Ashley's Transfer History thread

[Park Life 71]

There are clubs in this league with unlimited budgets we can't stop them outbidding us or stealing our players, we need to face that as a fact at this point in time. If we for instance sell Collo in this window or Tiote in the next for serious money that needs to be rationalised. I don't want us to sell any of our best players, but football isn't like that and it is clear Ashley will sell anyone if the money is right. So far we are streets ahead of teams around us regarding the transfer mural. We have a better midfield and a strikeforce which is light years ahead of Liv and Spurs and anybody below us when Ba2 get back. Credit has to be given for that.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

Where do i say that?

 

The point I am making is that in order for the current board to match the tremendous ambition of the previous board they'd have to spend the equivalent of an entire year's turnover on a single player.

 

THAT is how much football has changed, something you refuse to accept.

 

you're knocking the signing of Shearer, aren't you ?

 

Please tell me how many clubs are bankrolled, as well as ManU and their global appeal. Then tell me how many were bankrolled during the period 1992-2007, then tell me what exactly that has to do with NUFC sinking to the ambitions of the likes of West Brom, Blackburn, Stoke etc etc selling their best players, and operating a sell and replace policy rather than a build and improve policy ?

 

i'm certainly not knocking the signing of Shearer, i'm just saying breaking the transfer record now isn't realistic. To break the transfer record then did not mean an entire year's turnover, now it does.

 

I assume by bankrolled you mean 'living beyond their means', in which case now there is only really chelsea and man city.

Between 92-2007 there were many, ourselves, Leeds, Blackburn, Portsmouth, Middlesbrough are the examples that spring to mind. There is a pattern there isn't there - it wasn't sustainable.

 

To a certain extent the Halls/Shepherd broke the mould, they saw that with a relatively small outlay they could climb the league very quickly. They spent in the region of £5million to go from bottom of div 2 (as was) to the top 3 of the premier league. If you think that could happen today you are even more batshit than i thought.

 

 

Please make up your mind re:Stoke by the way two pages ago they 'backed their manager'.

 

a "relatively small outlay" which the directors previous to them, had not done for over 30 years.........and a "relatively small outlay" that other big clubs at the time, who had been vastly superior to us for years for that very reason, also did not match. In other words, they competed with and beat the competition at the time, and they did that because they knew how big the club was, tapped the potential and backed their managers rather than remain a selling club, like they have become again.

 

Sadly, you are actually knocking all of this, the players they signed, the competitions we qualified for, the growth of the club.

 

There is no reason whatsoever why any owner of NUFC should turn the club into a selling club again, but it has happened, the rest of the premiership know it, and expectations have been successfully lowered among some supporters which makes it even easier for him.

[Toonpack 9463]

When the club was a plc they had to show a profit and the shareholders pocketed the cash. I feel guilty about that now. I wish I had given it back and then we might have won something.

 

Sadly that's not true, we recorded loss after loss and still strangely managed to pay dividend so shareholders could "pocket", which should make you feel even worse

 

I knew that really, I was just simplifying.

 

Not sure I can feel worse what with us being a selling club and clearly and evidently still on a downward trajectory.

 

 

For the record

 

98 - 08 Total Profits in period = £12 Mill, Losses in same period = £146 Mill so cumulative losses £134 Mill. But hey, we managed £34 Mill in dividends in the same period.

[ewerk 30656]

Leazes, in the last two years, what evidence has there been that we are a selling club?

[NJS 4389]

They never spent a penny of their own money.

 

When there was no longer any spare cash because of high wages and low positions they borrowed and strangled the club with debt.

 

When that failed they cut and ran.

[LeazesMag 0]

There are clubs in this league with unlimited budgets we can't stop them outbidding us or stealing our players, we need to face that as a fact at this point in time. If we for instance sell Collo in this window or Tiote in the next for serious money that needs to be rationalised. I don't want us to sell any of our best players, but football isn't like that and it is clear Ashley will sell anyone if the money is right. So far we are streets ahead of teams around us regarding the transfer mural. We have a better midfield and a strikeforce which is light years ahead of Liv and Spurs and anybody below us when Ba2 get back. Credit has to be given for that.

 

there has always been certain clubs who players can't turn down the chance to play for, however there are not too many and currently only one in the premiership and another 2 who are bankrolled, so this is no reason why NUFC should be selling their best players and not backing their manager with the money. There is a difference here Parky, the 2 things don't come together, they are 2 different behaviours. A selling club sells their best players and uses the money elsewhere and doesn't back their managers ie they need the money to run the club, but a big club [especially one that had the 14th biggest revenues in football] should be resisting that and back their managers because they ought not to be needing to re-direct transfer cash.

 

This is so obvious, adopt a sell and replace policy, you go backwards, because you are not building and improving, you keep your best players, add more good ones and discard those who become not good enough for you.

[LeazesMag 0]

They never spent a penny of their own money.

 

When there was no longer any spare cash because of high wages and low positions they borrowed and strangled the club with debt.

 

When that failed they cut and ran.

 

of course, that 15 years was a waste of time, and simply a nightmare, right ?

[trophyshy 7083]

They never spent a penny of their own money.

 

When there was no longer any spare cash because of high wages and low positions they borrowed and strangled the club with debt.

 

When that failed they cut and ran.

 

BUT AT LEAST THEY WEREN'T A SELLING CLUB!

Edited January 25, 2012 by trophyshy

[Happy Face 29]

Leazes, in the last two years, what evidence has there been that we are a selling club?

 

 

Jan 2010 Geremi

May 2010 Fabrice Pancrate

May 2010 Nicky Butt

Jan 2011 Andy Carroll

Jun 2011 Kevin Nolan

Aug 2011 Wayne Routledge

Aug 2011 Jose Enrique

Aug 2011 Joey Barton

[Howay 12496]

Still can't believe we got rid of Geremi and Pancrate.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Howay

[trophyshy 7083]

Leazes, in the last two years, what evidence has there been that we are a selling club?

 

 

Jan 2010 Geremi

May 2010 Fabrice Pancrate

May 2010 Nicky Butt

Jan 2011 Andy Carroll

Jun 2011 Kevin Nolan

Aug 2011 Wayne Routledge

Aug 2011 Jose Enrique

Aug 2011 Joey Barton

 

And is there any evidence that we are, also, a buying club?

[ewerk 30656]

So, Carroll aside, we've raised roughly £10m in outgoing transfers? That doesn't seem like the hallmarks of a selling club to me.

[LeazesMag 0]

Who won the most trophies while the Halls and Shepherd were here, us or Liverpool?

 

I'm not scorning anything, I said if they don't achieve a top four finish they will, against what they set as their target, have failed. The yanks are sanctioning massive spending, that's their policy and they are doing it with their money

 

Our targets for this, our second season back in the premiership, was a top ten finish. Ashley has set his stall out regarding spending and transfer policy and this has so far proved to be successful against the preseason targets that were set.

 

Should we finish in a Europa league place, neither you or anyone else can argue that it is not progress on the last 3 or 4 years, neither can you argue our squad isn't stronger. I'm talking about progress on recent seasons not 6,7 or 8 years ago

 

Finally, if you are going to quote me on things you think I have said please check your facts otherwise it makes you look a bit silly

 

you said things for Liverpool could go tits up if they "only" finished 6th, yet appear to think 7th for us is roaring success [and failure for the last regime too, oddly].

 

Please explain the difference, then tell me when our transfer policy will produce better league positions than Liverpool's, before you knock the tranfer policy of Liverpool which has gave them great success for over 40 years.

I did as that was their target after the investment they have made, spending over £100m to finish 6th or below wasn't their plan

 

6th or 7th for us, considering we were in the championship a couple of seasons ago is progress.

 

Let's wait until the end of the season before debating whos policy has been the most successful, then we will have all the facts won't we

 

indeed, and next season, and the season after that......

[LeazesMag 0]

Im sorry but I find this all extremely dull these days When we were in the mire and none of us really new which way it would go, it was interesting. Now, regardless of silly point scoring, the progress, quality of players, feel good factor within the club and among the supporters is there for all to see. Im reminded of the shoe salesman who was sent by his boss to Africa. He rang his boss a few hours after he landed and demanded to come home because "nobody wears shoes out here". He was replaced by a new salesman who rang up the same boss a few hours after landing and said, "nobody wears shoes out here, send me as much stock as you can". If Leazes only wants to see the bad in our current situation I genuinely feel very sorry for him, but like Bill Murray Ive eventually escaped Groundhog day.

 

7 days and a few hours left in january mate for that statement to look like "jumping the gun" at best. Some would say hopelessly naiive. For the record, I think the entire spine of our best starting 11 will leave in the next 12-18 months. Graham Carr will have to be some sort of magician to replace them adequately. Perhaps paying 10 mill for Demba's replacement is a good sign of better investment. Only time will tell on that one.

 

exactly. Of course, only those are fooled by a few results are "educated" and "predicted the trajectory", unless of course you correctly predicted that while you sell your best players then you go backwards and will never achieve consistent high league positions.

 

The 10m quid for Demba Ba's replacement, could well be a good forecast.

[LeazesMag 0]

some people setting themselves up for a huge fall here, fooled by a few results.

 

Mostly out of towners and non-match goers though, or both, so that's understandable.

[The Fish 10872]

I like it when Chez gets Biblical on someone.

[Gemmill 44989]

The absolute best thing about having Leazes on ignore is....well, there's two good things. Firstly, pages only have about 5 posts on them and a bunch of "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by LeazesMag. View it anyway?" (usually these come one after the other). The correct answer to the "View it anyway?" question is always no btw. The second (and best) thing is that you get to see people absolutely rinsing his bullshit arguments without actually having to read any of his nonsense.

 

Chez must have been up in the night with the bairn cos he is wonderfully feisty today.

[toonotl 2988]

Edited January 25, 2012 by toonotl

[LeazesMag 0]

The absolute best thing about having Leazes on ignore is....well, there's two good things. Firstly, pages only have about 5 posts on them and a bunch of "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by LeazesMag. View it anyway?" (usually these come one after the other). The correct answer to the "View it anyway?" question is always no btw. The second (and best) thing is that you get to see people absolutely rinsing his bullshit arguments without actually having to read any of his nonsense.

 

Chez must have been up in the night with the bairn cos he is wonderfully feisty today.

 

just think if you had put me on ignore 6-7 years ago you would still be saying Souness should be allowed to build his own team with unlimited funds and weed out the "bad eggs"

Edited January 30, 2012 by LeazesMag

[ewerk 30656]

You do realise that he can't see that?

[Guest alex]

The absolute best thing about having Leazes on ignore is....well, there's two good things. Firstly, pages only have about 5 posts on them and a bunch of "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by LeazesMag. View it anyway?" (usually these come one after the other). The correct answer to the "View it anyway?" question is always no btw. The second (and best) thing is that you get to see people absolutely rinsing his bullshit arguments without actually having to read any of his nonsense.

 

Chez must have been up in the night with the bairn cos he is wonderfully feisty today.

 

just think if you had put me on ignore 6-7 years ago you would still be saying Souness should be allowed to build his own team with unlimited funds and weed out the "bad eggs"

Did Shepherd have you on ignore back then like?

[ChezGiven 0]

Only one person to blame for Souness's appointment and we all know now that's Gemmill. That's what happens when you use a spreadsheet to decide on a manager.

[Brock Manson 0]

The absolute best thing about having Leazes on ignore is....well, there's two good things. Firstly, pages only have about 5 posts on them and a bunch of "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by LeazesMag. View it anyway?" (usually these come one after the other). The correct answer to the "View it anyway?" question is always no btw. The second (and best) thing is that you get to see people absolutely rinsing his bullshit arguments without actually having to read any of his nonsense.

 

Chez must have been up in the night with the bairn cos he is wonderfully feisty today.

 

just think if you had put me on ignore 6-7 years ago you would still be saying Souness should be allowed to build his own team with unlimited funds and weed out the "bad eggs"

 

You thought that Souness should have been allowed to build his own team with unlimited funds though. Look where that got us.

[LeazesMag 0]

The absolute best thing about having Leazes on ignore is....well, there's two good things. Firstly, pages only have about 5 posts on them and a bunch of "This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by LeazesMag. View it anyway?" (usually these come one after the other). The correct answer to the "View it anyway?" question is always no btw. The second (and best) thing is that you get to see people absolutely rinsing his bullshit arguments without actually having to read any of his nonsense.

 

Chez must have been up in the night with the bairn cos he is wonderfully feisty today.

 

just think if you had put me on ignore 6-7 years ago you would still be saying Souness should be allowed to build his own team with unlimited funds and weed out the "bad eggs"

 

You thought that Souness should have been allowed to build his own team with unlimited funds though. Look where that got us.

 

no I did not.

 

Gemmill did though, backed him right to the end. Must be the accountancy training.

 

Edit. Actually the blind backing of Mike Ashley reminds me very much of the blind backing of Souness, when he has sold the club, all those who are backing him will be saying the same as I am now and disappear into a little corner and pretend they always agreed with me, like Gloomy for instance.

Edited January 30, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Brock Manson 0]

You think it was a good idea that ffs backed HIS appointment to the tune of £50million? Yet you also think Mike Ashley has set this club back 20 years?