More Respect for MA?

[Toonpack 10002]

This concept of being self sufficient is the worry selling one or two big name performers every year to allow us to buy cheap potential with contract clauses is a dangerous game I don't believe that will happen tbh, unless contracts run down/silly offers come in from top 4-5/Champs League clubs, in that respect we're no different to anyone else.

You seem to be more the financial wiz than me, explain how we aim to be self sufficient and continue to progress on the pitch while our incomings (without player sales) are at best break even. we saw it in september, we'd sold Carroll for £35m yet when it came to Santon the words from Pardew was that we had to sell Enrique first before we could afford to buy him.

 

Oops, missed this, sorry for the late reply.

 

If we're breaking even now (outside of player trading), given the financial abyss we've climbed out of, I would expect (subject to continued reasonable football performance) to grow into "trading profit" at some point, given our "size".

 

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

 

Profit on player sales isn't quite straightforward though (because of amortisisation) as you don't need to spend £5 Mill on a player and then sell him for £10 Mill to realise a £5Million profit. What I mean is, if you buy a £5 Mill player and keep him for 3 years of a 5 year contract, as an example, his book value at the three year point is £2 Mill (he's amorticised at cost divided by length of contract) so whatever you sell him for over £2Mill is a "profit on player trading". So you can make profits on player trading without continually selling your best or most valuable players.

 

Hence my view of the phrase "buying players with resale value", is simply about, not buying players who will be worth next to nowt when the contract is done or has run down. Why? - Because in the same scenario as my example above, (Mr £5 Million player, valued in your books at £2 Mill with 2 years left on his deal), say he's 32/33 and in the market is only worth a million (or nowt) when you want to replace/move him on, he represents a "loss on player trading" at that time, which is a real hit on your bottom line and your transfer fund. (Similarly paying a big fee for an older player knowing they'll be worth bugger all come the time they'll be moved on is an even bigger hit).

 

Sometimes an older player will be worth "running down", Colo being the current example, he really should be renewed.

 

The fees paid, if we do, as we believe pay it all up front, come out of that years cash reserves the "book cost" is the amortisisation figure.

 

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

As for the Carroll money, which would indeed represent a significant "profit on player trading", given the lack of visible "big spend", I suspect that a significant wedge has been used to reduce MA's exposure, either via a direct recoup (as in a reduction of the debt to him) or it'll have been used in place of the annual subsidy he has thus far been putting in which I think off the top of my head was/has been circa £20 Mill a year (or maybe both).

Edited October 28, 2011 by Toonpack

[Guest alex]

Nowhere to be seen the day after a bad result, eh?

[LeazesMag 0]

another master class post about winning on the pitch [the whole point of football] from TP there.

[LeazesMag 0]

TP still hasn't realised yet, that what myself and others said about Ashley for a few years or so, has actually came about, despite his wriggling to avoid admitting it, and assertions that he would "review his view after the summer because it is the first time his man Ashley has had money to spend".

 

So where exactly is it ?

[peasepud 59]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

[LeazesMag 0]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

Far too realistic for those who still believe in fairies.

 

Isn't this how ManU and all the other clubs in the history of the game have been successful though

[Happy Face 29]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

[Toonpack 10002]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

 

The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

[Toonpack 10002]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

Far too realistic for those who still believe in fairies.

 

Isn't this how ManU and all the other clubs in the history of the game have been successful though

 

It's exactly how the succesfull teams (apart from the sugar-daddied one's) have conducted themsleves, why don't you look and see.

[Toonpack 10002]

another master class post about winning on the pitch [the whole point of football] from TP there.

 

You can't win on the pitch if you're skint

[Toonpack 10002]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will.

 

Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one.

 

This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder.

[LeazesMag 0]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

Far too realistic for those who still believe in fairies.

 

Isn't this how ManU and all the other clubs in the history of the game have been successful though

 

It's exactly how the succesfull teams (apart from the sugar-daddied one's) have conducted themsleves, why don't you look and see.

 

do you mean, they buy "trophy players" ? To actually attempt to be successful, like the clubs that actually ARE successful ?

 

And so generate bigger finance and revenues.....

 

Your corner shop mentality persists....have you revaluated your man yet, now you have seen what he did "when he had money to spend for the first time" ?

[LeazesMag 0]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will.

 

Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one.

 

This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder.

 

filling your team with "2m players" will only result in one thing.

[Toonpack 10002]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

Far too realistic for those who still believe in fairies.

 

Isn't this how ManU and all the other clubs in the history of the game have been successful though

 

It's exactly how the succesfull teams (apart from the sugar-daddied one's) have conducted themsleves, why don't you look and see.

 

do you mean, they buy "trophy players" ? To actually attempt to be successful, like the clubs that actually ARE successful ?

 

And so generate bigger finance and revenues.....

 

Your corner shop mentality persists....have you revaluated your man yet, now you have seen what he did "when he had money to spend for the first time" ?

 

No, they buy players they can afford based upon their income, the fact that they tend to be "richer" means that the fee's they pay tend to be higher.

 

We, even within our means, are "richer" than most, thus we should be more succesfull than most. Sadly, a) it's not an exact science and relative size does not = a guarantee of relative success, as we well know and b ) in the absence of any parity rules, the gap to REAL success is about £300million away, where's that sort of money going to come from ???

[Toonpack 10002]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will.

 

Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one.

 

This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder.

 

filling your team with "2m players" will only result in one thing.

 

Who said we were, can't think of one off hand.

 

It was a throwaway example dimwit

Edited October 28, 2011 by Toonpack

[Happy Face 29]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

 

The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

 

We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday.

 

The defence conceded 4.

 

Against the club that are bottom of the league.

 

I think it's a real need.

 

What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will.

 

Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one.

 

This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder.

 

filling your team with "2m players" will only result in one thing.

 

Who said we were, can't think of one off hand.

 

It was a throwaway example dimwit

 

are all of your posts dimwitted "throwaway examples" ?

[LeazesMag 0]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

 

The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

 

We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday.

 

The defence conceded 4.

 

Against the club that are bottom of the league.

 

I think it's a real need.

 

What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered.

 

we've won a few games against the weaker opposition in the league though, so TP and his thick chums including those "experts" on skunkers etc [who also have stopped backing the club with their own hard cash despite insisting the club is "on the right lines"] now appear to think it supercedes 15 years of playing regularly in europe, and is "better"

[Toonpack 10002]

That said, player trading is part of the whole "pot" BUT you have to be able to trade on your terms, i.e. You replace players when you want to, or improve/upgrade a position and hopefully make a profit on the deal.

This is the crux of it for me and how I believe Mike n Derek think they will run things.

 

Buy Player A for £2m

Play him for a season or two and sell for £5m

 

Buy Player B who is better than Player A for £2m

 

Possible? yes.

Likely? no

 

Yes it happens at times but frankly if you're selling Colo to Liverpool for £15m and think that Pierre DePoofPoof currently playing in the reserves at Lyon is a better prospect then its a gamble. For every Tiote, Cabaye and Santon theres a dozen Perch's, Goslings and Elliotts.

 

To an extent Id even agree its worth a gamble selling 1 big name player per season and replacing them with 3 or 4 exciting prospects. The big worry comes when you sell 2 or 3 big names and suddenly drop 3 random foreign youngsters into the first XI and expect them to keep you afloat.

 

There's no need to do that and no evidence we will, any more than any other team will.

 

Buying a player is always a gamble, better you fail on a £2Mill one than a £10-15Mill one.

 

This selling the best player every year premise neglects one major thing. There has to be a market for said player. If that market is a Champions league or richer club, then you're fucked no matter who you are (see Nasri, Arsenal to Citeh). Just because a player is "our" best player, doesn't make him immediately sought after by those further up the ladder.

 

filling your team with "2m players" will only result in one thing.

 

Who said we were, can't think of one off hand.

 

It was a throwaway example dimwit

 

are all of your posts dimwitted "throwaway examples" ?

 

Nope, mine tend to be based on facts or at least rationalised, yours are just repeated tired old ramblings of nothingness.

[Toonpack 10002]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

 

The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

 

We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday.

 

The defence conceded 4.

 

Against the club that are bottom of the league.

 

I think it's a real need.

 

What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered.

 

we've won a few games against the weaker opposition in the league though, so TP and his thick chums including those "experts" on skunkers etc [who also have stopped backing the club with their own hard cash despite insisting the club is "on the right lines"] now appear to think it supercedes 15 years of playing regularly in europe, and is "better"

 

We've had our best start in 15 years, I would suggest that the "weaker" opposition appears as such partly because we've beaten them, when previously we haven't.

[Happy Face 29]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

 

The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

 

We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday.

 

The defence conceded 4.

 

Against the club that are bottom of the league.

 

I think it's a real need.

 

What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered.

 

we've won a few games against the weaker opposition in the league though, so TP and his thick chums including those "experts" on skunkers etc [who also have stopped backing the club with their own hard cash despite insisting the club is "on the right lines"] now appear to think it supercedes 15 years of playing regularly in europe, and is "better"

 

We've had our best start in 15 years, I would suggest that the "weaker" opposition appears as such partly because we've beaten them, when previously we haven't.

 

I don't think Leazes was suggesting the opposition this season is weaker than the 14 years previous, but that we've only proven ourselves capable of beating the weaker teams in the league this season (Blackburn, Wigan, Fulham, Wolves, Sunderland), but incapable of beating anyone better than them (QPR, Villa, Arsenal, Spurs).

 

....important and impressive as it is that we've won all of those 5 games we have, as well as a couple of the draws.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Happy Face

[Toonpack 10002]

On your Santon/Enrique comment, that's a tad disingenuous the way you've stated it (even if Pardew said it that way). IF Enrique had wanted to stay we would not have been in the market for Santon. We did not sell Enrique to buy Santon, Enrique wanted away and had to be replaced. Chalk/Cheese to the scenario as portrayed.

 

Does that excuse the approach. We needed cover for Enrique (and for RB too). We should have been in the market for Santon either way. The fact we sold Enrique meant we should have been looking for another body to bring in.

 

The performance of the defence without Enrique would suggest your post is not true in terms of percieved need and real need.

 

We didn't have a single defender on the bench on Wednesday.

 

The defence conceded 4.

 

Against the club that are bottom of the league.

 

I think it's a real need.

 

What defensive players we have are performing over and above expectation this season. 75% of them are players that were here when we got relegated though and they need numbers bolstered.

 

we've won a few games against the weaker opposition in the league though, so TP and his thick chums including those "experts" on skunkers etc [who also have stopped backing the club with their own hard cash despite insisting the club is "on the right lines"] now appear to think it supercedes 15 years of playing regularly in europe, and is "better"

 

We've had our best start in 15 years, I would suggest that the "weaker" opposition appears as such partly because we've beaten them, when previously we haven't.

 

I don't think Leazes was suggesting the opposition this season is weaker than the 14 years previous, but that we've only proven ourselves capable of beating the weaker teams in the league this season (Blackburn, Wigan, Fulham, Wolves, Sunderland), but incapable of beating anyone better than them (QPR, Villa, Arsenal, Spurs).

 

....important and impressive as it is that we've won all of those 5 games we have, as well as a couple of the draws.

 

I think he is, so I guess we disagree. Perhaps he can clarify.

 

The fact remains, we are winning/drawing games we have previously lost. That fact, I believe in Leazes world, is simply becasue the teams that haven't beaten us are shitter than they have ever been than when we've faced them in the past 14 years. i.e. We're really shit, but we're lucky because the rest of them are really really more shit than us.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't see how you can take that from what Leazes has said. Or that we've NEVER won games against poorer teams. We had a similar total after 9 games of Ashleys first season.

[Toonpack 10002]

I don't see how you can take that from what Leazes has said. Or that we've NEVER won games against poorer teams. We had a similar total after 9 games of Ashleys first season.

 

You're becomming more Leazes by the day, I never said we NEVER won games against "poorer teams" just I have reflected that in the past we have had a habit of losing to them with monotonous regularity, this year we're not (so far). For what it's worth I do think we'll struggle on Monday mind, we're not built to handle the likes of Stoke's methods, will be happy to be proved wrong mind.

 

It's what he's said ad nauseum since the start of the season, not just in this thread. Best he explains what he means.

 

I believe he thinks we're shit but the others are shitter, we've had our best start in 14/15 years, maybe he can clarify why that is, in his opinion.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Toonpack

[TicTacWoe 0]

I still think people give far too much credence to this "only beaten the weaker teams" argument. I agree that we've had a relatively easy opening but I think with the current squad we can realistically expect to contend with everyone apart from ManU,ManC and Chelsea on our day. Chances are we wouldn't get much against Arsenal, Liverpool or Spurs either but it's certainly not impossible. That's 6 teams. I think we can easily attempt to be the best of the rest.

Edited October 28, 2011 by TicTacWoe