Happy Face

5. A club says a player is not for sale --- Silly money forces sale shocker. It was never in doubt. 6. A manager gets a vote of confidence two months before sack shocker. the usual vote of confidence is renegef on when form worsens. Not when your league position is still the same...and better than where we finished BTW. 7. Do I really care whether it says Sports Direct or Aldi.......Not really. Chelsea are selling their stadium rights for £100m. You should care about a devalued brand. Imagine llidl@old trafford 8. Pedantic and quite clear the point he was making about spending a lot of his own cash to subsidise the business. You wouldn't be offended, cos you've contributed nowt to the club. 9. Covered above. It is? 10. TBC Glad you got the point. Can't argue with any of the lies so no reason to expect owt else.

I am pretty transparent. Was bored with all the money fixation though. Is it cynicism when its so well reasoned? So are any of the quotes Ashleys? Not one. He'll be livid when he reads what his staff have been saying. Im sure he quite often is with Llambias..... So are you going to change it to Llambias 10 lies? No. Try defending any of the falsehoods, rather than the way they came to light. I'm sure you can't.

I am pretty transparent. Was bored with all the money fixation though. Is it cynicism when its so well reasoned? So are any of the quotes Ashleys? Not one. He'll be livid when he reads what his staff have been saying.

I am pretty transparent. Was bored with all the money fixation though. Is it cynicism when its so well reasoned?

I am pretty transparent. Was bored with all the money fixation though.

Aye...and it was the halls what sacked Robson. The lad in charge takes the rap.

http://nufc-ashlies.blogspot.com/2011/06/t...ike-ashley.html What have I missed

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day. nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ? No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second. They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there. I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment. I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place. There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time. Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money. Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted. To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams. If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said. Your getting Loonatic LM syndrome, there are no Ashley supporters man, there are those of us who can see some method in the madness (I even see some necessity in it). There are simply some of us who refuse to believe that everything he does is a zany personal vendetta against NUFC and it's fans. IF we have a decent sized transfer deficit it means he is "building the team" and not recouping or reducing his exposure, or lining his pockets as the eejits say. IF there is another transfer profit, then he is recouping and the extent of that will not be known until the accounts come out, as you originally said. BUT there'll be enough evidence to suggest a direction change, if there is one. I've never suggested there's anything zany, mad or vendetta fuelled in what he does. I don't think I've seen any of the regular posters do that either. I've always pointed to incompetence. Whatever you say about doing the right thing, fiscal responsibility and however much anyone agrees with it (and I might, to a certain extent)...the incompetent fuckwits come aout and spout shite like "Carroll's going nowhere" when it's very likely he's going somewhere, or "we'll reinvest the full amount." when it's most unlikely that they will. There won't be enough evidence in September will there? We tend to do our most profit seeking business in the January.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day. nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ? No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second. They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there. I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment. I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place. There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time. Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money. Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted. To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams. If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day. nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ? No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second. They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there. I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment. I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place. There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time.

Glad I've cocered my arse for if we do spend the £35m

Still might happen. Doubt it like. I think the most damning quote to come from the club previously in respect to the Carroll sale that followed is.... I suppose Carroll didn't leave to "begin" his career though, so that's alright. Buying a North East player at their peak isn't desirable. Best sell him to other clubs to reap the rewards of talent on the pitch.

Totally agree with both paragraphs. On the second one, I don't think there's any god given right to anything. The delusionals are Ashley/Llambias (who keep saying the plan is to push for Europe year after year without spending any money in the first place) and the people that agree there's is the best way to reach their stated goal. They'll couch it in fiscally responsible terms, but the fact is they're living in cloud cuckoo land. I'm still going to the football and enjoying it immensley and don't need to be winning trophies to keep doing that. I've never seen us do it before so it makes no odds to me. But I'm not going to buy into the bullshit and say he's doing a bang-up job of delivering on his empty promioses.

Just watched the second jackass for the first time. Been in stitches. Quality entertainment.

I'm of the opinion that you add a few quality signings to an already motivated squad in order to improve. We only won 3 of our last 17 games at the back end of last season. Birmingham twice, and Wolves. So I think our final position flattereed Pardew as it was. Barton, Nolan, Enrique, Jonas, Carroll and Collo were the heart of that "success" and they're either gone or making noises about when they'll go. You cannot replace the best half of your team in a single summer with players that have no Premier league experience and expect them to gel/perform immediately. I'm willing to stick my neck out on this score before the window closes. Thats a number of predictions then. First that those 4 players will leave and that secondly, none of the arrivals are going to be that exciting/top quality and thirdly that they wont have enough time to gel (or maybe not enough quality) for us to better this year's position. Neck firmly stuck out, fair play. They don't all have to go. Even if it's just Enrique in addition to Nolan and Carroll, that's 3 pretty important first team regulars to replace with inexperienced kids who need time to settle. Obviously the more that do go, the harder it'll be. EDIT: In my opinion we needed a first team right back, a centre back and a Striker or two. Demba Ba fills one of those criteria so far.

I'm of the opinion that you add a few quality signings to an already motivated squad in order to improve. We only won 3 of our last 17 games at the back end of last season. Birmingham twice, and Wolves. So I think our final position flattereed Pardew as it was. Barton, Nolan, Enrique, Jonas, Carroll and Collo were the heart of that "success" and they're either gone or making noises about when they'll go. You cannot replace the best half of your team in a single summer with players that have no Premier league experience and expect them to gel/perform immediately. I'm willing to stick my neck out on this score before the window closes.

No, I'm not establishing cause and effect there. I like your slur on CT though. There's certain things that clubs do that are statements of intent. There's hundreds of little things in and around the club that dictate the direction it takes, the vast majority of which we have no view of. But then there's tent pole moves that indicate the driving philosiphy at work. Spending £24m on Bent suggested to me that Villa are all about performing in the Premier league, and that along with the hundreds of other things saw them shoot out of the mire they'd found themselves in. Selling Carroll has the opposite effect, amongst the hundreds of other things that go on at the club we know nowt about. Have our best players sounded happy this summer? It's the same as the outcry over the sale of Andy Cole all those years ago.....the fears that we were on a downward spiral were allayed when the money was reinvested and then some. Remains to be seen if Ashley allays our fears in a similar fashion. As it stands though, I'll add a prediction to the tracker that we don't improve on last seasons final league position, whatever anyone thinks of how much better the squad is on paper come September 1st.

He's ambitious then

I agree its not easy but that doesnt mean we cant do it. And tbf (not that I take a great deal of interest in other clubs), but I haven't seen much evidence of any strong pushes to really improve next year from any other teams outside the top 6. Out of the pack that you think would be pushing Liverpool and Spurs, such as ..... Everton, Fulham, Villa, Sunderland I think we have as good a, if not better, chance than any of them. Look at Villa's form after they signed Bent. They were in the relegation places in January and finished above us. Spending £24m on one player is a push. We were 7th in January, having been 5th 12 games in. Selling your only quality striker isn't a push though. We went the opposite way.

Again, I'm confused. Toontoon insists we can't afford to push for europe year after year....and he says Ashley knows this and won't spend the money to push for it. You agree it's too much of a gamble. But you and Ashley still both think we'll make that push for europe without spending any the hundrerd million odd you all know and state is needed. I'll un-confuse you Your posts indicate a view that it is either spunk a load of cash to chase the dream or survive. My point is that year on year improvement might also achieve a European place. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Last season should of been 9th. Put out a better team next year and we should be looking to aim higher, ie challenging for Europe. You think we'll be able to challenge the 5 available european positions along with the rest of the 'big 6' (Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Man City, Liverpool and Spurs) without buying a top striker or keeping hold of any quality striker we're able to produce internally?

Again, I'm confused. Toontoon insists we can't afford to push for europe year after year....and he says Ashley knows this and won't spend the money to push for it. You agree it's too much of a gamble. But you and Ashley still both think we'll make that push for europe without spending any the hundrerd million odd you all know and state is needed.

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club. And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself? Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants? You're being slippery like an eel mr chez. Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support. If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality. Is that being slippery? It would be daft to complain about lack of subsidy, given the amount he's spent subsidising the club so far. But the method of subsiidy is the problem, it's been retroactive rather than proactive. He's a shite gambler, he won't back us when it'll move us on to the next level, he'll only cover the losses when he gets relegated. And he's setting us up to not make a loss when relegated so he's not liable again, rather than making sure it doesn't happen again. Whats the next level though? Are you expecting him to splash a couple of hundred million to break the top four or just a hundred mill to break the top 6 and get into the Europa cup which returns nothing to a club. The gambles got to be worth it and at the moment, 100 million ish to get the top 6 is not a good gamble. (from an owners point of view). I'm expecting nowt. He's saying his plan is to challenge for Europe every year. As you allude to, there's an inherent contradiction between what he says he wants and how he chooses to subsidize us, so far.

Null vote

Not for me and Leazes. We couldn't give a fuck if Mike Ashley spunks £500m to get us to win summat. We'll thank him for it and he'll get his money back if he sells a top club. And I thought I was talking out my arse when I claimed you and others are wanting the club to sustain itself? Is it what everyone wants or what nobody wants? You're being slippery like an eel mr chez. Its arse talk because the opposite is that you dont want the club to sustain itself which doesnt make sense. If the opposite point of view can never be agreed with (who wants an unsustainable anything?) then you need to change what it is you're asserting i support. If a club makes a loss each year, it will collapse unless subsidised. If your major gripe is the lack of subsidy, thats fine but lets be clear about the position. You want an owner that subsidises the club (you'll need to be quick as the rules are changing) and i want to engage in debate more based in reality. Is that being slippery? It would be daft to complain about lack of subsidy, given the amount he's spent subsidising the club so far. But the method of subsiidy is the problem, it's been retroactive rather than proactive. He's a shite gambler, he won't back us when it'll move us on to the next level, he'll only cover the losses when he gets relegated. And he's setting us up to not make a loss when relegated so he's not liable again, rather than making sure it doesn't happen again.