McFaul 35 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 no reply from Toonpack again. This is becoming more regular now..... I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... We didn't quite sink that low, but years of neglect by the Westwoods, the Seymours, and the McKeags would've seen us as a third tier club but for intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9986 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 no reply from Toonpack again. This is becoming more regular now..... I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... I don't !?!?!?! Profit from sale is perfectly fine as I've said. What about taking money out while in charge though ??? I think that's generally bad(unless it's allocation of profit or the like), what about you ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 no reply from Toonpack again. This is becoming more regular now..... I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... I don't !?!?!?! Profit from sale is perfectly fine as I've said. What about taking money out while in charge though ??? I think that's generally bad(unless it's allocation of profit or the like), what about you ??? they backed their managers man, with all those despicable "trophy players" of course, who brought european football, trips to the Nou Camp, San Siro. Consider this : if they pocketed as much as you make out they did, it only escalates the calibre of player and rise of the club even more. Understand ? That's some job they did, doing all that without backing their managers and pocketing the money from sales [like your man is doing]. So. What was your opinion of your man before September 1st, before you "revised your opinion" ? Don;t take too long to answer this, my other points, and sammynb question he posed to you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 no reply from Toonpack again. This is becoming more regular now..... I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... We didn't quite sink that low, but years of neglect by the Westwoods, the Seymours, and the McKeags would've seen us as a third tier club but for intervention. I know that mate, they had one foot in there though, but Toonpack - predictably - seems to be unaware of it. I don;t know how many times he and others like him need to be told this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 It is a load of bollocks to say ever McKeag had the good of the club at heart. He was a money grabbing twat as well. Can you quantify that? How much money did he actually grab out of NUFC? BTW I find it remarkable at times that it's often written that it was McKeag's board that sold Waddle & Beardsley. McKeag was on the board when they left, yes but it was under Stan Seymour that they left. I don't think he was even vice chairman at the time. McKeag took over in June 1988 by which point Gazza had already told us to go forth and multiply with our contract offer and was on his way to WHL. And he was the last of the so-called 'crown jewels' to go. That summer we gave Wimbledon £1.5m for Beasant & Thorn, paid £700K for Robertson from Hearts and £500K to Bradford for Hendrie so our total outlay was £2.7m - more than we'd received for Gazza from Spurs so how McKeag can be considered 'money grabbing' in that instance or that Gascoigne was sold to fund the stand is beyond me. The following summer we again spent a good deal on the likes of Quinn, McGhee, Gallacher, Dillon, Fereday & Stimson. Yes some turned out to be utter shite (the latter three) but never-the-less it was funds that had been made available by McKeag's board. We got £850,000 in from the sales of McDonald and Goddard too. Which means we had a net gain of £350,000. Hardly pocket fulls of cash in the grand scheme of things and I bet a proportion of that went on servicing the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Not sure that any cash has been pocketed recently. The accumulated cash losses from 2007 onwards far outweigh the £30m profit we made in the Jan 2011 transfer window. At worst (and its something i have got my eye fixed on) any surplus has been used to pay back short term loans to the club. Look at it this way, if i spend £10 more than i earn for 3 months, then have a bumper month when i earn £30 more than i spend, I am only even. Anyone who isolates one month of history in a business which has made losses consistently for years to exemplify why that business should have a surplus to spend shouldnt really be commenting on financial matters. There is a massive difference between the 'accounts' and the bank 'account'. The first one is used to estimate profit for tax purposes, the second one is the status of your cash flow. Cash into the club has been less than cash out, that deficit doesnt disappear the next year meaning any surpluses are automatically available to spend. Just like the example above. Edited November 15, 2011 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Not sure that any cash has been pocketed recently. The accumulated cash losses from 2007 onwards far outweigh the £30m profit we made in the Jan 2011 transfer window. At worst (and its something i have got my eye fixed on) any surplus has been used to pay back short term loans to the club. Look at it this way, if i spend £10 more than i earn for 3 months, then have a bumper month when i earn £30 more than i spend, I am only even. Anyone who isolates one month of history in a business which has made losses consistently for years to exemplify why that business should have a surplus to spend shouldnt really be commenting on financial matters. There is a massive difference between the 'accounts' and the bank 'account'. The first one is used to estimate profit for tax purposes, the second one is the status of your cash flow. Cash into the club has been less than cash out, that deficit doesnt disappear the next year meaning any surpluses are automatically available to spend. Just like the example above. An inconvenient but inescapable truth. That's essentially why you just have to ignore what Leazes says, because all he's doing is shouting slogans at the end of the day. It's obvious that if you spend more money you have greater ready access to the 'obviously better' players, but MA isn't going to go down that road so we're all wasting our time 'debating' that. Not that we are, everyone is in agreement on that so it's a complete fallacy to say there are those on here that are 'blinkered' to his overall scheme or priorities. It's just about trying to gauge what people sensibly think we should be capable of under our own steam. Not that we all wouldnt want to be bringing in the David Silva's of this world, but that is only possible if you're using non-NUFC revenue. That's a contextual reality. I've only experienced one time in my lifetime when non-NUFC revenues were used on a large scale to fund the team and it resulted in the most exciting period in the clubs recent history-so the link between spending and good players isn't some sort of blind spot-but if we're being realists (and if we're to have the only debate worth having) we have to accept that that was 1. not only non-NUFC money, but also bank money, which creates huge debts that future generations have to service, and 2. if we're wanting to compete in the Prem again, being as those sorts of finance arrangements are no longer an option, what you're left with is very simply asking for an owner to stick their hands in their own pockets for the first time in the clubs history. Now again, just to reinforce the point, we all know Ashley isn't going to do that, so the question very simply is at what level can a self sustaining club with one of the biggest fanbases (top 5) in the country achieve? When you're down to the margins we are now, naming rights/sponsorship actually become a massive, massive deal. So if he dicks us on that (for the sake of a few million quid) he's a cunt of the highest order. We're third basically on vapours at the moment-fantastic effort, but it deserves recognition through reinforcements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Shouting slogans that made me laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Not sure that any cash has been pocketed recently. The accumulated cash losses from 2007 onwards far outweigh the £30m profit we made in the Jan 2011 transfer window. At worst (and its something i have got my eye fixed on) any surplus has been used to pay back short term loans to the club. Look at it this way, if i spend £10 more than i earn for 3 months, then have a bumper month when i earn £30 more than i spend, I am only even. Anyone who isolates one month of history in a business which has made losses consistently for years to exemplify why that business should have a surplus to spend shouldnt really be commenting on financial matters. There is a massive difference between the 'accounts' and the bank 'account'. The first one is used to estimate profit for tax purposes, the second one is the status of your cash flow. Cash into the club has been less than cash out, that deficit doesnt disappear the next year meaning any surpluses are automatically available to spend. Just like the example above. An inconvenient but inescapable truth. That's essentially why you just have to ignore what Leazes says, because all he's doing is shouting slogans at the end of the day. It's obvious that if you spend more money you have greater ready access to the 'obviously better' players, but MA isn't going to go down that road so we're all wasting our time 'debating' that. Not that we are, everyone is in agreement on that so it's a complete fallacy to say there are those on here that are 'blinkered' to his overall scheme or priorities. It's just about trying to gauge what people sensibly think we should be capable of under our own steam. Not that we all wouldnt want to be bringing in the David Silva's of this world, but that is only possible if you're using non-NUFC revenue. That's a contextual reality. I've only experienced one time in my lifetime when non-NUFC revenues were used on a large scale to fund the team and it resulted in the most exciting period in the clubs recent history-so the link between spending and good players isn't some sort of blind spot-but if we're being realists (and if we're to have the only debate worth having) we have to accept that that was 1. not only non-NUFC money, but also bank money, which creates huge debts that future generations have to service, and 2. if we're wanting to compete in the Prem again, being as those sorts of finance arrangements are no longer an option, what you're left with is very simply asking for an owner to stick their hands in their own pockets for the first time in the clubs history. Now again, just to reinforce the point, we all know Ashley isn't going to do that, so the question very simply is at what level can a self sustaining club with one of the biggest fanbases (top 5) in the country achieve? When you're down to the margins we are now, naming rights/sponsorship actually become a massive, massive deal. So if he dicks us on that (for the sake of a few million quid) he's a cunt of the highest order. We're third basically on vapours at the moment-fantastic effort, but it deserves recognition through reinforcements. Its not a major insight though, when the club's management have sat down to discuss the future, they havent arrived at this point, they've started here. Which is why they have put the naming rights up for sale. Its not replacing an income stream, there is no opportunity cost for them so the way they will look at it is purely about maximising the chances of a sponsor coming in. Chelsea, Liverpool and Spurs all would like to generate income this way and have plans in place or are discussing it. However, in a recession, spending £m's a year on a product that might fail (e.g Chelsea may fail to qualify for CL, Spurs/Liverpool Europe etc) and where the return is vague is a very difficult choice. Marketing heads at GSK used to say to me 'I know the £5m i spend on advertising and branding is effective, i just dont know which £'s and where'. Shirt deals are massive but the research on its effectiveness is well established, the return to the sponsor of naming rights of stadiums is much less well understood and therefore a riskier decision for the marketing manager. Ashley's decision was a business one, he takes the PR hit for the sponsor making them less uneasy about coming in, if it doesnt work, SD gets advertising. The question of stadium branding is on the boardroom table of every major club in this country because as you rightly point out, when you are working at the margins, exhausting budgets with massive wage bills and with an increasing total proportion of income coming from TV equally to all clubs, then an extra £5-10m is massive. You're absolutely correct in your assessment of our context and as i say, its the same analysis sitting on our boardroom table. When you take the emotion out of the situation and you dont care as much as the fans, its quite straightforward what needs to be done. The difficult bit is making it work. We'll know soon more about the next shirt sponsor, if this is given away for free to SD then we know that the strategy is 'fuck NUFC, promote SD'. There is a real cost to the club of doing this (unlike SD branding at the ground, on the roof, name of stadium) so this is different. I personally can not see the NR money not being replaced with a new sponsor. When companies do approach us for the shirt sponsorship, they will be offered stadium naming rights for a more expensive deal. Whether a company will take it is another matter. Third on vapours btw Love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Not sure that any cash has been pocketed recently. The accumulated cash losses from 2007 onwards far outweigh the £30m profit we made in the Jan 2011 transfer window. At worst (and its something i have got my eye fixed on) any surplus has been used to pay back short term loans to the club. Look at it this way, if i spend £10 more than i earn for 3 months, then have a bumper month when i earn £30 more than i spend, I am only even. Anyone who isolates one month of history in a business which has made losses consistently for years to exemplify why that business should have a surplus to spend shouldnt really be commenting on financial matters. There is a massive difference between the 'accounts' and the bank 'account'. The first one is used to estimate profit for tax purposes, the second one is the status of your cash flow. Cash into the club has been less than cash out, that deficit doesnt disappear the next year meaning any surpluses are automatically available to spend. Just like the example above. An inconvenient but inescapable truth. That's essentially why you just have to ignore what Leazes says, shame you have ignored what I have been telling you for the last 4 years, numpty, instead of spouting the hot air you've been doing instead. As usual, no views, predictions from you. All you do is sit on the fence and babble on like a rock ape. For instance It's obvious that if you spend more money you have greater ready access to the 'obviously better' players, but MA isn't going to go down that road so we're all wasting our time 'debating' that As I've been telling you for years. We're third basically on vapours at the moment-fantastic effort, but it deserves recognition through reinforcements. but we won't, I've been telling you this too for years. Do you think differently, go on, tell us what you think, nobody will laugh at you if you are wrong. [in fact we would all be pleased, but I'm telling you that it just isn't going to happen, or are you going to babble on the next few months saying how it "needs to happen". Save yourself a waste of time and space by opening your mind a bit. Edited November 15, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 manc mag, the Grey Man, desperately trying to hang onto anybody with a different view to mine, in the hope he can attempt to project the image of a smart talking know it all rather than admit that what I've told him for ages is now spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Leazes you daft clot. All I'm saying is it's just a basic statement of fact that if you spend the most money you have access to the best players. That's all you're saying in essence. Nice one, we know that, you can basically give up posting now. We don't have access to that sort of money though. That's sort of where we're in difficulty with your groundbreaking ideas. It would be unprecedented in the history of NUFC for anyone to bankroll us in the way you want. You can tell me how I'm wrong in that assertion if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Leazes you daft clot. All I'm saying is it's just a basic statement of fact that if you spend the most money you have access to the best players. That's all you're saying in essence. Nice one, we know that, you can basically give up posting now. We don't have access to that sort of money though. That's sort of where we're in difficulty with your groundbreaking ideas. It would be unprecedented in the history of NUFC for anyone to bankroll us in the way you want. You can tell me how I'm wrong in that assertion if you like. you're making things up again, I've never said we would have access to money like Man City or Chelsea. Read the post. I'm saying what I've been saying for 4 years, and you've disagreed, but are now saying what I've been telling you, about the limited ambitions of the owner. I'll give you a clue....see your comment "but MA isn't going to go down that road so we're all wasting our time 'debating' that" and my reply. At least you realise you are wasting your time debating it, as I've been telling you. What a clown. Edited November 15, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9986 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 no reply from Toonpack again. This is becoming more regular now..... I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... I don't !?!?!?! Profit from sale is perfectly fine as I've said. What about taking money out while in charge though ??? I think that's generally bad(unless it's allocation of profit or the like), what about you ??? they backed their managers man, with all those despicable "trophy players" of course, who brought european football, trips to the Nou Camp, San Siro. Consider this : if they pocketed as much as you make out they did, it only escalates the calibre of player and rise of the club even more. Understand ? That's some job they did, doing all that without backing their managers and pocketing the money from sales [like your man is doing]. So. What was your opinion of your man before September 1st, before you "revised your opinion" ? Don;t take too long to answer this, my other points, and sammynb question he posed to you . I've said I can't find Sammy's question(s), if you quote it, I'll answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Leazes you daft clot. All I'm saying is it's just a basic statement of fact that if you spend the most money you have access to the best players. That's all you're saying in essence. Nice one, we know that, you can basically give up posting now. We don't have access to that sort of money though. That's sort of where we're in difficulty with your groundbreaking ideas. It would be unprecedented in the history of NUFC for anyone to bankroll us in the way you want. You can tell me how I'm wrong in that assertion if you like. you're making things up again, I've never said we would have access to money like Man City or Chelsea. Read the post. I'm saying what I've been saying for 4 years, and you've disagreed, but are now saying what I've been telling you, about the limited ambitions of the owner. What a clown. No thats just you being a sad case - what you're deliberately not saying there is limited ambitions 'relative' to the last regime, which is all you ever bang on about for reasons best known only to yourself. Everyone is ultra clear about MA-he won't spend his own cash to fund it. That's what you get in a tiz about. That's not reality though, thats just a bairn wanting more. I draw a different line (I think Chez does too for the most part, and I dispute what you say about me associating myself with his views where theres no nexus between them) For me, the justifiable greivance is where he's found to be fleecing NUFC if/when it 'breaks even'. Ie after it has proved itself and stood on its own two feet. That's not a relative/historical point either, it's an absolute one-a simple matter of fact. It would be wrong. The fact is though, even if we break even and MA doesnt take a penny out, we will still have less money than Man C, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal (at the very least) ergo we will lose players to those teams. Ergo you will still claim we're a selling club. Ergo that will be technically correct (in certain circumstances) but significantly you won't offer any explanation as to how you would finance the retention of the same players. You'll just bleat on about the last lot. So you see you've got nowt to say basically apart from shout slogans. Whether you're older than other posters or not, whether you've seen more Newcastle teams than other posters or not, you are no more than the TT equivalent of a misspelled bed sheet. Yours affectionately etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Leazes you daft clot. All I'm saying is it's just a basic statement of fact that if you spend the most money you have access to the best players. That's all you're saying in essence. Nice one, we know that, you can basically give up posting now. We don't have access to that sort of money though. That's sort of where we're in difficulty with your groundbreaking ideas. It would be unprecedented in the history of NUFC for anyone to bankroll us in the way you want. You can tell me how I'm wrong in that assertion if you like. you're making things up again, I've never said we would have access to money like Man City or Chelsea. Read the post. I'm saying what I've been saying for 4 years, and you've disagreed, but are now saying what I've been telling you, about the limited ambitions of the owner. What a clown. No thats just you being a sad case - what you're deliberately not saying there is limited ambitions 'relative' to the last regime, which is all you ever bang on about for reasons best known only to yourself. Everyone is ultra clear about MA-he won't spend his own cash to fund it. That's what you get in a tiz about. That's not reality though, thats just a bairn wanting more. I draw a different line (I think Chez does too for the most part, and I dispute what you say about me associating myself with his views where theres no nexus between them) For me, the justifiable greivance is where he's found to be fleecing NUFC if/when it 'breaks even'. Ie after it has proved itself and stood on its own two feet. That's not a relative/historical point either, it's an absolute one-a simple matter of fact. It would be wrong. The fact is though, even if we break even and MA doesnt take a penny out, we will still have less money than Man C, Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal (at the very least) ergo we will lose players to those teams. Ergo you will still claim we're a selling club. Ergo that will be technically correct (in certain circumstances) but significantly you won't offer any explanation as to how you would finance the retention of the same players. You'll just bleat on about the last lot. So you see you've got nowt to say basically apart from shout slogans. Whether you're older than other posters or not, whether you've seen more Newcastle teams than other posters or not, you are no more than the TT equivalent of a misspelled bed sheet. Yours affectionately etc etc I gave you examples of your own posts and my responses, but you decline to comment specifically. What you say above, is NOT the reason stated at the time by people who said "anybody would do better than this", and there is NO reason whatsoever why NUFC are competing at the levels of the likes of Stoke, Bolton etc, we are selling our best players in effect to survive, a selling club. Basically, I said that ambition was a choice, not a right, and you have disagreed with me for a long time now that Mike Ashleys CHOICE was that this football club would NOT compete at the levels it ought to compete at, and is a selling club, and is being run alongside Sports Direct to promote Sports Direct, with Sports Direct coming first. You have actively disagreed with this, and said I was spouting bollocks [words to that effect, and still are in fact] when it is becoming absolutely clear to even the stupidest idiot that this is in fact the case. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I think our natural size then (05-07) was fifth economically, income generation, stature. Today it's seventh, and with or without Ashley it would be 7th, unless we get investment. Turgid reading the same old debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 3rd best club in the country as we speak. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 no reply from Toonpack again. This is becoming more regular now..... I apologise Leazes but I was on a plane (nowhere exotic sadly and work not play). Regarding your question, I believe I do understand, here goes: Taking money out whilst in charge is bad but making money on a profit from sale is fine, yes ?? Well that's how I see it. How do you see it ?? most supporters would be happy to see the club win on the pitch, at the time. Your chums on skunkers, and the massively expanded fanbase tapped by the previous regime, were quite happy to make their trips to the San Siro, Nou Camp etc. Of course, they only said so at the time, but may have been telling porkies I believe I asked you a few weeks ago, if you sell your house [or a business] would you sell it for the same price you paid for it ? Sammynb has also asked you a question which you have ignored [ I think] You also said you would "review Mike Ashley after the 1st September deadline", and now say he is "recouping" . So, what exactly did you think he was doing before 1st September ? All it needed was a yes or no On the house/business you try and make a profit, and as I said, that's absolutely fine, in my opinion. all I asked for was your opinion before September 1st. I don't disagree that when you sell a house you aim to make a profit, so why do you think a business is any different ? Before you reply, with your words of wisdom laced with irrational hatred, consider what price they would have got for a 3rd division club that had spent years in the doldrums, which is where they found it, and a recent history similar to that of Sheff Wed rather than an expanded stadium being one of the best in europe, years of regular european football, a tapped fanbase and one of the biggest turnovers in world football ? Somehow, I think all this will continue to pass you by... I don't !?!?!?! Profit from sale is perfectly fine as I've said. What about taking money out while in charge though ??? I think that's generally bad(unless it's allocation of profit or the like), what about you ??? they backed their managers man, with all those despicable "trophy players" of course, who brought european football, trips to the Nou Camp, San Siro. Consider this : if they pocketed as much as you make out they did, it only escalates the calibre of player and rise of the club even more. Understand ? That's some job they did, doing all that without backing their managers and pocketing the money from sales [like your man is doing]. So. What was your opinion of your man before September 1st, before you "revised your opinion" ? Don;t take too long to answer this, my other points, and sammynb question he posed to you . I've said I can't find Sammy's question(s), if you quote it, I'll answer. its Sammys quote, he highlighted it, you replied to the post he made but not the highlight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 nah. no reply then ? A man of your calibre and schooling ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 nah. no reply then ? A man of your calibre and schooling ? You quoted my response you daft clot. Still trawling for responses at 12.30 am a couple of days later. Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 nah. no reply then ? A man of your calibre and schooling ? You quoted my response you daft clot. Still trawling for responses at 12.30 am a couple of days later. Oh dear. "nah". You call that a response you daft clot. Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 That's not a response. That's a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 the Grey Man on the run, having spouted total tosh for at leat 4 years. 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