Ashley's Transfer History thread

[Happy Face 29]

One of my tests for whether someone is talking through their arse or not is to take whatever position they are claiming (me and others are wanting the club to sustain itself) and then propose the opposite. If no one adheres to the opposite then the statement is empty bollocks.

 

I have 3 positions on the current strategic direction of the club. The Carroll sale was a risk that paid off, Nolan will not be worth £50k a week in 2 seasons time and I hope and believe the club will be stronger in September. On this last point i'm clear on the need for gradual change and that too much too quickly is too risky.

 

If you want to argue those points, argue them but don't straw man empty rhetoric at me. I expect more from someone apparently intelligent (if not a little financially retarded).

 

"The ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a 'break even' manner"

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-spo...astle-united.do

 

I just picked the 3 names I've read most support for Ashley's current approach from. Apologies if you disagree with Ashley's on this specific goal.

[Happy Face 29]

See I dont think its as clear as you portray it for me.

 

When he arrived he did spend some money and he did make a big financial decision to get rid of Sam Allardyce. He also tried to put in place a system, I assume recommended to him by his mate at Spurs. Some of the early decisions with regard to the family area, pushed through by Mort were admirable.

 

I dont see these as actions of a man coming just to survive.

 

These were the decisions that mean he can't pin the blame for the mess he inherited on Shepherd, as he has tried to.

 

Then came the KK nightmare and all the shit that followed. Personally I dont think he was greatly hands on at the time and was basically leaving it to this team he had put in place to run the show. I dont think he was living it day to day as he does now.

 

Lots of bad decisions were made but I really think he was reeling at the time and just didnt have a clue what to do next.

 

More resons to be less than impressed with him.

 

Following relegation a number of things (possibly luck) fell into place that allowed stability to develop and Ashley to start re-building.

 

So we have just finished a season were we have on the whole performed well and should really have finished 9th.

 

Whats gone on over the last 12 months with scouting and the players we have targeted / are targeting doesnt strike me as a club just wanting to survive. We have attacked the window, lost out on Gervinho, got some decent players in and still have a bag full of money and targets we are trying to get over the line such as Erding and Barnetta.

 

Sure it would be great if we could also hang onto everyone else but thats not going to happen.

 

So let them do what they want this summer and see where we are in August and lets see whether we have this pacey attacking, flowing team that Pardew has talked about and promised us for months.

 

Hoping for the best based on no evidence of any ambition.

 

I'll be convinced when it happens and will credit you specifically for your powers of positivity.

[ChezGiven 0]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

[Happy Face 29]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

 

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club.

 

And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself?

 

Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants?

 

You're being slippery like an eel mr chez.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think you've embraced him. Thinking more of CT, Toonpack and Chez who all seem well pleased Ashley wants the club to be able to support itself ASAP, even on a championship income.

 

 

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either.

 

I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with.

 

What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept.

 

Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet.

 

There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9.

 

Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved.

 

The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them.

 

the ultimate Ashley apologist

[ChezGiven 0]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

 

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club.

 

And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself?

 

Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants?

 

You're being slippery like an eel mr chez.

Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support.

 

If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality.

 

Is that being slippery?

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't think you've embraced him. Thinking more of CT, Toonpack and Chez who all seem well pleased Ashley wants the club to be able to support itself ASAP, even on a championship income.

 

 

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either.

 

I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with.

 

What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept.

 

Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet.

 

There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9.

 

Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved.

 

The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them.

 

What is the purpose of spending 5 years getting to grips with the clubs finances and getting the club spending within means...only then to go out and spend what is needed to start climbing higher? If he's not doing it now, and he's not done it before, he's never ever going to do it. And all the promises of 5 year plans, pushing on and steady growth are more lies.

 

Nolan said what he wanted, the club said no and the manager didn't fight to keep his captain. Nolan might have accepted less....if anyone had shown an interest in retaining his services...much the same as Carroll.

 

We don't know if he's not doing it now, we will by 1/9

 

The last sentence is beyond niaive

 

The first sentence is beyond naive.

 

 

Nope, it's a fact.

 

its naive not to have realised it already or a long time ago.

[LeazesMag 0]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

 

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club.

 

And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself?

 

Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants?

 

You're being slippery like an eel mr chez.

Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support.

 

If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality.

 

Is that being slippery?

 

how many clubs are making a loss Chez ? Why aren't they all bust ? Why are you kidding yourself that you would be happy to support a club making a profit irrespective of what league they are in ? You play football to win mate, win, and the day you stop doing this is the day it's all over for you as a football club and for your supporters. That is the day you start the decline, which is what this club is now in. If you succeed you get rewards but if you stand still and not compete, you go backwards.

 

Football, as a business, isn't like a high street store, you do realise that don't you [don't know why I'm bothering with this tbh]

[Happy Face 29]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

 

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club.

 

And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself?

 

Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants?

 

You're being slippery like an eel mr chez.

Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support.

 

If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality.

 

Is that being slippery?

 

It would be daft to complain about lack of subsidy, given the amount he's spent subsidising the club so far. But the method of subsiidy is the problem, it's been retroactive rather than proactive. He's a shite gambler, he won't back us when it'll move us on to the next level, he'll only cover the losses when he gets relegated. And he's setting us up to not make a loss when relegated so he's not liable again, rather than making sure it doesn't happen again.

[LeazesMag 0]

Below is an extract from a book "Why England lose and other curious football phenomena explained". This specifically deals with the resilience of football club as "businesses" and makes a comparison with non football businesses.

 

For those who think football is like the High Street. And for Toonpack who is obsessed with that book by Denis Cassidy [with no axe to grind about his short time at NUFC.....]. Just think, if Denis Cassidy had had his way, we might not have bought Craig Bellamy and Laurent Robert, and never got into the Champions League, and sold a player or two instead ie doing things the Mike Ashley way.

 

Extract as follows:

 

"On 15 September 2008, the investment bank Lehman Bros collapsed, followed almost immediately by the worlds stock markets.

 

Any football club on earth was a midget next to Lehman. In the year to September 2007, the bank had income of $59 billion [148 times Man U's income at the time], profits of $6bn [50 times ManU at the time] and was valued by the stock market at £34 billion. If ManU shares had still been traded on the stock market, they would probably have been worth less then 5 percent of Lehmans, yet Lehman don't exist while ManU very much do.

 

Over the last decade, people worried a lot more about the survival of football clubs than of banks. Yet it was many of the worlds largest banks that disappeared. The public perception that football clubs are inherently unstable businesses is wrong. Despite being incompetently run, they are some of the most stable businesses on earth.

 

First some facts. In 1923 the Football League consisted of 88 teams spread over four divisions. In the 2007-08

season:

 

1. 85 of these clubs still existed [97 percent]

2. 75 remained in the top four divisions [85 percent]

3. An actual majority, 48 clubs, were in the same division as they had been in 1923

4. Only 9 teams still in the top 4 divisions were two or more divisions away from where they had been in 1923, [poor Notts County had sunk from first to fourth tier]

 

So almost every professional club in England had survived the Great Depression, the 2nd World War, recessions, corrupt chairman and appalling managers. it is a history of remarkable stability. For comparison, the economic historian Les Hannah made a list of the top 100 companies in 1912, and researched what had become of them by 1995. Nearly half the companies - 49 - had ceased to exist. Five of these had gone bankrupt, 6 were nationalised, and 37 were taken over by other firms. Even among the businesses that survived, many had gone into new sectors or moved to new locations.

 

What made these non-football businesses so unstable was, above all, competition. There is such a thing as brand loyalty, but when a better product turns up most people will switch sooner or later. So normal businesses keep having to innovate or die. They face endless pitfalls, competitors pull ahead, consumers tastes change, new technologies make entire industries obsolete, cheap goods arrive from abroad, government interferes, recessions hit, companies over invest and go bust, or they simply get unlucky. By contrast football clubs are immune from all these effects.

 

1. A club that fails to keep up with the competition might get relegated, but it can always survive at a lower level.

2. Some fans lose interest, but clubs have geographical roots. A bad team might find its catchment area shrinking, but not disappearing completely.

3. The "technology" of football can never become obsolete because the technology is the game itself. At worst football clubs might become less popular.

4. Foreign rivals cannot enter the market and supply football at a lower price. The rules of football protect domestic football by forbidding foreign competitors from joining their league. English clubs as a whole could fall behind foreign competitors and lose their best players, but foreign clubs have financial problems and incompetent managers of their own.

5. The Government is not about to nationalise football.

6. Clubs often over-invest, but this almost never destroys the club, only the wealth of the investor. At worst, the club gets relegated.

7. A clubs income might decline in a recession, but it can always live with a lower income.

 

In most industries a bad business goes bankrupt, but football clubs almost never do. The 40 English clubs the entered insolvency proceedings through May 2008 cut deals with their creditors [usual the players and the taxman] and moved on. Yes, Aldershot went bankrupt in 1992 but supporters simply started a new club almost identical to the old one. In Italy Fiorentina went bust in 2002, and got relegated to the Italian fourth division, but within a couple of years they were back at the top, the bankruptcy forgotten. No big football club disappears under its debts. If West Ham [or imagine] Liverpool fell into administration, they too wuld be guaranteed to be reborn under new ownership. We would bet Portsmouth will always be with us in some form or other. No matter how much money clubs waste, someone always bails them out. This is what is known in finance as "moral hazard", when you know you will be saved however much money you lose. Football clubs are incompetent because they can be. The professional investors who briefly bought club shares in the 1990's got out as soon as they discovered this. "

Edited June 21, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

christ

[LeazesMag 0]

christ

 

well, that passed a bit of time

[ChezGiven 0]

how many clubs are making a loss Chez ? Why aren't they all bust ?

 

Its why i said collapse, not bust. A club will eventually collapse if it spends more than it earns without a sugar daddy. By collapse, see Sheff Weds, Notts Forest, Leeds, etc. A football club is not like a normal business no, its more comparable to a nation state. They are also allowed to exist for a while spending more than they earn. The difference is a club is an asset and anyone with the money to come in and pay off the debt created can cancel it and take ownership of the club. There are enough wealthy businessmen in a community with the million or so required to do this at your common or garden club. They have been taking over clubs for decades, often acting initially as an investor then owner if they can exploit the financial situation. I'm sure you know what i'm referring to.

 

Why are you kidding yourself that you would be happy to support a club making a profit irrespective of what league they are in ? You play football to win mate, win, and the day you stop doing this is the day it's all over for you as a football club and for your supporters

 

There was no mention of profit, there was mention of break even. Which means that either every year or over every financial planning period (usually 3 years) the club does not require a subsidy.

 

That is the day you start the decline, which is what this club is now in. If you succeed you get rewards but if you stand still and not compete, you go backwards.

 

True, it is the day we started to decline and it will continue if we dont move substantially forward this summer. This is our opportunity to put a few things right but if they bring in 2 more and they get rid of Nolan, Barton, Enrique, Jonas and Colo this summer, it will be ridiculous. Stevie predicted 8 in and if they are of first team quality (or even not) then losing those 5 will be manageable (i.e. we'd still get a side out) but a stupid risk. Its stupid because at best the approach of the club is therefore just trying to get a bit better. To get a bit better, you do things much more slowly and dont need to get rid of the existing players.

 

All that is academic for now since its 3 hopefully good un's in and 1 good un out.

[manc-mag 1]

What the fuck is that article about? Great depression, second world war etc etc. Football had a wage cap til Jimmy Hill ffs. And it had illegal contract clauses (transfer fees) til Bosman. You're not kidding it was different to mainstream business and no wonder it was fucking stable as a result. The point is that since those things (wage cap/abolition of illegal transfer fees), together with TV money, player wages and power have now become so demented that it is now an unstable business. Unless you've got someone bankrolling you. But then if you have got someone bankrolling you, you have to do what they fucking say unfortunately and you're at the mercy of who that individual is.

 

Btw seriously: "For comparison, the economic historian Les Hannah made a list of the top 100 companies in 1912, and researched what had become of them by 1995. Nearly half the companies - 49 - had ceased to exist. Five of these had gone bankrupt, 6 were nationalised, and 37 were taken over by other firms. Even among the businesses that survived, many had gone into new sectors or moved to new locations" So five had gone bankrupt in 80 years? 37 were taken over. Cadbury were 'taken over' this year ffs, but it wasnt because they'd gone bust. Quite the opposite in fact, it's because they were massively massively profitable and hence attractive to a competitor.

 

That article is one of the worst pieces of anything I've ever read. Do you actually evaluate the quality of what's being said in an article Leazes or do you just quote anything that holds itself out as supportive of your viewpoint?

 

Seriously it's utter cobblers. Even all these years later it astonishes me how you present an argument.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Even all these years later it astonishes me how you present an argument.

 

All these years later? Is that the length it's taken for LM to present his original argument?

[Christmas Tree 4679]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

 

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club.

 

And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself?

 

Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants?

 

You're being slippery like an eel mr chez.

Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support.

 

If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality.

 

Is that being slippery?

 

It would be daft to complain about lack of subsidy, given the amount he's spent subsidising the club so far. But the method of subsiidy is the problem, it's been retroactive rather than proactive. He's a shite gambler, he won't back us when it'll move us on to the next level, he'll only cover the losses when he gets relegated. And he's setting us up to not make a loss when relegated so he's not liable again, rather than making sure it doesn't happen again.

 

 

Whats the next level though?

 

Are you expecting him to splash a couple of hundred million to break the top four or just a hundred mill to break the top 6 and get into the Europa cup which returns nothing to a club.

 

The gambles got to be worth it and at the moment, 100 million ish to get the top 6 is not a good gamble. (from an owners point of view).

[Toonpack 9170]

What the fuck is that article about? Great depression, second world war etc etc. Football had a wage cap til Jimmy Hill ffs. And it had illegal contract clauses (transfer fees) til Bosman. You're not kidding it was different to mainstream business and no wonder it was fucking stable as a result. The point is that since those things (wage cap/abolition of illegal transfer fees), together with TV money, player wages and power have now become so demented that it is now an unstable business. Unless you've got someone bankrolling you. But then if you have got someone bankrolling you, you have to do what they fucking say unfortunately and you're at the mercy of who that individual is.

 

Btw seriously: "For comparison, the economic historian Les Hannah made a list of the top 100 companies in 1912, and researched what had become of them by 1995. Nearly half the companies - 49 - had ceased to exist. Five of these had gone bankrupt, 6 were nationalised, and 37 were taken over by other firms. Even among the businesses that survived, many had gone into new sectors or moved to new locations" So five had gone bankrupt in 80 years? 37 were taken over. Cadbury were 'taken over' this year ffs, but it wasnt because they'd gone bust. Quite the opposite in fact, it's because they were massively massively profitable and hence attractive to a competitor.

 

That article is one of the worst pieces of anything I've ever read. Do you actually evaluate the quality of what's being said in an article Leazes or do you just quote anything that holds itself out as supportive of your viewpoint?

 

Seriously it's utter cobblers. Even all these years later it astonishes me how you present an argument.

 

Has he pulled out the old, football clubs don't go bust like commercial businesses comparison and preposterous bollocks again

[Happy Face 29]

We're still guessing at the current approach. 3 in, 1 out isn't conclusive either way so far nor is it enough time to know what's going to happen.

 

Running at break even is the objective for everyone, isn't it?

 

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club.

 

And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself?

 

Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants?

 

You're being slippery like an eel mr chez.

Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support.

 

If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality.

 

Is that being slippery?

 

It would be daft to complain about lack of subsidy, given the amount he's spent subsidising the club so far. But the method of subsiidy is the problem, it's been retroactive rather than proactive. He's a shite gambler, he won't back us when it'll move us on to the next level, he'll only cover the losses when he gets relegated. And he's setting us up to not make a loss when relegated so he's not liable again, rather than making sure it doesn't happen again.

 

 

Whats the next level though?

 

Are you expecting him to splash a couple of hundred million to break the top four or just a hundred mill to break the top 6 and get into the Europa cup which returns nothing to a club.

 

The gambles got to be worth it and at the moment, 100 million ish to get the top 6 is not a good gamble. (from an owners point of view).

 

I'm expecting nowt. He's saying his plan is to challenge for Europe every year. As you allude to, there's an inherent contradiction between what he says he wants and how he chooses to subsidize us, so far.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Bearing in mind the reality of football finances and our place in the football world at the moment........

 

I see nothing wrong with the approach being taken.

 

The core of a decent squad was kept in place and got us promoted.

That squad was improved with Tiote and Ben-Arfa.

A decent first year back was achieved (should have been 9th minimum).

 

Imo the club is correct in thinking that improvements to the squad should allow us to "challenging" for Europe.

 

The only uncertainty is whether this total re-model going on will leave us with an improved squad. The club seem to think it will and only the end of the window will tell.

 

But if it does then I see no reason why we wont be able to challenge for Europe.

[Happy Face 29]

a hundred mill to break the top 6 and get into the Europa cup which returns nothing to a club.

 

The gambles got to be worth it and at the moment, 100 million ish to get the top 6 is not a good gamble. (from an owners point of view).

 

I see nothing wrong with the approach being taken.

 

Imo the club is correct in thinking that improvements to the squad should allow us to "challenging" for Europe.

 

The only uncertainty is whether this total re-model going on will leave us with an improved squad. The club seem to think it will and only the end of the window will tell.

 

But if it does then I see no reason why we wont be able to challenge for Europe.

 

Again, I'm confused.

 

Toontoon insists we can't afford to push for europe year after year....and he says Ashley knows this and won't spend the money to push for it. You agree it's too much of a gamble. But you and Ashley still both think we'll make that push for europe without spending any the hundrerd million odd you all know and state is needed.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

a hundred mill to break the top 6 and get into the Europa cup which returns nothing to a club.

 

The gambles got to be worth it and at the moment, 100 million ish to get the top 6 is not a good gamble. (from an owners point of view).

 

I see nothing wrong with the approach being taken.

 

Imo the club is correct in thinking that improvements to the squad should allow us to "challenging" for Europe.

 

The only uncertainty is whether this total re-model going on will leave us with an improved squad. The club seem to think it will and only the end of the window will tell.

 

But if it does then I see no reason why we wont be able to challenge for Europe.

 

Again, I'm confused.

 

Toontoon insists we can't afford to push for europe year after year....and he says Ashley knows this and won't spend the money to push for it. You agree it's too much of a gamble. But you and Ashley still both think we'll make that push for europe without spending any the hundrerd million odd you all know and state is needed.

 

I'll un-confuse you

 

Your posts indicate a view that it is either spunk a load of cash to chase the dream or survive.

 

My point is that year on year improvement might also achieve a European place. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

Last season should of been 9th. Put out a better team next year and we should be looking to aim higher, ie challenging for Europe.

[Guest alex]

Shudda, wudda, cudda, Jerry.

[Happy Face 29]

a hundred mill to break the top 6 and get into the Europa cup which returns nothing to a club.

 

The gambles got to be worth it and at the moment, 100 million ish to get the top 6 is not a good gamble. (from an owners point of view).

 

I see nothing wrong with the approach being taken.

 

Imo the club is correct in thinking that improvements to the squad should allow us to "challenging" for Europe.

 

The only uncertainty is whether this total re-model going on will leave us with an improved squad. The club seem to think it will and only the end of the window will tell.

 

But if it does then I see no reason why we wont be able to challenge for Europe.

 

Again, I'm confused.

 

Toontoon insists we can't afford to push for europe year after year....and he says Ashley knows this and won't spend the money to push for it. You agree it's too much of a gamble. But you and Ashley still both think we'll make that push for europe without spending any the hundrerd million odd you all know and state is needed.

 

I'll un-confuse you

 

Your posts indicate a view that it is either spunk a load of cash to chase the dream or survive.

 

My point is that year on year improvement might also achieve a European place. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

Last season should of been 9th. Put out a better team next year and we should be looking to aim higher, ie challenging for Europe.

 

 

You think we'll be able to challenge the 5 available european positions along with the rest of the 'big 6' (Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool and Spurs) without buying a top striker or keeping hold of any quality striker we're able to produce internally?

[Guest alex]

Some people seem to forget that there are people out there who know what they're doing who are also aiming for the year-on-year improvement. It's a canny bit easier said than done.

[LeazesMag 0]

What the fuck is that article about? Great depression, second world war etc etc. Football had a wage cap til Jimmy Hill ffs. And it had illegal contract clauses (transfer fees) til Bosman. You're not kidding it was different to mainstream business and no wonder it was fucking stable as a result. The point is that since those things (wage cap/abolition of illegal transfer fees), together with TV money, player wages and power have now become so demented that it is now an unstable business. Unless you've got someone bankrolling you. But then if you have got someone bankrolling you, you have to do what they fucking say unfortunately and you're at the mercy of who that individual is.

 

Btw seriously: "For comparison, the economic historian Les Hannah made a list of the top 100 companies in 1912, and researched what had become of them by 1995. Nearly half the companies - 49 - had ceased to exist. Five of these had gone bankrupt, 6 were nationalised, and 37 were taken over by other firms. Even among the businesses that survived, many had gone into new sectors or moved to new locations" So five had gone bankrupt in 80 years? 37 were taken over. Cadbury were 'taken over' this year ffs, but it wasnt because they'd gone bust. Quite the opposite in fact, it's because they were massively massively profitable and hence attractive to a competitor.

 

That article is one of the worst pieces of anything I've ever read. Do you actually evaluate the quality of what's being said in an article Leazes or do you just quote anything that holds itself out as supportive of your viewpoint?

 

Seriously it's utter cobblers. Even all these years later it astonishes me how you present an argument.

 

it's an extract from a book written by 2 people who have studied football and business, and the effect on business in football. You should read a bit more and educate yourself

 

It's for those who insist that football clubs that go into debt go bust, because they do not in by far the vast majority of cases.

 

I'm not "presenting an argument" by the way, I'm been saying "for all these years" that football is all about winning on the pitch [without dispute] and in the case of a club like NUFC a team that is winning on the pitch the sky is the limit.If others disagree, some of whom have only been going to games or watching NUFC for a few minutes, that is their problem.