Jonas Gutierrez signs new four year deal

[manc-mag 1]

Well as usual on here it's important to disentangle the pov from the poster. LM is saying something. Which a lot of people have also said; decisions at the club are dominated by financial considerations not footballing ones and that in this particular case the decision has nothing to do with Pardew.

 

I know I keep banging on about this but this is a perfect example of fitting events to a narrative. What should prick up the attention is that the 'event' doesn't neatly fit into the narrative. Which means the direct implications of Leazes's argument here is that Derek Llambias is a footballing genius (it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn). Hence there is a problem. LM is not the only one who does this so I don't know why he is getting stick in this thread.

 

The facts of the matter are that a new deal for Jonas makes sense from both a footballing and financcial perspective. The extension to the contract doesn't mean that he will play for us until 2015. It does however mean there won't be any pressure to sell him next season when his contract position would make a bid for the player attractive. This signals that the club medics and fitness experts (and me too) clearly see Jonas as retaining his athleticism later than players like Nolan and Barton who let's face it were running out of it at 28. Ther are clear and specific reasons to do this and none of them relate to the storyline people try to impose on events. Not this time anyway.

 

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect.

 

To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though.

 

The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations.

 

It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it.

 

I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent.

[manc-mag 1]

What exactly is it that you're saying LM? Not sure I follow, are you saying this was a decision imposed from above?

 

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said.

 

what's wrong with you ? What exactly does

 

"would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision.

 

I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing.

 

You're bonkers mate.

 

More buffoonery from you.

 

Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials.

 

The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you.

 

You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake.

 

As has been said, if being proved correct is a "clot", what does it say about those who disagreed with me, like you disagree with everything I post.

 

The inference about Pardew is clear. But, again, you babble on and go around in circles rather than just be honest about it.

 

The quote from Tecato was also part of a bigger picture comment, see my own sig. Every single person on here knows where I stand with regard to the old and the new owner of the football club. And, with regard to that, I have not changed my view, and unlike yourself and others, if I ever have cause to do so, I will admit that I changed my view because my initial one was incorrect.

 

You should try it sometime, instead of continuing with that superiority complex you have.

 

My comments about Jonas stands. Pardew had nothing to do with that decision, despite your clear insinuation that he either had, or even may have done. Can you get back onto the thread, and reply, rather than following me around like this ?

 

You're clearly not in your right mind old son so I'll leave it at that.

[LeazesMag 0]

LeazesMag, are you a massive supporter of Derek Llambias? Why do you keep making posts that portray him as a footballing genius?

 

Cabaye + Tiote for £8m = ridiculously good business. You are saying the manager has no say in these matters, therefore Llambias created our best central midfield in a generation for just a bit more than the cost of Craig Gardner.

 

I had you down as a critic of the board tbh.

 

Llambias is not the owner of the club Chez, and neither was Freddie Shepherd.

 

Do you continue to think the club is being run on progressive lines yourself ?

I think my progress-ometer is just flicking into the positive, theres not much in it but i would argue there has been. Not earth shattering, not enough for who we are as a club but some progress yes.

 

Nolan leaving was a positive footballing wise, Carrroll has done fuck all since he left, Barton has one good season left in his legs when his lack of pace will force him to play centrally. In a central role, we have better than Barton now.

 

I'm confident Santon is going to be a great player for us too.

 

Therefore, progress has been made whether that means it will continue, i dont know. I personally rate Pardew and give him the credit for all this, i personally believe that Pardew (despite saying otherwise) was the person at the club saying we can let Nolan and Barton go. Firstly because of the style of football he wants (not always succeeding) to play and secondly because they were threats to his authority.

 

I think Pardew is a good manager too, and said so, I said it again last week in direct response to a post by mancmag - thank fuck nobody disagreed, especially in light of the popularity Hughton had - so no disagreement there.

 

However, Arthur Cox was also a good manager, who worked hard for the club. He discovered/nurtured Waddle and Beardsley, he attracted Keegan, which shows that even the biggest arseholes owning football clubs can still employ a manager who does something right, with their hands tied. My comment about Jonas is quite simply that this decision has been taken regardless of Pardews wishes. Of course its a good decision, but it has nothing to do with Pardew, if they ie Ashley and Llambias, had wanted him out then he would not have been offered that contract. I simply said that in reply to a poster who insinuated that it was Pardew pulling the strings.

 

I don't think progress has been made.

 

I think the club is still going backwards, the manager is doing well and holding things together, but other managers have done the same thing in spite of what happens behind the scenes [see Cox again for example]. Like it or not, this football club has stepped back 20-25 years. It is being run with expectations and at levels of that period again.

 

Pardew will do a good job with what he has. He will eventually be sacked for not getting into europe despite watching his best players sold, and not backed to replace them properly, or he will get tired of the lack of support and be sacked for showing his frustration at it all, like Hughton was.

Edited September 29, 2011 by LeazesMag

[snakehips 0]

Well as usual on here it's important to disentangle the pov from the poster. LM is saying something. Which a lot of people have also said; decisions at the club are dominated by financial considerations not footballing ones and that in this particular case the decision has nothing to do with Pardew.

 

I know I keep banging on about this but this is a perfect example of fitting events to a narrative. What should prick up the attention is that the 'event' doesn't neatly fit into the narrative. Which means the direct implications of Leazes's argument here is that Derek Llambias is a footballing genius (it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn). Hence there is a problem. LM is not the only one who does this so I don't know why he is getting stick in this thread.

 

The facts of the matter are that a new deal for Jonas makes sense from both a footballing and financcial perspective. The extension to the contract doesn't mean that he will play for us until 2015. It does however mean there won't be any pressure to sell him next season when his contract position would make a bid for the player attractive. This signals that the club medics and fitness experts (and me too) clearly see Jonas as retaining his athleticism later than players like Nolan and Barton who let's face it were running out of it at 28. Ther are clear and specific reasons to do this and none of them relate to the storyline people try to impose on events. Not this time anyway.

 

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect.

 

To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though.

 

The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations.

 

It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it.

 

I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent.

 

Even the Bert Luque one?? And the Owen one?? To me, they were both cases of 'get him in', regardless of any future deals.

[LeazesMag 0]

What exactly is it that you're saying LM? Not sure I follow, are you saying this was a decision imposed from above?

 

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said.

 

what's wrong with you ? What exactly does

 

"would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision.

 

I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing.

 

You're bonkers mate.

 

More buffoonery from you.

 

Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials.

 

The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you.

 

You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake.

 

As has been said, if being proved correct is a "clot", what does it say about those who disagreed with me, like you disagree with everything I post.

 

The inference about Pardew is clear. But, again, you babble on and go around in circles rather than just be honest about it.

 

The quote from Tecato was also part of a bigger picture comment, see my own sig. Every single person on here knows where I stand with regard to the old and the new owner of the football club. And, with regard to that, I have not changed my view, and unlike yourself and others, if I ever have cause to do so, I will admit that I changed my view because my initial one was incorrect.

 

You should try it sometime, instead of continuing with that superiority complex you have.

 

My comments about Jonas stands. Pardew had nothing to do with that decision, despite your clear insinuation that he either had, or even may have done. Can you get back onto the thread, and reply, rather than following me around like this ?

 

You're clearly not in your right mind old son so I'll leave it at that.

 

so you are saying that you didn't mention Pardew then ?

[snakehips 0]

LeazesMag, are you a massive supporter of Derek Llambias? Why do you keep making posts that portray him as a footballing genius?

 

Cabaye + Tiote for £8m = ridiculously good business. You are saying the manager has no say in these matters, therefore Llambias created our best central midfield in a generation for just a bit more than the cost of Craig Gardner.

 

I had you down as a critic of the board tbh.

 

I'd love to know who Carr reports to first. Is it to Pardew or Llambias(Ashley)? Who gives Carr his brief?

 

You could well be right that Parsnip calls the tune about players, but given the financial parameters that NUFC are now working to, the argument can be made that Llambias, and not Pardew, gives Carr the brief.

[manc-mag 1]

Well as usual on here it's important to disentangle the pov from the poster. LM is saying something. Which a lot of people have also said; decisions at the club are dominated by financial considerations not footballing ones and that in this particular case the decision has nothing to do with Pardew.

 

I know I keep banging on about this but this is a perfect example of fitting events to a narrative. What should prick up the attention is that the 'event' doesn't neatly fit into the narrative. Which means the direct implications of Leazes's argument here is that Derek Llambias is a footballing genius (it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn). Hence there is a problem. LM is not the only one who does this so I don't know why he is getting stick in this thread.

 

The facts of the matter are that a new deal for Jonas makes sense from both a footballing and financcial perspective. The extension to the contract doesn't mean that he will play for us until 2015. It does however mean there won't be any pressure to sell him next season when his contract position would make a bid for the player attractive. This signals that the club medics and fitness experts (and me too) clearly see Jonas as retaining his athleticism later than players like Nolan and Barton who let's face it were running out of it at 28. Ther are clear and specific reasons to do this and none of them relate to the storyline people try to impose on events. Not this time anyway.

 

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect.

 

To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though.

 

The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations.

 

It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it.

 

I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent.

 

Even the Bert Luque one?? And the Owen one?? To me, they were both cases of 'get him in', regardless of any future deals.

 

Sorry, yes that was oversimplifying things to a degree. But to address it to those examples, what I mean is if you pay the sort of transfer fees we paid for those players, you don't sign them to a two month contract-the fee reflects the fact you've 'got' them for a certain amount of time, to do with as you see fit during that period, depending on prevailing circumstances.

 

Which also means you're goosed if your club is in disarray, they've got no respect for you, you pay them too much and nobody else wants to take them off your hands at the wages you're paying them.

[snakehips 0]

Well as usual on here it's important to disentangle the pov from the poster. LM is saying something. Which a lot of people have also said; decisions at the club are dominated by financial considerations not footballing ones and that in this particular case the decision has nothing to do with Pardew.

 

I know I keep banging on about this but this is a perfect example of fitting events to a narrative. What should prick up the attention is that the 'event' doesn't neatly fit into the narrative. Which means the direct implications of Leazes's argument here is that Derek Llambias is a footballing genius (it's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn). Hence there is a problem. LM is not the only one who does this so I don't know why he is getting stick in this thread.

 

The facts of the matter are that a new deal for Jonas makes sense from both a footballing and financcial perspective. The extension to the contract doesn't mean that he will play for us until 2015. It does however mean there won't be any pressure to sell him next season when his contract position would make a bid for the player attractive. This signals that the club medics and fitness experts (and me too) clearly see Jonas as retaining his athleticism later than players like Nolan and Barton who let's face it were running out of it at 28. Ther are clear and specific reasons to do this and none of them relate to the storyline people try to impose on events. Not this time anyway.

 

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect.

 

To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though.

 

The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations.

 

It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it.

 

I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent.

 

Even the Bert Luque one?? And the Owen one?? To me, they were both cases of 'get him in', regardless of any future deals.

 

Sorry, yes that was oversimplifying things to a degree. But to address it to those examples, what I mean is if you pay the sort of transfer fees we paid for those players, you don't sign them to a two month contract-the fee reflects the fact you've 'got' them for a certain amount of time, to do with as you see fit during that period, depending on prevailing circumstances.

 

Which also means you're goosed if your club is in disarray, they've got no respect for you, you pay them too much and nobody else wants to take them off your hands at the wages you're paying them.

 

Agreed. I was thinking that yesterday following the Tevez (and most Man City players in general) business.

[manc-mag 1]

What exactly is it that you're saying LM? Not sure I follow, are you saying this was a decision imposed from above?

 

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said.

 

what's wrong with you ? What exactly does

 

"would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision.

 

I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing.

 

You're bonkers mate.

 

More buffoonery from you.

 

Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials.

 

The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you.

 

You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake.

 

As has been said, if being proved correct is a "clot", what does it say about those who disagreed with me, like you disagree with everything I post.

 

The inference about Pardew is clear. But, again, you babble on and go around in circles rather than just be honest about it.

 

The quote from Tecato was also part of a bigger picture comment, see my own sig. Every single person on here knows where I stand with regard to the old and the new owner of the football club. And, with regard to that, I have not changed my view, and unlike yourself and others, if I ever have cause to do so, I will admit that I changed my view because my initial one was incorrect.

 

You should try it sometime, instead of continuing with that superiority complex you have.

 

My comments about Jonas stands. Pardew had nothing to do with that decision, despite your clear insinuation that he either had, or even may have done. Can you get back onto the thread, and reply, rather than following me around like this ?

 

You're clearly not in your right mind old son so I'll leave it at that.

 

so you are saying that you didn't mention Pardew then ?

 

The very fact I specifically repeat the name "Pardew", in addressing your remark about "Pardew", which in turn commented upon my remark about "Pardew" only serves to reinforce my belief you're making things up and aren't mentally well.

[LeazesMag 0]

What exactly is it that you're saying LM? Not sure I follow, are you saying this was a decision imposed from above?

 

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said.

 

what's wrong with you ? What exactly does

 

"would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision.

 

I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing.

 

You're bonkers mate.

 

More buffoonery from you.

 

Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials.

 

The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you.

 

You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake.

 

As has been said, if being proved correct is a "clot", what does it say about those who disagreed with me, like you disagree with everything I post.

 

The inference about Pardew is clear. But, again, you babble on and go around in circles rather than just be honest about it.

 

The quote from Tecato was also part of a bigger picture comment, see my own sig. Every single person on here knows where I stand with regard to the old and the new owner of the football club. And, with regard to that, I have not changed my view, and unlike yourself and others, if I ever have cause to do so, I will admit that I changed my view because my initial one was incorrect.

 

You should try it sometime, instead of continuing with that superiority complex you have.

 

My comments about Jonas stands. Pardew had nothing to do with that decision, despite your clear insinuation that he either had, or even may have done. Can you get back onto the thread, and reply, rather than following me around like this ?

 

You're clearly not in your right mind old son so I'll leave it at that.

 

so you are saying that you didn't mention Pardew then ?

 

The very fact I specifically repeat the name "Pardew", in addressing your remark about "Pardew", which in turn commented upon my remark about "Pardew" only serves to reinforce my belief you're making things up and aren't mentally well.

 

Well well well, the very fact that you can't answer a simple question, and confirm that you actually DID mention Pardew, only serves to re-inforce my belief that you are a babbling idiot with a superiority complex, and aren't mentality well.

[ChezGiven 0]

LeazesMag, are you a massive supporter of Derek Llambias? Why do you keep making posts that portray him as a footballing genius?

 

Cabaye + Tiote for £8m = ridiculously good business. You are saying the manager has no say in these matters, therefore Llambias created our best central midfield in a generation for just a bit more than the cost of Craig Gardner.

 

I had you down as a critic of the board tbh.

 

Llambias is not the owner of the club Chez, and neither was Freddie Shepherd.

 

Do you continue to think the club is being run on progressive lines yourself ?

I think my progress-ometer is just flicking into the positive, theres not much in it but i would argue there has been. Not earth shattering, not enough for who we are as a club but some progress yes.

 

Nolan leaving was a positive footballing wise, Carrroll has done fuck all since he left, Barton has one good season left in his legs when his lack of pace will force him to play centrally. In a central role, we have better than Barton now.

 

I'm confident Santon is going to be a great player for us too.

 

Therefore, progress has been made whether that means it will continue, i dont know. I personally rate Pardew and give him the credit for all this, i personally believe that Pardew (despite saying otherwise) was the person at the club saying we can let Nolan and Barton go. Firstly because of the style of football he wants (not always succeeding) to play and secondly because they were threats to his authority.

 

I think Pardew is a good manager too, and said so, I said it again last week in direct response to a post by mancmag - thank fuck nobody disagreed, especially in light of the popularity Hughton had - so no disagreement there.

 

However, Arthur Cox was also a good manager, who worked hard for the club. He discovered/nurtured Waddle and Beardsley, he attracted Keegan, which shows that even the biggest arseholes owning football clubs can still employ a manager who does something right, with their hands tied. My comment about Jonas is quite simply that this decision has been taken regardless of Pardews wishes. Of course its a good decision, but it has nothing to do with Pardew, if they ie Ashley and Llambias, had wanted him out then he would not have been offered that contract. I simply said that in reply to a poster who insinuated that it was Pardew pulling the strings.

 

I don't think progress has been made.

 

I think the club is still going backwards, the manager is doing well and holding things together, but other managers have done the same thing in spite of what happens behind the scenes [see Cox again for example]. Like it or not, this football club has stepped back 20-25 years. It is being run with expectations and at levels of that period again.

 

Pardew will do a good job with what he has. He will eventually be sacked for not getting into europe despite watching his best players sold, and not backed to replace them properly, or he will get tired of the lack of support and be sacked for showing his frustration at it all, like Hughton was.

Well as long as you dont think that the club is going backwards from last season at an alarming rate or anything then we probably arent that far apart in opinion. I do understand your long term view that we have come down a level from where we were.

 

Anyway, i 100% disagree that this club has stepped back '25 years' but 100% agree about Pardew.

[snakehips 0]

Leazes, who on earth has this superiority complex?????

 

Your answer I know will be m-m (and possibly Gemmill, though I'm not certain of your disdain for him recently), but I simply cannot see it - in any way, shape or form.

[ChezGiven 0]

LeazesMag, are you a massive supporter of Derek Llambias? Why do you keep making posts that portray him as a footballing genius?

 

Cabaye + Tiote for £8m = ridiculously good business. You are saying the manager has no say in these matters, therefore Llambias created our best central midfield in a generation for just a bit more than the cost of Craig Gardner.

 

I had you down as a critic of the board tbh.

 

I'd love to know who Carr reports to first. Is it to Pardew or Llambias(Ashley)? Who gives Carr his brief?

 

You could well be right that Parsnip calls the tune about players, but given the financial parameters that NUFC are now working to, the argument can be made that Llambias, and not Pardew, gives Carr the brief.

Well its either one or the other i suppose.

[snakehips 0]

LeazesMag, are you a massive supporter of Derek Llambias? Why do you keep making posts that portray him as a footballing genius?

 

Cabaye + Tiote for £8m = ridiculously good business. You are saying the manager has no say in these matters, therefore Llambias created our best central midfield in a generation for just a bit more than the cost of Craig Gardner.

 

I had you down as a critic of the board tbh.

 

I'd love to know who Carr reports to first. Is it to Pardew or Llambias(Ashley)? Who gives Carr his brief?

 

You could well be right that Parsnip calls the tune about players, but given the financial parameters that NUFC are now working to, the argument can be made that Llambias, and not Pardew, gives Carr the brief.

Well its either one or the other i suppose.

 

You're right again, Chez. I surrender, as you're too good for me.

[LeazesMag 0]

LeazesMag, are you a massive supporter of Derek Llambias? Why do you keep making posts that portray him as a footballing genius?

 

Cabaye + Tiote for £8m = ridiculously good business. You are saying the manager has no say in these matters, therefore Llambias created our best central midfield in a generation for just a bit more than the cost of Craig Gardner.

 

I had you down as a critic of the board tbh.

 

Llambias is not the owner of the club Chez, and neither was Freddie Shepherd.

 

Do you continue to think the club is being run on progressive lines yourself ?

I think my progress-ometer is just flicking into the positive, theres not much in it but i would argue there has been. Not earth shattering, not enough for who we are as a club but some progress yes.

 

Nolan leaving was a positive footballing wise, Carrroll has done fuck all since he left, Barton has one good season left in his legs when his lack of pace will force him to play centrally. In a central role, we have better than Barton now.

 

I'm confident Santon is going to be a great player for us too.

 

Therefore, progress has been made whether that means it will continue, i dont know. I personally rate Pardew and give him the credit for all this, i personally believe that Pardew (despite saying otherwise) was the person at the club saying we can let Nolan and Barton go. Firstly because of the style of football he wants (not always succeeding) to play and secondly because they were threats to his authority.

 

I think Pardew is a good manager too, and said so, I said it again last week in direct response to a post by mancmag - thank fuck nobody disagreed, especially in light of the popularity Hughton had - so no disagreement there.

 

However, Arthur Cox was also a good manager, who worked hard for the club. He discovered/nurtured Waddle and Beardsley, he attracted Keegan, which shows that even the biggest arseholes owning football clubs can still employ a manager who does something right, with their hands tied. My comment about Jonas is quite simply that this decision has been taken regardless of Pardews wishes. Of course its a good decision, but it has nothing to do with Pardew, if they ie Ashley and Llambias, had wanted him out then he would not have been offered that contract. I simply said that in reply to a poster who insinuated that it was Pardew pulling the strings.

 

I don't think progress has been made.

 

I think the club is still going backwards, the manager is doing well and holding things together, but other managers have done the same thing in spite of what happens behind the scenes [see Cox again for example]. Like it or not, this football club has stepped back 20-25 years. It is being run with expectations and at levels of that period again.

 

Pardew will do a good job with what he has. He will eventually be sacked for not getting into europe despite watching his best players sold, and not backed to replace them properly, or he will get tired of the lack of support and be sacked for showing his frustration at it all, like Hughton was.

Well as long as you dont think that the club is going backwards from last season at an alarming rate or anything then we probably arent that far apart in opinion. I do understand your long term view that we have come down a level from where we were.

 

Anyway, i 100% disagree that this club has stepped back '25 years' but 100% agree about Pardew.

 

unfortunately, what I mean is that I think in terms of expectations and ambitions, the club has stepped back 20-25 years. I realise that certain parts of the clubs infrastructure ie the stadium, the support and profile which has all been massively expanded, still exist for the moment and will not erode overnight, but in the long run, the longer these lower standards continue, the further backwards the club will go.

 

In a few years time, say another 4 years which will then be 8 years of Mike Ashley, you might sadly have to agree with me.....

[manc-mag 1]

Well well well, the very fact that you can't answer a simple question, and confirm that you actually DID mention Pardew, only serves to re-inforce my belief that you are a babbling idiot with a superiority complex, and aren't mentality well.

 

I'm actually gobsmacked at that one.

 

Is it a genuine question? In which case you'll presumably offer some evidence of me denying having mentioned Pardew to make it in any way relevant...? This is a total shambles, Leazes and you genuinely need to recognise it for your own sake.

[LeazesMag 0]

Well well well, the very fact that you can't answer a simple question, and confirm that you actually DID mention Pardew, only serves to re-inforce my belief that you are a babbling idiot with a superiority complex, and aren't mentality well.

 

I'm actually gobsmacked at that one.

 

Is it a genuine question? In which case you'll presumably offer some evidence of me denying having mentioned Pardew to make it in any way relevant...? This is a total shambles, Leazes and you genuinely need to recognise it for your own sake.

 

oh dear.

 

R E A D. T H E. T H R E A D. A G A I N. E S P E C I A L L Y. Y O U R. O W N. P O S T S.

Edited September 29, 2011 by LeazesMag

[manc-mag 1]

Are you saying I've denied 'mentioning Pardew?' Otherwise your point has no relevance.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3887]

I can't believe that on page 8 of this thread LM is still banging on about ambition. We know Ashley has no ambition when he came we hoped he would be better than FFS he isn't get over it and move on and stop boring us all senseless.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

This thread would be a lot shorter if YOU would admit that I was RIGHT all along, which is absolutely CLEAR given the FACTS that we have been presented with, time and time again. But no: YOU choose to ignore the FACTS and maintain your pathetic dream, well it does not surprise me given the FACT that YOU continue to say that I was wrong and you were right. This thread would be a lot shorter if YOU would admit that I was RIGHT all along, which is absolutely CLEAR given the FACTS that we have been presented with, time and time again. But no: YOU choose to ignore the FACTS and maintain your pathetic dream, well it does not surprise me given the FACT that YOU continue to say that I was wrong and you were right. This thread would be a lot shorter if YOU would admit that I was RIGHT all along, which is absolutely CLEAR given the FACTS that we have been presented with, time and time again. But no: YOU choose to ignore the FACTS and maintain your pathetic dream, well it does not surprise me given the FACT that YOU continue to say that I was wrong and you were right. This thread would be a lot shorter if YOU would admit that I was RIGHT all along, which is absolutely CLEAR given the FACTS that we have been presented with, time and time again. But no: YOU choose to ignore the FACTS and maintain your pathetic dream, well it does not surprise me given the FACT that YOU continue to say that I was wrong and you were right.

[Toonpack 9386]

I can't believe that on page 8 of this thread LM is still banging on about ambition. We know Ashley has no ambition when he came we hoped he would be better than FFS he isn't get over it and move on and stop boring us all senseless.

 

 

He is like ! For all his many faults.

 

If FFS/Halls had as much cash as Ashley it might have been different story and he (FFS) may have been more philanthropicthan Ashley, but history would suggest the ownership was loathe to dip it's hand in it's own pocket, so it's unlikely.

[LeazesMag 0]

I can't believe that on page 8 of this thread LM is still banging on about ambition. We know Ashley has no ambition when he came we hoped he would be better than FFS he isn't get over it and move on and stop boring us all senseless.

 

 

He is like ! For all his many faults.

 

If FFS/Halls had as much cash as Ashley it might have been different story and he (FFS) may have been more philanthropicthan Ashley, but history would suggest the ownership was loathe to dip it's hand in it's own pocket, so it's unlikely.

 

remind me again, is that what you said 5 years or so ago as the reason you wanted rid of them, and predicted that Man City would be bought out by rich Arabs ?

 

Or do you still cling to the opinion that we need a sugar daddy to act bigger than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn, Stoke, QPR, West Ham etc etc ?

[Tom 14011]

Would you rather the club spent £10m on Peter Crouch or got Demba Ba on a free?

[Toonpack 9386]

I can't believe that on page 8 of this thread LM is still banging on about ambition. We know Ashley has no ambition when he came we hoped he would be better than FFS he isn't get over it and move on and stop boring us all senseless.

 

 

He is like ! For all his many faults.

 

If FFS/Halls had as much cash as Ashley it might have been different story and he (FFS) may have been more philanthropicthan Ashley, but history would suggest the ownership was loathe to dip it's hand in it's own pocket, so it's unlikely.

 

remind me again, is that what you said 5 years or so ago as the reason you wanted rid of them, and predicted that Man City would be bought out by rich Arabs ?

 

Or do you still cling to the opinion that we need a sugar daddy to act bigger than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn, Stoke, QPR, West Ham etc etc ?

 

I never had that opinion so I can hardly cling to it, if was never there, making stuff up again, it's laughable.

 

First bit, never predicted the Arabs, and yes I was concerned (annoyed even) by the financial mismanagement, verging on corruption, which as I thought then, but I actually firmly believe now, was likely to end in tears. The ownership was also a PR disaster and the club subject to ridicule (some things haven't changed particularly). The signs are better though.

[LeazesMag 0]

Would you rather the club spent £10m on Peter Crouch or got Demba Ba on a free?

 

that isn't the issue at all. The point is that the club should have kept Enrique, Barton and brought in quality players to play up front with the money from the sale of Carroll. This money is still there. Why not bring in Demba Ba for a free [as you are mentioning him, but he would not have been my first choice, how many other clubs were in for him?], and other players alongside Enrique, Barton and all the best players from last years team ? This is what building a team is all about, not selling [your best players] and buying like the world is about to end.

 

How many times does the policy need to be discussed like this ? One transfer doesn't make or break the overall policy. People have knocked the spending of Liverpool. Who will finish higher, us or Liverpool ? Who will qualify for europe and/or the Champions League first ? Us or Liverpool ?