Ashley's Transfer History thread

[Craig 6682]

Comparing something that happened 20 years ago is madness.

 

I can't stand Ashley as a person and a businessman and some of the decisions he's made in the 5 years he's been here anger the fuck out of me. But his appointment of Pardew has, against my prediciton, proved to be a masterstroke and however much you despise the man, you have to commend him for that.

 

Perhaps he got lucky and it's just worked out right, but then there was many who claimed the appointment of Keegan in 92 - a man who'd been out of the game for 8 years, was madness and if you put Ashley's appointment of Pardew down to luck then you can't suggest that Hall's appointment of KK wasn't of similar ilk.

 

What I will say is that in 30 years of supporting this club, they are better defensively structured than I have ever known. Success is built on a solid defence and we are making strides forward.

 

However much I detest what's gone on commercially over the last couple of years, what has been happening on the pitch has been re-igniting that old spark inside. The turn around inside 3 years is remarkable tbh.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, few questions, not being horrible or anything I just want to know your opinion.

1. Let's say we sold a player, let's say Ba for 50 million, obviously wouldn't happen but let's say we did. We then spen 20 million of that 50 million on 5 class players who make the squad better, would you be happy?

2. If that team then won the league, what'd your opinion be?

3. Do you really think we should be spending more money at the minute? If so, how much and on who?

4. I personally believe that we should spend bit by bit as a way of steadily increasing our team. 10 million when needed on Cisse for example rather than spunking it when not needed just because we have it. Would you rather we went 25 million by the end of January on players we may not arguably need or would you rather the bank balance be fully in the black and have the money to spend if say in July a great new player becomes available for cheap.

5. I also think that it's hard to compare the current owners with Freddy since the games changed so much. What are your opinions on this belief? I personally see two reigns of Ashley, one of idiocy leading the relegation, and one which starts in July 09 which is admittedly stringent, but which is slowly getting us on the rise.

To clarify i'm not particularly pro-Ashley or anti-Ashley, I just want the best for the team and if Ashley gained 25 mill a season in transfers but as a squad we improved i'd be happy. You may not share my view but i'm sure you understand it.

 

1. If we sell a player for 50m quid, the entire fee should go to the manager to spend as he sees fit. Because we are not a club that should be a selling, directing money elsewhere or wondering where it has disappeared.

 

2. If they won the league, I would want them to win it again, and the Champions League, using the rest of that money to build further.

 

3. I think that it should be made clear that all of that money is available to the manager, without any doubt about it, and the manager should be saying this and showing us. Like all successful clubs do, and like we did under the previous regime. How do you think those CL and european qualifications were earned ? And the club grew from what it was in 1992 and how its fortunes went in the 1970's and 1980's, into what it was in 2007 ? I seriously think that the vast majority of people have no idea whatsover of the state this club was in in 1992. It's the only logical explanation for the depth of their ignorance.

 

4. I think they should be going in, seriously, whenever any class player becomes available, and backing the manager to sign any player he wishes to sign to the best of their ability, using ALL of the money from sales plus a budget in keeping with a club that had the 14th biggest revenues in football when Ashley bought it.

 

5. When "Freddy" owned the club ? [which he never did by the way] we needed to compete with ManU and one bankrolled club, now we compete with ManU and two bankrolled clubs. This is no excuse for selling our best players to clubs like Spurs and Liverpool, and not backing the manager, and competing at the levels of clubs like West Brom, Blackburn and Bolton ie selling your best players and not backing your manager. This is a club which had the 14th biggest turnover in football and dwarfs the vast majority of other clubs in the premiership, but only if you behave in that way.

 

Happy ?

 

If anyone says to me answer a question again, they can fuck off, and tell the likes of Toonpack, JSM, Gloomy, Cabayeaye, BestBanone etc to answer questions I have asked them instea.

[LeazesMag 0]

Comparing something that happened 20 years ago is madness.

 

I can't stand Ashley as a person and a businessman and some of the decisions he's made in the 5 years he's been here anger the fuck out of me. But his appointment of Pardew has, against my prediciton, proved to be a masterstroke and however much you despise the man, you have to commend him for that.

 

Perhaps he got lucky and it's just worked out right, but then there was many who claimed the appointment of Keegan in 92 - a man who'd been out of the game for 8 years, was madness and if you put Ashley's appointment of Pardew down to luck then you can't suggest that Hall's appointment of KK wasn't of similar ilk.

 

What I will say is that in 30 years of supporting this club, they are better defensively structured than I have ever known. Success is built on a solid defence and we are making strides forward.

 

However much I detest what's gone on commercially over the last couple of years, what has been happening on the pitch has been re-igniting that old spark inside. The turn around inside 3 years is remarkable tbh.

 

I'm happy to compare what happened between 1992 and 2007 to what happened in the 1970's and 1980's, and also to the last 4 years. It's daft to say you can't, of course you can, and you should. The club is the same, the opponents are the same, the league is the same, the fact is that the Halls and Shepherd rose to the challenge posed by their competitors, at the time, better than anybody else did during their own time, and they did it because they were football men and understood how big the club was and how it needed to be done and what you have to do if you attempt to succeed.

[CleeToonFan 1]

Cheers, aye obviously Shepherd was only chairman but his influence was a bit more than the likes of the pseudo-Chairman you get nowadays.

 

I can tell you obviously care about the club etc so I don't get why many people call for you to be banned and things, just think you should be enjoying the Indian Summer while it lasts more Leazes.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Operating in the budget that it did previously? Spending shit loads of money it never had, paying £100k a week wages and racking up an unsustainable debt, great short term plan but will ultimatly end in tears and substandard players when the cash dries up as was evident towards the end of the previous regime

[LeazesMag 0]

Operating in the budget that it did previously? Spending shit loads of money it never had, paying £100k a week wages and racking up an unsustainable debt, great short term plan but will ultimatly end in tears and substandard players when the cash dries up as was evident towards the end of the previous regime

 

tears after Champions League football, and the 5th most qualified team for europe, the expansion of the stadium into one of the best in europe from a half full cow shed, a club that couldn't sell for 1.25m into the 14th highest revenues in football, the world record transfer, and all because they spent 100k in wages, we all cried like fuck for 15 years

[Craig 6682]

Only reason "we can and we should" is because your arguement is fruitless without that line.

 

You're talking about a time when players were driving around in a basic Rover 214 with their name plastered down the side of it simply because the club had done a deal with Benfield Motors. That was a perk back then - it's not even comparable to today.

 

"Rising to the challenge posed by your competitors" suggests we should be spending on a level comparable to Manchester City. That'd be economic suicide! If Man City had been owned by Sheikh Mansour back in the early 90s, Hall and Shepherd would not have been matching them.

 

Accept that others have differing opinions to you. You are neither right nor are they wrong - just different.

[LeazesMag 0]

Only reason "we can and we should" is because your arguement is fruitless without that line.

 

You're talking about a time when players were driving around in a basic Rover 214 with their name plastered down the side of it simply because the club had done a deal with Benfield Motors. That was a perk back then - it's not even comparable to today.

 

"Rising to the challenge posed by your competitors" suggests we should be spending on a level comparable to Manchester City. That'd be economic suicide! If Man City had been owned by Sheikh Mansour back in the early 90s, Hall and Shepherd would not have been matching them.

 

Accept that others have differing opinions to you. You are neither right nor are they wrong - just different.

 

not saying anything of the kind, I'm saying we challenged all the other clubs bar the one with global appeal and the [one] bankrolled one, which won the league. Now there are two bankrolled teams, and its still possible to beat them, but only if you concentrate on your own club and accept that its one of the biggest in its own right. Which is what they did, and there is no reason why Ashley can;t do the same. The basic, bottom line, is he doesn't have the ambition for it and never was prepared to show it, the club is a sideline to Sports Direct, he only wants a premiership club to promote and sit alongside his sports company. If he doesn't make an operating profit, he will do it by selling someone instead, this is far easier than gambling on the cash to be made in europe. The only definite thing that has happened in 4 years, is that this is now obvious to a blind man, on the pitch we have achieved nothing, we have been relegated, and the current season is as good as it is ever going to get and above expectations, due to a manager doing very well with his hands tied behind his back and not being backed by his owner.

 

But Pardew will go, he will either be poached by a club that backs him more than NUFC ie Stoke, Blackburn, or he will be sacked because they will start to think he can get into europe for peanuts too, and stay there for peanuts. Nobody can do that. This is why flash in the pans in recent years such as Bolton and Everton have done it then faded away, either when the manager goes or it just becomes impossible to sustain. You sell your best players, don't back your managers, and you are limited. You have to go for the top players if you want to go the final hurdle, Mike Ashley will NEVER do that. I realise people who think NUFC are a small club will agree with his stance.

 

In time, I will be proved absolutely correct, this is not an "opinion", its how football is.

Edited January 24, 2012 by LeazesMag

[sandman02uk 0]

 

how much more income do they need than the 14th biggest in football ? Thus not needing to sell their best players ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue

 

so the answer is no them, we didnt have the 14th biggest income in football, we had the 14th biggest revenue

 

have a read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_income

 

then you may understand why people are so abusive to you, its a shame really because when you're not trashing every thread your comments are usually good

[sandman02uk 0]

ant, the code to limit the quotes is fucked mate, i had to manually edit that, it was giving an error saying the number of opening quotes isnt the same as closing quotes, however it was

 

can it be set to remove the oldest quote first?

[LeazesMag 0]

how much more income do they need than the 14th biggest in football ? Thus not needing to sell their best players ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue

 

so the answer is no them, we didnt have the 14th biggest income in football, we had the 14th biggest revenue

 

have a read http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Net_income

 

then you may understand why people are so abusive to you, its a shame really because when you're not trashing every thread your comments are usually good

 

"In business, revenue is income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, revenue is referred to asturnover".

 

The question remains, how much more money does he need in order NOT to sell our best players. If our revenues have fallen proportionally against our rivals, then who is the person responsible for that ?

 

I know my comments are always good, it's a shame that people have a blind spot when the names Hall and Shepherd come into play though.

Edited January 24, 2012 by LeazesMag

[donaldstott 0]

It is ludicrous to compare the two periods. Shearer today would cost 50million, sir les probably 25million, each would want 150k a week. our turnover is only circa 90million quid. Football has changed to compare transfer strategies is pointless.

 

It amuses me that you keep on mentioning stoke as backing their manager, if it's a choice between crouch or ba or tiote or palacios I know who I'd pick. FFS would choose crouch and palacios by the way!

[Christmas Tree 4711]

 

copyright HF

[LeazesMag 0]

It is ludicrous to compare the two periods. Shearer today would cost 50million, sir les probably 25million, each would want 150k a week. our turnover is only circa 90million quid. Football has changed to compare transfer strategies is pointless.

 

It amuses me that you keep on mentioning stoke as backing their manager, if it's a choice between crouch or ba or tiote or palacios I know who I'd pick. FFS would choose crouch and palacios by the way!

 

rubbish.

 

Fred wasn't the manager or the owner by the way, and if he had been the manager, then qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 in 15 years isn't too bad It means he bought Bellamy, Robert, Speed, Dyer, Hamman, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Jenas, etc etc etc ......match that then Mikey baby

Edited January 25, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

 

copyright HF

 

[Baggio 0]

It is ludicrous to compare the two periods. Shearer today would cost 50million, sir les probably 25million, each would want 150k a week. our turnover is only circa 90million quid. Football has changed to compare transfer strategies is pointless.

 

It amuses me that you keep on mentioning stoke as backing their manager, if it's a choice between crouch or ba or tiote or palacios I know who I'd pick. FFS would choose crouch and palacios by the way!

 

rubbish.

 

Fred wasn't the manager or the owner by the way, and if he had been the manager, then qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 in 15 years isn't too bad It means he bought Bellamy, Robert, Speed, Dyer, Hamman, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Jenas, etc etc etc ......match that then Mikey baby

 

He sold them all too apart from Given and Dyer.

 

Selling our best players eh? No wonder we dropped like a stone when he cashed in on them all.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Baggio

[donaldstott 0]

It is ludicrous to compare the two periods. Shearer today would cost 50million, sir les probably 25million, each would want 150k a week. our turnover is only circa 90million quid. Football has changed to compare transfer strategies is pointless.

 

It amuses me that you keep on mentioning stoke as backing their manager, if it's a choice between crouch or ba or tiote or palacios I know who I'd pick. FFS would choose crouch and palacios by the way!

 

rubbish.

 

Fred wasn't the manager or the owner by the way, and if he had been the manager, then qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 in 15 years isn't too bad It means he bought Bellamy, Robert, Speed, Dyer, Hamman, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Jenas, etc etc etc ......match that then Mikey baby

 

You are right Leazes it is rubbish.

 

I've had time to reflect and Shearer would probably cost £80million. Of course spending our entire turnover by breaking the world transfer record is exactly the kind of thing Mike Ashley should be doing. Quite how we would pay his wages who knows, I guess we could re-mortgage the stadium.. again.

[Craig 6682]

The argument about the ground being redeveloped falls on its arse too.

 

It had to be developed on account of the fidings of the Taylor report - whoever was in charge.

[LeazesMag 0]

The argument about the ground being redeveloped falls on its arse too.

 

It had to be developed on account of the fidings of the Taylor report - whoever was in charge.

 

clubs like Sheff Wed [outstanding example, the very place which prompted the report in the first place] have progressed on and off the pitch just like we did, didn't they ?

 

Fact is Craig, without the Halls and Shepherd, we would have had gone the way of Sheff Wed, we were already almost there when they took over, and the Taylor report didn't force them to rebuild their stadium and club.

 

Mike Ashley has taken over one of the top football clubs in the country, and europe, courtesy of the previous regime, and he doesn't have the ambition to fulfill it and is wasting it.

Edited January 25, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

It is ludicrous to compare the two periods. Shearer today would cost 50million, sir les probably 25million, each would want 150k a week. our turnover is only circa 90million quid. Football has changed to compare transfer strategies is pointless.

 

It amuses me that you keep on mentioning stoke as backing their manager, if it's a choice between crouch or ba or tiote or palacios I know who I'd pick. FFS would choose crouch and palacios by the way!

 

rubbish.

 

Fred wasn't the manager or the owner by the way, and if he had been the manager, then qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 in 15 years isn't too bad It means he bought Bellamy, Robert, Speed, Dyer, Hamman, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Jenas, etc etc etc ......match that then Mikey baby

 

You are right Leazes it is rubbish.

 

I've had time to reflect and Shearer would probably cost £80million. Of course spending our entire turnover by breaking the world transfer record is exactly the kind of thing Mike Ashley should be doing. Quite how we would pay his wages who knows, I guess we could re-mortgage the stadium.. again.

 

I'm pleased you agree. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the club, and the decades previous to 1992 to appreciate what happened to the club in those 15 years.You think that Shearer was a waste of money ? Fuck me sideways.

 

See my previous post to Craig.

Edited January 25, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

It is ludicrous to compare the two periods. Shearer today would cost 50million, sir les probably 25million, each would want 150k a week. our turnover is only circa 90million quid. Football has changed to compare transfer strategies is pointless.

 

It amuses me that you keep on mentioning stoke as backing their manager, if it's a choice between crouch or ba or tiote or palacios I know who I'd pick. FFS would choose crouch and palacios by the way!

 

rubbish.

 

Fred wasn't the manager or the owner by the way, and if he had been the manager, then qualifying for europe more than any club bar 4 in 15 years isn't too bad It means he bought Bellamy, Robert, Speed, Dyer, Hamman, Solano, Given, Woodgate, Jenas, etc etc etc ......match that then Mikey baby

 

He sold them all too apart from Given and Dyer.

 

Selling our best players eh? No wonder we dropped like a stone when he cashed in on them all.

 

players come and go, but you either back your manager or don't.

 

Mike Ashley does not, the previous regime [and all the successful clubs ever since football began] did.

[LeazesMag 0]

Quite amazing that after 4 years of getting nowhere near the old regime, including a relegation, there are people who STILL don't realise how big a club NUFC are and how they should operate and what ambitions they ought to have.

 

Their irrational hatred of the only good directors we have had in over 50 years, including ridiculing and dismissing all the great players they signed, the great stadiums we played in and the great clubs we competed alongside during that time, is incredibly short sighted and totally braindead.

Edited January 25, 2012 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

3 months ago these posts contained constant reference to Liverpool backing their manager and being ambitious. Funny you don't bring them up anymore

[LeazesMag 0]

3 months ago these posts contained constant reference to Liverpool backing their manager and being ambitious. Funny you don't bring them up anymore

 

I do, and I will. Liverpools transfer policy is superior to ours, and has been for decades apart from 1992-2007 when we attempted to do it like they do. Strange that isn't it, bearing in mind it was our best period by far in the last 50 years ?

[ChezGiven 0]

Lets just focus on the 2011/12 season and keep it real eh? You think we should copy Liverpool's current strategy?