Toonpack

PR? Ashley couldn't even spell it As to the Bonus, are we sure that its not some dodgy reporting by the media and by beating West Brom we end up higher in the table, equating to the extra 500k pay out? It's evidently £800K a place. Love how even something "good" is spun as pure evil

Half Mill Bonus for club staff, with a catch Expect the players to have to run a guantlet of cleaners and their mops if they loose, it'd make canny viewing though and it'd wouldn't be without merit from a motivational point of view.

Not keeping Enrique shows primarily, players and their agents are in control and as such you shouldn't let players get down to the last year of their contract.

Footballer in last year of contract holds all the cards, one chance in 100 he stays IMO Why can we not compete with those 2 clubs? Top 4 obvs as they'll have CL money but Spurs and Dippers? Have'nt we just picked up £35m? Lowering of expectations etc........................ Erm, because within the game, they are perceived as bigger than us. (righlty or wrongly, but its a fact).

Pardew in the Völkischer Beobachter, erm I mean Daily Mail Footballer in last year of contract holds all the cards, one chance in 100 he stays IMO

I've said on numerous occasions that the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance a change of direction was needed [same as after Gullit and Dalglish]. The point is, the new owner, "hasn't done better" has he ? There is NO excuse for NUFC becoming a selling club again, selling our best players above the managers head and not backing him with the cash, and settling for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn. I would like an oil Sheikh or a Russian mega billionaire just like anybody else, but the new owner has not done better, and these people ALL said that anybody would do better. They wanted someone who would stop buying trophy players, stay out of the limelight, stop renting warehouses, taking small change dividends etc, but thought the ambition was automatic . My point was ALWAYS that the ambition was NOT automatic, so the next owner was not guaranteed to be better at all. And since he took over, we have been relegated, we set our sights lower, the profle and appeal of the club has gone down and accordingly revenues against our competitors, our best players look elsewhere to fulfill career ambitions. If THAT is better, and not a decline, what would they call a decline ? NJS is actually endorsing the fact that we shouldn't have spent more than 12.7m quid on transfers in over a decade, and shouldn't have expanded the stadium - or if he agrees with it, seems to think we should have done it without taking out a loan ? Does he think we should have saved the money up first ? It's mind boggling, and blind hatred gone mad. Maybe they HAD taken us as far as they could, but no way in the world would we have been relegated and settled for competing at the levels we do now. My point is that - during their time - they reached levels which may not be matched for decades, yes. As I've also said, comparing it to the era now, is like saying Jackie Milburn wouldn't be as good as current players because he played with a heavier ball and heavier boots. You can only compete with the situation and competitors at the time. The new owner is not "better", despite the assertions that "anybody" would be. No he didn't ,and now you are stating it as fact.

Any chance of you posting something when you have something to say ??? I often post "things I have to say" backed up with facts, you post drivel, maybe you should let your carer do your typing for you.

How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you. Was almost identical till 2005, look again chump regardless of CL money's. You're confusing yourself with your post here, and made your original reply to me thinking I want to say something, but I don't really know what to say. It shines through you in your reply. Just agree with me or pipe down. Any chance of repeating that in English ???

How do you work that one out ?? We were considerably wealthier than them from 95-2005 if you'd care to do some research in terms of turnover. We were even wealthier than Liverpool in some seasons who were a global force once upon a time. Do you not understand what the term "continued on the same trajectory" means? Surely you do, unless you're just a dense cunt with nothing to say. Revenue is all well and good, but if it's all (and more) going out the other end of the pipe, it means nowt. We matched Liverpools turnover early doors when we had Champs League cash and they didn't, since then it's not even close. They also made profits we lost money. Spurs brought in less than us but correspondingly paid less out. You think our "trajectory" was ascending do you.

How do you work that one out ??

I went to the last one, but left without saying hello, the old fella in the corner muttering and waving a packet of bacon at everyone was a tad disconcerting.

That's a bit harsh, even they've realised even they needed more cash to remain competitive and at least the sponsor is a non profit organisation.

Our highest ever profit was in 2003 of £4.3 Million Since 1998 (can't find further back) we've made profit in aggregate of £12.7 Million, in the same time the total losses aggregate at £143.2 Million.

I dunno, but I suppose no noose is good noose

True enough, it's just I can't help myself taking issue with the incessant portrayal that the club as akin to a world of permanent sunshine, sweet smelling flowers, butterflies and unicorns then overnight the landscape became the worst of the industrial revolution.

Aye I know, even if all I can see is a red cross. (Properties is usefull though). It's like a bad itch, cannit help meself.

Stupid fat cockney wanker, eroding the club revenues We should be putting our prices up higher than Liverpool do (and Spurs) as we used to.

But you're not "right", because the thing you incessantly miss, is, the points you make in that statement were equally true in the latter years of the previous regime and we would never have matched the European qualifications of the Robson/Keegan era's under the continued stewardship of Halls/Shepherd either. Why, because of the simple fact that neither the Halls nor Shepherd were rich enough to subsidise the club to be able to compete in the changed landscape of the modern game. (even if they wanted to). The game has constantly changed, for example, if the game had been the same in the Robson era as it was under Keegan, we wouldn't have seen CL football under SBR either, because 3rd and 4th wouldn't have been enough. Basically our "golden period" was pre 97 we've been falling behind ever since.

Yet, MWNN who you hold up as a the paragon of all Skunkers because he does agree with you, doesn't go to games anymore. BTW You're not agreed with, because you are WRONG. Simple really.

Despite all that I've said and posted on and on and on, you can't get it into your head that I have little like for Ashley can you. It's not a hard thing to comprehend, even for someone who's not that bright.

and now they realise I was right apart from you and TN that is... Just for the record, I don't.

Halkaline jews are the exact opposite

I think I've said before that in my darker moments I think losing a third of the human race (or more) might actually be good from a big picture angle - the only thing that would do that is something as big as a meteor/comet strike. Muslims? Boils down to a probable 3 choices in general terms: The "Third world" - most of Africa and maybe bits of South America and Asia. All religious fucktards of any and all types. Chinese + Indians - no prejudice really - just to keep it sort of neat (probably add the Yanks into that group just for a laugh) While were offending people, don't forget the gays and maybe the western underclasses.

Was just thinking about this on Sunday when I was down the Dene with the dog early morning. Spent hours down there as a kid with binoculars, both watching birds and pilfering their eggs. Still enjoy watching birds to this day. My 70's mirror-lense Foster Grant's were always handy for a bit of surreptitious summer "bird watching"

How long do you have to watch to be considered a viewer ??? I usually watch from the start through the first corner to see who's won.