Old Board vs New Board

[Guest]

We have an owner that had a debt-ridden ridden club, but could afford to get it relegated. Therefore he's not running it dangerously.

 

Anyone care to suggest or guess what would have happened had we gone down under Shepherd/Hall? And don't say it wouldn't have happened, we were tailspinning long before Ashley came in.

 

It's probably the drink but I'm not sure what your point is? We have an owner who can run the club as shit as he likes as long as he bankrolls it?

 

 

My point is, I don't mind the club having debt as long as it isn't jeopardising. My whole issue with debt is the ability for it to all fall apart, ala Portsmouth. That could have happened under Shepherd/Hall. They weren't putting money in. Ashley gives us a safety net, because he can afford it, and he's willing to put money in, interest free, where required.

Edited September 21, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[ewerk 30221]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

If I become CEO of a leading company and decide to cut costs, and a result quality, then lose the company's biggest contract because of the reduced quality, I'd say I'd still be responsible for the poor financial performance.

 

 

But it was poor financial performance that motivated the initial cuts and reduction in quality Step backwards to take a step forwards?

 

Or maybe it was possible to find a balance? You reckon relegation was part of Mike's masterplan?

 

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

I'm not stupid enough to argue with an idiot like you.

[Happy Face 29]

I started a thread on Sunday called "Time to support Mike?"

 

I got derailed and ended up deleting it like....nevertheless we seem to be turning the ship around slowly and if we all held a zero tolerance view of the bloke it wouldn't do the club any good.

 

He's shut up

Llambias has shut up

Two good transfer windows in a row.

Installed the longest serving manager in half a decade or something.

Playing well enough to consolidate.

 

I'll back him as long as it goes on like this.

[Asprilla 96]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

 

I think in terms of his core business it has to lead you to conclude that luck may well have played a big part in it. That said (taking a wholly objective view) if Sports Direct sustains itself as a market leader for the entire time he's associated with it then a sensible person would have to hold their hands up and say fair enough, he must have got the basic rudiments very right indeed and fair play to him.

 

Football clubs are a different matter altogether of course.

 

Part of me wants to have the idealised indignation others have re: Ashley but I struggle because it almost requires some sort of false memory syndrome about where things were headed under Shepherd. That had to stop for once and for all whatever happened next. Ashley has done nowt for me unless and until he establishes a better proposition of a football club for players wanting to come to play for Newcastle United. He's done that so far with a bargain basement model (you could argue, the only model he knows). The true test will probably be down the line in attracting the higher calibre of players for the right reasons (other than simply throwing $ at them). If he wants to do that and he can manage that then all well and good. If not then that's when I'll be getting indignant, demanding a change.

 

IMO it's far better to have players one club away from their ultimate "pay day" club and for that "pay day" club not to be us. Big wages don't guarantee trophies as we know better than anyone.

 

 

However we did it, we seem to have got a couple of gems for fuck all. I don't expect them to stay for long. Bassong was another example.

 

 

Now, if you only unearth your gems at the rate of a couple every few years then you'll never get anywhere. But if you make it your business to find those players at all costs then it can work and you'll be known as a club that can act as a springboard. While the players are here, they'll bust their balls to attract their destination club. And before you say the top tier of clubs want to unearth the same talent, not every youngster is going to get a game at a club like Chelsea/Barcelona/ManU.

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

[Guest]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

If I become CEO of a leading company and decide to cut costs, and a result quality, then lose the company's biggest contract because of the reduced quality, I'd say I'd still be responsible for the poor financial performance.

 

 

But it was poor financial performance that motivated the initial cuts and reduction in quality Step backwards to take a step forwards?

 

Or maybe it was possible to find a balance? You reckon relegation was part of Mike's masterplan?

 

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

I'm not stupid enough to argue with an idiot like you.

 

 

What a daft cunt

[manc-mag 1]

We have an owner that had a debt-ridden ridden club, but could afford to get it relegated. Therefore he's not running it dangerously.

 

Anyone care to suggest or guess what would have happened had we gone down under Shepherd/Hall? And don't say it wouldn't have happened, we were tailspinning long before Ashley came in.

 

While I think that's probably expressed a bit naively (because what is apparent is that Ashley certainly had no master plan), what I will say is that I think in time we may well find we have benefitted from relegation (caveat:and coming straight back up) in as much as a culture change was forced through in circumstances that would simply not have been as possible with the consistency of reamaining in the Prem. Shepherd's big buys on ridiculous contracts were hurting us like hell, both economically and in terms of ethos, and it's hard to see how new players coming in could have been persuaded to sign for materially less or adopt a different attitude while that status quo remained. In going down that changed wholesale and allowed us to start again. I took a fair bit of stick for suggesting that at the time like, but I think that's understandable.

 

I will also agree that we were probably more fortunate than we know to have gone down with a billionaire owner to keep the wheels oiled. That statement is subject to massive caveats however, namely i) my certian belief that he would have sold us if he'd got the right offer and ii) this mainly goes back to the issue of the debt (ultimately) and again, it was entirely his own fault that he bought the club without any appreciation of it's financial circumstances in the first instance.

[manc-mag 1]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

 

Think he's the type that had one good idea and then blagged it for all it was worth, his buying up failing and ailing brands (Slazenger, Dunlop etc), was a clever marketing move imo as they became the gateway to package cheap foreign made products under a semi-posh brand umbrella. I don't really mind him as a person on the business side (quite like the various stories of city types hating him cause he used to come to meetings scruffy and notes in a plastic bag), he's made a little go al long long way. It wasn't his fault either that he was lumbered with fat sam and those poor singnings (on silly wages). Where he did go wrong was not giving KK more leeway and letting Mort stay on too long (a man with no football background who prefers rugby).

 

His rat like survival skills will hopefully rub off on the club and brign it back to health and he's well on the way to do that with the sensible approach of Hughton.

 

 

 

Well put!

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

Edited September 21, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

[JawD 99]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

Tbf I dont think we were relegated because of players we bought or sold. I think it was general mismanagement due to multiple managers.

[manc-mag 1]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

Tbf I dont think we were relegated because of players we bought or sold. I think it was general mismanagement due to multiple managers.

 

Agreed, save (arguably) for the exit of Given.

[JawD 99]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

Tbf I dont think we were relegated because of players we bought or sold. I think it was general mismanagement due to multiple managers.

 

Agreed, save (arguably) for the exit of Given.

 

Aye fair point on that one. I also think we sold him too easily and could have got much more out of City for him.

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though, you'd be better off making the comparison of when spurs sold berba

[Guest]

And the fee was undisclosed btw

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though

 

Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though

 

Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

 

 

 

 

And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas?

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though

 

Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

 

 

 

 

And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas?

 

You say that as if you're proving me wrong on some imagined statement or other, rather than proving yourself wrong on the claim that Ashly didn't try to cut costs prior to relegation

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though

 

Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

 

 

 

 

And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas?

 

You say that as if you're proving me wrong on some imagined statement or other, rather than proving yourself wrong on the claim that Ashly didn't try to cut costs prior to relegation

 

 

Because you say it as if it's a bad thing How were we going to get back into the top 4? By increasing costs?

[Happy Face 29]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though

 

Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

 

 

 

 

And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas?

 

You say that as if you're proving me wrong on some imagined statement or other, rather than proving yourself wrong on the claim that Ashly didn't try to cut costs prior to relegation

 

 

Because you say it as if it's a bad thing How were we going to get back into the top 4? By increasing costs?

 

Where?

 

You said "There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there?"

 

Now you accept there were cuts and insist there had to be.

 

Get back to me once you've caught your tail.

[Guest]

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.

 

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

 

 

One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield.

 

After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

 

 

I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too.

 

 

He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down....

 

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

 

 

And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it?

 

I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here.

 

If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year.

 

Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

 

We weren't a top club though

 

Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

 

 

 

 

And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas?

 

You say that as if you're proving me wrong on some imagined statement or other, rather than proving yourself wrong on the claim that Ashly didn't try to cut costs prior to relegation

 

 

Because you say it as if it's a bad thing How were we going to get back into the top 4? By increasing costs?

 

Where?

 

You said "There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there?"

 

Now you accept there were cuts and insist there had to be.

 

Get back to me once you've caught your tail.

So where's your point in all of this ?