LeazesMag 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 The best run club in the PL imho is Aston Villa...thing is with them they are pretty much at their full potential in terms of size. Everton are pretty well run and maybe have more scope for growth. Spurs *SPIT* seem to be ran well but like Villa are pretty much at full potential. The clubs are what we should be trying to base ourselves on in terms of what they have done...slow steady growth, growth that is solid, secure and can be sustained. The difference with us and them clubs is we are already a bigger club and quite possibly have alot more potential. We are the 2nd biggest club in the country in my opinion....yes Liverpool, Arsenal and Forest have more history but in terms of size, support and potential only ManUre are bigger. Which makes it all the more frustrating that we are where we are. How the mighty have fallen...but we will rise again! that is right [apart from Forest, where did you dig that from !!!!!] Some people say "big" means "winning things" but I think they are talking about the difference between "big" and "successful" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 It's this 'have to go into debt to achieve things' which baffles me. Let's assume that we 'need debt to achieve 'success' i.e. continous top four and CL football. By definition, that therefore means that withought debt we are what, a mid-table club? With our fan base, surely we must be a mid-table club without debt?? So why are Chelsea unable to rid themselves of their debt? They are winning championships, playing continuous CL football, winning cups, based in London which, I imagine, their ticket reflects, continuous tv money, hoards of advertising revenue, country and world wide merchandising. Yet they still CANNOT rid themselves of the debt. How the fuck could we even begin to believe that 'must go into debt to achieve success' would be anything other than financial crisis for this club? Surely it's an imossible dream to assume that any 'success' we had could pay off the initial debt incurred to get there in the first place. That's what I can't understand. This comment of 'must go into debt to achieve success' is absolutely fraught with danger. This is because the going into debt to pay transfer fees and wages of the top class players is no guarantee of success in the first place; it's a complete gamble, that even if does work - in the context of getting the club to the top four - is bound to fail, due to the reasons I've given above regarding Chelsea. Getting to the top four doesn't end there. A team need continual evolvement in order to stay there, which means continual top whack prices, which means no debt repayment. Are we ultimately a mid-table club, and should we act accordingly???? no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. I don't think you are on of the idealogical numpties I've just mentioned by the way. Said as though you imagine you leave people sat slumped at their comps, crushed at your words of censure. The sword of amnesia in one hand and the soft-cock of senility in the other. Be careful how you wield such devastating power! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 It's this 'have to go into debt to achieve things' which baffles me. Let's assume that we 'need debt to achieve 'success' i.e. continous top four and CL football. By definition, that therefore means that withought debt we are what, a mid-table club? With our fan base, surely we must be a mid-table club without debt?? So why are Chelsea unable to rid themselves of their debt? They are winning championships, playing continuous CL football, winning cups, based in London which, I imagine, their ticket reflects, continuous tv money, hoards of advertising revenue, country and world wide merchandising. Yet they still CANNOT rid themselves of the debt. How the fuck could we even begin to believe that 'must go into debt to achieve success' would be anything other than financial crisis for this club? Surely it's an imossible dream to assume that any 'success' we had could pay off the initial debt incurred to get there in the first place. That's what I can't understand. This comment of 'must go into debt to achieve success' is absolutely fraught with danger. This is because the going into debt to pay transfer fees and wages of the top class players is no guarantee of success in the first place; it's a complete gamble, that even if does work - in the context of getting the club to the top four - is bound to fail, due to the reasons I've given above regarding Chelsea. Getting to the top four doesn't end there. A team need continual evolvement in order to stay there, which means continual top whack prices, which means no debt repayment. Are we ultimately a mid-table club, and should we act accordingly???? no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. I don't think you are on of the idealogical numpties I've just mentioned by the way. Said as though you imagine you leave people sat slumped at their comps, crushed at your words of censure. The sword of amnesia in one hand and the soft-cock of senility in the other. Be careful how you wield such devastating power! blimey, you took the words right out of my mouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 It's this 'have to go into debt to achieve things' which baffles me. Let's assume that we 'need debt to achieve 'success' i.e. continous top four and CL football. By definition, that therefore means that withought debt we are what, a mid-table club? With our fan base, surely we must be a mid-table club without debt?? So why are Chelsea unable to rid themselves of their debt? They are winning championships, playing continuous CL football, winning cups, based in London which, I imagine, their ticket reflects, continuous tv money, hoards of advertising revenue, country and world wide merchandising. Yet they still CANNOT rid themselves of the debt. How the fuck could we even begin to believe that 'must go into debt to achieve success' would be anything other than financial crisis for this club? Surely it's an imossible dream to assume that any 'success' we had could pay off the initial debt incurred to get there in the first place. That's what I can't understand. This comment of 'must go into debt to achieve success' is absolutely fraught with danger. This is because the going into debt to pay transfer fees and wages of the top class players is no guarantee of success in the first place; it's a complete gamble, that even if does work - in the context of getting the club to the top four - is bound to fail, due to the reasons I've given above regarding Chelsea. Getting to the top four doesn't end there. A team need continual evolvement in order to stay there, which means continual top whack prices, which means no debt repayment. Are we ultimately a mid-table club, and should we act accordingly???? no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. I don't think you are on of the idealogical numpties I've just mentioned by the way. Said as though you imagine you leave people sat slumped at their comps, crushed at your words of censure. The sword of amnesia in one hand and the soft-cock of senility in the other. Be careful how you wield such devastating power! blimey, you took the words right out of my mouth Had to shoehorn them past your foot tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26544 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 The best run club in the PL imho is Aston Villa...thing is with them they are pretty much at their full potential in terms of size. The same Villa who are due to post another sizeable financial loss for the last financial year with an owner who is charging them interest on his loans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 The best run club in the PL imho is Aston Villa...thing is with them they are pretty much at their full potential in terms of size. The same Villa who are due to post another sizeable financial loss for the last financial year with an owner who is charging them interest on his loans? bang goes the Randy Lerner myth now too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 It's this 'have to go into debt to achieve things' which baffles me. Let's assume that we 'need debt to achieve 'success' i.e. continous top four and CL football. By definition, that therefore means that withought debt we are what, a mid-table club? With our fan base, surely we must be a mid-table club without debt?? So why are Chelsea unable to rid themselves of their debt? They are winning championships, playing continuous CL football, winning cups, based in London which, I imagine, their ticket reflects, continuous tv money, hoards of advertising revenue, country and world wide merchandising. Yet they still CANNOT rid themselves of the debt. How the fuck could we even begin to believe that 'must go into debt to achieve success' would be anything other than financial crisis for this club? Surely it's an imossible dream to assume that any 'success' we had could pay off the initial debt incurred to get there in the first place. That's what I can't understand. This comment of 'must go into debt to achieve success' is absolutely fraught with danger. This is because the going into debt to pay transfer fees and wages of the top class players is no guarantee of success in the first place; it's a complete gamble, that even if does work - in the context of getting the club to the top four - is bound to fail, due to the reasons I've given above regarding Chelsea. Getting to the top four doesn't end there. A team need continual evolvement in order to stay there, which means continual top whack prices, which means no debt repayment. Are we ultimately a mid-table club, and should we act accordingly???? no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. I don't think you are on of the idealogical numpties I've just mentioned by the way. Said as though you imagine you leave people sat slumped at their comps, crushed at your words of censure. The sword of amnesia in one hand and the soft-cock of senility in the other. Be careful how you wield such devastating power! blimey, you took the words right out of my mouth Had to shoehorn them past your foot tbh. is that what you do, work in a shoe shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 I think what seriously clouds our debt is how much was spent on the stadium. Since the Halls and Shepherd took over, we've had major building of the Leazes and Gallowgate, not to mention the corner fill-ins ("The Corner!" ), but especially the vast expansion of L7. If such a stadium had already existed, then think about how much we could have spent on players. Perhaps when the cycle turns again (I reckon football is quickly becoming less popular - maybe the WC will reignite lost passions), and NUFC are better equipped financially i.e. less debt (with, or without LardAsh), we could be in a pretty strong position to prove Leazes right in his assertion of us being one of the biggest clubs in England? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 I think what seriously clouds our debt is how much was spent on the stadium. Since the Halls and Shepherd took over, we've had major building of the Leazes and Gallowgate, not to mention the corner fill-ins ("The Corner!" ), but especially the vast expansion of L7. If such a stadium had already existed, then think about how much we could have spent on players. Perhaps when the cycle turns again (I reckon football is quickly becoming less popular - maybe the WC will reignite lost passions), and NUFC are better equipped financially i.e. less debt (with, or without LardAsh), we could be in a pretty strong position to prove Leazes right in his assertion of us being one of the biggest clubs in England? your first paragraph is nailed on. We had one of the worst, biggest ground in the country. It epitomised the 3rd rate mentality and small time attitude of those who ran the club for years before the 1992 takeover. We lost a chance to host the 1966 World Cup to the mackems and smoggies because of it being so bad. Amazing, Newcastle the industrial and commercial capital of the North East and they chose Ayresome Park with half the capacity to stage games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) The best run club in the PL imho is Aston Villa...thing is with them they are pretty much at their full potential in terms of size. Everton are pretty well run and maybe have more scope for growth. Spurs *SPIT* seem to be ran well but like Villa are pretty much at full potential. The clubs are what we should be trying to base ourselves on in terms of what they have done...slow steady growth, growth that is solid, secure and can be sustained. We have a big difference on what constitutes a well run club. Villa make massive losses and pay well over the odds for players. I can't be bothered to work out how much he's blown, but last time i did it in Jan 09 it was £64m NET and their best players were Barry and Agbonlahor, who both came through the academy. I dont think any of their player could get into Manu, Chelsea or Arsenals starting 11. And i bet their wage bill is massive as paying over the odd normally equates to excessive wages. All this and no trophies to show for it. Everton have been up for sale for years, which is why they've never pushed on and never will. Also, they got very lucky with Fellaini as they'd have never had the money to do it if man-city hadn't sniped their prefered choice - Jo. Spurs Ashley/Wise treat Keegan like royalty compared to how Levy/Comolli micro-managed Jol and Ramos. I still believe listening to levy is why Ashley has made his mistakes. The best way to gain long term success is to invest massively in the youth team. Most teams best players come through the ranks. A lot of them were brought in 16 - 18. Liverpool - gerrad, carragher Man U - Rooney and Ronoldo both signed at 18, Beckham signed at 16. Chelsea - Terry Arsenal - signed Fabragas at 16 Edited February 24, 2010 by Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14655 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 It's this 'have to go into debt to achieve things' which baffles me. Are we ultimately a mid-table club, and should we act accordingly???? no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. I don't think you are on of the idealogical numpties I've just mentioned by the way. Now I've no real interest in doing the club down but we've been in the top division for 47 out of 65 years since the end of WWII and our average league posistion for those years is 11th. In the Premier League years it is 7th. http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/england.htm this doesnt take into account the top divison changing the amount of clubs in it fairly regularly since the early 80s This is what people get at when they say that we're not a "big club"...we dont really have the league posistions historically to back it up, but you're spot on with definition of the difference between size (which leads as you say to great potential) and success.I'm aware you can use statistics to prove anything, but to many peoples minds we are a mid table club and thats not taking into account the 18 seasons of second tier football since 1945. I'm not that bothered when tosspots in the pub say "urr your not a big club"...I just say "yeah we're a nothing club from a northern backwater watched by two men and a dog"..that shuts the fuckers up because they know its not true, but when it comes to league posistions over the years they may have a slight point....we can point to league finishes in the premier league that the likes of Spurs and Villa would kill for but I think I may have swapped them for some the post war silverware they have won...theres a domestic double and a European Cup in amongst that lot..the fuckin twats Debt free "relative" success is easy...all we have to do if find the new David Moyes.....but the scouse mackems only averaged 17k when they won the FA cup in 1984...we got 27k in the divison below that season..our crowds historically stand up against anyones,but acheivements are somewhat lacking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6436 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Had to shoehorn them past your foot tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Had to shoehorn them past your foot tbh. you can take part in this discussion you know, if you can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Debt free "relative" success is easy...all we have to do if find the new David Moyes.....but the scouse mackems only averaged 17k when they won the FA cup in 1984...we got 27k in the divison below that season..our crowds historically stand up against anyones,but acheivements are somewhat lacking I miss Stevie. At this point he would have produced a half pager of attendance statistics since WWII to prove all Spurs and Everton supporters are cunts...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Man U - Rooney and Ronoldo both signed at 18, Beckham signed at 16. You put those names up giving the impression they were home grown talent, costing peanuts yet they were virtually £40m for the two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26544 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. Spot on. So why did we finish in the bottom half of the PL more often than not under Shepherd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 This keeps reminding me of Wayne's World. Things are looking up! Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Debt free "relative" success is easy...all we have to do if find the new David Moyes.....but the scouse mackems only averaged 17k when they won the FA cup in 1984...we got 27k in the divison below that season..our crowds historically stand up against anyones,but acheivements are somewhat lacking I miss Stevie. At this point he would have produced a half pager of attendance statistics since WWII to prove all Spurs and Everton supporters are cunts...... Wanks? [/stevie] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The outlook is far rosier than a year ago and all the time Derek and Mike will be learning from their mistakes, hence the past decent window that surpassed most peoples expectations. Hopefully the fans will get off his back and let him continue to rebuild our club on a much more leaner and business like basis and without all the emotional decision making of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie J 0 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Man U - Rooney and Ronoldo both signed at 18, Beckham signed at 16. You put those names up giving the impression they were home grown talent, costing peanuts yet they were virtually £40m for the two! Aye, there's no doubting that Man U reaped the rewards of a great crop of players that graduated from their youth system in the early 90s (Scholes et al), but they can't claim all the credit for Ronaldo and Rooney. Ronaldo was the product of Sporting's renowned academy and Rooney was a wonderkid at Everton. Their's also no doubting Ferguson did wonders for both those players, nobody would argue with that, but they've got nowt to do with Man U's youth academy/system. Taggart just saw two of the most promising young players in the world and paid what he needed to get them, then managed them properly... not rocket science... Bobby tried the same with Jenas and Viana, for example, but unfortunately for us the results were somewhat less spectacular! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The outlook is far rosier than a year ago and all the time Derek and Mike will be learning from their mistakes Little evidence of either imo. The window was only better than expected because we expected nothing. Don't think they signed a single player with proven PL quality either. A year ago we were in the PL with a fighting chance of staying up. The current team is far worse than that and we're a division lower. Ridiculous how easily pleased some people are though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The outlook is far rosier than a year ago and all the time Derek and Mike will be learning from their mistakes Little evidence of either imo. The window was only better than expected because we expected nothing. Don't think they signed a single player with proven PL quality either. A year ago we were in the PL with a fighting chance of staying up. The current team is far worse than that and we're a division lower. Ridiculous how easily pleased some people are though. Lower expectations these days tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 10021 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The outlook is far rosier than a year ago and all the time Derek and Mike will be learning from their mistakes Little evidence of either imo. The window was only better than expected because we expected nothing. Don't think they signed a single player with proven PL quality either. A year ago we were in the PL with a fighting chance of staying up. The current team is far worse than that and we're a division lower. Ridiculous how easily pleased some people are though. Lower expectations these days tbf No expectations these days tbf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The outlook is far rosier than a year ago and all the time Derek and Mike will be learning from their mistakes Little evidence of either imo. The window was only better than expected because we expected nothing. Don't think they signed a single player with proven PL quality either. A year ago we were in the PL with a fighting chance of staying up. The current team is far worse than that and we're a division lower. Ridiculous how easily pleased some people are though. Lower expectations these days tbf No expectations these days tbf Its all about getting ready for the new footballing world thats coming. Lean and mean baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 no mate, we aren't a mid table club. We are one of the biggest clubs in the country. Clubs that are above us that should not be, are there [now] either because they are better run or have a sugar daddy. Spot on. So why did we finish in the bottom half of the PL more often than not under Shepherd? qualified for europe more than any club bar 4, including 2 Champions League runs. How many before or since have matched that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now