If we finish in the top 4.....

[manc-mag 1]

Now the dust is settling on the season I applaud Leazes for his comprehensive repudiation of several utterly defective predictions. At the end of the day he’s thrown his hands in the air and admitted where he’s been wrong. This has made for more mature debate on his part, and if I may, a welcome change for the better. Ultimately, there’s no need for him to remain saddled with these flawed forecasts and we can all look forwards instead of back. He’s thrown himself on the tender mercies of the forum and the forum in it’s wisdom has said: “Yes! We don’t know much about football; you know much and have much to teach us (this last year aside)” and has welcomed him back with open arms.

 

I join Gemmill in recognising Leazes' full and frank admissions of error and we all move forward together.

[Toonpack 9110]

Don't see why you're arguing.

 

Leazes is fundamentally right in that we won't challenge for the title like this. That's all he's interested in.

 

You're fundamentally right that we won't get debt free by chasing titles.

 

Not proven, probable, but not fact.

 

The argument, which I've tried to ignore sometimes without success (like today), is that under the "previous regime's approach" he thinks we would be closer to challenging for title's than we are now, when in reality we'd be lightyears (and probably divisions) away from it.

 

The current approach is our best, and most sustainable, approach to achieve continued and consistent success, perhaps ever.

[Christmas Tree 4669]

Someone should really just take down penis measurements.

[Lake Bells tits 1]

We wont challenge for a title but neither will 18 other clubs in the league. Should we all just pack our bags then?

We can be successful within our own framework of possibilites. Champions league is insane with our wages and budget, should we pull it off. I dont think we will but we sure made the other clubs sweat it

Edited April 26, 2012 by Lake Bells tits

[LeazesMag 0]

Don't see why you're arguing.

 

Leazes is fundamentally right in that we won't challenge for the title like this. That's all he's interested in.

 

You're fundamentally right that we won't get debt free by chasing titles.

 

correct. And at the end of the day, its those who said "anybody would do better than this" when talking about the Halls and Shepherd and their results on the pitch, who are totally wrong.

 

People like Toonpack etc, fair enough if what they want is a premiership team making a profit and not seriously attempting to compete on a long term basis with the big boys like the last regime did, that is their prerogative, just admit that this is their preference and you can't do both things, and they were wrong when they insinuated that you could.

 

I would say that the vast majority of people like myself who actually put their cash into the club though, would rather have success on the pitch.

[LeazesMag 0]

Now the dust is settling on the season I applaud Leazes for his comprehensive repudiation of several utterly defective predictions. At the end of the day he’s thrown his hands in the air and admitted where he’s been wrong. This has made for more mature debate on his part, and if I may, a welcome change for the better. Ultimately, there’s no need for him to remain saddled with these flawed forecasts and we can all look forwards instead of back. He’s thrown himself on the tender mercies of the forum and the forum in it’s wisdom has said: “Yes! We don’t know much about football; you know much and have much to teach us (this last year aside)” and has welcomed him back with open arms.

 

I join Gemmill in recognising Leazes' full and frank admissions of error and we all move forward together.

 

 

I thought you had me on ignore ?

 

Obsessed.

[LeazesMag 0]

I would like to join manc-mag in congratulating Leazes on his recent u-turn. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong and I think its encouraging that he's stood up and made this admission.

 

Sadly, I can't congratulate you and your mate for having the balls to admit you can't tell us what you have termed "rubbish" for so long, nor actually sticking to ignoring me like you claim you are doing.

 

[Baggio 0]

I would like to join manc-mag in congratulating Leazes on his recent u-turn. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong and I think its encouraging that he's stood up and made this admission.

 

Has he? That's great news if true and I might consider taking him off ignore if he's not going to bore us with talking a board that left 5 years ago every single day.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not proven, probable, but not fact.

 

The argument, which I've tried to ignore sometimes without success (like today), is that under the "previous regime's approach" he thinks we would be closer to challenging for title's than we are now, when in reality we'd be lightyears (and probably divisions) away from it.

 

The current approach is our best, and most sustainable, approach to achieve continued and consistent success, perhaps ever.

 

didn't you say something like "lets not suggest things which may or may not happen" ?

 

Fact is, we ARE nowhere near sustaining the challenging at the top of the league that the previous regime achieved during their entire 15 years owning the club.

[Baggio 0]

We wont challenge for a title but neither will 18 other clubs in the league. Should we all just pack our bags then?

We can be successful within our own framework of possibilites. Champions league is insane with our wages and budget, should we pull it off. I dont think we will but we sure made the other clubs sweat it

 

Exactly.

 

Sadly Abramovich started a trend that made football about how much your owners were prepared to pump in and not how big a club you were or what that club could generate.

 

Hopefully UEFA come down on those that break the FFP rules and we can get back to a playing field where we can compete better.

[LeazesMag 0]

Exactly.

 

Sadly Abramovich started a trend that made football about how much your owners were prepared to pump in and not how big a club you were or what that club could generate.

 

Hopefully UEFA come down on those that break the FFP rules and we can get back to a playing field where we can compete better.

 

there is only 2 clubs being bankrolled, not 22.

[Renton 21046]

 

 

correct. And at the end of the day, its those who said "anybody would do better than this" when talking about the Halls and Shepherd and their results on the pitch, who are totally wrong.

 

People like Toonpack etc, fair enough if what they want is a premiership team making a profit and not seriously attempting to compete on a long term basis with the big boys like the last regime did, that is their prerogative, just admit that this is their preference and you can't do both things, and they were wrong when they insinuated that you could.

 

I would say that the vast majority of people like myself who actually put their cash into the club though, would rather have success on the pitch.

 

Do you really believe we competed with the 'big boys' on a long-term basis under the old board? I don't, I think we had one season where we competed but were ultimately unsuccessful.

 

Given the downward spiral we found ourselves in on the pitch, the new competition from super rich owners, and our own flailing finances, how do you suppose the old board were going to compete for the title? Serious question btw.

[Baggio 0]

there is only 2 clubs being bankrolled, not 22.

 

Since Abramovich took over you've had Chelsea, Man City, Villa, Wolves and Sunderland had money pumped in by their owners at one point or another.

 

Liverpool I'm not so sure of as their last lot of accounts haven't been released yet but Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs are just more successful money making clubs than ourselves.

 

So if you consider the 2 bankrolled clubs at the top, the 3 richer clubs than us plus Liverpool whichever side they fall on leaves us 7th.

[ChezGiven 0]

Stoke too.

[Renton 21046]

 

 

there is only 2 clubs being bankrolled, not 22.

 

Two more than when we last had success under the old board though, surely? Their presence also distorts the pricing of players across the league and beyond. Surely the implication of this is that it is now harder to compete than then. Would you agree?

[LeazesMag 0]

Do you really believe we competed with the 'big boys' on a long-term basis under the old board? I don't, I think we had one season where we competed but were ultimately unsuccessful.

 

Given the downward spiral we found ourselves in on the pitch, the new competition from super rich owners, and our own flailing finances, how do you suppose the old board were going to compete for the title? Serious question btw.

 

you are joking ? 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ? Not competing ?

 

We won't compete for the title, or even sustain top 4-5 league positions, if you sell your best players and replace with cheaper, and that is an absolute racing certaintly.

[LeazesMag 0]

Since Abramovich took over you've had Chelsea, Man City, Villa, Wolves and Sunderland had money pumped in by their owners at one point or another.

 

Liverpool I'm not so sure of as their last lot of accounts haven't been released yet but Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs are just more successful money making clubs than ourselves.

 

So if you consider the 2 bankrolled clubs at the top, the 3 richer clubs than us plus Liverpool whichever side they fall on leaves us 7th.

 

I don't see the Wolves or the mackems above us in the league and haven't done for quite a while, have you ? Does that mean we can beat bankrolled teams or not ? What exactly is your point, are you only talking about the bankrolled teams that suit your viewpoint ? FWIW, the only bankrolled team in the 1990's were Blackburn and we got above them and bought their best player. We might also finish above Chelsea yet so that renders you argument totally useless, when you claim such things are impossible. Fact is, if we actually DO compete with them we can do it more often.

 

You haven't mentioned Spurs/DOF/Wise/Ramos/Comolli and for a while ?

 

I thought you had me on ignore too ?

 

Edited April 26, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9110]

correct. And at the end of the day, its those who said "anybody would do better than this" when talking about the Halls and Shepherd and their results on the pitch, who are totally wrong.

 

People like Toonpack etc, fair enough if what they want is a premiership team making a profit and not seriously attempting to compete on a long term basis with the big boys like the last regime did, that is their prerogative, just admit that this is their preference and you can't do both things, and they were wrong when they insinuated that you could.

 

I would say that the vast majority of people like myself who actually put their cash into the club though, would rather have success on the pitch.

 

That's what is possible now thicko !!!! On a long term and SUSTAINABLE basis

[Toonpack 9110]

you are joking ? 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ? Not competing ?

 

We won't compete for the title, or even sustain top 4-5 league positions, if you sell your best players and replace with cheaper, and that is an absolute racing certaintly.

 

Notice the trend ????? (you will if you add in the other positions)

[Baggio 0]

I don't see the Wolves or the mackems above us in the league and haven't done for quite a while, have you ? Does that mean we can beat bankrolled teams or not ? What exactly is your point, are you only talking about the bankrolled teams that suit your viewpoint ? FWIW, the only bankrolled team in the 1990's were Blackburn and we got above them and bought their best player. We might also finish above Chelsea yet so that renders you argument totally useless, when you claim such things are impossible. Fact is, if we actually DO compete with them we can do it more often.

 

You haven't mentioned Spurs/DOF/Wise/Ramos/Comolli and for a while ?

 

I thought you had me on ignore too ?

 

 

Even though we are above them they were still bankrolled so I'm not sure what your point is there.

 

If you look a few posts up I said I'd take you off ignore if you're not spouting the same old shit every single day but if you do again I'll just put you on ignore again, it's that simple.

[Baggio 0]

you are joking ? 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ? Not competing ?

 

We won't compete for the title, or even sustain top 4-5 league positions, if you sell your best players and replace with cheaper, and that is an absolute racing certaintly.

 

You seem to have missed his question at the bottom.

 

Given the downward spiral we found ourselves in on the pitch, the new competition from super rich owners, and our own flailing finances, how do you suppose the old board were going to compete for the title? Serious question btw.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Baggio

[LeazesMag 0]

That's what is possible now thicko !!!! On a long term and SUSTAINABLE basis

 

except we won't, shitforbrains. Who is going to be sold next to "sustain our progress" ?

 

The sooner you stop reading that shite on skunkers, the sooner you might start seeing what is staring straight at you.

[LeazesMag 0]

Notice the trend ????? (you will if you add in the other positions)

 

that wasn't in that order you thick cunt

 

do you think your man is never going to finish below 4th, 5th or 6th [wherever we finish} - how stupid is it possible to be

Edited April 26, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Renton 21046]

 

 

you are joking ? 2nd twice, 3rd twice, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ? Not competing ?

 

We won't compete for the title, or even sustain top 4-5 league positions, if you sell your best players and replace with cheaper, and that is an absolute racing certaintly.

 

Well I was talking about competing for the league title, which I thought was your metric of success? Other than 95-96, did you really think we had a chance of winning it? Maybe the year we came 3rd under Robson we had a massively outside chance, but really?

[Renton 21046]

 

 

that wasn't in that order you thick cunt

 

Feel free to put the entire order (to avoid cherry picking) if you like.