January Transfer window 2012- Deadline Day Madness

[Guest alex]

Well it's moot anyway isn't it? I.e. no point saying he could've if he didn't attract a top manager to take over. It's the same net result. I tend to think he overestimated our pulling power at the time.

I think he was right to talk up the club and look high. We qualified for the Champions League twice, without a doubt I think for a period only Man Utd or Arsenal were more attractive, we were certainly equal to Liverpool and maybe above Chelsea till Abramovic came, you only had to look at the players we signed and the clubs we were signing them from to see we were big players.

Yeah but the timing of the sacking meant you either got someone out of a job, someone whose club didn't want them (i.e. Souness) or paid a massive compensation package. Also any manager doing well is going to have to be offered something special to leave their club in September. So it wasn't just about our pulling power per se, but about our pulling power at that moment too. I also think (rightly or wrongly) Shepherd was perceived as being an interfering, overbearing influence on managers which probably didn't help.

Edited February 1, 2012 by alex

[Brock Manson 0]

Well it's moot anyway isn't it? I.e. no point saying he could've if he didn't attract a top manager to take over. It's the same net result. I tend to think he overestimated our pulling power at the time.

I think he was right to talk up the club and look high. We qualified for the Champions League twice, without a doubt I think for a period only Man Utd or Arsenal were more attractive, we were certainly equal to Liverpool and maybe above Chelsea till Abramovic came, you only had to look at the players we signed and the clubs we were signing them from to see we were big players.

 

I'd say we were exactly level with Liverpool in terms of stature and squad ability - we were both capable of challenging 3rd and 4th spot and looked to be pipping each other to the CL for a couple of seasons.

 

However they appointed Benitez where we hired Sounness. They won the CL and we were set back 20 years (to coin a Leazes catchphrase). Not that Benitez worked out for them in the long term but he definitely turned them into a force for a few years.

 

No reason why we couldn't have been the ones to hire Mourinho due to the SBR connection. Obviously it would've come down to FFS matching Abramovich's bid to bring him but it could've been possible.

[David Kelly 1245]

Well it's moot anyway isn't it? I.e. no point saying he could've if he didn't attract a top manager to take over. It's the same net result. I tend to think he overestimated our pulling power at the time.

I think he was right to talk up the club and look high. We qualified for the Champions League twice, without a doubt I think for a period only Man Utd or Arsenal were more attractive, we were certainly equal to Liverpool and maybe above Chelsea till Abramovic came, you only had to look at the players we signed and the clubs we were signing them from to see we were big players.

Totally agree with everything your saying here Stevie. Fat Fred fucked up because he thought discipline was our problem and that Souness was the right man to sort it out.

As Leazes constantly points out, he then went and backed his manager to the hilt to try and move us forward.

Shepherd may well be an odious bloke but in hindsight most of what he did for the club was positive and had got us to the stage where we were the third biggest club in the country (until Chelsea got the Russian money) and I think we would have been able to attract a very high calibre of manager. Unfortunately he undid all of the good work by making the Souness decision.

[LeazesMag 0]

Before someone comes along and accuses me of :

 

thinking Shepherd was perfect/being a member of the KKK/being a member of the BNP/wanting the team to lose/making things up or comments by others......let's see Fish, without lecturing them to stop telling lies or making things up about me [which he will almost certainly ignore or fail to see], acknowledge the sentiments of the post by DK are essentially correct. Let's just say we had 12-13 very good years under the old owners then and they did it by operating a build and improve policy and backing their managers rather than a sell your best players, replace and pocket the cash/spend it elsewhere policy.

 

When Mike Ashley gives us anything remotedly similar - and he will ONLY do it by adopting a similar strategy to his predecessors - then the goons and wet around the ears out of towners may have a point.

Edited February 1, 2012 by LeazesMag

[McFaul 35]

I try not to get too heavily involved in the crack about FFS and Ashley, for me it boils down to sentimentality in some ways. The fact is, when Shepherd was here, he cared about the club they were without doubt in his heart and he made decisions sometimes like a deluded fan in love with the club would make to try and make many people happy. He failed to do so some of the time, but he tried and he loved the club, he loved geordies.

 

Ashley wants the club to be a success because he wants to protect his investment, and to massage his ego showing what an astute long term businessman he is. If he got a few more quid than what he paid he'd be off and he wouldn't give a fuck about NUFC, he wouldn't be a fan or care about our future and he'd move on to his next leaching adventure. These two paragraphs are clouded in sentimentality, but I don't care it's what I think.

[Guest alex]

I think it's a massive factor that Shepherd and the Halls were fans of the club whereas Ashley isn't in terms of how they run the club. Whether that's a bad thing or not, especially in the current climate is another matter.

[Toonpack 9422]

I try not to get too heavily involved in the crack about FFS and Ashley, for me it boils down to sentimentality in some ways. The fact is, when Shepherd was here, he cared about the club they were without doubt in his heart and he made decisions sometimes like a deluded fan in love with the club would make to try and make many people happy. He failed to do so some of the time, but he tried and he loved the club, he loved geordies.

 

Ashley wants the club to be a success because he wants to protect his investment, and to massage his ego showing what an astute long term businessman he is. If he got a few more quid than what he paid he'd be off and he wouldn't give a fuck about NUFC, he wouldn't be a fan or care about our future and he'd move on to his next leaching adventure. These two paragraphs are clouded in sentimentality, but I don't care it's what I think.

 

The true-ness of that "love" was admirably described in a brothel to an undercover reporter I seem to recall.

[LeazesMag 0]

I try not to get too heavily involved in the crack about FFS and Ashley, for me it boils down to sentimentality in some ways. The fact is, when Shepherd was here, he cared about the club they were without doubt in his heart and he made decisions sometimes like a deluded fan in love with the club would make to try and make many people happy. He failed to do so some of the time, but he tried and he loved the club, he loved geordies.

 

Ashley wants the club to be a success because he wants to protect his investment, and to massage his ego showing what an astute long term businessman he is. If he got a few more quid than what he paid he'd be off and he wouldn't give a fuck about NUFC, he wouldn't be a fan or care about our future and he'd move on to his next leaching adventure. These two paragraphs are clouded in sentimentality, but I don't care it's what I think.

 

generally agree mate, Ashley wants to make a profit, you don't need to be in europe to make a profit, so to him that is success because he's not a fan of the club like we are. He will sell a player to get a profit if one is not made operationally, this is what I've said all along for years. If you don't back your managers and you sell your best players, you will NEVER get into those top league positions. It boils down to what someone wants as a supporter, but the truth is that the vast majority of people thought it was possible to run the club as a prudent business and get into europe and make profits, the truth is if you want to get into those positions you have to gamble, and most clubs don't do it. The alternative is playing safe, and that is what is happening.

 

This is what I've ALWAYS said. I want directors or owners who are football men that want the football team to win on the pitch and compete with the other big clubs, and there is only one way to do that on a long term basis.

[LeazesMag 0]

I try not to get too heavily involved in the crack about FFS and Ashley, for me it boils down to sentimentality in some ways. The fact is, when Shepherd was here, he cared about the club they were without doubt in his heart and he made decisions sometimes like a deluded fan in love with the club would make to try and make many people happy. He failed to do so some of the time, but he tried and he loved the club, he loved geordies.

 

Ashley wants the club to be a success because he wants to protect his investment, and to massage his ego showing what an astute long term businessman he is. If he got a few more quid than what he paid he'd be off and he wouldn't give a fuck about NUFC, he wouldn't be a fan or care about our future and he'd move on to his next leaching adventure. These two paragraphs are clouded in sentimentality, but I don't care it's what I think.

 

The true-ness of that "love" was admirably described in a brothel to an undercover reporter I seem to recall.

 

Big deal. Get a life man.

[McFaul 35]

I try not to get too heavily involved in the crack about FFS and Ashley, for me it boils down to sentimentality in some ways. The fact is, when Shepherd was here, he cared about the club they were without doubt in his heart and he made decisions sometimes like a deluded fan in love with the club would make to try and make many people happy. He failed to do so some of the time, but he tried and he loved the club, he loved geordies.

 

Ashley wants the club to be a success because he wants to protect his investment, and to massage his ego showing what an astute long term businessman he is. If he got a few more quid than what he paid he'd be off and he wouldn't give a fuck about NUFC, he wouldn't be a fan or care about our future and he'd move on to his next leaching adventure. These two paragraphs are clouded in sentimentality, but I don't care it's what I think.

 

The true-ness of that "love" was admirably described in a brothel to an undercover reporter I seem to recall.

Oh do one, the whole point he was there was to help the club! For fuck sake, the whole point he was there was to attract further investment for the club. People get too caught up in the details and miss the bigger picture.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

I think it's a massive factor that Shepherd and the Halls were fans of the club whereas Ashley isn't in terms of how they run the club. Whether that's a bad thing or not, especially in the current climate is another matter.

There is absolutely no way the club could be run in the way it was in the current climate, not a chance.

 

Ashley has the money to invest if he wanted to BUT he has nowhere near the wealth of the shiek,the Russian or the Yanks at Liverpool, so IF he sunk £100m into the squad, not to mention the extra costs of wages of £100k + a week, then finish 5/6th would it have been worth it?

 

How much have City spent and they are in danger of winning nothing,Liverpool have spent a fortune and are just above us in the table.

[Guest alex]

According to Billy Furious he called the prostitutes on Tyneside rather than the women in general "dogs". Don't think there's a full transcript online anywhere either so I'd take the claims in the newspapers with a pinch of salt. I see it more as pissed-up banter whilst trying to ingratiate himself anyway.

[McFaul 35]

I never used to understand why Sima used to call you "Toonspac", I do now.

[Guest alex]

I think it's a massive factor that Shepherd and the Halls were fans of the club whereas Ashley isn't in terms of how they run the club. Whether that's a bad thing or not, especially in the current climate is another matter.

There is absolutely no way the club could be run in the way it was in the current climate, not a chance.

 

Ashley has the money to invest if he wanted to BUT he has nowhere near the wealth of the shiek,the Russian or the Yanks at Liverpool, so IF he sunk £100m into the squad, not to mention the extra costs of wages of £100k + a week, then finish 5/6th would it have been worth it?

 

How much have City spent and they are in danger of winning nothing,Liverpool have spent a fortune and are just above us in the table.

As ever, I advocate a happy medium between the two.

[McFaul 35]

According to Billy Furious he called the prostitutes on Tyneside rather than the women in general "dogs". Don't think there's a full transcript online anywhere either so I'd take the claims in the newspapers with a pinch of salt. I see it more as pissed-up banter whilst trying to ingratiate himself anyway.

Exactly. Shows Toonpack has no point using that as part of his non event argument. I thought it he called mackem lasses dogs, rather than geordies when it came out.

[Toonpack 9422]

I never used to understand why Sima used to call you "Toonspac", I do now.

 

Copying Sima :-) a new low MugFaul :-)

[LeazesMag 0]

According to Billy Furious he called the prostitutes on Tyneside rather than the women in general "dogs". Don't think there's a full transcript online anywhere either so I'd take the claims in the newspapers with a pinch of salt. I see it more as pissed-up banter whilst trying to ingratiate himself anyway.

Exactly. Shows Toonpack has no point using that as part of his non event argument. I thought it he called mackem lasses dogs, rather than geordies when it came out.

 

I'm sure Toonspac is macbeth, who used to post on NO. He posts exactly the same anti-Halls/Shepherd sentiments, his hatred gets in the way of any common sense, and macbeths hatred stemmed from him heading some sort of supporters group who were refused permission by the Halls and Shepherd to have a say in how the club was run ie a seat on the board or similar. What sort of planet did these people live on ? Who would give a seat on the board to a bunch of supporters with no financial input or committment ?

 

Unbelievable like, but its true. He used to have articles published in The Mag about his obsession and bitterness, they really thought they could have a say in the running of the club.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

I think it's a massive factor that Shepherd and the Halls were fans of the club whereas Ashley isn't in terms of how they run the club. Whether that's a bad thing or not, especially in the current climate is another matter.

There is absolutely no way the club could be run in the way it was in the current climate, not a chance.

 

Ashley has the money to invest if he wanted to BUT he has nowhere near the wealth of the shiek,the Russian or the Yanks at Liverpool, so IF he sunk £100m into the squad, not to mention the extra costs of wages of £100k + a week, then finish 5/6th would it have been worth it?

 

How much have City spent and they are in danger of winning nothing,Liverpool have spent a fortune and are just above us in the table.

As ever, I advocate a happy medium between the two.

The way I see it there are 4 basic ways to try and compete.

1. Be bankrolled by a mega rich sugar daddy and collect players like an 8 year old collects stickers for his panini album with absolutely no regards for running costs,wages etc(Chelsea/City)

 

2.Have the backing of a major investor and have global appeal (Liverpool Man U)

 

3.Try and build using a savvy transfer policy which involves both BUYING and SELLING well while maintaining a quality playing personnel and within your budget(Spurs Arsenal)

 

4. Buy top players on big fees,big wages with the banks money and loans secured on future income. If the team achieves top 4 its successful if it doesn't its unsustainable(Leeds)

 

Just examples and if there are other suggestions please feel free to educate me. This isn't just aimed at you Alex btw

[McFaul 35]

According to Billy Furious he called the prostitutes on Tyneside rather than the women in general "dogs". Don't think there's a full transcript online anywhere either so I'd take the claims in the newspapers with a pinch of salt. I see it more as pissed-up banter whilst trying to ingratiate himself anyway.

Exactly. Shows Toonpack has no point using that as part of his non event argument. I thought it he called mackem lasses dogs, rather than geordies when it came out.

 

I'm sure Toonspac is macbeth, who used to post on NO. He posts exactly the same anti-Halls/Shepherd sentiments, his hatred gets in the way of any common sense, and macbeths hatred stemmed from him heading some sort of supporters group who were refused permission by the Halls and Shepherd to have a say in how the club was run ie a seat on the board or similar. What sort of planet did these people live on ? Who would give a seat on the board to a bunch of supporters with no financial input or committment ?

 

Unbelievable like, but its true. He used to have articles published in The Mag about his obsession and bitterness, they really thought they could have a say in the running of the club.

Ah that wank? I remember him.

[Gemmill 44891]

From what I remember of Macbeth, he was hugely concerned about the state of the finances under Hall and Shepherd. I understand that the response to this will be filled with irrelevant references to things we were "5th" best at, but the top and bottom of it is that we WERE a financial shambles at the time he was saying we were.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

We would've had Hitzfeld if it wasn't for Peasepud.

 

i forgot all about that. i think i stopped posting on NO about that time

[Barney 0]

From what I remember of Macbeth, he was hugely concerned about the state of the finances under Hall and Shepherd. I understand that the response to this will be filled with irrelevant references to things we were "5th" best at, but the top and bottom of it is that we WERE a financial shambles at the time he was saying we were.

 

Then WHY did you demand UNLIMITED backing for your man Souness???

[Dr Gloom 21924]

From what I remember of Macbeth, he was hugely concerned about the state of the finances under Hall and Shepherd. I understand that the response to this will be filled with irrelevant references to things we were "5th" best at, but the top and bottom of it is that we WERE a financial shambles at the time he was saying we were.

 

Then WHY did you demand UNLIMITED backing for your man Souness???

 

you can stop moaning too. you got what you wanted having finally come around to the CORRECT and FACTUAL argument i have been making for at least 5 years. yes it really is that long. and i'm still having the same argument whether you like it or not.

[McFaul 35]

From what I remember of Macbeth, he was hugely concerned about the state of the finances under Hall and Shepherd. I understand that the response to this will be filled with irrelevant references to things we were "5th" best at, but the top and bottom of it is that we WERE a financial shambles at the time he was saying we were.

 

Then WHY did you demand UNLIMITED backing for your man Souness???

There's TWO ways of looking at it. UNLIMITED backing only ends up in a Leeds scenario, but we didn't go as balls deep with them and we were richer.

 

ALEX made a few good points about it this morning. All we need is hope that one day we'll lift a trophy and have one big PARTY.

 

LIVIN in this toon all you want is a bit of JOY for the fans.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

CAPITAL letters.