to shitter.

 

I don't attribute Keegans good work or Bobby Robsons to the Halls and Shepherd and you won't find a post saying so.

 

So why don't you bugger off and stop making things up.

 

Your first point is stupid too by the way, loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

Please explain why the trophy winners don't loan players instead of buying them if you think they are doing it wrong. Laughable.

 

As I've explained to thompers, unless you understand the shit the club was in when the previuos owners found it, and put it against the position it was in when they sold it, you are talking absolute bollocks too.

 

 

So if Ashley goes to the bank and asks them for a loan to buy some players, and they refuse as we're running at a loss, do you think that they'd change their mind if he explained that we were shit in 1991/1992? You're fucking bananas buddy

[Guest]

Mike Ashley will at least equal the number of major honours Shepherd had to show for his massive ambition. Are you going to bet me or not?

 

If not, then shut the fuck up

 

so Portsmouth had fab owners because they won the FA Cup ?

 

Make your mind up lad.

 

 

So Leeds had fab owners because they qualified for the Champions League and spent big money

 

Make your mind up lad

 

do you not want to play in the Champions League again ?

 

Kindly tell us how we should do it.....

 

By getting into a position where the club runs at a profit , as opposed to a loss. These profits can then by invested to buy good players.

 

Spending lots on players whilst running at a loss is a little bit silly, do you agree?

 

Do you understand that if you're running at a loss, that no expendable income is earned to spend on players? Therefore the only way to buy would be to borrow?

 

Do you agree that borrowing money to buy players whilst the club is running at a loss is irresponsible?

 

please tell us, in your idealistic little world, which clubs have done this

 

Have you read and tried to absorb the basic fundamental football-business points which PP explained to you ?

 

 

Man Utd and Arsenal.

 

Those that actually qualify for the Champions League

[brummiemag1 0]

Why don't you just get a room? Take the endless bickering about the past to pm? No one else is interested

 

I'm interested in these sort of debates and arguments - I think they are important because after all we are talking about the longer term future of the club - and I agree with Leazes Mag

 

A lot of people, particularly on NO are getting excited because we have had a couple of results and one lad has described it as a "canny transfer window"

 

FFS we have signed a Forest utility player, a bloke whose injured until Xmas, an overweight has been and a loan player - this is hardly the makings of longer term progress.

 

Ashley has got lucky in that Hughton is turning into a quietly effective Manager and players like Carrol are progresing faster than I expected.

 

If the billionaire Ashley was prepared to spend 20 - 25 million a year net for the next 4 or 5 years then we just might be able to challenge for major honours again in 4 or 5 years time. It seems he has no intention of doing so. In addition to the shameful treatment of Keegan and lieing to the fans he has no ambition whatsoever and unless we spend significant amounts of money year on year the best we will ever be is a mediocre premier league team whose main ambition will be year on year survival.

 

For a club with our fanbase and potential we should be one of the powerhouses of Europe and Ashleys's lack of ambition is completely unacceptable

[Guest]

Why don't you just get a room? Take the endless bickering about the past to pm? No one else is interested

 

I'm interested in these sort of debates and arguments - I think they are important because after all we are talking about the longer term future of the club - and I agree with Leazes Mag

 

A lot of people, particularly on NO are getting excited because we have had a couple of results and one lad has described it as a "canny transfer window"

 

FFS we have signed a Forest utility player, a bloke whose injured until Xmas, an overweight has been and a loan player - this is hardly the makings of longer term progress.

 

Ashley has got lucky in that Hughton is turning into a quietly effective Manager and players like Carrol are progresing faster than I expected.

 

If the billionaire Ashley was prepared to spend 20 - 25 million a year net for the next 4 or 5 years then we just might be able to challenge for major honours again in 4 or 5 years time. It seems he has no intention of doing so. In addition to the shameful treatment of Keegan and lieing to the fans he has no ambition whatsoever and unless we spend significant amounts of money year on year the best we will ever be is a mediocre premier league team whose main ambition will be year on year survival.

 

For a club with our fanbase and potential we should be one of the powerhouses of Europe and Ashleys's lack of ambition is completely unacceptable

 

 

Another one that forgets the world cup player when talking about our signings. brilliant

[Kevin 1]

The thing is, the halls can never live up to Ashley, wise and co becuase cashley has the cash, he can take us forward. As he is doing like lad man gangee

 

 

/fishing

[Guest]

Where would that 20-25 million per year come from, brummiemag? Are you suggesting that he personally fund it? Shepherd didn't do that, you know. In fact, Ashley has essentially paid for Shepherd's spending by clearly some debts off when he bought the club

[Kevin 1]

and thats why im backing ashley here, he's a rich sexy fucking big bellied babe

[Guest]

FoK

[LeazesMag 0]

Why don't you just get a room? Take the endless bickering about the past to pm? No one else is interested

 

I'm interested in these sort of debates and arguments - I think they are important because after all we are talking about the longer term future of the club - and I agree with Leazes Mag

 

A lot of people, particularly on NO are getting excited because we have had a couple of results and one lad has described it as a "canny transfer window"

 

FFS we have signed a Forest utility player, a bloke whose injured until Xmas, an overweight has been and a loan player - this is hardly the makings of longer term progress.

 

Ashley has got lucky in that Hughton is turning into a quietly effective Manager and players like Carrol are progresing faster than I expected.

 

If the billionaire Ashley was prepared to spend 20 - 25 million a year net for the next 4 or 5 years then we just might be able to challenge for major honours again in 4 or 5 years time. It seems he has no intention of doing so. In addition to the shameful treatment of Keegan and lieing to the fans he has no ambition whatsoever and unless we spend significant amounts of money year on year the best we will ever be is a mediocre premier league team whose main ambition will be year on year survival.

 

For a club with our fanbase and potential we should be one of the powerhouses of Europe and Ashleys's lack of ambition is completely unacceptable

 

so basic and so true.

 

I also like these sort of discussions, obviously and make no apologies for it. It would be far better if those who only see the short term could open their eyes.

 

Give it 5 years of absolute mediocrity and they may understand, but it's very sad they don't listen to what people who have seen more than they have, try to tell them. If you don't invest in a football club, you go backwards or at best, nowhere.

 

Quoting ManU as a role model is pointless anyway, because they are unique and found a great manager, same as Arsenal. Unfortunately, those who think finding these managers is easy don't realise all the other pesky clubs are trying to do the same thing

[Guest]

Why don't you just get a room? Take the endless bickering about the past to pm? No one else is interested

 

I'm interested in these sort of debates and arguments - I think they are important because after all we are talking about the longer term future of the club - and I agree with Leazes Mag

 

A lot of people, particularly on NO are getting excited because we have had a couple of results and one lad has described it as a "canny transfer window"

 

FFS we have signed a Forest utility player, a bloke whose injured until Xmas, an overweight has been and a loan player - this is hardly the makings of longer term progress.

 

Ashley has got lucky in that Hughton is turning into a quietly effective Manager and players like Carrol are progresing faster than I expected.

 

If the billionaire Ashley was prepared to spend 20 - 25 million a year net for the next 4 or 5 years then we just might be able to challenge for major honours again in 4 or 5 years time. It seems he has no intention of doing so. In addition to the shameful treatment of Keegan and lieing to the fans he has no ambition whatsoever and unless we spend significant amounts of money year on year the best we will ever be is a mediocre premier league team whose main ambition will be year on year survival.

 

For a club with our fanbase and potential we should be one of the powerhouses of Europe and Ashleys's lack of ambition is completely unacceptable

 

so basic and so true.

 

I also like these sort of discussions, obviously and make no apologies for it. It would be far better if those who only see the short term could open their eyes.

 

Give it 5 years of absolute mediocrity and they may understand, but it's very sad they don't listen to what people who have seen more than they have, try to tell them. If you don't invest in a football club, you go backwards or at best, nowhere.

 

Quoting ManU as a role model is pointless anyway, because they are unique and found a great manager, same as Arsenal. Unfortunately, those who think finding these managers is easy don't realise all the other pesky clubs are trying to do the same thing

 

 

Shepherd didn't invest. He took money from the club you tit. The money spent was the club's own money, it's future earnings in fact. Debt. Ashley paid some of that off when he bought the club, so Mike Ashley essentially funded your man's big spending How's that for ambition?

[Phil 6]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

 

So you are stupid?

 

 

Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

[Guest]

Man Utd and Arsenal aren't profitable because of their great managers, they have great managers because they are profitable, sustainable and sensible big clubs.

Edited August 30, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[Guest]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

 

So you are stupid?

 

 

Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

 

Man Utd loaned Larsson, why they didn't just give him a 5 year deal is beyond comprehension

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

 

So you are stupid?

 

 

Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

 

I reckon you are the stupid one sunshine. If he did that well, someone else would have offered him more money. Thats how football works, stupid.

[Phil 6]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

 

So you are stupid?

 

 

Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

 

I reckon you are the stupid one sunshine. If he did that well, someone else would have offered him more money. Thats how football works, stupid.

 

 

Option to buy means the terms are pre arranged and activated. This is why Arfa deal took so long.

[Guest]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

 

So you are stupid?

 

 

Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

 

I reckon you are the stupid one sunshine. If he did that well, someone else would have offered him more money. Thats how football works, stupid.

 

 

Option to buy means the terms are pre arranged and activated. This is why Arfa deal took so long.

 

If only we'd loaned Luque and Boumsong

[LeazesMag 0]

terrible this like, running a football club so they need to play in the Champions League. Whatever will they do if they slip out of it.

 

http://wearearsenalblog.com/arsenal-cuts-debt-by-40/

[ChezGiven 0]

Where would that 20-25 million per year come from, brummiemag? Are you suggesting that he personally fund it? Shepherd didn't do that, you know. In fact, Ashley has essentially paid for Shepherd's spending by clearly some debts off when he bought the club

Ashley also made Shepherd & the Halls amongst the richest men in the north east of England. He handed them 137m of his cash. They were very very well rewarded for their services to the club.

 

Personally i think we've had a good window, Tiote is going to be a big player for us, Perch has looked better than Simpson or Raylor at RB, Campbell will add some cover at the back and Ben Arfa will add some creativity and flair. With Barton's form, Gosling wouldnt get a start anyway.

[LeazesMag 0]

Anyone who suggests buying a player is better than loaning with an option to buy is stupid.

 

loaning a player who does well enables someone else to buy him if they offer him better terms, which in our case is pretty much inevitable given the policy now adopted by the club.

 

 

So you are stupid?

 

 

Nottingham Forest loaned Radlo Majeski with an option to buy. He did really well so the took up the option. Simples.

 

I reckon you are the stupid one sunshine. If he did that well, someone else would have offered him more money. Thats how football works, stupid.

 

 

Option to buy means the terms are pre arranged and activated. This is why Arfa deal took so long.

 

ah. I see. So Real Madrid, Barcelona, ManU etc etc have been doing it all wrong for years then

[Gejon 2]

Where would that 20-25 million per year come from, brummiemag? Are you suggesting that he personally fund it? Shepherd didn't do that, you know. In fact, Ashley has essentially paid for Shepherd's spending by clearly some debts off when he bought the club

Ashley also made Shepherd & the Halls amongst the richest men in the north east of England. He handed them 137m of his cash. They were very very well rewarded for their services to the club.

 

Personally i think we've had a good window, Tiote is going to be a big player for us, Perch has looked better than Simpson or Raylor at RB, Campbell will add some cover at the back and Ben Arfa will add some creativity and flair. With Barton's form, Gosling wouldnt get a start anyway.

 

Agreed, this summer has shown you don't have to spend stupid money to make important improvements on a squad.

[LeazesMag 0]

Man Utd and Arsenal aren't profitable because of their great managers, they have great managers because they are profitable, sustainable and sensible big clubs.

 

rubbish.

 

[henda11 0]

Since when did a Robbie Keane topic become a football financial seminar?.

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes you have to disassociate the two arguments though, that's the thing. You can't forever keep reading each post looking for a Shepherd/Ashley comparison.

 

Shepherd and Hall turned the club round in the early 90's-nobody disputes that at all-and we had fabulous football. The sheer pleasure of that period simply doesn't have an equivalent for most posters on here. But the fact of the matter is they then failed to capitalise on those advances and Shepherd (by the final stage acting alone) basically had zero strategy left at all and it was a complete shambles. You have to look at it in the same way as you sometimes hear some managers say that they'd: "taken the club as far as they could." Now Shepherd never said that obviously but the truth is everything was going backwards and (imho) we'd never have got back to where we had been. The Prem was getting more competitive and we'd got ourselves left behind.

 

The great tragedy for me is (and I know you disagree with this but I'm not trying to persuade you, merely stating my opinion), I think Shepherd's professionalism was ultimately miles off what was required for a top club. When you say about him trying to bring top names here and ambition etc, I genuinely do think players were coming here from top clubs and once they'd got here, they thought the place they'd arrived at had become a joke. Thats just my opinion and I know you disagree, but I do genuinely believe that players had seen and been accustomed to much better standards of professionalism elsewhere, with massive demands of pressure to achieve and then arrived here to be paid the same money (if not a fair deal more) with none of the high standards that should go along with that. It had effectively all just become a show of matching or outspending other clubs with nothing to back that up in terms of direction and, which is worse, chaos behind the scenes as far as managerial appointments were concerned. Ultimately theres few things more demotivating to a player of a top calibre-they can get the cash anywhere, it's top standards and expectations they respond to.

 

Turn then to Ashley. Now for me personally I actually think he came on board largely because he saw it as being a purchase that would enhance his lifestyle (vanity/ego/etc). I also think that was partly because he thought you could follow the Shepherd example of (by that stage) just aimlessly chucking money about (which he did) and that would at least preserve your Prem status, in which case he could just continue to enjoy himself as owner of a 'top' club. He could also happily sit tight enjoying himself fr a few years and then sell on for an added couple hundred million simply because the prices of football clubs just keep going up don't they?

 

Well that all went to shit pretty damn quick, and where I will agree with you entirely is that Shepherd would have made purchases in the crucial January window where Ashley ultimately didn't and we ended up down the spout into the Championship as a result. Gutting. However, long term for me by that stage that would have just carried on forever and a day under Shepherd and the culture of the club would have kept disintegrating.

 

So where we are now is full circle. Ashley's now doing everything on a shoestring which is galling, or at least hard to take in one sense, and I too ultimately want to see the back of him, but what has to be seen as good (and what I think was desperately needed and long overdue) was that we got rid of the complacent, gravy train attitude that was just absolutely pervasive at the club. A complacency that ultimately didnt even have the laurels of one trophy to fall back upon might I add. That was actually born of necessity of dropping down a division. Now that might not seem like a lot to be massively thankful for after the 'glory years' of Shepherd and Hall, but the truth is they were long, long gone, were never coming back and we really did need a new direction.

 

I repeat, I don't believe that long term direction is Ashley, but it wasn't Shepherd either. So how about some balance to your opinions after all these years?