manc-mag

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar). As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ??? In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion? I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline. As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start Guess how much the capacity went up by... I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000 That figure was always quoted when we were at 36,000 tbh. I'm sure someone will have the right answer with regard to that, but even if I'm wrong our home crowds are showing a year by year reduction and there were hundreds of empty seats in our end at Villa the other week which really surprised me. I can't remember the last time we didnt sell our allocation at Villa! How do you explain that if you don't think the club is in decline under Ashley? I think he's alienated a lot of people and I wouldn't be so daft to dispute the fact of falling attendances. At the same time I know 'fulfilling our potential' (meaning the natural potential of NUFC given it's fanbase), doesn't get you within competing distance of Chelsea Man U Man C etc these days because they're having money chucked at them due to either their a) bigger natural resources or private funding. 'Chuck more money at us please' is a perfectly valid thing to say, but people should have the honesty to acknowledge that that's just a statement of desire and not try to link it to NUFC's natural potential, because the facts there suggest we fall way behind the aforementioned clubs resources even with a full 52,000 stadium. Say you want more money spent by all means, but don't say it's warranted because we're NUFC and our natural potential because their's an inherent contradiction in that. City are having a whale of a time, but you won't find one fan trying to pass it off as being sustainable on the back of their natural potential. They know they're a rich mans play thing but theyre honest about it. Their stadium is only 4,000 less than ours and they've spent close to £300 million on transfers alone. Before 2003 we were by and large the second largest club in terms of turn over though. That's a fact, all clubs like Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea have done is maximise their branding, while ours has detoriated to dunlop dodgem levels. Why was our turnover bigger than theirs then, and why can't it be again? I think with Arsenal who are the 4th biggest club in the world on a few levels we won't compete because we cant charge £1000 for the cheapest season tickets in the NE, but Man City, our natural size is MUCH bigger than theirs. Us and Tottenham should be about the same. We can get turnover up if you throw hundreds of millions at us. I'm not saying it's impossible. What I am saying is that it's a private individual's cash that's needed in order to achieve that now and that's what needs to be acknowledged. Ashley doesn't want to do that because he doesn't think he'll make it back (on balance). I can say I'm miffed about that in one sense, but I can hardly turn round and say we've a divine right to it because we're NUFC. It's his money at the end of the day. The best you can say if you're wanting that is you want him to sell so someone else can come in and bankroll us for a tilt in the crazy money league. A totally valid standpoint, but be honest about it. Arsenal have moved to a 60,000 stadium since 2003 and the ticket price is higher than SJP to start with. And it doesn't matter what Man City's 'natural' size is, they don't pay their players 'natural' money, it's petrochemical dividends. Theres a balance and I personally think more should be spent-the refusal to buy a striker being the most acutely prejudicial evidence of that-but beyond that I think a lot of what's said basically boils down to "I want to spend as much as Man City". I think the Tottenham parallel is a reasonably sensible one. They sell their best players (they don't want to sell them but they've got no choice when one of the top payers comes in) and then they improve with the money recouped. I think that's largely down to who they've currently got in as manager and that's likely to be Pardew's biggest challenge. I don't think he'll be given the same sort of cash however-which is obviously the point you're making-so I'd be inclined to agree with you on that level. That's where I think the balance is currently wrong though, not saying we could compete with Man C just because our natural size is bigger than their's.

An Inconvenient Truth

On the subject of luck, it should be noted that you almost always get more 'luck' if you put in a shift and fight for the shirt. That's how Man U have been so 'lucky' for the last 20-odd years. It's a bit odd to see us getting so 'lucky' because sadly it is something of a rareity to see Toon sides that give a shit about playing for the shirt. We had the ball in Wolves' net twice in the first half away from home. We created and took our chances. As for Taylor's 'penalty that never was' it was shite naive defending of the sort which means he'll never be a top level centre half ultimately, but at the same time it wasn't something you can get overly indignant about as a Wolves fan because it wasn't even a goal scoring opportunity. It was just shite defending. I never get wound up about that in the same way I never get wound up about very marginal offside decisions that go against us. They're not the injustice of the century at the end of the day The defence didnt give Krul enough protection for 90 minutes to be scrupulously honest but it wasn't an absolute travesty that Wolves got nowt because they were two down before they even started making a game of it. Obviously we won't finish top four by the end of the season, but for the moment, lets just enjoy watching a team which clearly wants to go out and do the shirt proud. Try and keep focused on that during the inevitable defeats because they deserve the backing independent of the politics of ownership.

Fucking devastated tbh mate.

When you say you haven't posted for a while, were you sectioned under the Mental Health Act?

I think both the sunderland and the QPR game were very flattering results, fulham first half as well, and to a certain degree arsenal. Add to that no injuries at all so far and my view is that we have been sailing with the wind in our backs. "Very flattering"? Seriously? Sunderland were on top in that match for about 25 minutes. After that it was pretty even with us having the best of it on many an occasion. We were probably better than Fulham overall. It wasn't luck that QPR's strikers aren't very good, it's just how it is. They deserved to win. Same I guess goes for the Arsenal match. We have had injuries, no idea what you're on about there. We've also been unlucky against say Villa (hitting the bar). Arsenal had more possession but did fuck all with it, draw was a fair result to both teams, Fulham had their spell on top but our keeper did what he's paid to do and we took our chances, nothing lucky about it and the mackems as you say after their early spell did fuck all else and we ended having had the most chances, more possession (i think) and they got away with no penalty and another 2 players who should have been sent off, they were lucky. QPR is the only game people can call lucky if they have such a need to and every team in the prem has games like that where you create nothing and the other team misses their chances, you move on and don't worry about it. Doesn't mean by any stretch i think we're going to be staying top 4 all season and we will have problems when certain players get injured or lose form, but as it stands we've earned most of what we have. QPR I'm happy to call lucky like on account of the fact we were absolutely horrendous for 90 minutes and 9 times out of 10 when you do play that poorly you end up with nish. It'll no doubt balance out though over a season so as you say you don't dwell on it. Thus far the results have been largely what we've deserved.

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000. The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley. There may still have been a waiting list of one kind or another after the expansion but the 15,000 figure relates to the pre-expansion era. I can't imagine it mirrored the same figure after expansion as that'd be a bit peculiar. Not in 2006/7 there wasnt. Well I didn't think there was by 06/07 Possibly small ones have existed for brief intervals after expansion I honestly don't know, but the 15,000 figure is just in error. It relates to the 36,000 capacity and the expansion to 52,000 deliberately took account of that.

The waiting list I refer to existed some time before 2007 but I think it was after the capacity increased to 52,000. The fact is crowds are reducing and some people are losing interest, including the away support as demonstrated by the hundreds of empty seats at Villa (something I can't remember happening in the last 15 years at Villa Park) and that is a cause for concern and for me it shows the club is in decline under Ashley. There may still have been a waiting list of one kind or another after the expansion but the 15,000 figure relates to the pre-expansion era. I can't imagine it mirrored the same figure after expansion as that'd be a bit peculiar.

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar). As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ??? In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion? I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline. As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start Guess how much the capacity went up by... I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000 That figure was always quoted when we were at 36,000 tbh. I'm sure someone will have the right answer with regard to that, but even if I'm wrong our home crowds are showing a year by year reduction and there were hundreds of empty seats in our end at Villa the other week which really surprised me. I can't remember the last time we didnt sell our allocation at Villa! How do you explain that if you don't think the club is in decline under Ashley? I think he's alienated a lot of people and I wouldn't be so daft to dispute the fact of falling attendances. At the same time I know 'fulfilling our potential' (meaning the natural potential of NUFC given it's fanbase), doesn't get you within competing distance of Chelsea Man U Man C etc these days because they're having money chucked at them due to either their a) bigger natural resources or private funding. 'Chuck more money at us please' is a perfectly valid thing to say, but people should have the honesty to acknowledge that that's just a statement of desire and not try to link it to NUFC's natural potential, because the facts there suggest we fall way behind the aforementioned clubs resources even with a full 52,000 stadium. Say you want more money spent by all means, but don't say it's warranted because we're NUFC and our natural potential because their's an inherent contradiction in that. City are having a whale of a time, but you won't find one fan trying to pass it off as being sustainable on the back of their natural potential. They know they're a rich mans play thing but theyre honest about it. Their stadium is only 4,000 less than ours and they've spent close to £300 million on transfers alone.

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar). As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ??? In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion? I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline. As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start Guess how much the capacity went up by... I think this was after the capacity had increased to 52,000 That figure was always quoted when we were at 36,000 tbh.

And we were then. Seriously, who other than Man U, City, Chelsea aren't these days (and maybe Arsenal, although there are signs they're heading to also-ran-ville as they are losing their best players to their "rivals", in the "approaching last year of contract" scenario, sounds awfully familiar). As for then 25,000 can you quantify/back that up ??? In another thread, I can't recall exactly which one, I believe our realistic "benchmark" appeared widely accepted as being Spurs (notwithstanding their bright-lights London advantage). Given our operating model (that can never work long term, so I keep reading) has been their operating model for years and years, what over and above competing with Spurs is our "realistic" ambition in your opinion? I understand we used to have a waiting list with 15,000 people on it so basically I would say there are more than 20,000 fans who have lost interest in going to games. Also despite the good start to the season we had loads of empty seats at the villa game - ive not known that for many many years, it was very sad to see and its another indication the club is decline. As for spurs, much as dislike them, I would say they have demonstrated far more ambition than us in recent years - they fight to keep hold of their best players for a start Guess how much the capacity went up by...

oh dear. Calm that superiority complex you imbecile. Why are you denying you mentioned Pardew, I replied to you, and what you said, many times. I'm not doing it again. You're completely mad. Progress!!! Where have I done that? Quote please or STFU. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?showtopic=31573

oh dear. Calm that superiority complex you imbecile. Why are you denying you mentioned Pardew, I replied to you, and what you said, many times. I'm not doing it again. You're completely mad. Progress!!! Where have I done that? Quote please or STFU.

fucking hell, it shouldn't be funny after all these years, but laughter is the only way to avoid going mental yourself when speaking to him.

Leazes, is it a genuine question about me 'mentioning Pardew?' It would put me at my ease a bit if you said you were joking actually, because as pointless as that would be, it wouldn't be mentally defective at least.

Frightening on one level if I'm totally honest.

Well only you can see it.

So you didn't mention Pardew, in the present tense then ? That was 2 days ago btw. You are demonstrably not right in the head.

Independent witness. Bad news Titus (although it's possible the girl was wankered and wont be much use in evidence).

NEVER!! NEVER!!! NEVER!!!! Fuck alone knows what that was about, like.

Anyway as has already been said, what looks to be a good deal for NUFC has been thoroughly sidetracked by the usual agenda driven ramblings and lets face it LM, you can and will do that in any thread, so for now I'm just happy to say Jonas is a positive step on our current trajectory. End off.

Nah, present some maths or it's just slogans tbh. I've already said 'spend what Liverpool spend' is inadequate. Try going to the bank with that plan and see where you get. (Ashley being the bank in this case). Try and live in the present.

that isn't the issue at all. The point is that the club should have kept Enrique, Barton and brought in quality players to play up front with the money from the sale of Carroll. This money is still there. Why not bring in Demba Ba for a free [as you are mentioning him, but he would not have been my first choice, how many other clubs were in for him?], and other players alongside Enrique, Barton and all the best players from last years team ? This is what building a team is all about, not selling [your best players] and buying like the world is about to end. How many times does the policy need to be discussed like this ? One transfer doesn't make or break the overall policy. People have knocked the spending of Liverpool. Who will finish higher, us or Liverpool ? Who will qualify for europe and/or the Champions League first ? Us or Liverpool ? The debate's moved on from that-you have to say how it's financially do-able (sustainably) because it's Ashley's money you're wanting to spend and he's not looking to take a gamble. Imagine it like a pitch on Dragon's Den as it's someone else's money you're wanting, not NUFC's. Just 'spend what Liverpool spend' won't do, we can all say that but so what? The fact they do it is neither here nor there.

Are you saying I've denied 'mentioning Pardew?' Otherwise your point has no relevance.

I'm actually gobsmacked at that one. Is it a genuine question? In which case you'll presumably offer some evidence of me denying having mentioned Pardew to make it in any way relevant...? This is a total shambles, Leazes and you genuinely need to recognise it for your own sake.