Guest alex Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. Edited May 20, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. It also needs to be combined with good management - as Villa and the Mackems testify. Spurs have hovered around 4th to 8th for the past 5 or 6 years with a decent squad - major transfer profits over a couple of years then allowed them to push on a bit. We'd need such a huge boot up even to their level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. Absolutely but Spurs made a profit of £30m not too long ago, they're self sufficient, and my point was IF we'd continued on our trajectory even from 2003 onward we'd be a wealthier club than them. When you take in to account massively increased Sky revenues, not to mention inflation, we must be the only club in European football who's annual revenues are generally £10m-£20m less than they were 8 years ago. You can't compete with Chelsea and Man City off the pitch in terms of artificial finance, but you can on it as the yids have proved imo. They'd have been close without the distraction of the CL. Edited May 20, 2011 by McFaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. Absolutely but Spurs made a profit of £30m not too long ago, they're self sufficient, and my point was IF we'd continued on our trajectory even from 2003 onward we'd be a wealthier club than them. When you take in to account massively increased Sky revenues, not to mention inflation, we must be the only club in European football who's annual revenues are generally £10m-£20m less than they were over an 8 year period. You can't compete with Chelsea and Man City in terms of artificial finance, but you can on it as the yids have proved imo. They'd have been close without the distraction of the CL. Oh aye, I agree. It was just following on from what you said really. They might have been close this year but it's been a funny league and they still wouldn't have won it (without the CL distraction) and I doubt they'll have a better chance in the coming years with Man City looking to kick on etc. Just made me think, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9978 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo. How do you work that one out ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Spurs were given a £15m subsidy recently from an overseas benefactor according to the article on finance in the grauniad yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. Absolutely but Spurs made a profit of £30m not too long ago, they're self sufficient, and my point was IF we'd continued on our trajectory even from 2003 onward we'd be a wealthier club than them. When you take in to account massively increased Sky revenues, not to mention inflation, we must be the only club in European football who's annual revenues are generally £10m-£20m less than they were over an 8 year period. You can't compete with Chelsea and Man City in terms of artificial finance, but you can on it as the yids have proved imo. They'd have been close without the distraction of the CL. Oh aye, I agree. It was just following on from what you said really. They might have been close this year but it's been a funny league and they still wouldn't have won it (without the CL distraction) and I doubt they'll have a better chance in the coming years with Man City looking to kick on etc. Just made me think, that's all. Aye, they may not have but they'll still be able to hover around that fourth place, Arsenal are declining every year imo, even Chelsea aren't invincible anymore and City STILL don't convince me fully. It's not impossible for Tottenham. I think it borders on impossible for Newcastle though. There's two points of view in LM's debates on here, his and the pov that we'd be 6,7,8 even under Hall/FFS. Well you can't definitively say either way, but what you can say was we could achieve ANYTHING then, (even if it was now) because of the momentum and appeal of the club. We could've literally done anything, that's not being deluded, when you think Dortmund won the CL in 1997, seriously and I'm saying this and being very grounded, our team were as good as Dortmund who were a fucking good side, but we were fantastic. We were definitely as good as Man Utd, who hit the woodwork 8 times in that Semi Final. The point is the club is deflated, if ever a club needs momentum to achieve this it's Newcastle, if we get it again in the future who knows, but I couldn't even imagine someone like Everton or Villa being that kind of force we were from 93 to 97 and 2001 to 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo. How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Edited May 20, 2011 by McFaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9978 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo. How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo. How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you. Was almost identical till 2005, look again chump regardless of CL money's. You're confusing yourself with your post here, and made your original reply to me thinking I want to say something, but I don't really know what to say. It shines through you in your reply. Just agree with me or pipe down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9978 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo. How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you. Was almost identical till 2005, look again chump regardless of CL money's. You're confusing yourself with your post here, and made your original reply to me thinking I want to say something, but I don't really know what to say. It shines through you in your reply. Just agree with me or pipe down. Any chance of repeating that in English ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Any chance of repeating that in English ??? Any chance of you posting something when you have something to say ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Very vague and muddled up, speculative point of view. If we'd continued on the 90's early 00's trajectory, we'd be a wealthier club than Tottenham, who are two or three players from a genuine title bid imo. How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you. people still attempting to change history rather than admit they were wrong. How far back does skunkers go, if you want to bump old posts from idiots who can't do the above I wonder, that all seem to have the same "opinion" about what may have happened, but didn't [as if we would have been relegated under the Halls and Shepherd and became a selling club again] and move the goalposts to pretend they didn't say "anybody would do better than Fred" ie higher than 5th, make better use of revenues [built up by the Halls and Shepherd], stop signing trophy players, stop renting warehouses, stay out of the limelight, yet retain the [automatic, so they deludedly thought] ambition. Thats the truth, and they know it, as do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 'Anyone But Fred' sounds like an excellent name for an early 90s gay pop band. is that where your true knowledge lies ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 the question, and point, is why the likes you/the people you are reading as you clearly weren't a supporter of the club if you didn't hear it at the time, were saying "anyone but Fred". It's because you thought "anyone but Fred" would have retained the ambition you thought was automatic, stopped buying "trophy players", wouldn't "embarrass you", and would stay in europe.... nothing to do with forecasting that a few other clubs would be bought by rich benefactors and we would find ourselves becoming a selling club, competing with the likes of Bolton and Blackburn and selling our best players, and being relegated. You were wrong, but like the others, haven't got the balls to admit it. It's that simple. Is the "way forward" spending the equivalent now of 12.7m quid in 13 years in the transfer market, going by the financial "plan" you appear to be advocating. Nice way of saying that all those Champions League runs were a waste of time etc and we should have aimed for financial stability etc and ended up like Sheffield Wednesday instead. Has your hatred sunk so low I'm 100% sure I went to more matches than you between 1980 and 2009 so you can cut that "weren't a fan" shit for starters - I didn't go to Shearer's testimonial because I was never a fan of the man. Ambition is fine but you should really read that article on the Premierleague - no clubs are competing based on revenues or by loans other than those underwritten. Liverpool now have twice the rurnover we ever had and still make a large loss which has to be underwritten. This is now. It's not 1996 when wages weren't that bad and having a bigger crowd meant more purchasing power. Over the entire length of the previous regime no profits were made which is perfectly fine as any spare money was spent on the team - great - we all want to see that. However money was also spent that was sourced from loans which is fine if success is "gauranteed" but by 2007 that wasn't the case - you are the only person on the planet who thinks finishing 7th heralded a brave new era - as proved by the 13th the next year. You also have to recognise that the Halls wanted out - if a new era was about to happen then that one act alone proves you wrong on that point. The one question you keep avoiding is the big one - how would you fund your push for the top? You keep mentioning revenues. If we got the full £40 from a strip and they ran a magical free marketing campaign and sold 250,000 thats £10m - enough for one Cheik Tiote with wages - how will you then fund the other 10 we need to compete? I'm not talking about 1996, I'm talking about people who said anybody but Fred would do better. Shearers testimonial was on TV live in front of a worldwide TV audience, and it was shameful to hear so many people booing. What planet have you been living on ? You appear to be happy the clock has been turned back to 1987. Where did I say finishing 7th heralded a brave new era stop making things up man, you're getting desperate. It is Mike Ashley and those who have been brainwashed who will be doing cartwheels if we are even still in the premiership in a few years time, when all our best players have been sold because its "good business" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. It also needs to be combined with good management - as Villa and the Mackems testify. Spurs have hovered around 4th to 8th for the past 5 or 6 years with a decent squad - major transfer profits over a couple of years then allowed them to push on a bit. We'd need such a huge boot up even to their level. aye, sure. Anybody but Fred, you would have swapped their period 1992-2007 for ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I'm not talking about 1996, I'm talking about people who said anybody but Fred would do better. Shearers testimonial was on TV live in front of a worldwide TV audience, and it was shameful to hear so many people booing. What planet have you been living on ? You appear to be happy the clock has been turned back to 1987. Where did I say finishing 7th heralded a brave new era stop making things up man, you're getting desperate. It is Mike Ashley and those who have been brainwashed who will be doing cartwheels if we are even still in the premiership in a few years time, when all our best players have been sold because its "good business" Well if you're sticking to 2007 then you're arguments are even more screwed - I mentioned 96 as that when the profile/revenues were increasing drastically - by 2007 they were a dead end. "Worldwide audience" - yeah I can just imagine the entire US watching it - I did watch it and can't even remember any great booing - another cae of you seeing/hearing what you want. You've mentioned that 7th season as an argument against a decline on dozens of occasions on here - you've also used the phrase "regroup" regarding that time again and again I'll not embarass you by doing a search. Unfortunately as I said the fact that they were plotting their exit doesn't back up that view. Still waiting on how we're going to fund the push-on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Accepting that for argument's sake (not a dig, as I have no idea whether that's true or not but I'll take your word for it) that's surely a big 'if', given what's happened since. Also, you must mean 2 or 3 top drawer players, which is probably something like a £45-60m outlay. I only say that as what you've said about Spurs may well be right but it shows the huge amount of money needed to really compete, even when you're in a relatively good place as a club, like Spurs are. It also needs to be combined with good management - as Villa and the Mackems testify. Spurs have hovered around 4th to 8th for the past 5 or 6 years with a decent squad - major transfer profits over a couple of years then allowed them to push on a bit. We'd need such a huge boot up even to their level. aye, sure. Anybody but Fred, you would have swapped their period 1992-2007 for ours How the fuck does that reply relate to anything? My point is they spent the millions you advocate now (without a source) and have got no return for it. Where do I say I'd rather have been a fan of those previously? Start reading the posts instead of just repeating your stock phrases or fucks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Leazes, if Toonpack/NJS etc concede that the period 1992 - 2007 will never be surpassed under the current regime and that it saw us realise our potential because the chairman understood football and backed his managers, will you concede that the previous board had taken us as far as they could? In parcticular light of the new super rich owners in the game etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9978 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Any chance of repeating that in English ??? Any chance of you posting something when you have something to say ??? I often post "things I have to say" backed up with facts, you post drivel, maybe you should let your carer do your typing for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I'm not talking about 1996, I'm talking about people who said anybody but Fred would do better. Shearers testimonial was on TV live in front of a worldwide TV audience, and it was shameful to hear so many people booing. What planet have you been living on ? You appear to be happy the clock has been turned back to 1987. Where did I say finishing 7th heralded a brave new era stop making things up man, you're getting desperate. It is Mike Ashley and those who have been brainwashed who will be doing cartwheels if we are even still in the premiership in a few years time, when all our best players have been sold because its "good business" Well if you're sticking to 2007 then you're arguments are even more screwed - I mentioned 96 as that when the profile/revenues were increasing drastically - by 2007 they were a dead end. "Worldwide audience" - yeah I can just imagine the entire US watching it - I did watch it and can't even remember any great booing - another cae of you seeing/hearing what you want. You've mentioned that 7th season as an argument against a decline on dozens of occasions on here - you've also used the phrase "regroup" regarding that time again and again I'll not embarass you by doing a search. Unfortunately as I said the fact that they were plotting their exit doesn't back up that view. Still waiting on how we're going to fund the push-on. I'm talking about the entire period and what they did, and those who said "anybody would do better". When do you think that will be repeated, or someone will do better ? The Shearer testimonial was indeed on an international live TV audience, once again, stop moving the goalposts and making things up to suit your "opinion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Any chance of repeating that in English ??? Any chance of you posting something when you have something to say ??? I often post "things I have to say" backed up with facts, you post drivel, maybe you should let your carer do your typing for you. There's facts in what I have put you clear and present arsehole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) Leazes, if Toonpack/NJS etc concede that the period 1992 - 2007 will never be surpassed under the current regime and that it saw us realise our potential because the chairman understood football and backed his managers, will you concede that the previous board had taken us as far as they could? In parcticular light of the new super rich owners in the game etc. I've said on numerous occasions that the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance a change of direction was needed [same as after Gullit and Dalglish]. The point is, the new owner, "hasn't done better" has he ? There is NO excuse for NUFC becoming a selling club again, selling our best players above the managers head and not backing him with the cash, and settling for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn. I would like an oil Sheikh or a Russian mega billionaire just like anybody else, but the new owner has not done better, and these people ALL said that anybody would do better. They wanted someone who would stop buying trophy players, stay out of the limelight, stop renting warehouses, taking small change dividends etc, but thought the ambition was automatic . My point was ALWAYS that the ambition was NOT automatic, so the next owner was not guaranteed to be better at all. And since he took over, we have been relegated, we set our sights lower, the profle and appeal of the club has gone down and accordingly revenues against our competitors, our best players look elsewhere to fulfill career ambitions. If THAT is better, and not a decline, what would they call a decline ? NJS is actually endorsing the fact that we shouldn't have spent more than 12.7m quid on transfers in over a decade, and shouldn't have expanded the stadium - or if he agrees with it, seems to think we should have done it without taking out a loan ? Does he think we should have saved the money up first ? It's mind boggling, and blind hatred gone mad. Maybe they HAD taken us as far as they could, but no way in the world would we have been relegated and settled for competing at the levels we do now. My point is that - during their time - they reached levels which may not be matched for decades, yes. As I've also said, comparing it to the era now, is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be as good as current players because he played with a heavier ball and heavier boots. You can only compete with the situation and competitors at the time. The new owner is not "better", despite the assertions that "anybody" would be. Edited May 20, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Been on the decline since 1909 tbh, fucking wankers running the club have decimated our share of the wireless revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9978 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Leazes, if Toonpack/NJS etc concede that the period 1992 - 2007 will never be surpassed under the current regime and that it saw us realise our potential because the chairman understood football and backed his managers, will you concede that the previous board had taken us as far as they could? In parcticular light of the new super rich owners in the game etc. I've said on numerous occasions that the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance a change of direction was needed [same as after Gullit and Dalglish]. The point is, the new owner, "hasn't done better" has he ? There is NO excuse for NUFC becoming a selling club again, selling our best players above the managers head and not backing him with the cash, and settling for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn. I would like an oil Sheikh or a Russian mega billionaire just like anybody else, but the new owner has not done better, and these people ALL said that anybody would do better. They wanted someone who would stop buying trophy players, stay out of the limelight, stop renting warehouses, taking small change dividends etc, but thought the ambition was automatic . My point was ALWAYS that the ambition was NOT automatic, so the next owner was not guaranteed to be better at all. And since he took over, we have been relegated, we set our sights lower, the profle and appeal of the club has gone down and accordingly revenues against our competitors, our best players look elsewhere to fulfill career ambitions. If THAT is better, and not a decline, what would they call a decline ? NJS is actually endorsing the fact that we shouldn't have spent more than 12.7m quid on transfers in over a decade, and shouldn't have expanded the stadium - or if he agrees with it, seems to think we should have done it without taking out a loan ? Does he think we should have saved the money up first ? It's mind boggling, and blind hatred gone mad. Maybe they HAD taken us as far as they could, but no way in the world would we have been relegated and settled for competing at the levels we do now. My point is that - during their time - they reached levels which may not be matched for decades, yes. As I've also said, comparing it to the era now, is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be as good as current players because he played with a heavier ball and heavier boots. You can only compete with the situation and competitors at the time. The new owner is not "better", despite the assertions that "anybody" would be. No he didn't ,and now you are stating it as fact. 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