manc-mag

This is where it gets utterly pointless. I criticized Shepherd and advocated regime change. That's essentially what he's getting at. I thought Shepherd (shorthand:Shepherd and Hall) had the club in decline and I didn't think he had a hope in hell of getting us back into league challenging/Champions League positions. I still don't think he would have, particularly given what happened in world credit and additionally the emergence of Saudi billionaires. This essentially represented my views at the point shortly before the Ashley took over. It did not, as Leazes insists, mean I was ungrateful for Champions League football of the past, the Keegan era (or however he wants to portray it, it all amounts to the same thing). What Leazes' fails to understand and/or acknowledge about his infallible 'go for broke' philosophy in any economic climate, whoever is doing the financing, is this; he consistently makes the point that Hall and Shepherd bought up the club when it had failed to float for tuppence the year before. I agree that showed vision and foresight and ambition on their part. What he fails to acknowledge however is that, in terms of a risk game, the couple million quid they paid for it was the extent of their financial exposure on gambling with NUFC. Thus they could spend tens of millions on credit because if they did and the gamble didnt come off, the worst case scenario is the club goes bust. They're behind a limited company vehicle so they're personally protected from those debts and they've only lost an asset that they paid a couple million quid to acquire. They've made that money back in dividends already anyway but I've no qualms with that, just stating a fact, the main point is, even if the debts at the time of administration are hundreds of millions, they've only lost an asset they've paid a few bob for. Now again Leazes is right in saying that clubs don't ordinarily go bust-they don't-they operate at massive losses and continue, but that's usually because (in modern times) someone else acquires ownership and so also buys up the debt. In our case Ashely did that (out of pure stupidity in my view). Again he's done it via a limited company vehicle, so he's protected from further spiralling debt just as Shepherd was, but unlike Shepherd, if his gambles fuck up he stands to lose an asset he's paid £100 million for (and made a further £100 million loan to). Not an asset he's paid buttons for. So it's a different risk altogether. Oh and did I mention, there isn't any credit available anymore either? Yes I'm sure I have, but Leazes just ignores that. So he can't finance the gamble using credit either (as Shepherd did), it'll have to be more of his own cash. The club's cash alone won't let you compete with the bankrolled clubs. So what I'm trying to do instead of focusing on that complete waste of time of a debate (which frankly, while not massively complex is nonetheless too much for Leazes to get his head around), is ask, picking up directly on these frequent comments that he will be 'proved right', what exact event/events must occur in future for him to be proved right. It's a statement which relies on something happening in the future and it must contradict what I'm saying. Presumably he must know what that event is. It's an opportunity to nail the debate once and for all, so I make no apologies in seeking clarification. So come on Leazes, just one line. And before you come back with something inane like 'You're just the sort of supporter Ashley would love' etc etc etc blah blah. That's entirely irrelevant. Ashley isn't arsed what any fan thinks. He could not give a tuppeny jizz for the views of supporters and whether they approve of his methods or not and that should be apparent by now by his actions.

Not going to get into quote ladders with you, Leazes but you're still not answering a very simple question. You're referring to being proved right in the future. What future event will prove that? Even you must be able to see the sense in clarifying that point.

No, that's Paul.

obsessed. And I'm right. You'll see. The occurrence of which future event/events would prove you 'right'? om fucking god Answer him then I could dig up his old posts, and the idiot knows it. As it bothers you a lot, you look. I'm right already, many times over. Mike Ashley is a cunt. He will never match the halls and Shepherd. Aston Villas "plan" won't match the "planless" Halls and Shepherd. It could be years before someone else equals those champions league and european qualifications. The club is in decline. Mike Ashleys limit of ambition is to survive in the premiership at minimal expenditure and hope to make small profits. He will sell our best players if it needs to be done to achieve this goal. blah blah blah blah....... Oh, I'm also right that he is obsessed, in fact massively obsessed, because he knows he's spouted shit and hasn't got the bottle to admit it. Anyway, I'm can't be arsed bickering with you. Bookmark this thread. Should make interesting reading in the future. So you can't answer him then, is what you're saying Basically. You don't need to go over old threads, Leazes, so there's no work involved in that respect. The question is, the occurrence of which future event/events would prove you right. If you can type something (one line will suffice), which contradicts a statement that I've made in the paragraph that you've quoted, then fair do's. The occurrence of that event would be proof conclusive of your correctness. Otherwise, STFU.

Aye, that too. Point taken.

All the best with the new gig, Stevie. Always good to see someone achieving what they want to! Get yourself the odd post in when you get a chance mate, it's not healthy to bottle up the shit this club puts you through! Take it easy and best wishes!

Aye, I know. Even Fish knew when to call it a day ffs.

obsessed. And I'm right. You'll see. The occurrence of which future event/events would prove you 'right'? obsessed lemonade europe ambitious trophy signing right you'll see understand speculate clueless accumulate Seriously though, he has got absolutely no valid answer to that perfectly straightforward question.

Aye, that too.

Should have been booked for his dive about 10 seconds before the shot. Absolute odious little bastard.

obsessed. And I'm right. You'll see. The occurrence of which future event/events would prove you 'right'?

Poker face? With a mouth like that it'd be rude not to.

Well there'll be no debate as to whether it's her or not as she's only got the one nipple.

I don't dispute that. What I mean is I don't think theres that much talent involved and plenty of other people could do what he does. Unlike top-level football. I'd also make a distinction between him and Larry David/Ricky Gervais, as writing is a completely different kettle of fish.

I recommend you go pressurised on the gas, Dave. Then you've got an ideal 'ejector bed' for when you've run out of excuses for your performance and just need to get the fuck out of there.

That's 12 points on my maths.

Basically someone who gets paid a lot of money for doing something not very demanding, who has a lot of time on his hands and can't find anything other than self-destructive ways to spend those precious commodities (time and money) that other people would be far more appreciative of. Also has horrific hair. Deep down probably knows all of this.

Aye true. Leazes' threshold for inane, circular bullshit can't be underestimated because he has very few critical faculties. And the circularity is all his own, like some sort of comfort blanket. Really is a waste of time. I'm hoping for (and by absolutely no means assuming) some meaningful re-investment this summer. Meaning both retention and recruitment. I'm hoping for (and by absolutely no means assuming) a bit more of a settled, 'middle way' approach to next year. Those things combined could yield progress in the league. If that's not on Ashley's agenda, I'd have no qualms about him focussing entirely on sale, as that'd be the absolute best use of his time.

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism? The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk. What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same? Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess. And the cost thereof. In a nutshell.

What a load of bollocks this is. Can't the EU see that womens insurance is cheaper based on complex risk assessment calculations and not on sexism? The facts are simple: young lads are much more likely to have a big crash than their female counterparts, so they should pay more because they represent a greater risk. What's next? Will they argue that's it's unfair to judge you on your age / address / occupation and we'll all pay the same? Insurance is essentially legalised discrimination. Doesn't seem fair to penalise a sensible 20 year old lad because a minority of his peers drive like complete dickheads. Problem is identifying the dick heads I guess. I agree entirely. It is unfair that my son who has driven for 7 years with no accidents, has to pay more then a female with exactly the same history. And the same for any age male, he would still have to pay more than his female counterpart, it is wrong. It's not unfair if he's more likely to have an accident in his 8th year* and she's more likely to have another 50 years of accident free driving though. Purely from a risk assessment (ie insurers) point of view That's not to say I feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. I readily accept there could be more personalised ways of doing the risk assessment that are less sexually discriminative, but equally they'd probably push the premium up too because they'd be more labour intensive. It's a form of sexism that is a fact of life and is not malicious. There are worse examples at the end of the day. *really sorry about the example (it was just that it had to follow on from yours to make the point) and obviously I hope he has a lifetime's accident free driving!!

The point I was making in my post (in reference to the bloke next to me, who was mouthing off at Best), was that he was monumentally thick. Ie he spent 45 minutes thinking Barton had been sent off and presumably the 45 minutes prior to that thinking that Ryan Taylor was actually Joey Barton. I find it less troublesome* when tit ends like that come out with racism because the link with being a borderline retard/massive ignorance levels generally is clearly visible. It's when you get intelligent people coming out with racism I find massively disturbing. *I realise from Leon Best's point of view, racism from the stands is racism from the stands, whoever it is.

Are we going to have to endure years of "irrational hatred" output now? Looks like your new buzz-phrase tbh, and could hardly be less appropriate when peddled in response to structured argument, (whether you happen to agree with it or not). When people refer to Shepherd's tenure, it's just shorthand for the 'Hall's and Shepherd'. It's not symptomatic of 'irrational hatred' simply because people use it as a convenient abbreviation and you make no valid point by highlighting the percentage shareholdings. It's just shorthand. The irrational bit is where you refuse to acknowledge any criticism of the Shepherd regime or the (on balance of probabilities) relative unlikelihood of it achieving a renaissance of it's European period (etc etc). That and interpreting anyone pointing that out as being a statement that Ashley will excede Shepherd's aggregated European finishes. Nobody does say that. What they do say though is they think it's pretty clear Shepherd (and Hall) couldn't do it either these days, based on myriad factors, both internal and external of NUFC. That can't be proved one way or another either so you're neither right or wrong, whether you like it or not.

...and breathe. I was in the Gallowgate (which I haven't been in for a couple of years now) and the bell end next to me spent the entire second half shouting about if it had been anyone other than Joey Barton he wouldn't have been sent off (in reference to Ryan Taylor). That and racially abusing Leon Best, while applauding Cheick Tiote.

blyme!