Flair 0 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8694 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flair 0 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Edited February 6, 2011 by Flair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8694 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... But currently we are not, so where's the money come from ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 that isn't what I asked either. He has explained all the other clubs are in debt, where do they get their money from, would they swap places with debt free clubs ? I suspect you already know the answer to that one, seeing as you don't reply. Do you understand the concept of speculate to accumulate in football or would you rather go completely back to the days of Seymour and Mckeag ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Citing man u's debt as a requisite for success is stupid. The debt came from the leveraged buy-out. Arsenal's debt has nothing to do with player sales or salaries. Chelsea are not using debt in the truest sense since it's just transferred funds across abramovich's empire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8694 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 that isn't what I asked either. He has explained all the other clubs are in debt, where do they get their money from, would they swap places with debt free clubs ? I suspect you already know the answer to that one, seeing as you don't reply. Do you understand the concept of speculate to accumulate in football or would you rather go completely back to the days of Seymour and Mckeag ? Where can the stash we're going to speculate with coming from Leazes, FFS'd bled our original stake dry, so REALLY simple question, where's the money comming from ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8694 Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 8694 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 He's SO dense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Leazes: You've got to speculate to accumulate Tramp in shop doorway: Spaculate what!? I don't have anything! Leazes: Look at Richard Branson, he spends money to make money! Tramp in shop doorway: What money can I spend to make money? Leazes: You must think all the billionaires in the world did it by visiting the soup kitchens and greggs with a handful of coppers. If you don't spend anything you don't get anywhere Tramp in shop doorway: I HAVE GOT NOTHING TO SPEND YOU FUCKING STUPID OLD SENILE CUNT. FUCK OFF BEFORE I STAB YOU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7058 Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp. Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ? The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ? Knowledgeable - NOT I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ? Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding. Edited February 7, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ? The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ? Knowledgeable - NOT I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ? Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding. WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ? The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ? Knowledgeable - NOT I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ? Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding. WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL Same place as the Halls and Shepherd found it you silly boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7058 Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp. Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't. Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others? 1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc. 2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive 3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests 4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both. 5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this. I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle. Edited February 7, 2011 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ? The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ? Knowledgeable - NOT I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ? Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding. WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL Same place as the Halls and Shepherd found it you silly boy We are still paying for the money they spent you sillier boy, or do you think they had a bottomless pit. They'd STOPPED spending big for a reason before they left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp. Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't. Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others? 1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc. 2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive 3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests 4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both. 5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this. I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle. Ashley started as a 1,3 and 5. Failure to do due diligence and the fallout with the fans puts him now at a 3 and 2. I don't think 4 is really what he's about, he makes enough from Sports Direct, the ball ache of trying to make a premiership club profitable for him on a personal level is probably pointless, because the profits would be relatively small to him anyway. If you offered him break even right now he'd probably bite your hand off though. It was much easier for the Halls/Shepherd to be a 5, because they were doing it 1) in the middle of a footballing boom and 2) without any personal risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ? The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ? Knowledgeable - NOT I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ? Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding. WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL Same place as the Halls and Shepherd found it you silly boy We are still paying for the money they spent you sillier boy, or do you think they had a bottomless pit. They'd STOPPED spending big for a reason before they left. Have a word with the Halls and Shepherd and ask them lad, because when your man bought the club, they left him the 14th highest turnover in football. Plenty of money coming in. Are you saying that your man dismantled all of that with no alternative ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7058 Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp. Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't. Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others? 1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc. 2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive 3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests 4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both. 5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this. I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle. Ashley started as a 1,3 and 5. Failure to do due diligence and the fallout with the fans puts him now at a 3 and 2. I don't think 4 is really what he's about, he makes enough from Sports Direct, the ball ache of trying to make a premiership club profitable for him on a personal level is probably pointless, because the profits would be relatively small to him anyway. If you offered him break even right now he'd probably bite your hand off though. It was much easier for the Halls/Shepherd to be a 5, because they were doing it 1) in the middle of a footballing boom and 2) without any personal risk I think he is at 4 to recoup what he lost at the minimum, which you state (I perhaps should have expended 4 to include 'not make a loss' but that was tacit). I don't agree that he thinks he makes enough from SD, many rich people are invariably interested in making more and more money. Otherwise he would have quit when he reached his first million/10 million/100 million/billion. Why make a special case out of us? Edited February 7, 2011 by trophyshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way. I hear Man Utd are also a selling club Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits. Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players. But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable. He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid. Deary deary me. What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ? No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk. Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ???? How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it....... Where's the money coming from Flid ??? P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968 It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now... Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears] But where's this money (debt) comming from ?? speculate to accumulate. Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ? I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ?? speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ? The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ? Knowledgeable - NOT I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ? Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding. WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL Same place as the Halls and Shepherd found it you silly boy We are still paying for the money they spent you sillier boy, or do you think they had a bottomless pit. They'd STOPPED spending big for a reason before they left. Have a word with the Halls and Shepherd and ask them lad, because when your man bought the club, they left him the 14th highest turnover in football. Plenty of money coming in. Are you saying that your man dismantled all of that with no alternative ? Money coming in is fucking irrelevant if there's more going out. Basic stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp. Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't. Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others? 1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc. 2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive 3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests 4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both. 5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this. I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle. Ashley started as a 1,3 and 5. Failure to do due diligence and the fallout with the fans puts him now at a 3 and 2. I don't think 4 is really what he's about, he makes enough from Sports Direct, the ball ache of trying to make a premiership club profitable for him on a personal level is probably pointless, because the profits would be relatively small to him anyway. If you offered him break even right now he'd probably bite your hand off though. It was much easier for the Halls/Shepherd to be a 5, because they were doing it 1) in the middle of a footballing boom and 2) without any personal risk I think he is at 4 to recoup what he lost at the minimum, which you state (I perhaps should have expended 4 to include 'not make a loss' but that was tacit). I don't agree that he thinks he makes enough from SD, many rich people are invariably interested in making more and more money. Otherwise he would have quit when he reached his first million/10 million/100 million/billion. Why make a special case out of us? Because football clubs are generally not profitable, if he wanted to make money, he'd buy a business where his staff get £6 an hour, not £30k per week. It's easy to say he's at a 4 to recoup his losses but the more likely scenario is that it's to reduce the club's annual losses, otherwise it'll never be in a position to spend money to a) pay it's debts and "speculate" 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