Guest Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'll reply to the crock of shit you have posted later cos I'm on my phone, but how do you feelin about freds man big Sam backing the Carroll sale? just don't derail the thread again Derailing the thread would be posting unrelated links to borderline illegal teenage gay porn that you "just happen to have stumbled across" while smurfing the net. As for the question, care to answer it? fuck off you stupid twat Stop derailing the thread I've answered his question. Are you hoping your friends will jump in here and defend your corner for you again I realise the concept of people liking you is entirely alien to you , but you still haven't answered the question. Try again. Are you trying to gain the affections of skidders or something I've tried, but he's more interested in the gay porn links you constantly post. Now about that question he asked? ref your earlier comment ie the bit in bold, I don't particularly like pricks like you who think they are somebody else's fairy godmother. His question is stupid, like him, I don't give a toss what Sam Allardyce thinks of the sale of Andy Carroll and neither should anybody else. More to the point, what does Skidmarks think of it, as he was getting his knickers in a right old twist and slating anybody who even suggested it could happen ? What does he think of his man now ? Still think he will ever qualify for the Champions League and europe regularly like the previous regime ? My views on Stable Financial Footing in football are well documented. What are yours ? Answer the question and stop derailing the thread to bum lick somebody. Still no quotes on that one Leazes, you've ignored multiple requests for one too. Go drink your 3.8% beer and yell at clouds. You're a fucking tragedy. who cares what Allardyce thinks ? Why do you care ? You're a strange one lad, that's the best thing I can say about you Are you going to answer my question? It matters because you claim we are a selling club, but the fact is that if Shepherd was still in charge with the manager he'd appointed, then Allardyce admits that that kind of money is too good to turn down. Therefore indicating that he would have been sold. I'll break it down a little more. We'd have also been a selling club if Carroll had been sold for £35m under Shepherd/Allardyce, by your logic. What do you think about this? Oh, and STILL no quote? fuckin hell. What does it matter what Allardyce thinks, how does he know someone else would have decided to sell ? You're an utter tool. BTW, the record of the Halls and Shepherd suggests they would have recognised the need to build on players like Carroll, if you want to speculate look at their record while in charge. You're an utter tool. What do you think of your previous claims that Ashley would not sell Carroll ? Answer the question, and your fairy godmother can answer too if he likes The decision to sell would have been Sam's wouldn't it? He's said it was too good to turn down. So would we have been a selling club? As for your question, provide me with quotes from myself. That's two lots of quotes you need to find now, if you can't find them, don't bother replying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'll reply to the crock of shit you have posted later cos I'm on my phone, but how do you feelin about freds man big Sam backing the Carroll sale? just don't derail the thread again Derailing the thread would be posting unrelated links to borderline illegal teenage gay porn that you "just happen to have stumbled across" while smurfing the net. As for the question, care to answer it? fuck off you stupid twat Stop derailing the thread I've answered his question. Are you hoping your friends will jump in here and defend your corner for you again I realise the concept of people liking you is entirely alien to you , but you still haven't answered the question. Try again. Are you trying to gain the affections of skidders or something I've tried, but he's more interested in the gay porn links you constantly post. Now about that question he asked? ref your earlier comment ie the bit in bold, I don't particularly like pricks like you who think they are somebody else's fairy godmother. His question is stupid, like him, I don't give a toss what Sam Allardyce thinks of the sale of Andy Carroll and neither should anybody else. More to the point, what does Skidmarks think of it, as he was getting his knickers in a right old twist and slating anybody who even suggested it could happen ? What does he think of his man now ? Still think he will ever qualify for the Champions League and europe regularly like the previous regime ? My views on Stable Financial Footing in football are well documented. What are yours ? Answer the question and stop derailing the thread to bum lick somebody. Still no quotes on that one Leazes, you've ignored multiple requests for one too. Go drink your 3.8% beer and yell at clouds. You're a fucking tragedy. who cares what Allardyce thinks ? Why do you care ? You're a strange one lad, that's the best thing I can say about you Are you going to answer my question? It matters because you claim we are a selling club, but the fact is that if Shepherd was still in charge with the manager he'd appointed, then Allardyce admits that that kind of money is too good to turn down. Therefore indicating that he would have been sold. I'll break it down a little more. We'd have also been a selling club if Carroll had been sold for £35m under Shepherd/Allardyce, by your logic. What do you think about this? Oh, and STILL no quote? fuckin hell. What does it matter what Allardyce thinks, how does he know someone else would have decided to sell ? You're an utter tool. BTW, the record of the Halls and Shepherd suggests they would have recognised the need to build on players like Carroll, if you want to speculate look at their record while in charge. You're an utter tool. What do you think of your previous claims that Ashley would not sell Carroll ? Answer the question, and your fairy godmother can answer too if he likes The decision to sell would have been Sam's wouldn't it? He's said it was too good to turn down. So would we have been a selling club? As for your question, provide me with quotes from myself. That's two lots of quotes you need to find now, if you can't find them, don't bother replying. sigh. Not if it is the managers decision and he is allowed to spend the money how he likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'll reply to the crock of shit you have posted later cos I'm on my phone, but how do you feelin about freds man big Sam backing the Carroll sale? just don't derail the thread again Derailing the thread would be posting unrelated links to borderline illegal teenage gay porn that you "just happen to have stumbled across" while smurfing the net. As for the question, care to answer it? fuck off you stupid twat Stop derailing the thread I've answered his question. Are you hoping your friends will jump in here and defend your corner for you again I realise the concept of people liking you is entirely alien to you , but you still haven't answered the question. Try again. Are you trying to gain the affections of skidders or something I've tried, but he's more interested in the gay porn links you constantly post. Now about that question he asked? ref your earlier comment ie the bit in bold, I don't particularly like pricks like you who think they are somebody else's fairy godmother. His question is stupid, like him, I don't give a toss what Sam Allardyce thinks of the sale of Andy Carroll and neither should anybody else. More to the point, what does Skidmarks think of it, as he was getting his knickers in a right old twist and slating anybody who even suggested it could happen ? What does he think of his man now ? Still think he will ever qualify for the Champions League and europe regularly like the previous regime ? My views on Stable Financial Footing in football are well documented. What are yours ? Answer the question and stop derailing the thread to bum lick somebody. Still no quotes on that one Leazes, you've ignored multiple requests for one too. Go drink your 3.8% beer and yell at clouds. You're a fucking tragedy. who cares what Allardyce thinks ? Why do you care ? You're a strange one lad, that's the best thing I can say about you Are you going to answer my question? It matters because you claim we are a selling club, but the fact is that if Shepherd was still in charge with the manager he'd appointed, then Allardyce admits that that kind of money is too good to turn down. Therefore indicating that he would have been sold. I'll break it down a little more. We'd have also been a selling club if Carroll had been sold for £35m under Shepherd/Allardyce, by your logic. What do you think about this? Oh, and STILL no quote? fuckin hell. What does it matter what Allardyce thinks, how does he know someone else would have decided to sell ? You're an utter tool. BTW, the record of the Halls and Shepherd suggests they would have recognised the need to build on players like Carroll, if you want to speculate look at their record while in charge. You're an utter tool. What do you think of your previous claims that Ashley would not sell Carroll ? Answer the question, and your fairy godmother can answer too if he likes The decision to sell would have been Sam's wouldn't it? He's said it was too good to turn down. So would we have been a selling club? As for your question, provide me with quotes from myself. That's two lots of quotes you need to find now, if you can't find them, don't bother replying. sigh. Not if it is the managers decision and he is allowed to spend the money how he likes. Like when Sir Bob wanted to spend his budget on Carrick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Any further forward with these quotes yet Leazes? You're credibility is draining by the... oh wait, you had none to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'll reply to the crock of shit you have posted later cos I'm on my phone, but how do you feelin about freds man big Sam backing the Carroll sale? just don't derail the thread again Derailing the thread would be posting unrelated links to borderline illegal teenage gay porn that you "just happen to have stumbled across" while smurfing the net. As for the question, care to answer it? fuck off you stupid twat Stop derailing the thread I've answered his question. Are you hoping your friends will jump in here and defend your corner for you again I realise the concept of people liking you is entirely alien to you , but you still haven't answered the question. Try again. Are you trying to gain the affections of skidders or something I've tried, but he's more interested in the gay porn links you constantly post. Now about that question he asked? ref your earlier comment ie the bit in bold, I don't particularly like pricks like you who think they are somebody else's fairy godmother. His question is stupid, like him, I don't give a toss what Sam Allardyce thinks of the sale of Andy Carroll and neither should anybody else. More to the point, what does Skidmarks think of it, as he was getting his knickers in a right old twist and slating anybody who even suggested it could happen ? What does he think of his man now ? Still think he will ever qualify for the Champions League and europe regularly like the previous regime ? My views on Stable Financial Footing in football are well documented. What are yours ? Answer the question and stop derailing the thread to bum lick somebody. Still no quotes on that one Leazes, you've ignored multiple requests for one too. Go drink your 3.8% beer and yell at clouds. You're a fucking tragedy. who cares what Allardyce thinks ? Why do you care ? You're a strange one lad, that's the best thing I can say about you Are you going to answer my question? It matters because you claim we are a selling club, but the fact is that if Shepherd was still in charge with the manager he'd appointed, then Allardyce admits that that kind of money is too good to turn down. Therefore indicating that he would have been sold. I'll break it down a little more. We'd have also been a selling club if Carroll had been sold for £35m under Shepherd/Allardyce, by your logic. What do you think about this? Oh, and STILL no quote? fuckin hell. What does it matter what Allardyce thinks, how does he know someone else would have decided to sell ? You're an utter tool. BTW, the record of the Halls and Shepherd suggests they would have recognised the need to build on players like Carroll, if you want to speculate look at their record while in charge. You're an utter tool. What do you think of your previous claims that Ashley would not sell Carroll ? Answer the question, and your fairy godmother can answer too if he likes The decision to sell would have been Sam's wouldn't it? He's said it was too good to turn down. So would we have been a selling club? As for your question, provide me with quotes from myself. That's two lots of quotes you need to find now, if you can't find them, don't bother replying. sigh. Not if it is the managers decision and he is allowed to spend the money how he likes. Like when Sir Bob wanted to spend his budget on Carrick? no, like when he spent it on Bellamy, Robert, Cort, Bramble, Viana, Carr, Butt, Jenas, Woodgate, Milner etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Any further forward with these quotes yet Leazes? You're credibility is draining by the... oh wait, you had none to begin with. you have your reply. How about telling us what you think of your claims that Ashley wouldn't sell Carroll and the venom your hurled at posters who said otherwise ? Anyway, I'm off now. Enjoy your strong beer. Try and get back onto the thread lad while I'm away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 No quotes then and no answer to the question then. Precious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 22216 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'll reply to the crock of shit you have posted later cos I'm on my phone, but how do you feelin about freds man big Sam backing the Carroll sale? just don't derail the thread again Derailing the thread would be posting unrelated links to borderline illegal teenage gay porn that you "just happen to have stumbled across" while smurfing the net. As for the question, care to answer it? fuck off you stupid twat Stop derailing the thread I've answered his question. Are you hoping your friends will jump in here and defend your corner for you again I realise the concept of people liking you is entirely alien to you , but you still haven't answered the question. Try again. Are you trying to gain the affections of skidders or something I've tried, but he's more interested in the gay porn links you constantly post. Now about that question he asked? ref your earlier comment ie the bit in bold, I don't particularly like pricks like you who think they are somebody else's fairy godmother. His question is stupid, like him, I don't give a toss what Sam Allardyce thinks of the sale of Andy Carroll and neither should anybody else. More to the point, what does Skidmarks think of it, as he was getting his knickers in a right old twist and slating anybody who even suggested it could happen ? What does he think of his man now ? Still think he will ever qualify for the Champions League and europe regularly like the previous regime ? My views on Stable Financial Footing in football are well documented. What are yours ? Answer the question and stop derailing the thread to bum lick somebody. Still no quotes on that one Leazes, you've ignored multiple requests for one too. Go drink your 3.8% beer and yell at clouds. You're a fucking tragedy. who cares what Allardyce thinks ? Why do you care ? You're a strange one lad, that's the best thing I can say about you Are you going to answer my question? It matters because you claim we are a selling club, but the fact is that if Shepherd was still in charge with the manager he'd appointed, then Allardyce admits that that kind of money is too good to turn down. Therefore indicating that he would have been sold. I'll break it down a little more. We'd have also been a selling club if Carroll had been sold for £35m under Shepherd/Allardyce, by your logic. What do you think about this? Oh, and STILL no quote? fuckin hell. What does it matter what Allardyce thinks, how does he know someone else would have decided to sell ? You're an utter tool. BTW, the record of the Halls and Shepherd suggests they would have recognised the need to build on players like Carroll, if you want to speculate look at their record while in charge. You're an utter tool. What do you think of your previous claims that Ashley would not sell Carroll ? Answer the question, and your fairy godmother can answer too if he likes The decision to sell would have been Sam's wouldn't it? He's said it was too good to turn down. So would we have been a selling club? As for your question, provide me with quotes from myself. That's two lots of quotes you need to find now, if you can't find them, don't bother replying. sigh. Not if it is the managers decision and he is allowed to spend the money how he likes. Like when Sir Bob wanted to spend his budget on Carrick? no, like when he spent it on Bellamy, Robert, Cort, Bramble, Viana, Carr, Butt, Jenas, Woodgate, Milner etc..... Cool. By that logic Ashley doesn't run a selling club because of like errr when he bought Colo, Jonas, Ben Arfa, Tiote, Smith, Beye, Enrique, Barton and Nolan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 What will you say when what is left of that little lot want to leave ie Barton first, now the penny drops that we are a selling club, as you were also told ? Maybe Mike Ashley's idea of a financially stable football club is to have a squad of free transfers, getting paid 10 grand a week, and those 50,000 coming through the gates every home game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not taking sides as I don't think it's got much to do with Ashley anyway but the crowds are still remarkably good and I think under Shepherd we'd have had a slight downturn anyway. The reason for this is people being worried about their finances, job cuts etc. but (probably most significantly) you can watch just about every Newcastle game, home or away on the foreign telly in any number of pubs in and around the town these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not taking sides as I don't think it's got much to do with Ashley anyway but the crowds are still remarkably good and I think under Shepherd we'd have had a slight downturn anyway. The reason for this is people being worried about their finances, job cuts etc. but (probably most significantly) you can watch just about every Newcastle game, home or away on the foreign telly in any number of pubs in and around the town these days. slight deviation, but I still think that post made about 2 weeks ago, about some Yanks banning all TV's showing games in pubs etc within a proximty of the stadium is a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not taking sides as I don't think it's got much to do with Ashley anyway but the crowds are still remarkably good and I think under Shepherd we'd have had a slight downturn anyway. The reason for this is people being worried about their finances, job cuts etc. but (probably most significantly) you can watch just about every Newcastle game, home or away on the foreign telly in any number of pubs in and around the town these days. slight deviation, but I still think that post made about 2 weeks ago, about some Yanks banning all TV's showing games in pubs etc within a proximty of the stadium is a good one. EU restriction of trade etc. Agree with idea in principle like. Btw, it's only if the game isn't a sell-out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not taking sides as I don't think it's got much to do with Ashley anyway but the crowds are still remarkably good and I think under Shepherd we'd have had a slight downturn anyway. The reason for this is people being worried about their finances, job cuts etc. but (probably most significantly) you can watch just about every Newcastle game, home or away on the foreign telly in any number of pubs in and around the town these days. slight deviation, but I still think that post made about 2 weeks ago, about some Yanks banning all TV's showing games in pubs etc within a proximty of the stadium is a good one. EU restriction of trade etc . Agree with idea in principle like. Btw, it's only if the game isn't a sell-out. another reason to get out of europe then .... [disappears......] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 10076 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. Excellent post, sums it up perfectly. Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Hall Family + Shepherd In = £3m Out = £138m + years of dividends + £0.5m per year for warehousing. Ashley In = £200+m Out = ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Excellent post, sums it up perfectly. Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. Im not interested in getting into the whole Shepherd/Ashely argument because Shepherd had his problems/ issues/ whatever we want to call them and I agree with Mancy that he had ran his course. What Shepherd did bring to the table that Ashley has no concept of is the view that Debt can be reduced/ profits increased not just through cost cutting but increasing the turnover. Nothing Ashley has done since coming here could be argued as increasing the revenue of the club. All the thoughts on debt reduction etc are made by cutting corners which unlike a market stall often results in much bigger losses through the likes of relegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. Good post and cheers, spot on throughout. I doubt it'll mean anything to him though, prepare for the 4th most qualified club line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. Good post and cheers, spot on throughout. I doubt it'll mean anything to him though, prepare for the 4th most qualified club line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7084 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Share Posted February 4, 2011 a few of Mike Ashley's caprice, earlier today; excellent post manc-mag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. Excellent post. Mostly agree but.... Excellent post, sums it up perfectly. Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. Im not interested in getting into the whole Shepherd/Ashely argument because Shepherd had his problems/ issues/ whatever we want to call them and I agree with Mancy that he had ran his course. What Shepherd did bring to the table that Ashley has no concept of is the view that Debt can be reduced/ profits increased not just through cost cutting but increasing the turnover. Nothing Ashley has done since coming here could be argued as increasing the revenue of the club. All the thoughts on debt reduction etc are made by cutting corners which unlike a market stall often results in much bigger losses through the likes of relegation. This is the key point and it's depressing as fuck to watch it unfold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Excellent post, sums it up perfectly. Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. Im not interested in getting into the whole Shepherd/Ashely argument because Shepherd had his problems/ issues/ whatever we want to call them and I agree with Mancy that he had ran his course. What Shepherd did bring to the table that Ashley has no concept of is the view that Debt can be reduced/ profits increased not just through cost cutting but increasing the turnover. Nothing Ashley has done since coming here could be argued as increasing the revenue of the club. All the thoughts on debt reduction etc are made by cutting corners which unlike a market stall often results in much bigger losses through the likes of relegation. I would take that latter point too btw Pud and guess it's simply because he doesn't see it being recouped on exit (sale of club). Which is what did for us (ie Ashley's 'ambition') the moment of the banking crisis. The number of potential buyers-and his profit on exit-dwindled to practically zero overnight and from then on we were on a completely different road with him. That's in no way a defence of him either, but a sad acknowledgment of how long it might be before he fucks off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 In a way it's like the difference between Allardyce being manager and Keegan. For all the good there is in trying not to lose and trying to be smart about things, there's no substitute for looking someone in the eye, telling them they're the best player in the world and to go out and show the fans what the club means to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Stupid phone unfriendly forum :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now