LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 O'Leary worry over Milner dealBy Lewis Rutledge - Created on 24 Feb 2006 James Milner Aston Villa boss David O'Leary is anxious about his chances of signing James Milner permanently. The 19-year-old has impressed this season on loan from Newcastle and O'Leary is eager to keep him at Villa Park if at all possible, but feels that the asking price may be too much. The Irishman has hinted that club finances are tight, and that money for transfers will not be forthcoming from the board. The Magpies are believed to have paid around £5 million to lure the winger away from Leeds, and are likely to ask for a similar fee when his deal with Villa expires in the summer. "The board are aware of what I think of James Milner. He's made a big impression this season," O'Leary enthused. "He's popular with the supporters, he will get better, he's a young lad and his value is bound to go up. "I know all about his potential from his days at Leeds and if he came here he would be a big asset to Villa for a long, long time. "But if I'm only going to have a budget of around £3 million this summer, then I'd struggle to get him. He would cost more than that. "I would also have to look at the fact we need numbers all over the squad. I can't afford to blow all my money on one player and not bring anyone else in. What we will be looking at more than anything is free transfers." hmmmm.....good chairman ....... what would you say about Fred if we had one like this, as most are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Obsessed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Obsessed 101162[/snapback] No, I'm not Alex, I'm realistic enough to be happy enough with Fred not to rabbit on about replacing him all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22008 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) Obsessed 101162[/snapback] No, I'm not Alex, I'm realistic enough to be happy enough with Fred not to rabbit on about replacing him all the time 101164[/snapback] What's the relevance of Doug Ellis to NUFC? How much money do Villa make compared to us? Why don't you compare our spending to comparable clubs like Liverpool? I think you are beginning to sound obsessed on this one Leazes. Shepherd takes much more money out of the club than he should - this is something every expert accountant seems to agree on. He also reinvests money in buying players, but this is NOT HIS MONEY. It's the proceeds that he gets from fleecing the fans, something he openly admits to. Yet we put up with it because we love our club, it's that simple. Comparing Shepherd to chairmen of poorer clubs or NUFC chairmen from a bygone age proves nothing and certainly does not make up for Shepherds gross incompetence of the past few years which have cost us a fortune. Edited February 27, 2006 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 What about Bob Murray, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6785 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Is he still only 19?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 Obsessed 101162[/snapback] No, I'm not Alex, I'm realistic enough to be happy enough with Fred not to rabbit on about replacing him all the time 101164[/snapback] What's the relevance of Doug Ellis to NUFC? How much money do Villa make compared to us? Why don't you compare our spending to comparable clubs like Liverpool? I think you are beginning to sound obsessed on this one Leazes. Shepherd takes much more money out of the club than he should - this is something every expert accountant seems to agree on. He also reinvests money in buying players, but this is NOT HIS MONEY. It's the proceeds that he gets from fleecing the fans, something he openly admits to. Yet we put up with it because we love our club, it's that simple. Comparing Shepherd to chairmen of poorer clubs or NUFC chairmen from a bygone age proves nothing and certainly does not make up for Shepherds gross incompetence of the past few years which have cost us a fortune. 101170[/snapback] Of course its relevant to compare Shepherd to Ellis. Why do Villa not match our turnover ? And for that matter, why don't clubs like Man City, Everton, Birmingham, sunderland, Leeds....and a club above us for the moment, Spurs and even Arsenal ? Furthermore, as for "fleecing the fans" I didn't realise our admission prices, and all the prices of commercial products were higher than all these clubs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) No, but our attendances are. LM's rants so unsubstantiated now Souness has gone Edited February 27, 2006 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 No, but our attendances are. LM's rants so unsubstantiated now Souness has gone 101533[/snapback] is that supposed to be an answer ? Or is it your answer, because if it is you plainly don't understand the question Sima !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 (edited) You're questioning whether our admission prices are higher than the clubs you mentioned, to which I replied "No, but our attendances are" What part of that do you not understand ffs.... Edited February 27, 2006 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) I said, why don't Villa, Man City, Leeds, Birmingham, Everton, Sunderland, Spurs and yes Arsenal match our turnover [which was the point made] - and yes attendances if you like ? Big city clubs, with big support drawing areas, like us. So why do you think they don't ? After all it hasn't always been the case ... Edited February 28, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I said, why don't Villa, Man City, Leeds, Birmingham, Everton, Sunderland, Spurs and yes Arsenal match our turnover [which was the point made] - and yes attendances if you like ? Big city clubs, with big support drawing areas, like us. So why do you think they don't ? After all it hasn't always been the case ... 101575[/snapback] As Sima said its down to attendances and that hasnt got anything to do with the chairman, the reason all of those teams you mention dont match us is they have another within a couple of miles ie Villa - Birmingham, Everton - Liverpool, Spurs - Arse, Chelsea, Charlton, Milwall etc etc. The makems...well thats down to a shite chairman nowt more than that. Newcastle are fairly unique in the fact we're a big city with only one club, the club is based in the centre of the city and not on some far flung industrial estate somewhere (a la Villa) therefore (and this is only my personal view and hasnt been substantiated) its been easier for people to go to the game from an early age. If we'd been out in the sticks then I wouldnt have been so able to wander there on my tod at the age of 13 and could well have not bothered with the game in later life. When times were bad we were still able to go for a few pints and then think "oh bollocks Im going to the game" unlike others who have to plan park and rides etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckypierre 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 should send Leazes to Nigeria, "That Mugabe aint that bad, it could be worse, at least he isnt Hitler or Pol Pot. Name me 6 brutal dictators that are better than Mugabe , go on" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22008 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 LM, if you are seriously going to argue that our good attendances are down to our chairman and not down to the number and nature of the fans, then you are truely blinkered with regards to this matter. FFS, it wasn't even Shepherd who poularised the club in the 90s, it was Hall. I am sure most fans still go to matches despite Shepherd (the very man who boasted about ripping them off and gave them Souness) rather than because of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22008 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 should send Leazes to Nigeria, "That Mugabe aint that bad, it could be worse, at least he isnt Hitler or Pol Pot. Name me 6 brutal dictators that are better than Mugabe , go on" 101609[/snapback] Exactly. Arguing for Shepherd because there are worse chairmen out there is pretty desperate tbh. Especially when there are clearly better ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I don't understand the point. Doug Ellis is a shit chairman, we know that. So is Bob Murray. This doesn't make Fat Fred a good chairman does it? It also doesn't mean he should be excused from his fuck ups because there are shitter chairmen about. It's like people who say Aaron Hughes is a fantastic CB on the basis that Elliott is shit. Yes, I'm gald we don't have Ellis or Murray, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with some of the big mistakes and PR disasters that Fat Fred has had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22008 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I don't understand the point. Doug Ellis is a shit chairman, we know that. So is Bob Murray. This doesn't make Fat Fred a good chairman does it? It also doesn't mean he should be excused from his fuck ups because there are shitter chairmen about. It's like people who say Aaron Hughes is a fantastic CB on the basis that Elliott is shit. Yes, I'm gald we don't have Ellis or Murray, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with some of the big mistakes and PR disasters that Fat Fred has had. 101614[/snapback] You were doing well until the Hughes analogy. Obsesssed tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46088 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 LM, if you are seriously going to argue that our good attendances are down to our chairman and not down to the number and nature of the fans, then you are truely blinkered with regards to this matter. FFS, it wasn't even Shepherd who poularised the club in the 90s, it was Hall. I am sure most fans still go to matches despite Shepherd (the very man who boasted about ripping them off and gave them Souness) rather than because of him. 101610[/snapback] He's argued in another thread on a previous occasion that Shepherd can take credit for our high attendances. LM only goes to the games because of his love for all things Freddie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 LM, if you are seriously going to argue that our good attendances are down to our chairman and not down to the number and nature of the fans, then you are truely blinkered with regards to this matter. FFS, it wasn't even Shepherd who poularised the club in the 90s, it was Hall. I am sure most fans still go to matches despite Shepherd (the very man who boasted about ripping them off and gave them Souness) rather than because of him. 101610[/snapback] He's argued in another thread on a previous occasion that Shepherd can take credit for our high attendances. LM only goes to the games because of his love for all things Freddie. 101630[/snapback] And also the thin hope that Craig Bellamy might be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 LM, if you are seriously going to argue that our good attendances are down to our chairman and not down to the number and nature of the fans, then you are truely blinkered with regards to this matter. FFS, it wasn't even Shepherd who poularised the club in the 90s, it was Hall. I am sure most fans still go to matches despite Shepherd (the very man who boasted about ripping them off and gave them Souness) rather than because of him. 101610[/snapback] He's argued in another thread on a previous occasion that Shepherd can take credit for our high attendances. LM only goes to the games because of his love for all things Freddie. 101630[/snapback] well it certainly wasn't Souness like Gemmills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 should send Leazes to Nigeria, "That Mugabe aint that bad, it could be worse, at least he isnt Hitler or Pol Pot. Name me 6 brutal dictators that are better than Mugabe , go on" 101609[/snapback] Exactly. Arguing for Shepherd because there are worse chairmen out there is pretty desperate tbh. Especially when there are clearly better ones. 101611[/snapback] nah, you're wrong Renton, I'm saying Shepherd despite his faults is still one of the best, and the lack of people putting forward too many alternative names with factual information or achievement to prove it shows it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) I said, why don't Villa, Man City, Leeds, Birmingham, Everton, Sunderland, Spurs and yes Arsenal match our turnover [which was the point made] - and yes attendances if you like ? Big city clubs, with big support drawing areas, like us. So why do you think they don't ? After all it hasn't always been the case ... 101575[/snapback] As Sima said its down to attendances and that hasnt got anything to do with the chairman, the reason all of those teams you mention dont match us is they have another within a couple of miles ie Villa - Birmingham, Everton - Liverpool, Spurs - Arse, Chelsea, Charlton, Milwall etc etc. The makems...well thats down to a shite chairman nowt more than that. Newcastle are fairly unique in the fact we're a big city with only one club, the club is based in the centre of the city and not on some far flung industrial estate somewhere (a la Villa) therefore (and this is only my personal view and hasnt been substantiated) its been easier for people to go to the game from an early age. If we'd been out in the sticks then I wouldnt have been so able to wander there on my tod at the age of 13 and could well have not bothered with the game in later life. When times were bad we were still able to go for a few pints and then think "oh bollocks Im going to the game" unlike others who have to plan park and rides etc. 101586[/snapback] Why didn't we get these crowds in the 60's, 70's and 80's? The clubs I mentioned have all had bigger crowds than us at some stage, and most have won a trophy since we have. Why did 30,000 of our unique fanbase piss off and not bother watching the club then ?? As for the other clubs, why do you think they have fell away from being above us and who is responsible ? Fact is, Shepherd is sustaining the fanbase albeit without the club landing a trophy yet, and for as long as he keeps us aiming higher and showing more than these other big city clubs, just like us, he can have the dividend he is perfectly entitled to and when the day comes we land a manager who wins the breakthrough trophy he can have double for me. The notion that we charge more for merchandise than other clubs is sheer desperation to prove a point that doesn't exist ie ripping off the fans, as we quite simply don't, or no more than anyone else, and if you don't want to buy anything, don't. At least it goes on players - unlike other "big city clubs", or even this club in the past. I don't expect a proper answer to this question as too many of you are detached from the sheer reality of it, which is that if he wanted Shepherd could quite easily run the club down like all those others have been run down by their chairman through the years. I've said it before and I'll say it again, prove other chairman of all these similar clubs have outperformed us, the point is they have not meaning he is doing better than all of those. Edited February 28, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 zzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 A question related on this theme LM, who do you credit with winning Chelsea the ECWC in 1998? Gullit or Vialli?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 zzzzzzzzzz 101645[/snapback] One word less than usual Alex, well done. BTW, what are you going to say if Hiddink gets our job and doesn't succeed, a shit appointment ??????? Is he as qualified as Dalglish was, or can't Shepherd appoint top trophy winning managers 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