manc-mag

More fine work, HF.

I have a mate who hands out his business card. I only wish I was joking.

Glad you took it in the way it was intended as that was basically my point-theres nowt massively complicated about criminal law and as such anyone in the profession who tries to give the opposite impression is full of shit. Just being honest.

KSA should have a spot on the next Children in Need where he berates everyone in a certain income bracket for not donating. Just going at it for five minutes solid in Tagalog before handing back to an ashen faced Wogan. Enough of this touchy-feely warm Irish brogue shit.

You'd think I even mention it the way he goes on though. I never do because I couldn't give the first fuck about being a solicitor, anyone who's met me would tell you that. It's a job like any other. Gemmill gets the same stick for being an accountant and I know for a fact it's the last thing Scott's arsed about. He doesn't like teachers either like so we could be here all night with this list.

Hmm leazesmag proved to be talking shite and comtradicting himself yet again. I'm surprised man mag still and others still engage with him. There really is no point in biting. It's all lies, contradictions and putting words in others' mouths to support his tired old crusade. This place is way more fun with him ignore. Annoyingly, I still can't help but get drawn into it from time to time as ignore doesn't hide quotes I don't in terms of substantive debate anymore-haven't for a while now. It's only ever on ancillary points (eg highlighting flawed logic). That today was a irrefutable proof of his talking shite and contradicting himself though so fair game. So when he says that Ashley has always followed the sports direct model and he's always called it that way, what he means is apart from the time when he was confident Ashley was preparing a champions league push. You couldn't make it up to borrow from his shabby book of cliches. He'll literally just ignore that mind and 'have to go out' instead. In all seriousness, he's a shambles and should probably consider another period in the wilderness, like the last time he went off in the huff vowing never to return. He gets genuinely worked up on here so it might actually do him some good.

Some more evidence of my ego problems, obsession and general uncontrolled rage. Guess the author? Crying laughing here.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=430730 Leazes, can you read this? stop avoiding a reply to me man both now and when you KNOW you gave me flak for saying what you are now agreeing with. Look at the last post by PP too...... Desperate. So can you read it btw or not? I'm not going to argue with you, I can't be bothered and I have to go out soon. YOu should refresh your memory by looking back at what you posted in response to me 3-4 years ago. You seem to have plenty of time Have you read the post by PP in this thread yet ? As OBG also said, you don't half talk some shite. Get your head out of your arse and admit you have been wrong. Wahey!! Fuckin hell man, I'm genuinely embarrassed for you. Go on, run along then.

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=430730 Leazes, can you read this? stop avoiding a reply to me man both now and when you KNOW you gave me flak for saying what you are now agreeing with. Look at the last post by PP too...... Desperate. So can you read it btw or not?

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=430730 Leazes, can you read this?

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of you and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me. My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however. what exactly "do you know now" that you didn't know in January ? You don't half blabber on about a load of bollocks. Leazes, please look at Happy Face's post #138 and realise that you talk shite. Then decide whether you can stick around here with your head held high, because for me you are a complete shambles of a poster. This is exactly what I mean when I say 'cake-and-eat-it' time. mancmag, please stop congratulating yourself on calling Mike Ashley correctly, when I have been telling you for 4 years what you are now saying yourself [in a more long winded and egocentric way], despite you saying it has been for all this time, and still is, "shite". Laughable. ....and a likely Champions League qualifier too, well as long as you've got all your bases covered, eh? wtf are you blabbing on about now Very good question. Your words not mine, mate. What's with the bizarre post edit by the way (#124) so long afterwards? Leazes in absolute tatters here today.

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of you and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me. My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however. what exactly "do you know now" that you didn't know in January ? You don't half blabber on about a load of bollocks. Leazes, please look at Happy Face's post #138 and realise that you talk shite. Then decide whether you can stick around here with your head held high, because for me you are a complete shambles of a poster. This is exactly what I mean when I say 'cake-and-eat-it' time. mancmag, please stop congratulating yourself on calling Mike Ashley correctly, when I have been telling you for 4 years what you are now saying yourself [in a more long winded and egocentric way], despite you saying it has been for all this time, and still is, "shite". Laughable. ....and a likely Champions League qualifier too, well as long as you've got all your bases covered, eh?

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of you and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me. My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however. what exactly "do you know now" that you didn't know in January ? You don't half blabber on about a load of bollocks. Leazes, please look at Happy Face's post #138 and realise that you talk shite. Then decide whether you can stick around here with your head held high, because for me you are a complete shambles of a poster. This is exactly what I mean when I say 'cake-and-eat-it' time.

(Edited as had got hips' and HF's posts conflated as they posted in quick succession).

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of HF and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me. My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however.

Why did you not say owt then? http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=430730 Maybe not day 1, but year 1 eh? Holy fuck! Just leave, basically.

congratulations on finally starting to wake up to what I've been telling you for ages, courtesy of PP and an excellently-put post. His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1, comments from Mort and Allardyce told us everything, if you were awake and receptive to see through what they were driving at, which in Morts case were naive in the extreme, or were to people who had seen the club run like a 3rd rate football club previously anyway. How will he drive down the wage bill further ? By signing ever-inferior players, and "driving" down interest [and therefore gate receipts and commercial revenues etc] in the club still further perhaps ? This club is in decline, it has been in decline for a few years now, since Ashley bought it, and this decline could be about to accelerate. Not sure what you're getting at tbh. If you're talking about his intentions from day 1 I actually contradict what you're saying if you look at it (and what Pud said to a degree). I think his intentions changed when his buyer pool disappeared along with bank finance-that's when the budget model began. Of course he'll have always wanted a profit out of it ultimately (and from day 1), but then so has every owner we've ever had. Pud's main point about the wage cap is absolutely compelling if it continues to go the way he predicts. And as I said, I think the (what has to amount to a refusal, never mind failure) to buy a striker actually takes it outside of a football economics debate for the present because it inflicted a real injury on the team which had absolutely no basis in budgetary constraints. If somehow against all the apparent odds, we improve this season in terms of league finish then we once again get back into a business model debate though, like it or not. And I don't mean in the sense of us breaking into the top four, I just mean in terms of what we're about as a football club and what a club of our natural resources can expect to do in the present day. That goes back to the point on increased turnover incidentally, which Toonpack raised elsewhere. It will need the likes of you to start saying exactly where, how and how much extra turnover can be generated and where that allows you to aim for in this day and age. Not just 'raise turnover' because that won't do anymore. But as I say, for the moment we're speared all that because it's not appropriate. In the last window Ashley inflicted a wound on the team which was utterly independent of budgets and the result has to be we don't even dignify the debate with second guessing the economics for now. That only becomes a live issue again if there is continued improvement this season. load of wishy washy nothing comments avoiding the main issue, which is that you've been spouting bullshit for 4 years. Leazes, you're a clot so I can't agree with you, you appreciate that deep down. In one thread the other day you made a comment which essentially went: "Pardew came in and everything was fine, at some point he'll get disillusioned, and one day he'll leave/get fired. It was the same with Hughton" I honestly think you'll try and claim credit for this 'prediction' too one day, completely oblivious to the fact it is essentially the fate of 99.99% of professional managers since the dawn of time. As if anyone believes Pardew won't be leaving one day. Jesus wept

congratulations on finally starting to wake up to what I've been telling you for ages, courtesy of PP and an excellently-put post. His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1, comments from Mort and Allardyce told us everything, if you were awake and receptive to see through what they were driving at, which in Morts case were naive in the extreme, or were to people who had seen the club run like a 3rd rate football club previously anyway. How will he drive down the wage bill further ? By signing ever-inferior players, and "driving" down interest [and therefore gate receipts and commercial revenues etc] in the club still further perhaps ? This club is in decline, it has been in decline for a few years now, since Ashley bought it, and this decline could be about to accelerate. Not sure what you're getting at tbh. If you're talking about his intentions from day 1 I actually contradict what you're saying if you look at it (and what Pud said to a degree). I think his intentions changed when his buyer pool disappeared along with bank finance-that's when the budget model began. Of course he'll have always wanted a profit out of it ultimately (and from day 1), but then so has every owner we've ever had. Pud's main point about the wage cap is absolutely compelling if it continues to go the way he predicts. And as I said, I think the (what has to amount to a refusal, never mind failure) to buy a striker actually takes it outside of a football economics debate for the present because it inflicted a real injury on the team which had absolutely no basis in budgetary constraints. If somehow against all the apparent odds, we improve this season in terms of league finish then we once again get back into a business model debate though, like it or not. And I don't mean in the sense of us breaking into the top four, I just mean in terms of what we're about as a football club and what a club of our natural resources can expect to do in the present day. That goes back to the point on increased turnover incidentally, which Toonpack raised elsewhere. It will need the likes of you to start saying exactly where, how and how much extra turnover can be generated and where that allows you to aim for in this day and age. Not just 'raise turnover' because that won't do anymore. But as I say, for the moment we're speared all that because it's not appropriate. In the last window Ashley inflicted a wound on the team which was utterly independent of budgets and the result has to be we don't even dignify the debate with second guessing the economics for now. That only becomes a live issue again if there is continued improvement this season.

The black boy shorts seem a bit racist.

Would be nice to see Barton blow up in this one on his home debut and get sent off. Or better still, not blow up and get sent off unjustly. Transfer window's closed without any real business and the (minor in our case) incentive to play for your place has now disappeared. QPR on the other hand have new recruits who will be fired up and the established players will be looking over their shoulders. Should be a win for us but I think it'll end a draw.

Nicely defused, Deadman. Thought you must've been looking to spark mayhem for a second.

FINGER ON THE PULSE!!!!

Culpability Brown tbh.

To an extent you're right which is backed up by my thread about match by match positions however on attendances I think its fair to say that the averages are ok to use regardless of number of gates. Just to be sure though lets look at the gates for the two games weve played so far: Arsenal 06/07 - 52,293 Arsenal 11/12 - 46,894 Difference - 5399 Fulham 06/07 - 50,365 Fulham 11/12 - 42,684 Difference - 7681 Average loss since 06/07 = 6540 Unfortunately that way is too unreliable and my year average is better. eg in 06/07 Blackburn 51,000 last year Blackburn 41,000 That would imply a 10,000 drop yet the yearly average still worked out at only 3,00. No it’s not. Your method assumes things aren’t getting worse, that an attendance ten months* ago reflects where we are now. * Before we sold Carroll, before we were misled about the money being reinvested, before the LC was closed, before the name of the club was removed from the east stand, before non members were banned from buying tickets for away games, before ST holders were forced to pay extra for a membership they didn’t want, before we sold Nolan, Enrique and Barton, before we spent £1m in the close season strengthening the squad etc etc Worse things happened in 2008 and the average only went to 47,000 last year. They are going to drop this year though unless Pardew can work miracles. The best gauge of current supporter apathy is home cup games. If we get one let’s see how many turn up. True, although at the same time massively difficult to do comparisons on for several reasons. Not that I'm disputing your basic standpoint - gates are down and I agree they will continue to diminish this season (unless on field results massively exceed expectations)

To an extent you're right which is backed up by my thread about match by match positions however on attendances I think its fair to say that the averages are ok to use regardless of number of gates. Just to be sure though lets look at the gates for the two games weve played so far: Arsenal 06/07 - 52,293 Arsenal 11/12 - 46,894 Difference - 5399 Fulham 06/07 - 50,365 Fulham 11/12 - 42,684 Difference - 7681 Average loss since 06/07 = 6540 Unfortunately that way is too unreliable and my year average is better. eg in 06/07 Blackburn 51,000 last year Blackburn 41,000 That would imply a 10,000 drop yet the yearly average still worked out at only 3,00. No it’s not. Your method assumes things aren’t getting worse, that an attendance ten months* ago reflects where we are now. * Before we sold Carroll, before we were misled about the money being reinvested, before the LC was closed, before the name of the club was removed from the east stand, before non members were banned from buying tickets for away games, before ST holders were forced to pay extra for a membership they didn’t want, before we sold Nolan, Enrique and Barton, before we spent £1m in the close season strengthening the squad etc etc To be fair CT, when measuring how happy people are now compared to them, it's wrong to downplay the evidence of diminishing crowds as they are the only real irrefutable fact that's available for consideration. And as YNH says, it's probably a continuing downward trend for the reasons he's set out above. For balance however (and this is complete speculation) I'd imagine the crowds would have started to deplete a bit if we'd continued on the same direction we were headed under the guys who sold to Ashley as all that had started to get a bit desperate too.