manc-mag

Ok Mr Logic for the final time; FCB has not "spunked money" on players for NUFC, nor has he departed from his normal business ethic of buy em cheap and sell them on for a profit. He is currently looking at over £40M of profit on transfers since he took over. Fuck knows why you find this hard to understand. Nah, either quote my post (No. 758) and contradict it or stop giving it big licks you halfwit. You're not funny enough to be doing the diversion stuff posting daft pictures btw.

You can answer the question for him if you like, it doesn't require personal knowledge, just a logical thought process. I won't hold my breath like obviously.

nah.

Fucking shambles the pair of them. I'm not even going to bother responding to Leazes like; not worth the powder and shot these days.

Ollie, tell me which part of my post was in error please. Where you stated that: I then made the limited point that in fact it was precisely with NUFC that he had shown a departure from his 'normal business ethic'. I stated there were periods where (on transfers) he had spent more than he had taken in. You then explicitly agreed with this statement . At no stage did I say he had done that since or was doing it now. The maths on that are patently obvious. In fact I specifically made the point that I wasn't saying he'd record a net spend again "That isn't to say he'll do it that way again necessarily" I simply, quite correctly, qualified your initial point. Read the thing sequentially and look at exactly what I'm saying. Leazes is actually incapable of making any sense so try not to spunk yourself about having him as a cheerleader. Identify exactly what you think I said which was incorrect or STFU. Ta.

6 months for that is gash even by your standards you absolute shambles of a person.

On a serious note, reckon it's worth ventilating in front of any (non-North East) journalists? Just by way of an open question via email.. sure they'd have forensic financial types they could run it by just to see if they think it smells off. I'd like to hear an experts view on the question. There may be an explanation but when i asked Swiss Rambler he said 'You're right that the value of the loan in St James Holdings Ltd is the same as the price paid for the club, but this in itself does not tell us how the loan was funded.' and then didnt answer my follow up questions. Happy for the post to be linked to any journos people know well enough to get them to look at it. Even if its just to rule out the idea. Have stuck it the way of Brian McNally & Simon Bird. Attach a photo of KSA's doctored Ben Arfa pic so they've got a picture of the whistleblower to publish when this shit goes national.

On a serious note, reckon it's worth ventilating in front of any (non-North East) journalists? Just by way of an open question via email.. sure they'd have forensic financial types they could run it by just to see if they think it smells off. North East correspondents of nationals would be a decent starting point. I used to know Simon Bird as it happens [/namedrop] Yeah sorry, better suggestion. I'd just meant the ones that aren't on the payroll at SJP.

PS if you're right then Parky may have to resign from the forum.

On a serious note, reckon it's worth ventilating in front of any (non-North East) journalists? Just by way of an open question via email.. sure they'd have forensic financial types they could run it by just to see if they think it smells off.

If this is true then what I want to know is where was Parky's conspiracy theory. Surely couldn't have happened on his watch?

*applauds*

aye...and in a nutshell why it's absolutely pointless 'debating' with him.

good summing up. In other words, using the club to buy cheap, and sell on. A selling club. Thing is its Ashley's business ethic, just look at how he runs Sports Direct. Buy cheap and flog it on for a profit, why oh why some people here think he will run NUFC any differently from his other business's beats the shit out of me. Thing is he already has done it differently. When he first came in he spunked money on players as well as the next playboy owner. That isn't to say he'll do it that way again necessarily, but your point is contradictory in that NUFC has already been shown to be the very enterprise in which he has departed from his 'normal business ethic'. Hmm don't think so bonny lad. In Summer 2007 FCB had a net spend of around £8/9M but has spent fuck all in any transfer window since and his transfer dealings show a net profit of over £40m. How that equates to "spunking money on players" defeats me. Transfer profits are fine as long as they do not weaken the team, well the Fat Cunt has certainly done that this year. Or do you think Demba "Dodgy Knee" Ba is better than Andy Carroll? I notice we have now seemingly pulled out of signing another new striker so FCB obviously thinks he has spent enough this window. So much for the Bullshit from Parsnip and Lambs arse. Amazing that some people actually believe it. exactly. Can't help but laugh at phrases like "spunking money" when we were playing regularly in europe and raising the revenue ie 14th biggest in football, to justify it. Mike Ashley's alternative obviously reaps better rewards, in the eyes of some fools anyway. Interestingly (and you'll forgive me for this but I am a stickler for logic), if you use net transfer profit as evidence of him 'pocketing the cash', then a net transfer spend has to be evidence of the opposite approach. Which is basically all I was saying. I'm already well aware you fail to follow logical thought processes in even their most basic expression though, so we'll just leave that one there. Ok then Mr Logic explain to me how making over £40 Million profit in transfer sales equates to a net Transfer spend. The clue is in the word "Profit"; there is no net Transfer spend. If you need me to put that in even simpler terms then you are indeed a truly thick fuck it would appear that "Mr Logic" is indeed a truly thick fuck I literally don't expect your brain to be functioning after reading that far Leazes so I'll just ignore whatever point you're trying to make. Nothing presented in that transaction contradicts the point I was making. It's just an obsession basically at the risk re-stating the obvious.

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. looking through old posts, I found this. Is this far enough into the future now Sammy, because to me it has been as clear as daylight for years. Nice one Leazes, now please tell me which part of what I'm quoted as saying above was contradicted by yesterday's events. You've waited 6 months before producing this 'pearl' so presumably you're ready with your answer. Read it through carefully first though as I wouldn't want you to look daft.

It's why I stopped going to the match. Two words: riff raff. That and they confiscated your horse whip.

Scott's the poshest bloke I've ever met in all seriousness, and I've met Brian Sewell.

When you said you 'went out last night', did you mean in your bare feet by any chance?

3 years???! Ouch again!!

Just pulling your chain! It wouldn't surprise me if that's true btw, I just don't think it'll excuse us not getting a striker in this window. 'Getting your man eventually' is fair enough when there's a genuinely important individual target out there but not when there's a gaping hole to fill in the meantime. Should Pardoo even hint at that if we sign a striker in January he'll want to be publically flogged with volleys of shit. (Not saying you'd be trying to claim it as some sort of deferred success, just to clarify)

Highlighting that requesting a ban deserves a ban is also a bannable offence. As is pointing that out. Tecato was merely seeking clarification of the rule, however as one would expect, that is also a bannable offence.

Right, you're on a warning now, Chez.

Especially when the window officially closed at 11. He's got skysports news+1

If we had signed Cisse or Maiga i think there would be a strong case for that. Unfortunately given as the one player missing is the most important overall, its a case of close but no cigar. In all honesty, I would question the word 'close' in that sentence. Santon I'm really pleased with don't get me wrong but the main striker berth wasn't just something you can have an 11th hour punt at, if indeed we did actually do that at all. In the context of the position being vacant since last January I mean.

CT turning to insults. Think this might signal a tipping point tbh.