F.A.O Leazesmag

[Toonpack 9414]

So these new financial fair play rules would have enabled Shepherd to have played on a level playing field, as the new breed of oligarchs wouldnt be able to buy their way to the top.

 

Shame he's not still in charge imo............

 

Wrong I'm afraid, primary aim of the rules is, thou shalt not racketh up debt or maketh consistent losses and thou shalt liveth within your means. Not exactly our former regime's strong suit.

 

In order to help the transition for clubs, owners are allowed, within the rules, to subsidise clubs to the tune of circa £40Mill a year (maximum) for the next three years, then it drops to about £20 Mill for a couple of years (not sure of exact figure/time off the top of my head) the idea being that in time (7 -10 years) it drops to zero. Sadly, subsidy from personal money (even if they could have afforded it) wasn't a strong suit of previous regime either.

 

I think that money over and above that mentioned above can still be "pumped in" but only if it is capitalised.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Toonpack

[Noelie 103]

This time I'm out.

 

 

Eeeeh, another falsehood LeazesMag, you posted again after posting the above statement. And no doubt you will post again trying to cover your terminological inexactitudes, determined to have the last word in your inimitable pedantic style.

 

 

 

 

.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Leazes Mag is shepherds bush FACT!

 

I deal with facts.

 

Mad Jock has not and will not respond to my factual replies.

 

mancmag and Renton are self proclaimed smart lads who STILL can't see who is responsible for dragging out these threads.

 

The FACTS are people wanted the Halls and Shepherd replaced, not because they looked into a crystal ball and saw clubs like Blackburn and Bolton being taken over by rich benefactors, and for some strange reason construed that as meaning NUFC had to become a selling club again, but because they thought anybody else would be better and do better than the people who built the club up from nothing.

 

The FACTS are that this has proved not to be the case at all, and the current owner will NEVER match, never mind better, the league positions of the previous regime, and has actually taken us into a decline where we are seen as a selling club again like we were for 3 decades prior to 1992, our ex competitors now see us as no competition to them. Again.

 

We aren't talking about an odd blip here, like finishing 12th with the worst strikeforce in the premiership having sold our top striker, or having a couple of good results in October against Arsenal and the mackems etc, we are talking about sowing the seeds of longer term decline.

 

Time will tell, unfortunately. As Kevin Keegan said, the best day for NUFC supporters will be the day that Mike Ashley sells the club. Unless they disagree with Kevin Keegan......

What you constantly fail to acknowledge is that the premier league has change immensely and a top 4 finish would require a massive investment, which of course is a gamble. City have spent a fortune and didn't manage it in the first season. No other club could afford to do what they have done

 

Would you prefer Ashley to spend a hundred mil, put the club in debt to maybe finish in the top 6???

 

did you say this was why you wanted rid of Fat Fred 4-5 years ago ? Yes or no.

 

If not, bugger off and stop moving the goalposts. I've repeatedly said, that Man City and Chelsea are a different propostion anyway. Read the threads. Why do the likes of Birmingham and Bolton being bought by rich benefactors suddenly mean NUFC have to become a selling club again ? Give your head a shake.

 

You scaremongers and brainwashed fools are a hoot man. Eveybody is in debt, would you prefer the club to save the money up first or spend a profit of 2m quid a season [if they manage to make 2m a season] on new players ? How far would that go

 

Maybe 10 years ago during the first few years of Bobby Robsons time as manager, "Shepherd" should have done it the Mike Ashley way and sold Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books instead of finding the cash for Bellamy and Robert to get into the Champions League ?

 

So when exactly is soopa doopa saviour Mike Ashley going to better than the hopeless Fred ? That's 4 years now, and not even a top ten finish yet.

So you don't answer the question again, I will ask it once more.

 

Would you want Ashley to spend 100 mil or so to try and break into the top 4 or 5?? Bearing in mind the club would be saddled with a massive debt.

 

As for being a selling club, yeah 35 mil for a striker with half a prem season behind him wasn't good business?? If you don't think so you are dafter than I thought

 

If any of our players want to leave and go to a top 5 club the best Ashley can do is to ensure we get the best price and money is available for a replacement.

 

I've never said Ashley is a soopa doopa saviour and he certainly doesn't have the resources to compete with City,Chelsea and Man U. Players will also find Liverpool more appealing due to their history,like it or not. Arsenal and Spurs being in London have that as an advantage too. What Fred/Halls etc did was pay over the odds and massive,unsustainable wages to attract players,some not all, just before you start.

 

What Ashley is doing is trying to run the club within its means and make it financially stable, which for now is a good thing. Finishing 12th in our first season back is an achievement but needs to be improved on

 

Now don't get me wrong if an Arab with billions to spend wants to buy the club and do a CITY then I or I guess most on here will be happy but until then it is what it is.

 

Is a financially stable club a bad thing?

This is the one LM

 

You gonna answer these points??

[LeazesMag 0]

 

I deal with facts.

 

Mad Jock has not and will not respond to my factual replies.

 

mancmag and Renton are self proclaimed smart lads who STILL can't see who is responsible for dragging out these threads.

 

The FACTS are people wanted the Halls and Shepherd replaced, not because they looked into a crystal ball and saw clubs like Blackburn and Bolton being taken over by rich benefactors, and for some strange reason construed that as meaning NUFC had to become a selling club again, but because they thought anybody else would be better and do better than the people who built the club up from nothing.

 

The FACTS are that this has proved not to be the case at all, and the current owner will NEVER match, never mind better, the league positions of the previous regime, and has actually taken us into a decline where we are seen as a selling club again like we were for 3 decades prior to 1992, our ex competitors now see us as no competition to them. Again.

 

We aren't talking about an odd blip here, like finishing 12th with the worst strikeforce in the premiership having sold our top striker, or having a couple of good results in October against Arsenal and the mackems etc, we are talking about sowing the seeds of longer term decline.

 

Time will tell, unfortunately. As Kevin Keegan said, the best day for NUFC supporters will be the day that Mike Ashley sells the club. Unless they disagree with Kevin Keegan......

What you constantly fail to acknowledge is that the premier league has change immensely and a top 4 finish would require a massive investment, which of course is a gamble. City have spent a fortune and didn't manage it in the first season. No other club could afford to do what they have done

 

Would you prefer Ashley to spend a hundred mil, put the club in debt to maybe finish in the top 6???

 

did you say this was why you wanted rid of Fat Fred 4-5 years ago ? Yes or no.

 

If not, bugger off and stop moving the goalposts. I've repeatedly said, that Man City and Chelsea are a different propostion anyway. Read the threads. Why do the likes of Birmingham and Bolton being bought by rich benefactors suddenly mean NUFC have to become a selling club again ? Give your head a shake.

 

You scaremongers and brainwashed fools are a hoot man. Eveybody is in debt, would you prefer the club to save the money up first or spend a profit of 2m quid a season [if they manage to make 2m a season] on new players ? How far would that go

 

Maybe 10 years ago during the first few years of Bobby Robsons time as manager, "Shepherd" should have done it the Mike Ashley way and sold Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books instead of finding the cash for Bellamy and Robert to get into the Champions League ?

 

So when exactly is soopa doopa saviour Mike Ashley going to better than the hopeless Fred ? That's 4 years now, and not even a top ten finish yet.

So you don't answer the question again, I will ask it once more.

 

Would you want Ashley to spend 100 mil or so to try and break into the top 4 or 5?? Bearing in mind the club would be saddled with a massive debt.

 

As for being a selling club, yeah 35 mil for a striker with half a prem season behind him wasn't good business?? If you don't think so you are dafter than I thought

 

If any of our players want to leave and go to a top 5 club the best Ashley can do is to ensure we get the best price and money is available for a replacement.

 

I've never said Ashley is a soopa doopa saviour and he certainly doesn't have the resources to compete with City,Chelsea and Man U. Players will also find Liverpool more appealing due to their history,like it or not. Arsenal and Spurs being in London have that as an advantage too. What Fred/Halls etc did was pay over the odds and massive,unsustainable wages to attract players,some not all, just before you start.

 

What Ashley is doing is trying to run the club within its means and make it financially stable, which for now is a good thing. Finishing 12th in our first season back is an achievement but needs to be improved on

 

Now don't get me wrong if an Arab with billions to spend wants to buy the club and do a CITY then I or I guess most on here will be happy but until then it is what it is.

 

Is a financially stable club a bad thing?

This is the one LM

 

You gonna answer these points??

 

is this what you said when the Halls and Shepherd sold the club ? When will MIke Ashley do "better than Fred", when will we finish in the top 10 even once as we haven't done it in 4 years which according to Mad Jock is superior to Fred doing it 4 times in 6 ?

 

Why has ManCity being bought by Arabs got to do with NUFC becoming a selling club and buying cheap 2nd rate replacements for their best players like clubs such as Birmingham and Bolton do got to do with it ?

 

I said I would kill this thread, because I've also answered the initial points by Mad Jock (see first paragraph), and it looks like I am right when I said he wouldn't reply.

 

Do you go to games by the way, how long, did you support the club before 1992 ? Do you realise what a state it was in before that ? Or are you one of those idiots who think the Halls and Shepherd took over a club that had had years of glorious success domestically and in europe and came in and ruined it all

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

You are just typing the same old stuff over and over again. It`s pretty obvious it is impossible to have an adult discussion with you. All you do is answer questions with questions, you should be in politics mate

 

You just enjoy enjoy living in your little bubble of the year 2002 and your fucking groundhog day life

 

I bet as you type you are watching 2000-2003 premiership years, recorded from ESPN, trying to get a quick glimpse of Fred with his halo whilst twisting the neck of your Mike Ashley voodoo doll

[Toonpack 9414]

are you one of those idiots who think the Halls and Shepherd took over a club that had had years of glorious success domestically and in europe and came in and ruined it all

 

Fact is they left it much as they found it.

[LeazesMag 0]

You are just typing the same old stuff over and over again. It`s pretty obvious it is impossible to have an adult discussion with you. All you do is answer questions with questions, you should be in politics mate

 

You just enjoy enjoy living in your little bubble of the year 2002 and your fucking groundhog day life

 

I bet as you type you are watching 2000-2003 premiership years, recorded from ESPN, trying to get a quick glimpse of Fred with his halo whilst twisting the neck of your Mike Ashley voodoo doll

 

I'm twisting nothing. I've answered Mad Jock, and I'm answering you too. I bet as you type you are watching "NUFC best of the 80's" trying to get a glimpse of Seymour, McKeag etc promising us that "we will do all we can to keep our best players but if they want to leave we can't stop them" etc

 

When will Mike Ashley actually "do better" than the hopeless Fred ?

 

Straightforward enough, given as we've been waiting 4 years and it still hasn't happened.

[LeazesMag 0]

are you one of those idiots who think the Halls and Shepherd took over a club that had had years of glorious success domestically and in europe and came in and ruined it all

 

Fact is they left it much as they found it.

 

omg

[JawD 99]

are you one of those idiots who think the Halls and Shepherd took over a club that had had years of glorious success domestically and in europe and came in and ruined it all

 

Fact is they left it much as they found it.

 

omg

 

Even I have to back LM on that one like. We were left waaaaaaaaay ahead of where we were when they left. Just look at the Stadium? The players we had, where we had been. Blah blah, cant be arsed but the differences were vast.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

You are just typing the same old stuff over and over again. It`s pretty obvious it is impossible to have an adult discussion with you. All you do is answer questions with questions, you should be in politics mate

 

You just enjoy enjoy living in your little bubble of the year 2002 and your fucking groundhog day life

 

I bet as you type you are watching 2000-2003 premiership years, recorded from ESPN, trying to get a quick glimpse of Fred with his halo whilst twisting the neck of your Mike Ashley voodoo doll

 

I'm twisting nothing. I've answered Mad Jock, and I'm answering you too. I bet as you type you are watching "NUFC best of the 80's" trying to get a glimpse of Seymour, McKeag etc promising us that "we will do all we can to keep our best players but if they want to leave we can't stop them" etc

 

When will Mike Ashley actually "do better" than the hopeless Fred ?

 

Straightforward enough, given as we've been waiting 4 years and it still hasn't happened.

I never said Fred was hopeless but he did make some fucking stupid decisions and pay over the odds in wages and fee`s for players. Yeah there were great times and some exciting football played but also lows too. The club was in big debt and no matter how much you bury your head in the sand it wont change

 

As for getting back to where we were, well in a nutshell it aint gonna happen and it wouldnt be happening even if Fred was still here. The club was on the slide before Ashley came in and yeah he has made fucking stupid mistakes and yeah I wish a mega money Arab would buy the club and spunk tons of cash on top drawer players because my deluded friend thats the only way NUFC can compete at the top

 

Anyway I think by keeping the club on a sound financial footing is about the best we can hope Ashley will do which in turn may make it a better proposition to any potential buyers or maybe you would want Ashley to go fucking mental and mortgage the club to hilt to make big signings on 80k a week to chase the dream of the CL?

 

What do you think stick or gamble?? easy question, even for you

[Toonpack 9414]

are you one of those idiots who think the Halls and Shepherd took over a club that had had years of glorious success domestically and in europe and came in and ruined it all

 

Fact is they left it much as they found it.

 

omg

 

Even I have to back LM on that one like. We were left waaaaaaaaay ahead of where we were when they left. Just look at the Stadium? The players we had, where we had been. Blah blah, cant be arsed but the differences were vast.

 

It's all relative, yes bigger ground etc etc but correspondingly bigger liabilities.

[LeazesMag 0]

You are just typing the same old stuff over and over again. It`s pretty obvious it is impossible to have an adult discussion with you. All you do is answer questions with questions, you should be in politics mate

 

You just enjoy enjoy living in your little bubble of the year 2002 and your fucking groundhog day life

 

I bet as you type you are watching 2000-2003 premiership years, recorded from ESPN, trying to get a quick glimpse of Fred with his halo whilst twisting the neck of your Mike Ashley voodoo doll

 

I'm twisting nothing. I've answered Mad Jock, and I'm answering you too. I bet as you type you are watching "NUFC best of the 80's" trying to get a glimpse of Seymour, McKeag etc promising us that "we will do all we can to keep our best players but if they want to leave we can't stop them" etc

 

When will Mike Ashley actually "do better" than the hopeless Fred ?

 

Straightforward enough, given as we've been waiting 4 years and it still hasn't happened.

I never said Fred was hopeless but he did make some fucking stupid decisions and pay over the odds in wages and fee`s for players. Yeah there were great times and some exciting football played but also lows too. The club was in big debt and no matter how much you bury your head in the sand it wont change

 

As for getting back to where we were, well in a nutshell it aint gonna happen and it wouldnt be happening even if Fred was still here. The club was on the slide before Ashley came in and yeah he has made fucking stupid mistakes and yeah I wish a mega money Arab would buy the club and spunk tons of cash on top drawer players because my deluded friend thats the only way NUFC can compete at the top

 

Anyway I think by keeping the club on a sound financial footing is about the best we can hope Ashley will do which in turn may make it a better proposition to any potential buyers or maybe you would want Ashley to go fucking mental and mortgage the club to hilt to make big signings on 80k a week to chase the dream of the CL?

 

What do you think stick or gamble?? easy question, even for you

 

Shepherd never owned the club.

 

The reality is everybody has "highs and lows" as you describe it, so when will Ashley's "highs" match those under the Halls and Shepherd ? Will you appreciate the "highs" the next time they come along, I sincerely hope so, instead of stupidly demeaning them and thinking others would automatically do better with the revenues [ignoring the FACT it was the policies and ambition of the Halls and Shepherd which setup those revenues in the first place] - like it or not, this is what was peddled at the time by people who wanted rid of them, this and ONLY this. You are new to this board, apparently, but you are taking the view of those who actually did say this, at the time.

 

Nobody has said anything about 80k a week signings, stop making things up.

 

Why are we not acting bigger than clubs like Bolton, Blackburn etc ? What does that have to do with Man City being bought by Arabs ?

 

Easy enough, even for you.

Edited May 27, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

are you one of those idiots who think the Halls and Shepherd took over a club that had had years of glorious success domestically and in europe and came in and ruined it all

 

Fact is they left it much as they found it.

 

omg

 

Even I have to back LM on that one like. We were left waaaaaaaaay ahead of where we were when they left. Just look at the Stadium? The players we had, where we had been. Blah blah, cant be arsed but the differences were vast.

 

It's all relative, yes bigger ground etc etc but correspondingly bigger liabilities.

 

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

[NJS 4386]

Why are we not acting bigger than clubs like Bolton, Blackburn etc ? What does that have to do with Man City being bought by Arabs ?

 

Answered this a few times but you ignore it.

 

Because their rich owners (its not just Man City) are willing to spend more than ours.

 

All of these clubs have the power (if their owner wants to) to make our larger turnover meaningless.

[Toonpack 9414]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why are we not acting bigger than clubs like Bolton, Blackburn etc ? What does that have to do with Man City being bought by Arabs ?

 

Answered this a few times but you ignore it.

 

Because their rich owners (its not just Man City) are willing to spend more than ours.

 

All of these clubs have the power (if their owner wants to) to make our larger turnover meaningless.

 

I don't recall anybody saying that 5-6 years ago and when they booed Shepherd at Shearers testimonial, was that the reason why ?

 

Your irrational hatred is sad mate, it is getting in the way of any common sense.

[LeazesMag 0]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

 

so all those years was a waste of time then

[JawD 99]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

 

We were about to drop into the old third division, let alone the stadium. Everything about the club, yes the liabilities but also the merchandising and corporate sales side was vastly improved. I would take us at the point Mike bought the club to when John Hall did easily.

[manc-mag 1]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

 

We were about to drop into the old third division, let alone the stadium. Everything about the club, yes the liabilities but also the merchandising and corporate sales side was vastly improved. I would take us at the point Mike bought the club to when John Hall did easily.

 

The paradox being that John Hall (now) wouldn't. And that's not me either agreeing or disagreeing with the point made either-just trying to illustrate how pointless the argument has now become.

[JawD 99]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

 

We were about to drop into the old third division, let alone the stadium. Everything about the club, yes the liabilities but also the merchandising and corporate sales side was vastly improved. I would take us at the point Mike bought the club to when John Hall did easily.

 

The paradox being that John Hall (now) wouldn't. And that's not me either agreeing or disagreeing with the point made either-just trying to illustrate how pointless the argument has now become.

 

Well, I agree he wouldnt. He's a very switched on bloke. He could see the cash that could be made from rescuing the club, growing and then floating it. The club could be bought and refloated again but the same kind of mark up couldnt be made. But, I'd still say we're in a better position now (or when MA bought the club) than when SJH bought it.

[Toonpack 9414]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

 

We were about to drop into the old third division, let alone the stadium. Everything about the club, yes the liabilities but also the merchandising and corporate sales side was vastly improved. I would take us at the point Mike bought the club to when John Hall did easily.

 

I totally accept that the good things were hugely bigger, but sadly so were the bad things.

 

As for the third division, it was only a solitary David Kelly goal that arrested that fall, from there the rise was meteoric, absolutely, but our decay started relatively soon after, basically post KK. Yes we did alright league-wise for a short time but we were never the REAL threat again.

 

And why did KK leave first time ??

 

Financially the mess was proportionate to the size, it was the increase in "size" that supported the headlong rush into debt. (and no I'm not talking about the stadium debt - that was good debt). The pouring of good money after bad, and the attendant milking is what was the problem.

 

Shaky financial position-wise, there's a fag paper's difference between the two. Maybe I should have put the word financially in my first post.

[manc-mag 1]

so all those years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, for 15 years, was a waste of time ? Incredible.

 

The time and whether it was a waste is immaterial, but it's a fact that the years in europe and the expansion of the stadium, and what that brought, was "wasted" or squandered if you prefer.

 

We were about to drop into the old third division, let alone the stadium. Everything about the club, yes the liabilities but also the merchandising and corporate sales side was vastly improved. I would take us at the point Mike bought the club to when John Hall did easily.

 

The paradox being that John Hall (now) wouldn't. And that's not me either agreeing or disagreeing with the point made either-just trying to illustrate how pointless the argument has now become.

 

Well, I agree he wouldnt. He's a very switched on bloke. He could see the cash that could be made from rescuing the club, growing and then floating it. The club could be bought and refloated again but the same kind of mark up couldnt be made. But, I'd still say we're in a better position now (or when MA bought the club) than when SJH bought it.

 

True, in fact it's likely that a loss could be made depending on several factors. As fans we're detached from those issues, but it's at the very forefront of a buyers mind.

 

This is why I think it's a pointless argument.

 

Obviously as a fan, bottom middle of the Prem is better than bottom of the old Second Division. Looking to the future though, it's pretty much irrelevant; that's entirely dependent upon the profile (meaning independent, liquid wealth) of one's next owner.

[NJS 4386]

Why are we not acting bigger than clubs like Bolton, Blackburn etc ? What does that have to do with Man City being bought by Arabs ?

 

Answered this a few times but you ignore it.

 

Because their rich owners (its not just Man City) are willing to spend more than ours.

 

All of these clubs have the power (if their owner wants to) to make our larger turnover meaningless.

 

I don't recall anybody saying that 5-6 years ago and when they booed Shepherd at Shearers testimonial, was that the reason why ?

 

Your irrational hatred is sad mate, it is getting in the way of any common sense.

 

Meaningless irrelevant reply as usual.

 

Football in 2011 has nothing to do with Shearer's testimonial or anyone's opinion of the previous regime.

 

Your view that turnover equates to spending power which you keep repeating is out of date - you can keep repeating your stock phrases about revenues all you like but the bottom line is you relish the ongoing failure of the club.

[Toonpack 9414]

Obviously as a fan, bottom middle of the Prem is better than bottom of the old Second Division. Looking to the future though, it's pretty much irrelevant; that's entirely dependent upon the profile (meaning independent, liquid wealth) of one's next owner.

 

Or Platini's rules being worth a shite !!

[manc-mag 1]

Obviously as a fan, bottom middle of the Prem is better than bottom of the old Second Division. Looking to the future though, it's pretty much irrelevant; that's entirely dependent upon the profile (meaning independent, liquid wealth) of one's next owner.

 

Or Platini's rules being worth a shite !!

 

It'd be nice if that proved to be the case, but I live in the real world. I'll be viewing any percentile of change as a bonus, however small, but I won't be raising my hopes unduly.