Toonpack

How the fuck was that not handball by Reina, outside the box, spread himself and it shouldn't matter if it's ball to arm.

Terrible and shocking news RIP

Outstanding result, great spirit. Please don't let this easy start ever finish.

If there's a doubt over Colo, I'd leave him out anyway, take the obligatory defeat and save the fucker for Chelsea. Although I did originally fancy us to get something today (other than the obligatory defeat).

it isn't me who is stupid enough to think a minority shareholder runs the football club single handed. Meanwhile in the real world. Shareholding (without a seat on the board) is irrelevant to involvement in running anything, the Chairman/CEO and the board run the club (or any other business for that matter) with the chairman making, and being responsible for, day to day decisions and policy etc. Meanwhile, in the real world, what [about the 6th request, you're becoming as evasive as the grey man], what is your Re-assessment of Mike Ashley and his intentions for the club since September 1st, particularly in view of your recent post where you expressed the hope that he "builds on this" [words to that effect] ? Take your time Why should I type it out again ??? You patently can't read. We at last have a sustainable platform, and yes we will build upon it, may be slow, but we will build. Bookmark this if you wish.

it isn't me who is stupid enough to think a minority shareholder runs the football club single handed. Meanwhile in the real world. Shareholding (without a seat on the board) is irrelevant to involvement in running anything, the Chairman/CEO and the board run the club (or any other business for that matter) with the chairman making, and being responsible for, day to day decisions and policy etc. That was his original point though, Shepherd wasn't the chairman back then. The original point was about the demarcation between SJH and FS, see bolded bit. I meant Leazes' original point. And I didn't

it isn't me who is stupid enough to think a minority shareholder runs the football club single handed. Meanwhile in the real world. Shareholding (without a seat on the board) is irrelevant to involvement in running anything, the Chairman/CEO and the board run the club (or any other business for that matter) with the chairman making, and being responsible for, day to day decisions and policy etc. That was his original point though, Shepherd wasn't the chairman back then. The original point was about the demarcation between SJH and FS, see bolded bit.

it isn't me who is stupid enough to think a minority shareholder runs the football club single handed. Meanwhile in the real world. Shareholding (without a seat on the board) is irrelevant to involvement in running anything, the Chairman/CEO and the board run the club (or any other business for that matter) with the chairman making, and being responsible for, day to day decisions and policy etc.

Welcome to the mug-club

exactly Hhhmm agreeing with Leazes Don't worry about it, your argument/analogy was seriously flawed and utter bollocks, that's why he agreed, probably. Maybe the Greek PM should try a similar argument with the Eurozone And why don't you fuck off you smug unintelligent prick. Firstly try spotting a humerous tangent when you see one. Secondly when you spout off about analogys try not using ione about a country in the shit because no one paid their taxes. Fucking internet forums let any dozy prick on these days. So you didn't mean it then ??

exactly Hhhmm agreeing with Leazes Don't worry about it, your argument/analogy was seriously flawed and utter bollocks, that's why he agreed, probably. Maybe the Greek PM should try a similar argument with the Eurozone And why don't you fuck off you smug unintelligent prick. Spot on and so was your analogy. The bloke is a mug, and inside his heart he knows he is. Pish

Thats absolute rubbish statement and you know it is but as usual you attempt to back up your argument by not giving anything valid back and coming up some spurious statement. The amounts involved are irrelevant. A million pound to Ashley is probably the equivalent of a £100 to me so everything is relevant. At the end of the day the argument is that buying something "to have fun" (and its clearly not a tenuous statement Chez as it was in numerous interviews with Mort) should mean that you either pay up for that "fun". If you can't see the difference between a multi million pound business and a car, what's the point of explaining it in detail. It's laughable and not worthy of a longer response. As for my "banks comment", how is it any different. Many lower league clubs use the banks to "keep going" we use a billionaire, if we don't owe the billionaire, why shouldn't those clubs tell the banks to "stick it" ???? Especially given that a significant wedge of the "debt" was inherrited from existing bank lendings, so if not Ashley, it would have had to be paid back to the bank. I would also take issue with your "by not giving anything valid back and coming up some spurious statement" bit. I often research and post (sometimes lengthy) responses, which usually get ignored, particularly if they show up a previous argument as piffle. I am tired of doing it to be honest. I'll maybe stick with "pish" from now on a'la Stevie. It's his fault he bought a financial nightmare, it's not fair he wants his money back, boo hoo hoo, like a bunch of pathetic bairns at times.

But that is the problem you patently are not, you have absolutely no clue about how the successful clubs are successful. Which is simply illustrated by the fact that these so called successful clubs (outside of the mega-backed 2) run, and always have as far as I know, within the VERY operating model NUFC now has in place, that very model you disdian so much. Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and yes, even Man U. They all back their managers "within their means" and not above or beyond those means. That is a stone cold nailed down FACT. No other club in the league (bar maybe Everton) were, or are, run on the “bank cash only” top-up model, as we were. (Oh aye, and Portsmouth and Leeds, but we saw what happened there). Why can’t it work for NUFC, seriously ?? We are bigger than most, I would even suggest if Liverpool’s trophy famine continues we should even overtake them (and before you say it NO, we were never, and are not, considered bigger than them within the game). What could slow us down is the level and rapidity of Ashley’s debt recovery, but even with that we are set up better than most, simply because of our size. Even if he recoups quickly (which is fundamentally different to pocketting btw), why shouldn’t he, if he hadn’t put it in in the first place we’d have been knackered and there’s a case to be made for being really debt free “the sooner the better”. No doubt some will just say, oh well once he’s got his debt back he’ll cream the profits. Personally I don’t see it, the annual profits likely to be realised are casino money/pocket change to someone like him. He’s more likely to sell it, IMO. Alternatively he could really go for the SD publicity vehicle angle, but for that to really work NUFC would have to be succesfull over and above "run of the mill" premiership standard. Why?, because SD's stated target markets for expansion in the next 5 years are: Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece (and bizzarely Estonia, Slovenia and Finland) with continued growth in France, Belgium and Holland. Decent viewing and thus brand penetration in those countries will need European football competition exposure simply because of the strength of their established home leagues, exposure via a run of the mill Premiership club just won't cut it enough. On the odd occassions I've watched a game in a bar in Europe there's been bugger all locals in, it's always Brits. Either way we are set up for sustainable "success" what level that success will be, I dunno, maybe we'll even win things, but that part of the equation will come down to striking it lucky with a manager, as it always does, for everyone. selling your best players and pocketing the cash - is NOT the way to make progress in football. Next. Just as well we're not doing either of those things then, isn't it.

exactly Hhhmm agreeing with Leazes Don't worry about it, your argument/analogy was seriously flawed and utter bollocks, that's why he agreed, probably. Maybe the Greek PM should try a similar argument with the Eurozone And why exactly was KCGs analogy flawed, its a subject Ive tried to get my head round many a time and always end up coming back to the car analogy (never been as well put as KCG did though). Ashley bought a football club to have fun (in his words, even though this was bollocks and it was, in the words of John Hall, a vehicle for pushing SD) I buy a Ferrari (I fucking wish) to have fun. Ferrari costs me £3k per year in insurance, £2k in maintenance and £100 in petrol every time I take it to the shops. Do I expect Enzo to pick up that tab? do I fuck, its my car, I used the petrol so I'll fork out for it. If I then go out and drive the fucker into a wall the day after the insurance has ran out do I expect the owner of the wall to pay? nope I fucked up I bear the cost. Why should a football club be any different? Incomparable: Multi million pound business versus frippery Maybe all clubs should just tell the banks, "Hey, we don't owe you any money really" and stop repaying.

exactly Hhhmm agreeing with Leazes Don't worry about it, your argument/analogy was seriously flawed and utter bollocks, that's why he agreed, probably. Maybe the Greek PM should try a similar argument with the Eurozone

But that is the problem you patently are not, you have absolutely no clue about how the successful clubs are successful. Which is simply illustrated by the fact that these so called successful clubs (outside of the mega-backed 2) run, and always have as far as I know, within the VERY operating model NUFC now has in place, that very model you disdian so much. Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and yes, even Man U. They all back their managers "within their means" and not above or beyond those means. That is a stone cold nailed down FACT. No other club in the league (bar maybe Everton) were, or are, run on the “bank cash only” top-up model, as we were. (Oh aye, and Portsmouth and Leeds, but we saw what happened there). Why can’t it work for NUFC, seriously ?? We are bigger than most, I would even suggest if Liverpool’s trophy famine continues we should even overtake them (and before you say it NO, we were never, and are not, considered bigger than them within the game). What could slow us down is the level and rapidity of Ashley’s debt recovery, but even with that we are set up better than most, simply because of our size. Even if he recoups quickly (which is fundamentally different to pocketting btw), why shouldn’t he, if he hadn’t put it in in the first place we’d have been knackered and there’s a case to be made for being really debt free “the sooner the better”. No doubt some will just say, oh well once he’s got his debt back he’ll cream the profits. Personally I don’t see it, the annual profits likely to be realised are casino money/pocket change to someone like him. He’s more likely to sell it, IMO. Alternatively he could really go for the SD publicity vehicle angle, but for that to really work NUFC would have to be succesfull over and above "run of the mill" premiership standard. Why?, because SD's stated target markets for expansion in the next 5 years are: Spain, Germany, Italy, Greece (and bizzarely Estonia, Slovenia and Finland) with continued growth in France, Belgium and Holland. Decent viewing and thus brand penetration in those countries will need European football competition exposure simply because of the strength of their established home leagues, exposure via a run of the mill Premiership club just won't cut it enough. On the odd occassions I've watched a game in a bar in Europe there's been bugger all locals in, it's always Brits. Either way we are set up for sustainable "success" what level that success will be, I dunno, maybe we'll even win things, but that part of the equation will come down to striking it lucky with a manager, as it always does, for everyone.

If it's such a different game now, then a comparison is only really apt in terms of how they performed amongst their peers. Hall/Shepherd came into a game that was run by millionaires using bank loans secured on assetts. They played that game better than 99% of other owners. They also realised when that jig was up and were able to sell the club to an owner more suited to the modern game - billionaires who secure spending on their own wealth. Whatever the argument about the state of the finances at the time, the club was sold for much much more than they paid in '92 and for more than other clubs were selling, outside the very top. The club was in a much better position, and a much more attractive prospect than most. Compared to their peers, the previous owners outperformed the majority. Having got into the billionaires owners game with his eyes wide open, Mike Ashley hasn't....as yet. That's virtually all not true. Millionaires and bank loans, nope, the real competitive teams used their own revenue's to sustain them. Liverpool for example, their owners (the Moore's) never took dividend nor salary. The wannabe catcher upperers used bank finance. We shouldn't have needed to, such was our income (Capital projects - like the ground expansion excepted). The only suitor who actually stumped up the cash did not do due dilligence (the idiot). Other suitors did (the club spent £6 Million courting potential buyers in the 12 months prior) and they ran a mile, why? simply because we were anything but an attractive prospect. I accept that they did well and grew the profile of the club initially but it was thoroughly unsustainable, if it was all rosey, why'd they get out ??? We were built on a borrowed penny for the club a penny for the pocket, basis. SJH's tenure was the peak, Freddie's chairmanship was an inexorable decent, both on, and more dangerously, off the pitch. It's not about reduced expectations as a certain poster states, it's about realism and sustainability. The raised profile of the club was bought at a cost the club could not afford long term, if it could have afforded it, why did it never even break even. Coincidently, if we had been run on the Liverpool model, we would have had another £52 Million available to us. A sum of money roughly equal to the size of the debt (over and above the stadium expansion) when we were sold. I probably give the last ownership less credit than they deserve, however, the club was in no better health when sold the last time than it was the time before.

aye man burrits his club innit, he saved us so's he can dee wharee wants oh and the 500 billion hes promised uz will come in handy was it Toonpack who said that ? To be fair, others on skunkers say it too, not just NO. You thick fucker, no-one has said that, it was patently a Pud-ism Cue - You might not have said it,but that's what you meant, 5th best in the history of the universe etc etc I even know what Freddie is thinking, he says one thing, but I know he means the opposite (and he's right).

I can say. Say what? whether we will build on it or not. What do you think ? Thing is, Toonpack gave Mike Ashley until 1st September just past to "judge" his intentions, and despite wittering on since and effectively denying it, he hoped that the money for Carroll would be spent and ambition would be shown. Despite being told by myself and others that it would not happen. Now, with that comment, he is confirming he still holds out hope the owner will show ambition. Maybe he will now give Mike Ashley until September 1st 2017, I asked him this question recently and he didn't reply. Hopefully he will see my comment this time. No I haven't

I think less than 7th would be a great disappointment, from where we are. I believe we are "comfortably" the best of the rest, it's a good platform, whether we can (or will) build upon it who can say. I don't think Liverpool are any great shakes (lift themsleves for the "big" games but have looked pedestrian against the "rest" - when I've seen them anyway), Spurs are canny, but if Colo doesn't miss-kick, we'd likely have beaten them as well.

Aye that'd be right 2005 - £4.2 Million Profit 2006 - £1.6 Million Loss 2007 - £19.2 Million Profit 2008 - £1.0 Million Profit 2009 - £23.2 Million Profit 2010 - £6.6 Million Loss

Scammer scammed by a couple of Yankee friends of mine. They actually got some real gold off the scammer (10 grams - worth about $100). So I guess it really was a GOLD thread Long read but classic: http://www.scamorama.../pierpont1.html A sample from Pierpont Weaver (one of "the lads") to the scammer I am sorry that it has taken me so long to reply. Your original email was sent to my business account. I was on a moose hunting trip to central Iowa and of course there was no way for me check my email from that wilderness. I am pleased to say I bagged several of the viscous beasts with the loss of only two of my bearers (the moose hide quite effectively in the corn fields and pounce upon one with bared fangs).

In some ways that a positive (sort of), it's not like they ripped us to shreds, despite the gulf in quality and £££'s

Creditable performance against the gazillionaires. Onwards to OT

Would love it if we even got a point (sadly can't see it) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15795584 How can anyone compete with that