spongebob toonpants 3956 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. Good that, because I've never said Shepherd was the owner at all, because he never was. The Halls and Shepherd owned the club. And - qualifying for europe more than any team bar 4 in a 15 year period [we won't even mention after finding it with one foot in the administration which obsesses your very being], bringing top quality footballers to the club and putting an end to selling England capped local lads, expanding the stadium, expanding the support, expanding the profile of the club, and massively expanding the business, suggests they were good owners. In fact, very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls :lol: Another boring nob crawls out the woodwork with nothing to contribute. I don't care if you're laughing. You're such a boring cock that when you are laughing, it's not usually funny! yes it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Disposable income I have the ability to get rattled, I have self awareness. I prefer it that way. It's what seperates me from being a tragedy like yourself. Disposable income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Disposable income I have the ability to get rattled, I have self awareness. I prefer it that way. It's what seperates me from being a tragedy like yourself. Disposable income no, you and Toonpack asked where the money should come from. I'm pointing out that as we have the 14th biggest turnover in football, that should be more than a good position for your man to re-direct the clubs spending as he sees fit, differently and with more success than the previous regime who according to you, made such a tit of it ie playing in europe and the Champions League more than any other team bar 4 over the 15 years they owned the club. Edited February 8, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Disposable income I have the ability to get rattled, I have self awareness. I prefer it that way. It's what seperates me from being a tragedy like yourself. Disposable income no, you and Toonpack asked where the money should come from. I'm pointing out that as we have the 14th biggest turnover in football, that should be more than a good position for your man to re-direct the clubs spending as he sees fit, differently and with more success than the previous regime who according to you, made such a tit of it ie playing in europe and the Champions League more than any other team bar 4 over the 15 years they owned the club. What is turnover Leazes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ??? "Turnover" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ??? "Turnover" Ah that thing we were spending 80%-ish of on player wages He's fucking gormless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The turnover is his to spend as he pleases according to leazes, don't pay the players, just use the money to buy some new ones then give them back-pay once we get into europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ??? already have. Do you also think that taking over a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football doesn't give him enough money ? I'm sure he chose different areas to spend it than the Halls and Shepherd, with more success obviously, as they were so shit and "anybody would do better " wouldn't you agree ? Failing that, maybe he could give Fred a call and ask him how to recover the revenue and standing that has been lost in the last 3 and a half years ? You didn't support the club before the Halls and Shepherd did you Toonpack ? They attracted you back to the club and you now slate them for not winning the title ? You're a Halls and Shepherd bandwagon jumper, now you slate them. Laughable. Edited February 8, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Can't remember him slating them for not winning the title. Another made up bit of bullshit from the crank. I remember him asking where the moneys coming from. What is turnover Leazes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Disposable income I have the ability to get rattled, I have self awareness. I prefer it that way. It's what seperates me from being a tragedy like yourself. Disposable income no, you and Toonpack asked where the money should come from. I'm pointing out that as we have the 14th biggest turnover in football, that should be more than a good position for your man to re-direct the clubs spending as he sees fit, differently and with more success than the previous regime who according to you, made such a tit of it ie playing in europe and the Champions League more than any other team bar 4 over the 15 years they owned the club. What is turnover Leazes? I think you should look it up Skidders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. As I said - you are more obsessed with Shepherd than Leazes is. You have to make everybody believe he was a disaster for the club and would have lead us into administration. Unfortunately we will never know, all we do know is the club was revitalised under their ownership - the opposite of what is happening now You should just relax and let it go You've said it yes, but that doesn't make it true. And it clearly isn't true. So fuck off you fuckin' claggy bell Skidmarks well and truly rattled Have you explained where the money's coming from yet ??? already have. Do you also think that taking over a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football doesn't give him enough money ? I'm sure he chose different areas to spend it than the Halls and Shepherd, with more success obviously, as they were so shit and "anybody would do better " wouldn't you agree ? Failing that, maybe he could give Fred a call and ask him how to recover the revenue and standing that has been lost in the last 3 and a half years ? You didn't support the club before the Halls and Shepherd did you Toonpack ? They attracted you back to the club and you now slate them for not winning the title ? Laughable. [talking to a thick cunt here] THERE WAS NO EXCESS MONEY TO CHOOSE TO SPEND. THERE WAS THE INCOMING MONEY, THEN THE OUTGOING MONEY. THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT APART FROM A DEBT. THE OUTGOINGS WERE WHAT HE INHERITED. THAT MEANS THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE WHAT TO SPEND THE TURNOVER ON, IT WAS ALREADY DECIDED FOR HIM [/hopes that bigger writing drills the point home] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Disposable income I have the ability to get rattled, I have self awareness. I prefer it that way. It's what seperates me from being a tragedy like yourself. Disposable income no, you and Toonpack asked where the money should come from. I'm pointing out that as we have the 14th biggest turnover in football, that should be more than a good position for your man to re-direct the clubs spending as he sees fit, differently and with more success than the previous regime who according to you, made such a tit of it ie playing in europe and the Champions League more than any other team bar 4 over the 15 years they owned the club. What is turnover Leazes? I think you should look it up Skidders "The bitter irony" :( :redcard: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) He has had nearly 4 years to reduce the outgoings ???????????? Are you saying the revenue has also fallen ? Dear me, you don't say. Maybe Fred will tell him how to raise the income levels back to what they were when he bought the club As has been already said, you're obsessed with Shepherd. Mike Ashley took over a club pretty much maximising its earnign potential........plenty of scope there for him to "plan" a better way to use it, in fact, as the Halls and Shepherd used it so badly according to you, we should have been back in the Champions League ages ago. Edit. I'll make it easy for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue "In business, revenue is income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, revenue is referred to as turnover" Edited February 8, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Dear God. You're really ready for the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 If I start a business, buy 10 luxury villas for £10m a piece and sell them 6 months later for £5m a piece, my business would have a pretty big turnover, wouldn't it, Leazes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Dear God. You're really ready for the home. So you think the 14th biggest turnover in football, as defined in the above post for your simplistic obsessed brain , isn't enough to run a top football club without havign to sell your best players ? omg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 If I start a business, buy 10 luxury villas for £10m a piece and sell them 6 months later for £5m a piece, my business would have a pretty big turnover, wouldn't it, Leazes? and if you allow them to go ratshit, then they wouldn't be worth 10m a piece would they skidders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Dear God. You're really ready for the home. So you think the 14th biggest turnover in football, as defined in the above post for your simplistic obsessed brain , isn't enough to run a top football club without havign to sell your best players ? omg Not if you're paying them nearly 80% of that turnover OHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYY GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Edited February 8, 2011 by AshleysSkidMark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30370 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Mike Ashley took over a club pretty much maximising its earnign potential You've hit the nail on the head there Leazes. The club had largely maxed out its income potential, the problem was that it was still making a loss. So the only thing that could've been done was to reduce outgoings. Or bankroll us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 If I start a business, buy 10 luxury villas for £10m a piece and sell them 6 months later for £5m a piece, my business would have a pretty big turnover, wouldn't it, Leazes? and if you allow them to go ratshit, then they wouldn't be worth 10m a piece would they skidders What? Seriously, get help Leazes. You're fuckin' tapped and I'm saying that as a serious suggestion. Get fuckin' help mate. 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