Toonpack

Very rusty in midfield, understandable give the time it's been since Tiote/Cabaye have played together and they're swamping it with 5 men. 2 nowt up, can't complain.

It's loss making only up to the point that the losses can be covered, otherwise teams join the list. Which according to you is perfectly fine and dandy. On your question, whatever it was, no, you owe me, and others, dozens of answers, am done with your insanity. P.S. where'd the supermarket nonsense come from ??? (another question that'll just float idly by). why don't you post about football ? How do all these clubs come back from administration, do you think it amounted to more or less than being relegated to them ? What do you think is going to happen to Rangers, now they are suffering this administration you have been harping on about for fuck knows how long ? This is totally about football, look at the list, those clubs are patently all so much better off than they were. as we are, thankfully having not had to go via Admin. Thick as mince!!!! DOH!!! I answered another question, and yet again you didn't

It's loss making only up to the point that the losses can be covered, otherwise teams join the list. Which according to you is perfectly fine and dandy. On your question, whatever it was, no, you owe me, and others, dozens of answers, am done with your insanity. P.S. where'd the supermarket nonsense come from ??? (another question that'll just float idly by).

And for seasons to come probably

fuck off. You know my views, I've answered this before, he has published a huge list of clubs that have gone bust, and none of them are supermarkets yet, and he's ignored me hundreds of times, like others on here. He hasn't even read the book from which he has extracted his signature I've never asked that particular question before, that said you've never ever answered any question anyone has asked before, so I should have known better.

Doubt they will, I've never said any clubs do dissappear, I take it, in your opinion, administration is a good thing and perfectly acceptable ???? I take it, in your opinion, selling your best players and not backing the manager is a good thing ? Or is that too much footballing content for you, and above your intellect level ? Another question slopey shouldered Selling your best players is a fact of life for every club, if a suitor higher up the food chain comes in (or someone makes a stupid offer), a manager should be backed within the limits a club can afford. Which is what we do, as do all the succesfull clubs (not that we've ever been consistently succesfull since the 50's).

Nope, is yours Leazes' liver ???

As long as it's serviceable or rather manageable, it's not a problem. Hopefully the fair play rules will stop, or at least significantly curtail, the amount of debt. And of course if HMRC sort the football creditors rule, we'll see more apporpriate ramifications for mismanagement. so when are Rangers going to disappear ? Do you ever post anything about football ? Doubt they will, I've never said any clubs do dissappear, I take it, in your opinion, administration is a good thing and perfectly acceptable ????

As long as it's serviceable or rather manageable, it's not a problem. Hopefully the fair play rules will stop, or at least significantly curtail, the amount of debt. And of course if HMRC sort the football creditors rule, we'll see more apporpriate ramifications for mismanagement.

Are revenue and turnover not subtly different? Not in the UK: In business, revenue is income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, revenue is referred to as turnover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue

I doubt that tbh, IMO The Cisse money fitted into his financial model, no more, no less, i.e. we could afford it. That will be the story ongoing I reckon. Villa's debt is primarily with Lerner (£170 Mill purchase price and loans transferred into equity plus round about another £97Mill in further loans - as at 09/10). He charges about 15% of their turnover in interest. Which given their wages/turnover was sitting at circa 83% doesn't leave much. They will be belt tightening very soon.

Of course I know what zenith means you senile divvy, but I speed read your posts because they're generally so predictable and shit, only your support of Keegan was unpredictable, so much in the Ashley camp you are. Where have I posted anything in this thread which is "Ashley camp" ???? We were talking about Spurs and your fundamentally wrong assertion that they "speculated to accumulate". They don't and they are run 100% as a business as their cumulative profits over the years amply illustrates.

It was MugFool actually, although I am now somewhat tempted by McAmoebabrain but that would be an insult to single celled organisms

They've actually spent more than they earn. It's not the method, it's what you do with it, that,s why I said Spurs spent well, oh and probably the most important thing is striking it lucky with a manager Not sure if that's a joke. Lucky that they were a more attractive opportunity to Redknapp than we were? Fortunate to stumble on Jol where Ashley headhunted Kinnear? I was making a more general point, no matter how "sound" your plan, the managerial appointment has to pan out, maybe lucky was the wrong word. Many an appointment has bombed when it appeared the right thing, we got "lucky" twice with KK and SBR, hopefully we've struck it lucky again with Pardew. It ain't an exact science.

Take out the first Keegan tenure (which was our real zenith, steadily downhill since then) our average "finish" was 9.4th, that still good enough for 5th best ??? Mate you wouldn't say that in most pubs because people would hit you. Fuckin what an arsehole. C U N T Either a mackem or a cunt, 50/50 either way. Thick cunt doesn't know what zenith means ! Seriously, how was what I posted (and have said in pubs btw) remotely contentious

They've actually spent more than they earn. It's not the method, it's what you do with it, that,s why I said Spurs spent well, oh and probably the most important thing is striking it lucky with a manager

Spurs have never spent more than they earned, yet they've still managed, within that framework, to make that "what they earn" grow, so what they can spend in relation becomes greater, they do not ever break that rule (or haven't yet). You are wrong (not a suprise) - They have never speculated (gone out on a limb financially) to accumulate. That is a 100% fact. They have sold well (high) and bought well (cheaper), consistently. Exactly the same model as NUFC's current model, whether we can keep it consistent is another matter. This is about football you ignoramus. Look at the above you silly old cunt. Levy ran it like a football club of value, which is why their income has went up 250%, whereas Sugar ran it with little ambition and foresight, how is that difficult to understand? Your thickness knows no bounds. Yes Spurs have outperformed NUFC and yes their turnover has soared. BUT it’s been done on the back of ONLY spending what they made (or a wee bit less some years). They have earned some money and spent it well and as a result earned a bit more money spent that bit more money well, rinse and repeat. They have not EVER thought or done “Oooh things are going canny, let’s borrow £20 Million and see if we can get there faster”. It just has not happened. They have not as yet ever deviated from the model of only spending what they earn. That is obviously interpreted in Stevie world (because you’re thick) as: Oh look Spurs have made their turnover soar, they must have chucked ridiculous sums at the team to make that happen. So it must be a fact. It’s totally and irrefutably an incorrect premise but in Stevie-world (and maybe some particularly dense goldfish’s brain) it’s now a fact. Laughable

Spurs have never spent more than they earned, yet they've still managed, within that framework, to make that "what they earn" grow, so what they can spend in relation becomes greater, they do not ever break that rule (or haven't yet). You are wrong (not a suprise) - They have never speculated (gone out on a limb financially) to accumulate. That is a 100% fact. They have sold well (high) and bought well (cheaper), consistently. Exactly the same model as NUFC's current model, whether we can keep it consistent is another matter. This is about football you ignoramus.

Take out the first Keegan tenure (which was our real zenith, steadily downhill since then) our average "finish" was 9.4th, that still good enough for 5th best ???

Spot on that. Utter crap MugFool, as usual. Spurs are operating within their means and have done for years. They have been doing EXACTLY what we now appear to be doing, they however, have a multi-year headstart on us. To think or say different is pure ignorance.

Luke 4:23

Coward tbh

Ahh fair enough, if that's the case that does change it. Although if Rangers are disputing the figure and manage to get it down to less than 25% of the total debt, then that could all still happen could it not? Either way, Whyte is a crook. Oh aye, there'll be a dodge in there somewhere, I think the Whyte being a secured creditor thing was around the original loan, if the Ticketus cash went to Whyte and isn't secured on Ranger's books, could make the percentages game tricky. HMRC out for blood

Preservation of the Union, Rangers are the bastion of unionism, wouldn't do to piss them votes off.

Agreed, Rangers for starters and not before time.