Old Board vs New Board

[Guest]

At the same time the risks were nowt compared to now either, in the event of the investments not paying off.

 

I can see what you're saying with that but it all comes down to hindsight, its easy now to slag off the past quoting the likes of Owen as big price failures but we werent exactly moaning about it the day he signed.

 

Was Shearer a flop? should we have not taken a gamble on him?

 

Under your logic you would never buy any established big name players because they could fail miserably. At the same time though they could have the best years of their careers here and pay back their transfer fees ten times over.

 

Its all a gamble but its better to take that punt than to sit with the likes of Leon Best on the teamsheet hoping that some miracle happens and he becomes a world beater.

 

When Owen signed we didn't know how it was being funded. My point is though that you can't just keep making those types of signings without them paying off. At some point you've got to step back, say 'ok that didn't work', and start again. Money doesn't grow on trees. We'd all love to be able to just spend our way out of debt by buying the best players and being in the Champions League , and having loads of chinks running about in our shirts, but the fact is if you go down that route and it doesn't work it can cripple you. I don't need to point out the examples here, we all knows there's been a couple.

 

wtf are you talking about, it didn't pay off ? Of course it paid off, stupid, the club expanded massively, developed the stadium, played in the Champions League [see bold] and were the 14th richest club in the world. If that isn't paying off, what sort of progress do you think Mikey is making

 

 

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

[Guest]

Oh my god

[peasepud 59]

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

My whole argument in all this though is that we are now hideously in debt by 3 times as much as before but without those signings, surely you would have rather we got to this position debt wise through the purchase of world class players and been pushing for Europe with the additional income success brings than hanging on the brink of relegation relying on Shola to get us the goals?

[LeazesMag 0]

Oh my god

 

[LeazesMag 0]

At the same time the risks were nowt compared to now either, in the event of the investments not paying off.

 

I can see what you're saying with that but it all comes down to hindsight, its easy now to slag off the past quoting the likes of Owen as big price failures but we werent exactly moaning about it the day he signed.

 

Was Shearer a flop? should we have not taken a gamble on him?

 

Under your logic you would never buy any established big name players because they could fail miserably. At the same time though they could have the best years of their careers here and pay back their transfer fees ten times over.

 

Its all a gamble but its better to take that punt than to sit with the likes of Leon Best on the teamsheet hoping that some miracle happens and he becomes a world beater.

 

When Owen signed we didn't know how it was being funded. My point is though that you can't just keep making those types of signings without them paying off. At some point you've got to step back, say 'ok that didn't work', and start again. Money doesn't grow on trees. We'd all love to be able to just spend our way out of debt by buying the best players and being in the Champions League , and having loads of chinks running about in our shirts, but the fact is if you go down that route and it doesn't work it can cripple you. I don't need to point out the examples here, we all knows there's been a couple.

 

wtf are you talking about, it didn't pay off ? Of course it paid off, stupid, the club expanded massively, developed the stadium, played in the Champions League [see bold] and were the 14th richest club in the world. If that isn't paying off, what sort of progress do you think Mikey is making

 

 

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

you can't penny pinch in football. You have to speculate and hope you accumulate. This is not the high street, football is different.

 

Fuckin hell, you're solid.

 

[Guest]

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

My whole argument in all this though is that we are now hideously in debt by 3 times as much as before but without those signings, surely you would have rather we got to this position debt wise through the purchase of world class players and been pushing for Europe with the additional income success brings than hanging on the brink of relegation relying on Shola to get us the goals?

 

 

Hindsight. If we'd seen into the future and predicted relegation then yes, otherwise it was the far riskier strategy

[Guest]

At the same time the risks were nowt compared to now either, in the event of the investments not paying off.

 

I can see what you're saying with that but it all comes down to hindsight, its easy now to slag off the past quoting the likes of Owen as big price failures but we werent exactly moaning about it the day he signed.

 

Was Shearer a flop? should we have not taken a gamble on him?

 

Under your logic you would never buy any established big name players because they could fail miserably. At the same time though they could have the best years of their careers here and pay back their transfer fees ten times over.

 

Its all a gamble but its better to take that punt than to sit with the likes of Leon Best on the teamsheet hoping that some miracle happens and he becomes a world beater.

 

When Owen signed we didn't know how it was being funded. My point is though that you can't just keep making those types of signings without them paying off. At some point you've got to step back, say 'ok that didn't work', and start again. Money doesn't grow on trees. We'd all love to be able to just spend our way out of debt by buying the best players and being in the Champions League , and having loads of chinks running about in our shirts, but the fact is if you go down that route and it doesn't work it can cripple you. I don't need to point out the examples here, we all knows there's been a couple.

 

wtf are you talking about, it didn't pay off ? Of course it paid off, stupid, the club expanded massively, developed the stadium, played in the Champions League [see bold] and were the 14th richest club in the world. If that isn't paying off, what sort of progress do you think Mikey is making

 

 

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

you can't penny pinch in football. You have to speculate and hope you accumulate. This is not the high street, football is different.

 

Fuckin hell, you're solid.

 

 

 

 

So do you just spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and fail and spend again and fail again and keep on spending? Fucking reality check! What a fucking moron

[peasepud 59]

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

My whole argument in all this though is that we are now hideously in debt by 3 times as much as before but without those signings, surely you would have rather we got to this position debt wise through the purchase of world class players and been pushing for Europe with the additional income success brings than hanging on the brink of relegation relying on Shola to get us the goals?

 

 

Hindsight. If we'd seen into the future and predicted relegation then yes, otherwise it was the far riskier strategy

 

I and a good couple of thousand predicted it and Im no nostradamus.

[Guest]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

[LeazesMag 0]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

At the same time the risks were nowt compared to now either, in the event of the investments not paying off.

 

I can see what you're saying with that but it all comes down to hindsight, its easy now to slag off the past quoting the likes of Owen as big price failures but we werent exactly moaning about it the day he signed.

 

Was Shearer a flop? should we have not taken a gamble on him?

 

Under your logic you would never buy any established big name players because they could fail miserably. At the same time though they could have the best years of their careers here and pay back their transfer fees ten times over.

 

Its all a gamble but its better to take that punt than to sit with the likes of Leon Best on the teamsheet hoping that some miracle happens and he becomes a world beater.

 

When Owen signed we didn't know how it was being funded. My point is though that you can't just keep making those types of signings without them paying off. At some point you've got to step back, say 'ok that didn't work', and start again. Money doesn't grow on trees. We'd all love to be able to just spend our way out of debt by buying the best players and being in the Champions League , and having loads of chinks running about in our shirts, but the fact is if you go down that route and it doesn't work it can cripple you. I don't need to point out the examples here, we all knows there's been a couple.

 

wtf are you talking about, it didn't pay off ? Of course it paid off, stupid, the club expanded massively, developed the stadium, played in the Champions League [see bold] and were the 14th richest club in the world. If that isn't paying off, what sort of progress do you think Mikey is making

 

 

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

you can't penny pinch in football. You have to speculate and hope you accumulate. This is not the high street, football is different.

 

Fuckin hell, you're solid.

 

 

 

 

So do you just spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and fail and spend again and fail again and keep on spending? Fucking reality check! What a fucking moron

 

eeerrr.......we got into the Champions League, and became the 7th richest club in the world

 

You're an utter plank

[Guest]

At the same time the risks were nowt compared to now either, in the event of the investments not paying off.

 

I can see what you're saying with that but it all comes down to hindsight, its easy now to slag off the past quoting the likes of Owen as big price failures but we werent exactly moaning about it the day he signed.

 

Was Shearer a flop? should we have not taken a gamble on him?

 

Under your logic you would never buy any established big name players because they could fail miserably. At the same time though they could have the best years of their careers here and pay back their transfer fees ten times over.

 

Its all a gamble but its better to take that punt than to sit with the likes of Leon Best on the teamsheet hoping that some miracle happens and he becomes a world beater.

 

When Owen signed we didn't know how it was being funded. My point is though that you can't just keep making those types of signings without them paying off. At some point you've got to step back, say 'ok that didn't work', and start again. Money doesn't grow on trees. We'd all love to be able to just spend our way out of debt by buying the best players and being in the Champions League , and having loads of chinks running about in our shirts, but the fact is if you go down that route and it doesn't work it can cripple you. I don't need to point out the examples here, we all knows there's been a couple.

 

wtf are you talking about, it didn't pay off ? Of course it paid off, stupid, the club expanded massively, developed the stadium, played in the Champions League [see bold] and were the 14th richest club in the world. If that isn't paying off, what sort of progress do you think Mikey is making

 

 

If you had a fucking brain, thick old cunt, you'd see that I mean we'd love mike to have just been able to buy players and get into the Champions League instead of paying the debt off, but it's a dangerous approach taking on more debt, in case it doesn't pay off. See, you're thick as fuck. You don't even understand what the debate is, you are fucking numb.

 

you can't penny pinch in football. You have to speculate and hope you accumulate. This is not the high street, football is different.

 

Fuckin hell, you're solid.

 

 

 

 

So do you just spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and fail and spend again and fail again and keep on spending? Fucking reality check! What a fucking moron

 

eeerrr.......we got into the Champions League, and became the 7th richest club in the world

 

You're an utter plank

 

 

Yes, but we weren't there when Ashley took over, so that isn't a variable. It doesn't affect the club that he took over whatsoever. It was history.

 

Thick as fuck

[Guest]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

 

 

He's put more money into the club than Shepherd ever did 'Penny pinching' - the only person who pinched pennies from the club was the one who sold a warehouse then had the club rent it

 

Question avoided then?

[Guest]

And don't refer to the 3 times more debt thing again without actual proof. Because it's bollocks

 

Also, If you owe £20 to someone, but are operating at a £5 p/w loss, you'll never pay it back.

 

If you owe £60 to someone, and are operating at a £10 p/w profit, you can pay it back in 6 weeks.

 

 

Which would you rather have, Leazes? 3 times as much debt and an operating profit or to be running at a loss?

 

THICK!

[LeazesMag 0]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

 

 

He's put more money into the club than Shepherd ever did 'Penny pinching' - the only person who pinched pennies from the club was the one who sold a warehouse then had the club rent it

 

Question avoided then?

 

 

he's increased the debt threefold. So much for you praising his "plan" which has been operating for 3 years now.

 

How much does he pay the club for advertising the Sports Direct logo by the way ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Yeah, he comes out of that article looking great ©

 

 

If you say so... Though that was never anybody's point of view being debated

Well, you're the one seemingly intent on comparing him favourably with the previous regime, regardless of the facts. As shown by the bits you've put in bold. Feel free to put me right though.

 

How much did shepherd spend out of his personal fortune on players like?

Ashley's made a net profit on transfers. Is it only his own money when it suits your argument?

 

No, the clubs made a net profit on transfers.

 

In other words, yes, it is only his own money when it suits your argument.

 

[Guest]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

 

 

He's put more money into the club than Shepherd ever did 'Penny pinching' - the only person who pinched pennies from the club was the one who sold a warehouse then had the club rent it

 

Question avoided then?

 

 

he's increased the debt threefold. So much for you praising his "plan" which has been operating for 3 years now.

 

How much does he pay the club for advertising the Sports Direct logo by the way ?

 

 

Source or stfu. He's borrowed the club money interest free, you're criticising free advertising despite your man shepherds big warehouse scam?

[Guest]

And don't refer to the 3 times more debt thing again without actual proof. Because it's bollocks

 

Also, If you owe £20 to someone, but are operating at a £5 p/w loss, you'll never pay it back.

 

If you owe £60 to someone, and are operating at a £10 p/w profit, you can pay it back in 6 weeks.

 

 

Which would you rather have, Leazes? 3 times as much debt and an operating profit or to be running at a loss?

 

THICK!

 

 

 

[LeazesMag 0]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

 

 

He's put more money into the club than Shepherd ever did 'Penny pinching' - the only person who pinched pennies from the club was the one who sold a warehouse then had the club rent it

 

Question avoided then?

 

 

he's increased the debt threefold. So much for you praising his "plan" which has been operating for 3 years now.

 

How much does he pay the club for advertising the Sports Direct logo by the way ?

 

 

Source or stfu. He's borrowed the club money interest free, you're criticising free advertising despite your man shepherds big warehouse scam?

 

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

You, on the other hand, prefer to spend peanuts on crap players, and get relegated, and convince yourself the club is in good financial shape while the debt increases and revenue is going down.

[Guest]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

 

 

He's put more money into the club than Shepherd ever did 'Penny pinching' - the only person who pinched pennies from the club was the one who sold a warehouse then had the club rent it

 

Question avoided then?

 

 

he's increased the debt threefold. So much for you praising his "plan" which has been operating for 3 years now.

 

How much does he pay the club for advertising the Sports Direct logo by the way ?

 

 

Source or stfu. He's borrowed the club money interest free, you're criticising free advertising despite your man shepherds big warehouse scam?

 

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

You, on the other hand, prefer to spend peanuts on crap players, and get relegated, and convince yourself the club is in good financial shape while the debt increases and revenue is going down.

 

 

He didnt back them. The club did, with borrowed cash, that Ashley repaid.

[LeazesMag 0]

And borrow and spend and fail and borrow some more, spend and fail again? When do you pay it back? How many times do you fail before you start paying the debt back? At what point is it irresponsible to borrow more? You'll avoid that question Leazes, like every other time I've asked you it

 

 

Mike Ashleys penny pinching has increased the "debt" threefold, as PP has explained.

 

You're an utter plank.

 

 

 

He's put more money into the club than Shepherd ever did 'Penny pinching' - the only person who pinched pennies from the club was the one who sold a warehouse then had the club rent it

 

Question avoided then?

 

 

he's increased the debt threefold. So much for you praising his "plan" which has been operating for 3 years now.

 

How much does he pay the club for advertising the Sports Direct logo by the way ?

 

 

Source or stfu. He's borrowed the club money interest free, you're criticising free advertising despite your man shepherds big warehouse scam?

 

I don't give a shit about a miniscule amount for a warehouse when he backs his managers with enough money to put together teams to qualify for the Champions League and increase the clubs revenue and profile while doing it.

 

You, on the other hand, prefer to spend peanuts on crap players, and get relegated, and convince yourself the club is in good financial shape while the debt increases and revenue is going down.

 

 

He didnt back them. The club did, with borrowed cash, that Ashley repaid.

 

oh dear.

 

What is Mike Ashley going to do when the club stops generating money to spend on transfers because of his grand plan to run it on the cheap ?

 

Are you really so stupid to think the crowds and revenue will remain at the heights attained by the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

You're an utter plank.

 

[Guest]

thick as fuck

[Guest]

You've quoted my reply then written something complete pointless unrelated to what we were talking about, again

[Guest]

Every time I prove you wrong you try to divert the conversation to something else hoping nobody notices but it's blatant as fuck! What a thick bastard.

[peasepud 59]

We are in 3 times as much debt as we were when Ashley bought the club (the source cant get much better, its the club itself), our turnover is probably half of what it was when Ashley bought the club, our standing in world football is probably a tenth of what it was when Ashley bought the club an d Id agree before you shout, that it was on the decline before Ashley but hes accelerated that decline.

 

I must be as thick as you say Leazes is because I cant for the life of me understand how its better to be £180m in debt than it is to be £60m. You keep talking about it being better to owe £60 and operate at a £10p/w profit than owe £20 and run at a loss. That would be all well and good if we were operating at a profit but we're not we haemorrage money. The only way to start operating at a profit is to make our incomings greater than our outgoings. Now that hes slashed the wage bill, sacked loads of hard working loyal staff and cut costs left right and centre then whats next? We're still running at a loss, we dont even have a Matchday sponsor and half the billboards around the ground are advertising Sports Direct so we're not bringing in revenue from those.