Dolly Potter MD

Bullshit or not this type of speculation [and likely pathway] was always going to rouse itself. The current stalemate between ourselves and OM [with HBA being a want'away fixture] was inevitably going to alert bigger fish/clubs. To use a poker analogy we entered into the game with a decent hand, in that the lad actually wanted to come [to put himself in the shop window, and use us a career stepping stone remains to be seen], but we limped in by chucking just a couple chips into the pot. The danger now that it's dragged on is that bigger fish, with better hands after the flop, will bet over the top of us. Timing, opportunism is everything in the player buying market. Ashley & Llambarse had their chance to seal a deal early in the peace, with a revised & respectable offer for a permanent deal. Totally understandable postition on Dassier's part. They never entered into a legally binding agreement [ie. the loan deal] and 5m, or whatever the mentioned sale figure may be in accordance to the 'loan to buy' deal is of little or no use to them when faced with the task of replacing HBA for the season remainder. And Dassier is answerable to the club's owner, we can't just expect them to be charitable when they have their team rebuilding/restructuring ahead of them.

We held our own at Old Trafford, in 01/02. Apart from one ultimately deciding moment - where from a cross Van Nistleroy found the slightest of spaces in the box: Distin [playing in the centre] lost his footing - we held our own with a similar tactical mindset. We still had the necessary cattle [at least during the SBR years] to pull of that so-called smash & grab away performance ie. comfortable/assured at the back, with the weapons/outlets needed to hit them on the break. BTW you seem to forget that Shepherd [even during the Keegan years], along with Fletcher/Hall Jr, was at the forefront of the club's running at the front-office level. Shepherd's involvement still unfairly underrated, when speaking of the days were punching with Man United.

A guesstimate if there's base to the story. Whether it's bullshit or not, the papers have picked up on the club's m.o. and the rumour mill is following suit. Reported valuation of 4m + reportedly us targeting another player contracted to a club in financial crisis. *Surprise, surprise. = Ashley & Llambarse to [or have already] gamble on the notion that the selling club will jump at the 1st offer to surface, courtesy of a take it or leave it offer under the going rate. Could well be a very good prospect, but i have very little or no faith in Ashley & Llambarse's sly/predatory manner when conducting themselves in the market where they've established something of a track record of pissing-off chairmen/potential selling clubs etc.

Season-long loan deal. For a talented youngster [providing form warrants it] it's a perfect opportunity or i should i say a bus ticket to a club which harbors alot more ambition than just treading water in the top flight.

I think you missed the point, or perhaps i should've spelt it out more clearly, about OM hoping that a club [willing to pay a respectable transfer fee, relative to their valuation, a club that might prove just as or more attractive to the lad] might materialise with a firm interest between now and the close of the transfer window. I think you underestimate the significance of the game even though it is a match against a lower tier international side in Norway, from a scouting perspective anyway. Managers & scouts [at top clubs] are more interested in how a youngster fares [how their physical & technical come to the fore] when they're surrounded with good/top players [with pace & movement, whether or not they have it in them to take the bull by the scruff of the neck when they're surrounded by players with bigger reputations ie. if they're a shrinking violet or not] regardless as to whether it's versus Brazil, Norway or Luxembourg. Thats all true but as Ketsbaia said, we had the deal agreed and then the offer has come in for Niang and now they have the money to get Fabiano without selling Ben Arfa. Its obviously a tricky situation and if we dont want to risk 7/8m on a player who may flop (for reasons outside his talent, thats not in question) then a loan with a view to buy seems sensible. As thats the only deal we have been prepared to look at, not sure we are taking the piss. I agree that his goal last night makes it less likely he will come, however if the player himself is set on coming then we just need to hold our nerve. A deal agreed in principle [begrudgingly accepted] and nothing set in concrete or finalized on paper by the sounds of things. And OM have every right to move the goal posts, hedge their bets on another club [as i have mentioned] entering the frey: particularly for a player by some accounts is a co-contributor in a frosty relationship between the player & manager, and is currently nearing the end of current contract [last 2 years]. It's a matter of opinion but i'm still of the judgement that OM are playing a waiting game of their own, for the reason which is the polar opposite of our board. They're prepared to roll the dice, they're gambling: hoping that greater exposure will protect & maintain their valuation over the course of this window or in the event of a switch in January, or perhaps to minimise their losses if previous hype [of a couple years back] is to be believed. The loan system has it's place. As a means of topping up a squad with fringe/squad players, amidst the strains imposed by an often heavy fixture schedule. I think of players like Cordone and Distin as examples. But to target priority players [or blue-chip youth talent] is equally unambitious, as well as wrought with danger both prior and after a deal being done. OM are taking their valuation seriously and bids like ours are underanderstably translated as 'ridiculous', hence the moving of the goal posts. Man.Utd haven't built a healthy relationship with Sporting [as a feeder club] by attempting to take the piss out them in being constantly at odds over valuations. Our bid can be fairly viewed as being disrespectful: a belated bid for Delph being another. And '1st option to buy' options are tenious at best, and there's plenty of scope for another/bigger club to materialize with a firm interest at a later time and opportunity for an Arfa to change his mind in accordance to various intangibles. Distin [admittedly a late bloomer, and the sort of squad top-up i speak of] couldn't be convinced to stay on, and we were vastly more ambitious. It's unfair to actually compare the two boards in this instance, but nonetheless the danger of the '1st option to buy' method is there to see. As for what i've placed in bold. That's the very nature of the transfer market. It's a risk based business, one that is speculative and volatile: sometimes players may fail acclimatise into the club dynamic for reasons unrelated to football [Domi, a less obvious example of a foreign export failing to settle in]. Prior to our move for Cole there were question marks raised [when discussing the pros & cons] during the process of evaluating him. Keegan and the remainder for the front-office/board [Fletcher, Shepherd and Hall Jnr] had to balance his potential/his scope for improvement against that of his character [unusual, hot & cold/aloof: and team dynamic, having everybody pulling in the one positive direction and KK was a guru in that department/individually man-managing playing staff] and what was a sketchy fitness record. Cole [in regards to the question of character] when against the grain when compared to KK's earlier signings, but he recognised the pros very much outweighed the so-called cons. At the end of the day he went with his gut instinct and the board fully backed the manager's judgment, and coughed up what was a very respectable transfer fee back in the day. Shepherd was 100 percent correct in his evaluation of Ashley's running of the club, and FS much to the majority's disdain was correct in regards to many things he said which were deemed to be politically incorrect/offensive. The business of football [the transfer market] is an entirely different beast to that one treaded by Ashley out in the business world. It's largely speculative, risk vs reward as mentioned. Ashley, as it would appear, seems uncomfortable with this notion. Whereas he/Ashley should stick with a market which is more homely to him, a market which allows him to consolidate & strengthen his strength by resorting to anti-competitive & unethical practices: where in addition where it's all too very easy to buy a sufficient shareholding or a saboteur voice on a rival or major product supplier, in order to protect his overall interests. Blokes like Ashley who are unable to distinguish between the two [and hence by nature are unwilling to apply the appropriate practice, and by nature he was/is a cheap & tacky store trader he struck an oil deposit, by accumulating a set of of brands in a developing - or yet to be fully tapped market - during an economic boom time] have no place in football. From the outset [on another forum admittedly] i questioned Ashley's propensity to apply the proverbial corporate razor-cutter mentality, and duly raised concerns as to whether his running of the club would closely follow suit: both applying to business models/practices in addition to the character of the man. On both counts, it seems as though i was unfortunately correct.

I said this at the time [when it happened] on another forum. That discussion forum being newcastle/kiddies-online, and i was probably a lone voice on this. Souness substituting him a fortnight earlier was the thrown cigarette which started the fire, and Bellamy's bewilderment and subsequent tirade when heading for the showers was completely justafied. Souness arrived at the club with an already manufactured view of the player in question.That move [on Souness' part] was the opening salvo in a war of two strong personalities, with Souness flouting his ego & position of power by making a non-footballing based decision. Footballing-wise it made no sense whatsoever. With three points very much there for the taking you don't substitute a fit and the team's best player and most productive on the day, and the team's most damaging & creative outlet on the counter-attack: especially away from home. Bellamy is just one of those characters [regardless of which club he's at, and whom he is playing under] who busts his guts come matchday [and out on the training pitch and is prepared to say it how it is. Football ability should supercede personality quirks, it's up to managers to man-manage them, and that doesn't include physically assaulting them in the aftermath/out on the training pitch. This is going back a bit but in one game, during Keegan's 1st stint as manager, Beresford was having a shocker. Giving up possession cheaply being the main crime committed on the day. Being close to the dug-out, KK was able to convey to him that he had to pick up his game. Beresford told him to 'fuck-off' or something like and was substituted. Beresford lost his spot after that, on performance based merit [i think it was an emerging Howey in a reshuffle of the back 4, somebody will correct on this] but their professional relationship didn't suffer: there were no bruised egos. Unlike the case of Bellamy, Beresford wasn't banished from town & sent to a competition comparable to the Russian Frontier for the remainder of the season. BTW i'd have him back in a heartbeat. Was Robbie Elliott btw. Duly noted , hence the disclaimer in the original post. Being overseas at the time [in the U.S. for nearly a year] it's ironic that i virtually the missed the entire campaign of 95/96 [the most memorable one]. Specific line-up re-shuffles aren't exactly my forte, pertaining to that campaign. At the time of posting i knew i should've omitted the name mentioned, as the two had come through Ardiles' brief but youth orientated 1st team set-up. It was easy to go with Howey because he was most versatile & multi-functional defender of an unheralded & often unfairly derided unit, especially in the wake of KK previously converting him from an attacking outfielder to more cultured defender. Overlooking the the forgotten man of that group[Elliot] was a serious oversight on my part.

I think you missed the point, or perhaps i should've spelt it out more clearly, about OM hoping that a club [willing to pay a respectable transfer fee, relative to their valuation, a club that might prove just as or more attractive to the lad] might materialise with a firm interest between now and the close of the transfer window. I think you underestimate the significance of the game even though it is a match against a lower tier international side in Norway, from a scouting perspective anyway. Managers & scouts [at top clubs] are more interested in how a youngster fares [how their physical & technical attributes come to the fore] when they're surrounded with good/top players [with pace & movement, and whether or not they have it in them to take the bull by the scruff of the neck when they're surrounded by players with bigger reputations ie. if they're a shrinking violet or not] regardless as to whether it's versus Brazil, Norway or Luxembourg.

Seems clear as to why Marseille called off the meeting, between ourselves and their representatives. That's if there's base to Caulkin's tweeter and other reports. After the disjointed showing at the WC [no width, little in the way of pattern of play] France are at a crossing point: generational change being one. They'll be going through an experimental phase. If the fanfare was to be believe the kid is likely to get a look in over the coming quaification campaigns. It was the perfect opportunity to put him in the shop window, with the aim being to attract a club [which the lad would be willing to go to] willing to pay a transfer fee palatable to their valuation as opposed to having to negotiate/squabble with a club over a loan fee or something along similar lines. Good move on Marseille's part, as the brainstrust of Ashley/Llambarse are trying to take the piss out of them

completely irrelevant to the NUFC fans with half a brain. Unfortunately it would be made to be all too relevant. I'd be in for him like a shot. there IS a fair few thousand of them without half a brain, or without a brain at all. The bottom line is pro-Bellamy or anti-Bellamy, we wouldn't go for him. We are back to square one as far as I'm concerned, we were a selling and deeply unambitious club when I first got into football in the eighties and it's come full circle. This. Maybe some former club greats can come back & try to arrange some mass coaching clinics/supporter days to try and drum up some transfer funds for the manager, while the club's owner & current board attempt to hide behind the veil of a youth system. I'm taking the piss, but this was Keegan's 1st proposition before he even thought about entertaining the notion of a consultancy managing/coaching slot. It goes to show what people/supporters minds flash back to, or the sort of absurdities one come drum up when 2nd & 3rd Raters run the club - as you say 'it's come around full circle'. In addition a bid of 1 million quid [or some sort of comparable/derisory bid]most likely won't even get us to second base.

I said this at the time [when it happened] on another forum. That discussion forum being newcastle/kiddies-online, and i was probably a lone voice on this. Souness substituting him a fortnight earlier was the thrown cigarette which started the fire, and Bellamy's bewilderment and subsequent tirade when heading for the showers was completely justafied. Souness arrived at the club with an already manufactured view of the player in question.That move [on Souness' part] was the opening salvo in a war of two strong personalities, with Souness flouting his ego & position of power by making a non-footballing based decision. Footballing-wise it made no sense whatsoever. With three points very much there for the taking you don't substitute a fit and the team's best player and most productive on the day, and the team's most damaging & creative outlet on the counter-attack: especially away from home. Bellamy is just one of those characters [regardless of which club he's at, and whom he is playing under] who busts his guts come matchday [and out on the training pitch and is prepared to say it how it is. Football ability should supercede personality quirks, it's up to managers to man-manage them, and that doesn't include physically assaulting them in the aftermath/out on the training pitch. This is going back a bit but in one game, during Keegan's 1st stint as manager, Beresford was having a shocker. Giving up possession cheaply being the main crime committed on the day. Being close to the dug-out, KK was able to convey to him that he had to pick up his game. Beresford told him to 'fuck-off' or something like and was substituted. Beresford lost his spot after that, on performance based merit [i think it was an emerging Howey in a reshuffle of the back 4, somebody will correct on this] but their professional relationship didn't suffer: there were no bruised egos. Unlike the case of Bellamy, Beresford wasn't banished from town & sent to a competition comparable to the Russian Frontier for the remainder of the season. BTW i'd have him back in a heartbeat.

Shepherd was indeed part of the brainstrust which indeed lured Keegan back to the club. Whereas SJH needed to be strongly convinced/persuaded, while being the willing party pertaining to sticking it out [weathering the relegation fight] with Ardilles. SJH may have had the vision, as far was being the man with the grand idea of transforming the city into cultural hub with the club being at it's epicenter and for that he deserves his due credit, but he wasn't the sole professor pertaining to the catalyst which directly led to the club's rapid turnaround. That catalyst being Keegan's return as manager and for that SJH's accolade 'as the one bloke who needs to be lionised from the previous regime', and there have been various plaudits in varying guises used to describe, is a bit unfair. Ultimately though SJH was looking to get out for a while. Cameron Hall Ltd was a shell of it's former self for close to a decade, in the wake of D.Hall's brief reign in the company's top job. Despite the vision displayed and the platform he layed down, SJH went down quite a bit in my estimation when he failed to carry out some sort of due diligence needed to ascertain whether the club's reigns were being handed over to a responsible & ambitious custodian - as opposed to just the taking the money & running. Ashley's previous track-record & dealings in the business/corporate realm [in the area of ethics & unsavory business practices with his competition, and suppliers alike namely Umbro with regards to the latter] should' have at least drawn a couple of red flags. In essence he was a cheap & tacky street trader who made it big in an economic boom time. Where Ashley is concerned, with regards to his business practices, there's a difference between being ruthless and outright taking the piss/taking companies or people for mugs. I point to his strained relationship with the-then Umbro, both as a major customer and a minor or saboteur shareholder of sorts, as a case in point. Referring back to my second paragraph, and SJH's passion for the club, due diligence should've at least entered into the equation - just as it should've re:Ashley being unaware of the fine-print involved relating to the stadium debt in the event of a buy-out, instead of whinging about inherited for the remainder of his watch. Back to the original buy-out of the club, Ashley and SJH were as impulsive and foolish as one another. SJH cut & ran, and Ashley thought he was acquiring a major domestic sporting brand at a bargain price with little or no strings attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb9Z5RukhFU

Flaming Lips - Embryonic "See the Leaves" is the most accessible track, if you're into the rockin & riffy stuff. Coyne reminds me Jim Morrison.

Not that long ago we had a board who meant business - in regard to building a team for the future by balancing it's recruiting, and not just purchasing established or so-called trophy players - and backed their managers & were prepared to pay the necessary going rate in order to secure youth players of repute/or the cream of the crop of the youth ranks. Viana, Bramble, Jenas, Dyer fit the mould and to a lesser extent recent U21 representatives of the time like Domi - underrated player and a 4m capture. It's bloody difficult for any manager to build any semblance of team cohesion, and continuity both in the way of comradeship/culture within the squad and a pattern of play out on the pitch by strongly basing it's buying policy on a revolving door one of loan pick-ups, in a bid to break-even/to balance the books to ensure the owner recoups his investment over a period of time. The aforementioned team attributes are built from within and outside, by developing a generation courtesy of the efforts of the academy and by recruiting blue-chip talent from outside, and clubs have to be prepared to pay the going rate in the case of the latter. Arsenal have a list of 5m+ buys, or thereabouts, in it's acquirement of such talent under Wenger. In this instance we've gotten lucky. Man U's depth in numbers has ensured this. Providing that Cleverley is a hit, we're only cultivating a talent over a short-term for another PL club, and that in itself is an insult for a club of our stature. And we're only further enhancing the players value. Manchester United are winners in both counts. Attempting to build a team spine, and team for the future by acquiring young talent which is 1st-team ready, by placing an over-reliance on loan deals, and belated 1m offers - anybody remember our bid for Delph, a bid Leeds laughed at..... a colorful fax from Bates to the club was mentioned - doesn't cut the mustard. More often than not such moves will be rebuffed by clubs who have nurtured this type of in-demand talent, kids who are on the radars of PL clubs. Financial models or otherwise, the club under Ashley's watch is garnering itself a reputation as time-waster in the transfer market. Has your usual account been locked out Leazes? Mistaken Identify Syndrome, clearly I've held my own view on Ashley's running of the club since Day One mate, although it is similar to LM's. Very much a fence sitter in relation to Shepherd, although i lean more towards a favorable opinion of Shepherd. He had his faults, but as a bloke - from things i've heard - and as a chairman who accomplished more good than bad he cannot be mentioned in the same breath as the club's current brainstrust. BTW are you at odds with the basic premise of a chairman backing his manager's decision making & judgement? I won't back down from the time-wasters reference in the last paragraph. I'd go far as saying that the current brainstrust are conveniently incompetent in the transfer market, as far as blowing potential transfer deals by offering derisory amounts to sellers and by putting in place a wage structure which is uncompetitive compared to what other PL clubs are prepared to offer, for quality youth talent that is. There was a time when the board used to tie up the necessary loose ends, professionally and with a minimum of fuss. Viana, Woodgate, Robert and Jenas to name some examples. Established and recognised players of international repute in a couple of instances, and a pair of very much in-demand youngsters at the time. Agree with other comments regarding banning the loan system between top flight clubs as well. Not only for the previously mentioned stockpiling of talent reasons, but this system acts as 'get out of jail free' card and allows owners of Ashley's ilk the opportunity rake off of the revenue streams associated with top flight status but with little or no expenditure in the acquirement of players. That's a criminal offense for a club of our size.

Not that long ago we had a board who meant business - in regard to building a team for the future by balancing it's recruiting, and not just purchasing established or so-called trophy players - and backed their managers & were prepared to pay the necessary going rate in order to secure youth players of repute/or the cream of the crop of the youth ranks. Viana, Bramble, Jenas, Dyer fit the mould and to a lesser extent recent U21 representatives of the time like Domi - underrated player and a 4m capture. It's bloody difficult for any manager to build any semblance of team cohesion, and continuity both in the way of comradeship/culture within the squad and a pattern of play out on the pitch by strongly basing it's buying policy on a revolving door one of loan pick-ups, in a bid to break-even/to balance the books to ensure the owner recoups his investment over a period of time. The aforementioned team attributes are built from within and outside, by developing a generation courtesy of the efforts of the academy and by recruiting blue-chip talent from outside, and clubs have to be prepared to pay the going rate in the case of the latter. Arsenal have a list of 5m+ buys, or thereabouts, in it's acquirement of such talent under Wenger. In this instance we've gotten lucky. Man U's depth in numbers has ensured this. Providing that Cleverley is a hit, we're only cultivating a talent over a short-term for another PL club, and that in itself is an insult for a club of our stature. And we're only further enhancing the players value. Manchester United are winners in both counts. Attempting to build a team spine, and team for the future by acquiring young talent which is 1st-team ready, by placing an over-reliance on loan deals, and belated 1m offers - anybody remember our bid for Delph, a bid Leeds laughed at..... a colorful fax from Bates to the club was mentioned - doesn't cut the mustard. More often than not such moves will be rebuffed by clubs who have nurtured this type of in-demand talent, kids who are on the radars of PL clubs. Financial models or otherwise, the club under Ashley's watch is garnering itself a reputation as time-waster in the transfer market.