FAO Leazes

[JawD 99]

Should've added 'decent / reliable'

We had a Baird tv in the 80s. I'd forgotten all about that. Remember tv repair men btw?

 

We had Baird, weren't they the loaned ones?

[Sonatine 11412]

Should've added 'decent / reliable'

We had a Baird tv in the 80s. I'd forgotten all about that. Remember tv repair men btw?

 

Always used to replace the valves

[McFaul 35]

They should've sponsored Man Utd. Missed a trick there.

Haha aye. He'd probably want royalties or something though.

[Alex 35120]

We had Baird, weren't they the loaned ones?

Radio Rentals? But I think they sold tellies too. I think Ferguson was the same crack actually.

[Renton 21643]

Rumbelows ftw. We rented ours as it covered the inevitable breakdown repairs.

[Alex 35120]

I think we had a Ferguson Videostar.

[Meenzer 15561]

Still in the spare room at my parents' place, still basically working. Not entirely sure why (on either count).

[The Fish 10876]

nobody needs to beware it's open to anybody who actually reads what I say properly, which clearly Renton does not and never has, for instance. He has major comprehension problems, or is totally illiterate.

 

I realise I am better off not replying to the fools though especially those who have moved the goalposts.

 

Meanwhile JawD, we will see how the club get on. The basic gist is I don't accept the club not backing the manager, they have to give him the best chance possible of matching the 2 teams bankrolled by sugar daddies, after all we have just finished above one of them despite them not really backing him properly so how can you say we can't do better if they did ?

 

At least these posts are all in the same place, makes it easier to find them all later

 

This post sums up the problem Leazes,

 

You're guilty of everything you accuse others of and (more often than not) they're not. People have to wade through this nonsense to get to your points and honestly? most won't bother.

 

It's not negative nor deluded/brainwashed to see 5th as the best that Newcastle United can get in this current landscape. With Man U and Arsenal occupying 2 of the top 4 births through natural size and Chelsea and Man City occupying the other two through achievements inflated by incredible (in the truest sense of the word) sums of money, 5th is all that's left for the likes of ourselves, Liverpool and Spurs to fight over. Now, realistically, can we usurp any of those 4 teams without Bill Gates launching billions at us? No. Can we do it even if Mike Ashley bankrupts himself? No. The sums we'd need are out of the realms of realism, and I'd prefer to give this strategy (which over 3 seasons appears to be working) a decent chance of success.

 

You insist that a good owner backs his manager and that this tactic is the only route to success. It is also the route to failure for so many clubs who've used the very model you stick your colours to. Leeds tried and failed horrible, Blackburn tried it (briefly) and it was unsustainable, in fact the only English clubs to have sustained that model over a prolonged period that I can think of off the top of my head are Man U and Liverpool.

 

They've been successful, they also happen to be two of the most famous clubs on the planet, and we're quite simply, not. You've a gap in your logic.

1. Man U manager gets a lot of money to spend -
   
2. Man U are successful,
   
3. Therefore Spending money makes you successful.
   

you should google "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Those two statements ( 1 & 2) are linked, but not dependent. You can "back your manager and be unsuccessful (Souness & Shepherd). Also, isn't it possible that Graham Carr (universally credited with unearthing the opportunities we've benefited from) hasn't brought players to Ashley/Pardew that would break the bank? Isn't it possible that his idea of buying players is based upon finding hungy, capable players that are available at an un-inflated price? Where is the value in simply buying for buying's sake? You say we should keep Best, et al. Why? He won't feature ahead of Cisse, Ba, Ben Arfa, Shola and we've yound kids who deserve their shot. Guthrie wanted to leave and we're well stocked in midfield, why keep him?

 

JawD is right when he says that it wouldn't matter if Ashley's model brought home a cup, you'd still insist that it is just a blip, just flash in the pan. You'd also insist that a lower league finish next season is proof positive that you're right, despite it being an outcome that is counter to the current trend of improvement.

[Gemmill 44995]

Fish, if you think that selling your best players and not replacing them is the key to success, then YOU are a joke.

 

You'll get a reply along those lines, and you'll remember once again that writing a response that long to this bloke is a waste of time.

[The Fish 10876]

Fish, if you think that selling your best players and not replacing them is the key to success, then YOU are a joke.

 

You'll get a reply along those lines, and you'll remember once again that writing a response that long to this bloke is a waste of time.

Was either that or do work

[JawD 99]

If success was that easy we'd all be doing it

[LeazesMag 0]

If success was that easy we'd all be doing it

 

people with no common sense still think they are the bees knees

[LeazesMag 0]

This post sums up the problem Leazes,

 

You're guilty of everything you accuse others of and (more often than not) they're not. People have to wade through this nonsense to get to your points and honestly? most won't bother.

 

It's not negative nor deluded/brainwashed to see 5th as the best that Newcastle United can get in this current landscape. With Man U and Arsenal occupying 2 of the top 4 births through natural size and Chelsea and Man City occupying the other two through achievements inflated by incredible (in the truest sense of the word) sums of money, 5th is all that's left for the likes of ourselves, Liverpool and Spurs to fight over. Now, realistically, can we usurp any of those 4 teams without Bill Gates launching billions at us? No. Can we do it even if Mike Ashley bankrupts himself? No. The sums we'd need are out of the realms of realism, and I'd prefer to give this strategy (which over 3 seasons appears to be working) a decent chance of success.

 

You insist that a good owner backs his manager and that this tactic is the only route to success. It is also the route to failure for so many clubs who've used the very model you stick your colours to. Leeds tried and failed horrible, Blackburn tried it (briefly) and it was unsustainable, in fact the only English clubs to have sustained that model over a prolonged period that I can think of off the top of my head are Man U and Liverpool.

 

They've been successful, they also happen to be two of the most famous clubs on the planet, and we're quite simply, not. You've a gap in your logic.

1. Man U manager gets a lot of money to spend -
   
2. Man U are successful,
   
3. Therefore Spending money makes you successful.
   

you should google "post hoc ergo propter hoc". Those two statements ( 1 & 2) are linked, but not dependent. You can "back your manager and be unsuccessful (Souness & Shepherd). Also, isn't it possible that Graham Carr (universally credited with unearthing the opportunities we've benefited from) hasn't brought players to Ashley/Pardew that would break the bank? Isn't it possible that his idea of buying players is based upon finding hungy, capable players that are available at an un-inflated price? Where is the value in simply buying for buying's sake? You say we should keep Best, et al. Why? He won't feature ahead of Cisse, Ba, Ben Arfa, Shola and we've yound kids who deserve their shot. Guthrie wanted to leave and we're well stocked in midfield, why keep him?

 

JawD is right when he says that it wouldn't matter if Ashley's model brought home a cup, you'd still insist that it is just a blip, just flash in the pan. You'd also insist that a lower league finish next season is proof positive that you're right, despite it being an outcome that is counter to the current trend of improvement.

 

there is absolutely no point in me commenting on this in depth. I would get banned. Like Renton, and a few others that don't have the intelligence to understand what I say or know what they are talking about, you will only look at what suits you rather than address issues which misrepresent me or are complete rubbish, and not reply to the rest. Including others who post immature and childish nonsense supposedly "in reply" to me yet there is not a single post from me in sight to prompt such comments.

 

For which certain members of the admin team who have selective blindness will blame me for that reply, or something.

 

Generally, I think what you say above is a load of rubbish. Apart from the fact that you still don't understand that backing managers is the way to be successful, instead of picking out teams who are not successful to "prove your point". Do you get this or not ? I doubt that you will, tbh.

 

Have you heard of the phrases "if you don't take a shot you won't score a goal" or "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the lottery". It's as simple as that as a concept. I won't bother explaining this to you anymore.

 

Night night.

Edited July 18, 2012 by LeazesMag

[The Fish 10876]

there is absolutely no point in me commenting on this in depth. I would get banned. Like Renton, and a few others that don't have the intelligence to understand what I say or know what they are talking about, you will only look at what suits you rather than address issues which misrepresent me or are complete rubbish, and not reply to the rest. Including others who post immature and childish nonsense supposedly "in reply" to me yet there is not a single post from me in sight to prompt such comments.

 

For which certain members of the admin team who have selective blindness will blame me for that reply, or something.

 

Generally, I think what you say above is a load of rubbish. Apart from the fact that you still don't understand that backing managers is the way to be successful, instead of picking out teams who are not successful to "prove your point". Do you get this or not ? I doubt that you will, tbh.

 

Have you heard of the phrases "if you don't take a shot you won't score a goal" or "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the lottery". It's as simple as that as a concept. I won't bother explaining this to you anymore.

 

Night night.

 

This is your problem, you are a hypocrite and are entirely blind to your own failings.

 

You also say you won't explain it to me any more, but you and I both know this is your only source of entertainment in the whole wide world.

 

For me it's what I do when I'm bored and want to bait a crazy old man (I think that's true of most on here to be honest), the frustration for us is when you can't comprehend simple points.

[JawD 99]

LM where we disagree is you would have the club make the manager spend as much money if not more than gained from selling anyone. Irrespective of the operational costs and income of the business.

 

Also spend it whether or not there was a player available we really wanted.

 

For example, Maiga or whatever he is called just signed for west ham. We were about to sign him but oddly failed a medical when we found out we could do a deal for Cisse.

 

I would rather wait for the right player if it means "making do" for a short period. Not just buy immediately.

 

Your stance on "ambition" is totally flawed as you seem to only use transfer fees as a measuring stick for it. If swansea signed a shite player for 20M and we signed 3 players for 5m you would say they are being more ambitious. Id say they just spent over the odds when they could have strengthened the team better which is the whole idea.

 

You mention common sense alot but you don't seem to apply it to our own argument?

 

like it or not, we are being run like a business. People have said it is a different way of running a club (ie not built on loans from a bank) but have looked on in interest and even envy as it for now is seeming to work.

 

In the unlikely event we finished 2nd (we won't but still) you would argue we weren't ambitious enough to finish 1st.

[LeazesMag 0]

This is your problem, you are a hypocrite and are entirely blind to your own failings.

 

You also say you won't explain it to me any more, but you and I both know this is your only source of entertainment in the whole wide world.

 

For me it's what I do when I'm bored and want to bait a crazy old man (I think that's true of most on here to be honest), the frustration for us is when you can't comprehend simple points.

 

once again Fish, nobody held a gun to your head when you initially responded to me, and in the post above you resort to verbal abuse of a sort......"this is your only source of entertainment" - I will remind you that you have made 6000 more posts than me.

 

You don't bait me, in fact the boot is on the other foot, even though I stick by what I say 100%

 

Must admit too, a part of me is just as bored with all this as other people are, I've made this point before as we all know but nothing whatsoever has happened at the football club to see any reason to change it, that's all.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM where we disagree is you would have the club make the manager spend as much money if not more than gained from selling anyone. Irrespective of the operational costs and income of the business.

 

Also spend it whether or not there was a player available we really wanted.

 

For example, Maiga or whatever he is called just signed for west ham. We were about to sign him but oddly failed a medical when we found out we could do a deal for Cisse.

 

I would rather wait for the right player if it means "making do" for a short period. Not just buy immediately.

 

Your stance on "ambition" is totally flawed as you seem to only use transfer fees as a measuring stick for it. If swansea signed a shite player for 20M and we signed 3 players for 5m you would say they are being more ambitious. Id say they just spent over the odds when they could have strengthened the team better which is the whole idea.

 

You mention common sense alot but you don't seem to apply it to our own argument?

 

like it or not, we are being run like a business. People have said it is a different way of running a club (ie not built on loans from a bank) but have looked on in interest and even envy as it for now is seeming to work.

 

In the unlikely event we finished 2nd (we won't but still) you would argue we weren't ambitious enough to finish 1st.

 

You have the wrong end of the stick mate, you really do. If we finished 2nd I would want us to push on for 1st but I wouldn't cite lack of ambition as the reason for not finishing 1st if they showed it .

 

I've nowt against waiting for the right player, but the fact is you don't always get the right player, nobody does, and it still doesn't mean you can't build and sell as you go. What is wrong with say, improving a position, then in 12 months time a player comes along and you improve it again ? You still sell the player who then becomes unwanted ? Basically, if players come along who will improve your team, then you should always consider bringing them to the club if you can because the "right" player may not come along at all. I think people are over-emphasing this because of the success of Cisse to be honest.

Edited July 19, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Renton 21643]

I looked at this on my pc last night in the full browser. Leazes still has an innocuous 4 year old quote from me in his sig. But no, he's not obsessed much. What kind of 57 year old bloke feels the need to have that sig, and constantly refer to it as if it is divine words of wisdom?

[Gemmill 44995]

I have signatures turned off, but something tells me I'm not missing much. I can't believe there are people still prepared to try and talk sense to this walled-off ignoramus.

[Monkeys Fist 42484]

It's as big and rambling as his posts

[LeazesMag 0]

I looked at this on my pc last night in the full browser. Leazes still has an innocuous 4 year old quote from me in his sig. But no, he's not obsessed much. What kind of 57 year old bloke feels the need to have that sig, and constantly refer to it as if it is divine words of wisdom?

 

exactly, in 4 years, you still haven't said anything remotedly sensible to justify me replacing it.

[Brock Manson 0]

Souness is one of the best pundits going. Living proof that talking a good game doesn't mean you have the man-management skills or good player judgement.

 

You were foaming at the gash when he was appointed tbh.

[LeazesMag 0]

You were foaming at the gash when he was appointed tbh.

 

I was pleased when we appointed Pardew, and said so

[JawD 99]

You have the wrong end of the stick mate, you really do. If we finished 2nd I would want us to push on for 1st but I wouldn't cite lack of ambition as the reason for not finishing 1st if they showed it .

 

I've nowt against waiting for the right player, but the fact is you don't always get the right player, nobody does, and it still doesn't mean you can't build and sell as you go. What is wrong with say, improving a position, then in 12 months time a player comes along and you improve it again ? You still sell the player who then becomes unwanted ? Basically, if players come along who will improve your team, then you should always consider bringing them to the club if you can because the "right" player may not come along at all. I think people are over-emphasing this because of the success of Cisse to be honest.

 

I agree in a sense with part of that. For me ideally if we had players A, B and C. A being the best. We have player C now. We buy B and sell C or he becomes a squad player. Then we buy A and C has to go if he hasnt, B becomes the squad player or is sold.

 

Im fine with that.

 

But, Im also realistic and common sense prevails. Example of that would be Smith is a C player, didnt need replacing but getting him off the books freed up some of the wages "pot". Guthrie was a B perhaps but needs to be replaced. Now we have got rid of Best © and Lovenkrands © so I think we need at least one ( player to come in. If Ba (A) goes then we need another (A). If Ba and Cisse stay we need a ( at least or an (A) if we can keep all 3 happy.

 

I dont expect A's throughout the squad overnight. Its a slow building process. I also get that they knew Cisse might have been available in Jan so wanted to hang fire for him. Bit like when we sold Cole and then waited until the summer to buy Ferdinand (from memory). KK had a plan and we just had to wait.

 

You say if we finished 2nd you would want us to push for 1st but wouldnt say it lacked ambition unless warranted. Im not sure what you class as a lack of ambition or what is ambitious. You need to clarify those tw for me.

 

I fail to see at the moment exactly what we got horribly wrong in finishing 5th? Apart from maybe finishing better than expected sooner than expected and thus increasing expectation for this season.

[LeazesMag 0]

I agree in a sense with part of that. For me ideally if we had players A, B and C. A being the best. We have player C now. We buy B and sell C or he becomes a squad player. Then we buy A and C has to go if he hasnt, B becomes the squad player or is sold.

 

Im fine with that.

 

But, Im also realistic and common sense prevails. Example of that would be Smith is a C player, didnt need replacing but getting him off the books freed up some of the wages "pot". Guthrie was a B perhaps but needs to be replaced. Now we have got rid of Best © and Lovenkrands © so I think we need at least one ( player to come in. If Ba (A) goes then we need another (A). If Ba and Cisse stay we need a ( at least or an (A) if we can keep all 3 happy.

 

I dont expect A's throughout the squad overnight. Its a slow building process. I also get that they knew Cisse might have been available in Jan so wanted to hang fire for him. Bit like when we sold Cole and then waited until the summer to buy Ferdinand (from memory). KK had a plan and we just had to wait.

 

You say if we finished 2nd you would want us to push for 1st but wouldnt say it lacked ambition unless warranted. Im not sure what you class as a lack of ambition or what is ambitious. You need to clarify those tw for me.

 

I fail to see at the moment exactly what we got horribly wrong in finishing 5th? Apart from maybe finishing better than expected sooner than expected and thus increasing expectation for this season.

 

I was going to mention Cole-Ferdinand-Shearer in exactly the same context but thought the usual plebs would have accused me of harping back to the Halls and Shepherd again, so didn't.

 

We knew KK etc had aims, because they said so, and because they showed us they meant business. Another example actually is the signing of Fox, who was replaced by Gillespie [for less money too] because the manager saw him and rated him as the better player even though he was happy enough with Fox when he bought him and improved the team when he bought him.

 

This is how you do it. Brian Clough and Peter Taylor used to say to players that as soon as they were able to sign a better player then they would be out, because that was their job, and that is spot on. But to retain the ambition, you have to keep your best players at the same time/allow the manager to run his own team and back him as much as possible. There is a fundamental and subtle difference between selling and/to replacing, and building then selling.

 

The club is sitting on a wedge of cash from the sale of Carroll and other players, and I've commented on a post by Gemmill this morning where he says that last season could be the closest we may get to a champions League place. I think this is spot on [although I hope I am wrong] - the point being that we got close, and COULD have done it rather than sit on that cash.

Edited July 19, 2012 by LeazesMag