manc-mag

Best defence in the league - 1 goal conceded after 4 games. That statistic is an utter miracle quite frankly. When our luck does eventually run out and we drop points in a game we dominate I would hope Pardew refrains from any 'bad luck/deserved better' remarks unless he has the good grace to put it in the swings-and-roundabouts context of our being fortunate in our opening games. Personally I thought QPR were weak as water and the biggest scandal was how much time some very average players looked to have on the ball. Disagree, Krul has had some magic saves. That + massive waste of chances is the reason for that. Give City or Man U those chances and we would be looking at double digits easily. Yes, that's the point I was making Guns McGee.

Best defence in the league - 1 goal conceded after 4 games. That statistic is an utter miracle quite frankly. When our luck does eventually run out and we drop points in a game we dominate I would hope Pardew refrains from any 'bad luck/deserved better' remarks unless he has the good grace to put it in the swings-and-roundabouts context of our being fortunate in our opening games. Personally I thought QPR were weak as water and the biggest scandal was how much time some very average players looked to have on the ball.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...eaks/index.html Do you actually have an opinion of your own, or are you strictly down to these 'what he said' posts now? At least you've moved on from Juan Cole. When people get into the game of predicting how Eric Arthur Blair may have felt about events well after his death, it can get a bit silly. What can we take from his books? People tend to misappropriate 1984 as some kind of brilliant vision of the future, because now there is lots of CCTV. Like the conspiracy nut I work with said, "I don't need to read 1984, I'm living it!" love that quote, what a complete cock end. Can only imagine what it must be like cooped up on a long shift with him.

Nah, the stop before. Six Sisters.

Aye.

Reported.

Echo what's already been said. RIP, hope his young lad is ok.

hadn't seen that....local property devloper/football club "saviour"/gangster Eddie Mitchell inviting the "Steve Fletcher Stand" regulars for a chat. Steve Fletcher is still a player at AFCB and the stand named in his honour has a life sized effigy of the player himself perched on top of it some strangely similar sentiments to our own in the local rag... http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/924..._on_field_rant/ even more worrying, from the bbc report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/e..._2/14773109.stm Couldn't be our Deadman, his line attenuation is far greater than 4,989 iirc.

Be astonished to see a full back go for £21 million but I suppose it's not entirely impossible. Ultimately, if/when he goes I think it'll simply be because he's offered more wages. The Carroll transfer and refusal to replace him still looms large (and is an absolute disgrace), but I think we're getting a bit unrealistic in supposing that every foreign recruit that comes good will become a £15-20 million Ashley transfer dividend. That seems to be the assumption, but Enrique his predecessor ultimately went for nish in terms of net gain. One has to go by the premise that Santon is a mega-talent who has really lost his way, due to poor management and his own temperament. That seems to be the consensus about the lad. In the event of us retaining our PL status over the next two years, if the lad can live up to the hype previously bestowed on him, i think you're looking at that sort of resale value ie. 15-2Om. Especially for a player, in the early phase of a five year contract, who displays rapid development on the pitch in the early going. This didn't happen in Enrique's case hereby his resale value (or windfall) is in stark contrast. His first three years were a virtual write-off, if you look at it from a 'feeder club' viewpoint. Poor management (Big Sam) in the form of his anti-football tactics, and B.Sam used to blast him for playing his way out of defense. Enrique's confidence, amidst the aforementioned man-management and playing style (and he could've turned it around sooner if KK survived the politics at the top) over a large chunk of his first two years here, was shot. Factor relegation into the equation, where he spent another year in the wilderness as his contract ticked on further, and it's easy to draw a line between both scenarios. By that i mean Enrique 'the late bloomer' whom the club's ownership would eventually make bugger all from when he was offloaded, versus that of a 'mega-talent come good' in the form of Santon. For a feeder/selling club, in terms of maximizing resale value, Enrique's pathway here (and related progression) painted that of a nightmare for Ashley. From a purely business perspective where the long-term football brand runs a distant second to the state of the balance sheets (the debt payback) this is what Ashley is banking on ie. wayward talents coming good and quickly. IMO the purchase of HBA, or the motive behind, falls into the same bracket as Santon. Anyway, apart from one brief soundbite in the OP, it was a football related, purely aimed at whether the lad would make it or not. My intention wasn't to fire off another broadside attack against the club's ownership, while taking another thread into familiar 'Ashley Territory'. If it wasn't my prehistoric/shite-house phone, where the forum's control panel is pretty much unusable, I'd post a 'raspberry' like. Aye, I know mate. Wasn't trying to undermine the main thrust of your post, was merely picking up on the bit Tecato had quoted.

Blonde hair- check Biker chick - check Magnificent rack- check Mates with Plod - check. It all fits now , Toonraider is none other than… Vintage Viz.

CT's flounce (if indeed he does stay away) was pretty low key in the circumstances. What triggered it, was it honestly just the Deano stuff or was there more? People can get a bit precious about 'bullying' on here iyam. At the end of the day it's a forum with pisstaking and if you don't like it you can always go and look at another page of the internet, theres plenty to chose from after all. In contrast to bullying at school or at work etc where you clearly don't have that luxury. I think the worst you can ever really say about this place with a straight face is that a 'joke has worn thin' a bit, but then equally you can apply that little epithet to CT's decision to continually ignore the club's various abuses and choose to believe the best case scenario even when the evidence is against it. That wears a bit thin too after a while. It was Deano that upped the bet to £50 too didn't he? Doctor Ken was only testing his mettle to the tune of £10, he wasn't giving it the big one, that was Deano. That's £50 a charity would have had to do without if it hadn't been for others making up the shortfall so why shouldn't Deano hear that it's behaviour that's not approved of on here?

Jesus Craig, sorry to hear about your ordeal, mate. Missed the last few pages of this thread but been scrolling back to find out what all the comments were in response to. Glad to hear you and the missus are essentially OK and on the mend. It sounds like you did everything you could as a decent self-respecting and protective partner in the circumstances mate so take heart from that because in a very nasty situation you weren't found to be wanting. Says a lot about you. It's a shit situation you've been through together, will come through together and will allow you to enjoy good situations together even more as a couple!

It's an absurd position to take that they concentrated on one deal for 7 months waiting till the last day or 2 to switch targets, without ever saying "look, either do the deal or we have to move on" after 4 months or summat. The idea they think this (lie) excuses the idiocy of such an approach is most telling about their incompetence. Absolutely. Equally the notion that at £35 million the Carroll deal was 'too good to turn down'. If the money can't be re-invested because we're always being 'held to ransom' because people know we've got it, is it even worth having it in the first place from a footballing point of view? The 'held to ransom' response was anticipated by pretty much everyone on here, a better question might have been: "In future very large profit transactions, given your spending policy, would it not be better from a footballing point of view to simply retain the player, being as certain transfer sums appear to be inhibitive to NUFC in terms of future business?"

Doesn't say much for their corporate packages either.

In hindsight, I think the question about the Carroll replacement saga should simply have been: "Irrespective of the club and it's budget is seven months not long enough for any competent football administration to replace it's key player?" I realise that's a more rhetorical question, but I would rather have seen it phrased as a statement.

Be astonished to see a full back go for £21 million but I suppose it's not entirely impossible. Ultimately, if/when he goes I think it'll simply be because he's offered more wages. The Carroll transfer and refusal to replace him still looms large (and is an absolute disgrace), but I think we're getting a bit unrealistic in supposing that every foreign recruit that comes good will become a £15-20 million Ashley transfer dividend. That seems to be the assumption, but Enrique his predecessor ultimately went for nish in terms of net gain.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...0&start=660 Sentiments already being expressed in there. Totally agree btw. Seemingly disliked by most of City's own fans even before this. Glad to see him get his comeuppance by losing his job, although Man C should have clearly stated how outrageous his behaviour was too, none of this mealy mouthed 'error of judgment' claptrap that he's been allowed to try and peddle.

An 'interview'? Does the concept even apply to football manager recruitment in the true sense? The proposed 'solution' to this looks about as daft as the perceived problem is.

Ok then but I reckon it's an insecurity tbh. And I'll just reiterate, I know it's your business-it doesn't bother me because it's nowt to do with NUFC anyway, just like my job isnt.

you. Divvent deny it man, you KNOW it If you said that with even a shred of seriousness though, it just goes to show there's no hope. Do you not think it's far more likely to be your own perception, bearing in mind you evidently don't like solicitors, accountants, teachers etc? I couldn't give a fuck about my profession fwiw. I've no problem at all with those professions in themselves, only when they think they automatically know more than me about football or politics. Particularly, when you know absolutely nothing about me too, what I done/have done in my life. In fact, only two people on this entire message board know this, and both of them hardly post. That just a pure ego thing mate at the end of the day. I couldn't care less what you do or have done, as far as discussing NUFC goes. Surprisingly, that's the only relevant bit for me.

you. Divvent deny it man, you KNOW it If you said that with even a shred of seriousness though, it just goes to show there's no hope. Do you not think it's far more likely to be your own perception, bearing in mind you evidently don't like solicitors, accountants, teachers etc? I couldn't give a fuck about my profession fwiw.

Who is a 'self-proclaimed whizz kid'? Bearing in mind self proclaimed means that they proclaimed it themselves, not you about them, and as such you'll be able to provide a quote of theirs backing this up? This is the words in mouth stuff.

You've got to keep Leazes in check tbf. One minute you can say Ashley deserved a chance upon arrival and the next he'll tell everyone you said "Anyone but Shepherd, I hated the 90's at NUFC". This is the crux of it for me. His recent digging up of old threads (in response to your posting that one where he predicts that Ashley will probably now go on to better Shepherd/Hall’s Champions League achievements) is a typical obsessive overreaction too. Digging them up to try and re-assert when he ‘first called Ashley’ or whatever misses the point spectacularly; he’s shown later to be saying he thinks we’ll be back on for Champs League under Ashley. Now only the other day he was agreeing with OBG that it was a Sports Direct model and this was all obvious to him from the start of his reign-well no it clearly wasn’t as he changed his prediction about Ashley’s ambitions when Keegan was appointed. There’s nothing wrong with this per se (a shifting narrative where you constantly re-evaluate based on current information), in fact Chez does this and it stimulates good debate on here imho, but on the other hand if you’re Leazes and what you’re essentially doing is trying to claim some sort of clairvoyance it makes you look a tit- because what you claim you’ve always had some sort of intractable belief about is shown to be something that in reality you’ve also argued the complete opposite of at intervals. “Oh yes, I’ve always claimed he was doing this the Sports Direct way, and before anyone else might I add.....apart from the time when I thought he was going to beat our Champions League achievements to date. Can you just all ignore that bit please? Ta.” Classic cake-and-eat-it. Going back to what you said above, that’s the essence of his “I was right you were wrong” nightmare patter. It involves re-inventions of the past both in terms of what he’s said himself and what other people have said about a subject. What’s even more tragic is that nobody else is arsed, and yet he’s been genuinely obsessed with it for 4 or 5 years now. Have to admit I see it differently. The post from LM that keeps getting dragged up to me seems to be a potential admission of being wrong. ie it wouldnt read badly if it had started "well looks like I was wrong all along about Ashley...." yet people are pulling it out and using it as a "LM backed Ashley" type of post. tbh its exactly the same thing that LM does to the likes of yourself and Gemmill ie has a memory of a post or two from the past that show you to have one view and then uses that to say you were that way all along. I'm hardly claiming 'Leazes backed Ashley'! Come on! I'm saying that on his part, a long time ago now the whole thing has become this mad crusade about being proved right all along, for whatever reason that might be. Well it looks pretty obvious we're not going to be getting Champs League football again any time soon for several reasons that aren't going to change, so I think we all agree on that, what I'm saying is that's something we all have to come to terms with together, whatever the way forward is. Trying to set yourself apart as some sort of soothsayer though is something else altogether, when in fact you've made conflicting predictions based on information available at the time. What's the point...and worse, whats the point in pursuing that relentlessly for nearly 5 years? Stevie, fwiw touching on your point, it's pretty obvious Leazes is passionate about the club, but without getting all amateur shrink about it, I think a lot of the time he projects his own frustration with the club's lack of ambition onto other posters so that in his eyes they then essentially become 'apologists' etc. if they don't instantly just agree with him 100%. As you say, theres probably an awful lot of agreement, and even where there isn't agreement, even then it doesn't necessarily amount to disagreement, it's often only eg people saying that something is a matter of opinion/a hypothesis until it is a proven fact and you have to wait and see. But I think Leazes is inclined to interpret that as disagreement when it's not. Also there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking for realistic suggestions/discussions about how we compete at the highest level given the clubs natural resources (both real and potential), because surely that's where the debate is at at the moment. Again, that shouldn't be a dirty subject and people shouldn't have words put in their mouths just because they want the debate rooted in reality. That doesn't make them less ambitious. At the end of the day everything boils down to our ambition for the club.

Uproarious stuff and no mistake.

Leazes, that third line remark about solicitors employs a double negative.