NJS

Didn't see the programme but I think I've said before that after spending 5 days watching my Mam die (though she went quietly compared to those above) I'm a big proponent of the option. My Mam had a DNR order on her anyway and was being sedated with morphine so I just thought of it as a final line via the push of a dosage button. My sister who was also there felt the same and we promised each other that if it came down to the same situation with either of us then the other would try and do the right thing as we see it if possible.

Not yet they don't. Historically they have not, January they didn't, but by 1st September we'll see what they're up to but they do have a long list of players they'll likely ship out yet. The January numbers "add-up" due to Torres/Babel but this window will tell us whether the new owner is going SOB. Of course I expect some of the Benitez/Hodson deadwood will be shipped out as well. so headlines about spending say 50m will need to be netted.

I think now we have a few clubs like Stoke and Bolton where "fans" are living their dream by just owning the clubs without regard to any desire to make money as such which could be argued was the intention of people like Shiniwatra(?) at Man City or the various Pompey shady owners who thought buying and selling clubs would be a "market". Maybe that was Ashley's original idea but I've never had a strong idea of what he ever intended. I agree its unlikely that they (Bolton etc) will chuck more money in but there's always the spectre of them underwriting wages for someone like Barton or Nolan. What I dread is clubs like ours embracing the UEFA rules with the idea of fairness but the usual suspects refusing to play ball.

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course). That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means. Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up. But if the that turnover includes a higher percentage of wages then there's still less "spare" cash for transfers which is how we operated in the past. It's the rise from a wages/turnover ration of 46% (I remember seeing quoted) to 86% that really fucked us imo. There's also a lion/antelope analogy where if the people who own QPR or Bolton wake up today and decide to spend £100m then you could say we "should" spend £120m to keep ahead then of course there's nothing to stop them chucking another £50m into the mix. That's why I think the turnover argument is almost pointless.

The difference is that in the past if a club wanted to speculate to accumulate they could do it via credit. As that's now no longer a possibility in general the only way is for personal investment. Ashley won't do it to a great degree beyond a modest amount which is a pisser if other owners do do that- and that could include "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" unfortunately.

no point in reading the rest of that. Learn to read english fuckwit - the next word is "because". Do you think it makes you "clever" or right" to post such pointless shite? You're alienating every poster on here exactlly as you did on N-O. I hope the result is the same.

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ?? As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008. this is becoming more and more like the crap posted on Newcastle Online. Do people like you buy scarves, and wave them at games, to celebrate making profits ? I take it we'll never see "8th richest club in the world" in a post of yours again then.

I never thought we did well between 94 and 05 because we spent daft money - there were other clubs throughout that time who spent a lot as well. We did well because we had two managers who on the whole spent well and translated that money into good teams. We did poorly at the end because the money was spent badly by poor managers. Spending money for its own sake is usually a waste of time as those stats tend to suggest. I know the jury is out on Liverpool but I think they did well in Jamuary but Henderson is overpriced - I suppose the overall result depends on the net effect.

This is the crux for me and shows we were/are fucked either way - a model which was great in its day but was imo doomed versus a "cautious" new owner. I still don't understand in the context of the debt/financial breakdown how his alleged willingmess to take £80-100m "all in" in 2009 fits in though - I guess we'll never know now.

I fell into some completely unmarked roadworks in Sofia - luckily only 3 or 4 feet deep and just earth at the bottom.

First time we went to Barcelona I was informed the next day I'd taken part in a full on YMCA singalong with actions which is so not me its unreal so I completely denied it until my bastard mates produced photo evidence - it was the vodka and cokes in half pint glasses where the coke was like a dash of milk in coffee that did it. I also once went arse over tit down the escalator at central metro (when we beat Everton in 96/96 and I'd convinced myself the league was ours) and just got up and continued on my merry way - had a vaguely sore left wrist for a couple of weeks but apart from that was unscathed - absolute miracle.

Whats that about? Him having his stomach pumped and the contents being "pints" of semen. (Soz but you asked )

He's not the only one tbh I'm not ruining anything, the likes of Gloomy have got what they wanted, they should stop moaning. Your most odious argument in a nutshell - the idea that people "deserve" the current situation somehow.

I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. and when it isn't ? The we're screwed which I've never pretended we weren't. You seem to think Ashley isn't spending the club's money which isn't the case - he isn't spending his money. Really ??? I meant in terms of a speculative transfer budget beyond the Carroll money we'd like to see not in terms of day to day running costs.

I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget. and when it isn't ? The we're screwed which I've never pretended we weren't. You seem to think Ashley isn't spending the club's money which isn't the case - he isn't spending his money.

I said before that that shouldn't be used as a cover-up for lack of any other summer spending - without arguing about the whys and wherefores of the actual sale again, the money should have been seen as a "bonus" to be added to an existing budget.

In terms of base level transfer policy, you could argue the Mackems have spent more than Liverpool over the last 3 or 4 years - obviously with no reward - which shows that raw money is useless without the management to go with it. Both Liverpool's and Sunderland's recent transfers have been funded from outside of turnover as opposed to us in the majority of the Hall years - not saying you're wrong in terms of ambition etc but again that shows the changing face of football. Our problem being Ashley won't mirror other owners. what you are saying, actually only adds further weight to the correct view [ie the one Liverpool have] that spending money on essentially more average players, in the mistaken belief that "financial prudency is the way forward" gets you nowhere. Which only further again amplifies why you should keep the best ones you already have and show them the ambitious football club so they want to keep playing for you. I agree with your speculate to accumulate view but the money has to come from somewhere - unfortunately Ashley won't do this which I think is his biggest failing. We simply don't (and never did) have the money to spend as much as they are spending simply based on turnover. Shearer was pretty much a one-off and even then I understand the fee was split into 2 annual payments which would have just been okay at a rough guess. To improve our squad as much as you and I both want would take a lot of money - more than what Liverpool need as they already have a decent squad which combined with the fact that they do have a willing owener now, does mean your view that we should be competing with them is unrealistic. To clarify - I agree with you we should be competing with them but just think we can't afford it at present with Ashley.

In terms of base level transfer policy, you could argue the Mackems have spent more than Liverpool over the last 3 or 4 years - obviously with no reward - which shows that raw money is useless without the management to go with it. Both Liverpool's and Sunderland's recent transfers have been funded from outside of turnover as opposed to us in the majority of the Hall years - not saying you're wrong in terms of ambition etc but again that shows the changing face of football. Our problem being Ashley won't mirror other owners.

Good excuse to have a campaign to teach fans the proper words (verse + chorus).

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example. I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view. It makes no sense to dilute the ability of the squad with four average players (inc N'gog). Your basically cementing your place as a mid table team. What people quickly forget is wages. Henderson be on 20k max (1m a year), whereas these four average players will want a wage hike to move (30k x 2 and 40k x 2 is 7.3m a year). When you take this into account these average players simply arent worth it. Buy cheap, buy twice. Unless you think Henderson will never be beyond average and think they've "conned" Liverpool to get so much. Fair point on wages though.

I think you're dismissing practicalities a bit there LM - those 3 players over the next 2 or 3 years could make more of a difference to them and arguments about ambition aside, horse trading and mixing things up has always been part of football no matter who you are - think KK "swapping" Cole for Ferdinand as a good example. I don't think Henderson is destined to be a mega star which he would have to be imo to support your view.

I don't know the history but I've always found it strange that they ever put up with the draft and caps both of which are very anti-capitalist. The game was getting stale, since the cap and the "level playing field" the game although always popular has seen revenue explode. The "big market" owners don't like it but every year every team has a chance. Very anti-capitalist but a brilliant model for competition. I suppose trying to impose it on football would mean destroying the club academy system and putting all the emphasis on schools. There would also be an age problem doing that (I think) as footballers are ready earlier than NFL players.

I don't know the history but I've always found it strange that they ever put up with the draft and caps both of which are very anti-capitalist.

Strange that he attacks the "big society" when most people (probably including Cameron) expect religious groups to embrace it.

I'm a serial swearer but never (unless by mistake) use the c word in womens' company. I do make the effort to tone down a bit as well but not as deliberately as for the above.