LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 the clubs is setup and has the transfer policy of a selling club, not an ambitious big club. That is a fact, it may not be obvious yet to people who are either blind or know nothing, but it will become so, in time. For those who still need more time to see, that is. You are muddled. That is your opinion. Your opinion can be supported by facts but it is not a fact in its own right. Also, disregarding all that. Can I assume that from your point of view we are currently competing at the level you deem acceptable but you are disregarding it as acceptable because its not being done the way you want it to be done? What you want is for us to compete for EL qualification while spending lost of money on players. I think, he doesn't want us to sign good free players like Ba, but he'd rather we spent a fortune of someone's money (a banks money even) on expensive shite like Luque, Boumsong and Owen (as examples), relative league position is irrelevant, we just need to spend money as that's all that counts. omg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4857 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 omg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Comparing Jack Walker to Sheik Mansoor, Haha, priceless. at the time, bonny lad, at the time. You're showing your ignorance. Jack Walker bought the title, as you don't appear to know this. Of course I know but was hardly on the scale of City. We finished 6th that season, so 7th this year won't be too bad don't you think?? read the post properly man. I did, it reads like 95% of all your posts. as I have said to you, your posts are so varied, interesting and knowledgeable deluded, its unreal Deluded?? Finishing 7th? admitting players will get sold? Saying we can't compete financially with some clubs? Which one of these, enlighten me o wise one who has finished 7th ? You and others said we were going to finish 4th a couple of months ago ? When did I say that? The seasons not over yet but I think we are capable of finishing 7th, which would be progress progress to what ? I'm telling you now, the club has NO desire to do what is required to go higher than that. Consequently, it will go backwards and downwards, that is absolutely nailed on. It is a selling club again, like it was under the McKeags, Seymours etc, not a big club anymore. Edited January 13, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9945 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Comparing Jack Walker to Sheik Mansoor, Haha, priceless. at the time, bonny lad, at the time. You're showing your ignorance. Jack Walker bought the title, as you don't appear to know this. Of course I know but was hardly on the scale of City. We finished 6th that season, so 7th this year won't be too bad don't you think?? read the post properly man. I did, it reads like 95% of all your posts. as I have said to you, your posts are so varied, interesting and knowledgeable deluded, its unreal Deluded?? Finishing 7th? admitting players will get sold? Saying we can't compete financially with some clubs? Which one of these, enlighten me o wise one who has finished 7th ? You and others said we were going to finish 4th a couple of months ago ? When did I say that? The seasons not over yet but I think we are capable of finishing 7th, which would be progress progress to what ? I'm telling you now, the club has NO desire to do what is required to go higher than that. Consequently, it will go backwards and downwards, that is absolutely nailed on. It is a selling club again, like it was under the McKeags, Seymours etc, not a big club anymore. In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 3110 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Please try and keep your coherent thoughts to yourself. This is a Leazes thread now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9945 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Please try and keep your coherent thoughts to yourself. This is a Leazes thread now. I like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Please try and keep your coherent thoughts to yourself. This is a Leazes thread now. say something worthwhile or pipe down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9945 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9945 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Please try and keep your coherent thoughts to yourself. This is a Leazes thread now. say something worthwhile or pipe down. It's my thread now Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toonotl 3110 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. say something new or pipe down. Good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Maximizing its income?? If I go and max out my credit cards, get a few bank loans and remortage my house is that maximizing my income or is it reckless spending? That's what happend under Halls/Fred towards the end, although you will never admit the finances were in a very poor state. Ashley is running the club within its means, not as exciting but that's how it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BestBaNone 0 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I keep reading 'pocketing the cash'. Who's pocketed what cash and what evidence is there for such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Maximizing its income?? If I go and max out my credit cards, get a few bank loans and remortage my house is that maximizing my income or is it reckless spending? That's what happend under Halls/Fred towards the end, although you will never admit the finances were in a very poor state. Ashley is running the club within its means, not as exciting but that's how it is you truly are a hopeless case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9945 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ???? are you saying Swansea are ambitious ? As you think NUFC are, then anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sorry Leazes, but I've been watching this forum for a while now and have to say this: I'd originally assumed you were a WUM, but ad time had gone by, I've come to the conclusion that you are serious. You haven't posted a single word that isn't utter bollocks and you are, by some distance the worst poster on Toontastic. Furthermore, you come across a total and utter twat. End of public service announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9945 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ???? are you saying Swansea are ambitious ? As you think NUFC are, then anything is possible. Answer the question ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms. the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ???? are you saying Swansea are ambitious ? As you think NUFC are, then anything is possible. Answer the question ! what was your view of Mike Ashleys intentions for the club before the end of the transfer deadline, as you now think he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, as I've told you for ages now] Answer the question. At what stage does a club that was the 14th biggest turnover in football, and still one of the biggest in the UK, have to stop selling its best players and pocketing the cash, to instead back their managers to be "self sufficient". Answer the question. Edited January 14, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sorry Leazes, but I've been watching this forum for a while now and have to say this: I'd originally assumed you were a WUM, but ad time had gone by, I've come to the conclusion that you are serious. You haven't posted a single word that isn't utter bollocks and you are, by some distance the worst poster on Toontastic. Furthermore, you come across a total and utter twat. End of public service announcement. join the ranks of the gullible, brainwashed and accepting the lower standards imposed by Mike Ashley. Do you know where Newcastle Online is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sorry Leazes, but I've been watching this forum for a while now and have to say this: I'd originally assumed you were a WUM, but ad time had gone by, I've come to the conclusion that you are serious. You haven't posted a single word that isn't utter bollocks and you are, by some distance the worst poster on Toontastic. Furthermore, you come across a total and utter twat. End of public service announcement. join the ranks of the gullible, brainwashed and accepting the lower standards imposed by Mike Ashley. Do you know where Newcastle Online is ? It's got nothing to do with Ashley, this is about talking shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sorry Leazes, but I've been watching this forum for a while now and have to say this: I'd originally assumed you were a WUM, but ad time had gone by, I've come to the conclusion that you are serious. You haven't posted a single word that isn't utter bollocks and you are, by some distance the worst poster on Toontastic. Furthermore, you come across a total and utter twat. End of public service announcement. join the ranks of the gullible, brainwashed and accepting the lower standards imposed by Mike Ashley. Do you know where Newcastle Online is ? It's got nothing to do with Ashley, this is about talking shite. Oh, and most of the posters on N-O are sound, it's just the mods who are fuckwits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Sorry Leazes, but I've been watching this forum for a while now and have to say this: I'd originally assumed you were a WUM, but ad time had gone by, I've come to the conclusion that you are serious. You haven't posted a single word that isn't utter bollocks and you are, by some distance the worst poster on Toontastic. Furthermore, you come across a total and utter twat. End of public service announcement. join the ranks of the gullible, brainwashed and accepting the lower standards imposed by Mike Ashley. Do you know where Newcastle Online is ? It's got nothing to do with Ashley, this is about talking shite. unfortunately, I've been accused of "talking shite" for over 4 years and everything I have said is all happening. Is your head in the clouds too, are you also being fooled by a few results courtesy of a good manager papering over the cracks, unable to see the bigger long term picture, the path you need to take if you want to be truly successful, and think NUFC are a small club that actually really should be acting like a 2nd rate small club, selling its best players and pocketing the cash instead of backing its managers ? Tell me what you specifically disagree with, and I'll give you the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46030 Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Are you taking requests for new year resolutions at all, Leazes? 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