Things are looking up!

[LeazesMag 0]

I don't know if you remember but at the time Kinnear was at pains to point out that (as well letting us know he wasn't a Cockney) he didn't have a connection with Dennis Wise as the latter had left Wimbledon before Kinnear took over there. That was obviously meant to make us feel better but, if anything, I thought it was even worse. Fancy picking Joe Kinnear out of all the possible managers available when he didn't even have a footballing connection with Wise or whoever

 

couldn't have been, he played for the Republic of Ireland

[Guest alex]

I don't know if you remember but at the time Kinnear was at pains to point out that (as well letting us know he wasn't a Cockney) he didn't have a connection with Dennis Wise as the latter had left Wimbledon before Kinnear took over there. That was obviously meant to make us feel better but, if anything, I thought it was even worse. Fancy picking Joe Kinnear out of all the possible managers available when he didn't even have a footballing connection with Wise or whoever

 

couldn't have been, he played for the Republic of Ireland

I know, Dublin-born wasn't he? Lost the accent like

[Barney 0]

I do believe Souness actually, as Robson says he wanted Carrick but was given Nicky Butt.

 

Here's Souness on Anelka:

"We know Nicolas is desperate to come here.

"I've done a lot of checks on him and everyone tells me he has got his head right; he's a much more settled lad. It would not be a risk.

 

"Last season was not great for him but no one can say that Nicolas Anelka is not a proven top goalscorer - and there's not many around who are available." Said Souness.

 

Souness said when he spoke to Freddy about this, he was told Anelka wasn't for sale and was then bought by Bolton.

 

Boa Morte and Luque are both shite anyway, and I'm sure Souness wasn't unhappy with the signing of Owen, but I believe Anelka was his first choice.

 

Before you mention it, it was ambitious of Freddy to get Owen in(it seems he only did this though after telling the manager he couldn't have his 1st choice).

[Phil 6]

You back your appointment or sack him. They sacked him

 

Very true, 7 full time managers in 10 years speaks volumes.

[LeazesMag 0]

I do believe Souness actually, as Robson says he wanted Carrick but was given Nicky Butt.

 

Here's Souness on Anelka:

"We know Nicolas is desperate to come here.

"I've done a lot of checks on him and everyone tells me he has got his head right; he's a much more settled lad. It would not be a risk.

 

"Last season was not great for him but no one can say that Nicolas Anelka is not a proven top goalscorer - and there's not many around who are available." Said Souness.

 

Souness said when he spoke to Freddy about this, he was told Anelka wasn't for sale and was then bought by Bolton.

 

Boa Morte and Luque are both shite anyway, and I'm sure Souness wasn't unhappy with the signing of Owen, but I believe Anelka was his first choice.

 

Before you mention it, it was ambitious of Freddy to get Owen in(it seems he only did this though after telling the manager he couldn't have his 1st choice).

 

I don't know about Carrick, I might ask his dad next time I see him....point about this though, is by saying you think we should have bought Carrick instead [assuming it is true] you are advocating spending money the club didn't have, as Carrick cost a lot more money than Butt. So people who go down this route can't criticise for spending money the club didn't have later.

 

I don't believe Souness' quotes, sorry, I don't believe anything he says. In any case, Owen was also a great goalscorer, better than Anelka before his big injury with England.

[LeazesMag 0]

You back your appointment or sack him. They sacked him

 

Very true, 7 full time managers in 10 years speaks volumes.

 

between ?

[LeazesMag 0]

TBF though, backing Souness just compounded a massive error, however good the intentions of the Halls and Shepherd may have been at the time. The road to Hell and all that.

 

yes, but it was their appointment. You back your appointment or sack him. They sacked him, too late, but they still backed him.

 

As for this bollocks about signing players he didn't want, Souness is a lot of things but he isn't a yes man. He had the same option as Keegan did if it were true.

 

He's a liar, the same as the comments in my sig, and the same as the comments he has made about being given 50m quid to "tart up the team". What sort of shite is that ? I wish sky would get somebody in the studio with him to take him up on that remark instead of pampering and pandering to the arrogant jock cunt. And also to pose the question as to how he thinks "proper managers" get the best out of players such as Craig Bellamy, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke etc ....

I think you know I sort of agree anyway. Just making the point that 'backing' a mistake can make things worse. I don't think the club's ever recovered from that little spending spree tbh (not excusing anything post-Shepherd btw). I totally agree about Souness and not being taken to task about what he did in his time here. I think he's basically a 'my way or the high way' bully who is a dinosaur in the modern game with player power etc. I think there may well have been something in the story about him wanting Boa Morte and getting Luque though.

 

he talks well in the studio too, shame he's not a "proper" manager.

[Guest alex]

I do believe Souness actually, as Robson says he wanted Carrick but was given Nicky Butt.

 

Here's Souness on Anelka:

"We know Nicolas is desperate to come here.

"I've done a lot of checks on him and everyone tells me he has got his head right; he's a much more settled lad. It would not be a risk.

 

"Last season was not great for him but no one can say that Nicolas Anelka is not a proven top goalscorer - and there's not many around who are available." Said Souness.

 

Souness said when he spoke to Freddy about this, he was told Anelka wasn't for sale and was then bought by Bolton.

 

Boa Morte and Luque are both shite anyway, and I'm sure Souness wasn't unhappy with the signing of Owen, but I believe Anelka was his first choice.

 

Before you mention it, it was ambitious of Freddy to get Owen in(it seems he only did this though after telling the manager he couldn't have his 1st choice).

 

I don't know about Carrick, I might ask his dad next time I see him....point about this though, is by saying you think we should have bought Carrick instead [assuming it is true] you are advocating spending money the club didn't have, as Carrick cost a lot more money than Butt. So people who go down this route can't criticise for spending money the club didn't have later.

 

I don't believe Souness' quotes, sorry, I don't believe anything he says. In any case, Owen was also a great goalscorer, better than Anelka before his big injury with England.

I might be getting the dates wrong but I don't think he did at the time.

[Guest alex]

TBF though, backing Souness just compounded a massive error, however good the intentions of the Halls and Shepherd may have been at the time. The road to Hell and all that.

 

yes, but it was their appointment. You back your appointment or sack him. They sacked him, too late, but they still backed him.

 

As for this bollocks about signing players he didn't want, Souness is a lot of things but he isn't a yes man. He had the same option as Keegan did if it were true.

 

He's a liar, the same as the comments in my sig, and the same as the comments he has made about being given 50m quid to "tart up the team". What sort of shite is that ? I wish sky would get somebody in the studio with him to take him up on that remark instead of pampering and pandering to the arrogant jock cunt. And also to pose the question as to how he thinks "proper managers" get the best out of players such as Craig Bellamy, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke etc ....

I think you know I sort of agree anyway. Just making the point that 'backing' a mistake can make things worse. I don't think the club's ever recovered from that little spending spree tbh (not excusing anything post-Shepherd btw). I totally agree about Souness and not being taken to task about what he did in his time here. I think he's basically a 'my way or the high way' bully who is a dinosaur in the modern game with player power etc. I think there may well have been something in the story about him wanting Boa Morte and getting Luque though.

 

he talks well in the studio too, shame he's not a "proper" manager.

He's contradicted himself about the fans here 'best in the business' to 'got him the sack' (I'm paraphrasing) so make of that what you will. That said, I bet Bellamy's a fucking knightmare to manage.

[Barney 0]

I do believe Souness actually, as Robson says he wanted Carrick but was given Nicky Butt.

 

Here's Souness on Anelka:

"We know Nicolas is desperate to come here.

"I've done a lot of checks on him and everyone tells me he has got his head right; he's a much more settled lad. It would not be a risk.

 

"Last season was not great for him but no one can say that Nicolas Anelka is not a proven top goalscorer - and there's not many around who are available." Said Souness.

 

Souness said when he spoke to Freddy about this, he was told Anelka wasn't for sale and was then bought by Bolton.

 

Boa Morte and Luque are both shite anyway, and I'm sure Souness wasn't unhappy with the signing of Owen, but I believe Anelka was his first choice.

 

Before you mention it, it was ambitious of Freddy to get Owen in(it seems he only did this though after telling the manager he couldn't have his 1st choice).

 

I don't know about Carrick, I might ask his dad next time I see him....point about this though, is by saying you think we should have bought Carrick instead [assuming it is true] you are advocating spending money the club didn't have, as Carrick cost a lot more money than Butt. So people who go down this route can't criticise for spending money the club didn't have later.

 

I don't believe Souness' quotes, sorry, I don't believe anything he says. In any case, Owen was also a great goalscorer, better than Anelka before his big injury with England.

 

Carrick went to Spurs for £2.75m, Butt came here for £2.5m. It may be lies, I'd believe Bobby Robson over Freddy every day of the week though.

 

Here's Souness' full quotes on the Luque/Anelka/Owen matter.

 

KEYS: In fairness to Freddy Shepherd, he gave you a few quid. And you did go and buy Michael Owen.

 

SOUNESS: I would argue that point. My first choice was Nicolas Anelka and Luis Boa Morte. I spoke to the people in Turkey (Anelka was at Fenerbahce) and was told he could be bought, but I was told (by Newcastle) that he couldn't be bought.

 

Instead of buying Anelka for £12million, we signed Albert Luque for £10m. And Michael Owen for £16m.

 

KEYS: Were they your decisions?

 

SOUNESS: No. No. I was told Albert Luque would cost £2m.

[Guest alex]

Strange how he omits that Parker and Emre were his idea

[LeazesMag 0]

I do believe Souness actually, as Robson says he wanted Carrick but was given Nicky Butt.

 

Here's Souness on Anelka:

"We know Nicolas is desperate to come here.

"I've done a lot of checks on him and everyone tells me he has got his head right; he's a much more settled lad. It would not be a risk.

 

"Last season was not great for him but no one can say that Nicolas Anelka is not a proven top goalscorer - and there's not many around who are available." Said Souness.

 

Souness said when he spoke to Freddy about this, he was told Anelka wasn't for sale and was then bought by Bolton.

 

Boa Morte and Luque are both shite anyway, and I'm sure Souness wasn't unhappy with the signing of Owen, but I believe Anelka was his first choice.

 

Before you mention it, it was ambitious of Freddy to get Owen in(it seems he only did this though after telling the manager he couldn't have his 1st choice).

 

I don't know about Carrick, I might ask his dad next time I see him....point about this though, is by saying you think we should have bought Carrick instead [assuming it is true] you are advocating spending money the club didn't have, as Carrick cost a lot more money than Butt. So people who go down this route can't criticise for spending money the club didn't have later.

 

I don't believe Souness' quotes, sorry, I don't believe anything he says. In any case, Owen was also a great goalscorer, better than Anelka before his big injury with England.

 

Carrick went to Spurs for £2.75m, Butt came here for £2.5m. It may be lies, I'd believe Bobby Robson over Freddy every day of the week though.

 

Here's Souness' full quotes on the Luque/Anelka/Owen matter.

 

KEYS: In fairness to Freddy Shepherd, he gave you a few quid. And you did go and buy Michael Owen.

 

SOUNESS: I would argue that point. My first choice was Nicolas Anelka and Luis Boa Morte. I spoke to the people in Turkey (Anelka was at Fenerbahce) and was told he could be bought, but I was told (by Newcastle) that he couldn't be bought.

 

Instead of buying Anelka for £12million, we signed Albert Luque for £10m. And Michael Owen for £16m.

 

KEYS: Were they your decisions?

 

SOUNESS: No. No. I was told Albert Luque would cost £2m.

 

as has been said by myself and Alex, the jock keeps changing his tune when it suits him. He said at Owens press conference that Owen was the player who's name he wrote on the bit of paper.

 

Emre, Parker and Faye were certainly his choice. Why does he not mention them ?

 

At the end of the day, he was well backed at Newcastle whatever his excuses, and failed to manage a very talented group of players "properly"

 

As for Carrick, if that is true what makes you think he wanted to sign for Newcastle and not stay in London with Spurs ?

Edited February 23, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Barney 0]

Strange how he omits that Parker and Emre were his idea

 

I still rate Parker

 

You also left Baba, Craig Moore, Amdy Faye and Boumsong off that list.

 

I'm not for one minute condoning Souness as a manager, but either back the man you put in charge, or don't. None of this pricking about, buying players your mates have recommended or whatever.

[Andrew 4252]

i liked parker when he was with us, he had a bit of the headless chicken about him but i dont tihnk that was his fault, he was never used in one role consistently, sometimes as a DM sometimes AM

[Guest alex]

Strange how he omits that Parker and Emre were his idea

 

I still rate Parker

 

You also left Baba, Craig Moore, Amdy Faye and Boumsong off that list.

 

I'm not for one minute condoning Souness as a manager, but either back the man you put in charge, or don't. None of this pricking about, buying players your mates have recommended or whatever.

Tbf I think Parker is a canny player. The praise he got was way over the top at first, as was the criticism towards the end. Btw, wasn't Luque meant to be something to do with Shepherd's son the agent etc.? Wouldn't be surprised as it was a strange signing all round.

[Barney 0]

I do believe Souness actually, as Robson says he wanted Carrick but was given Nicky Butt.

 

Here's Souness on Anelka:

"We know Nicolas is desperate to come here.

"I've done a lot of checks on him and everyone tells me he has got his head right; he's a much more settled lad. It would not be a risk.

 

"Last season was not great for him but no one can say that Nicolas Anelka is not a proven top goalscorer - and there's not many around who are available." Said Souness.

 

Souness said when he spoke to Freddy about this, he was told Anelka wasn't for sale and was then bought by Bolton.

 

Boa Morte and Luque are both shite anyway, and I'm sure Souness wasn't unhappy with the signing of Owen, but I believe Anelka was his first choice.

 

Before you mention it, it was ambitious of Freddy to get Owen in(it seems he only did this though after telling the manager he couldn't have his 1st choice).

 

I don't know about Carrick, I might ask his dad next time I see him....point about this though, is by saying you think we should have bought Carrick instead [assuming it is true] you are advocating spending money the club didn't have, as Carrick cost a lot more money than Butt. So people who go down this route can't criticise for spending money the club didn't have later.

 

I don't believe Souness' quotes, sorry, I don't believe anything he says. In any case, Owen was also a great goalscorer, better than Anelka before his big injury with England.

 

Carrick went to Spurs for £2.75m, Butt came here for £2.5m. It may be lies, I'd believe Bobby Robson over Freddy every day of the week though.

 

Here's Souness' full quotes on the Luque/Anelka/Owen matter.

 

KEYS: In fairness to Freddy Shepherd, he gave you a few quid. And you did go and buy Michael Owen.

 

SOUNESS: I would argue that point. My first choice was Nicolas Anelka and Luis Boa Morte. I spoke to the people in Turkey (Anelka was at Fenerbahce) and was told he could be bought, but I was told (by Newcastle) that he couldn't be bought.

 

Instead of buying Anelka for £12million, we signed Albert Luque for £10m. And Michael Owen for £16m.

 

KEYS: Were they your decisions?

 

SOUNESS: No. No. I was told Albert Luque would cost £2m.

 

as has been said by myself and Alex, the jock keeps changing his tune when it suits him. He said at Owens press conference that Owen was the player who's name he wrote on the bit of paper.

 

Emre, Parker and Faye were certainly his choice. Why does he not mention them ?

 

At the end of the day, he was well backed at Newcastle whatever his excuses, and failed to manage a very talented group of players "properly"

As for Carrick, if that is true what makes you think he wanted to sign for Newcastle and not stay in London with Spurs ?

 

He was well backed at Newcastle. Some of the players may not have not been the ones he wanted, but he is and was a shite manager. I don't think anyone is debating that. However, I don't think I know anyone who would have thought he'd be a good appointment; apart from Freddy.

 

Spot on about Carrick, he may not have wanted to come here, it's who Bobby wanted him though and I think was told by Freddy that Carrick would never play for another team ahead of Newcastle.

 

Sorry, I'm not home and can't check his book for the exact para-hopefully someone else might remember it.

[Barney 0]

Strange how he omits that Parker and Emre were his idea

 

I still rate Parker

 

You also left Baba, Craig Moore, Amdy Faye and Boumsong off that list.

 

I'm not for one minute condoning Souness as a manager, but either back the man you put in charge, or don't. None of this pricking about, buying players your mates have recommended or whatever.

Tbf I think Parker is a canny player. The praise he got was way over the top at first, as was the criticism towards the end. Btw, wasn't Luque meant to be something to do with Shepherd's son the agent etc.? Wouldn't be surprised as it was a strange signing all round.

 

The Willy McKay dealings around that time terrify me. I'd say there was some horrible stuff going on between himself/Souey/Freddy then Fat Sam.

 

I can't find a definitive list of McKays clients, but I know Amdy Faye, Barton and Zoggy are or were.

[ewerk 26686]

As for Carrick, if that is true what makes you think he wanted to sign for Newcastle and not stay in London with Spurs ?

 

Exactly, that was the problem. I remember hearing at the time that Shepherd was convinced he'd only want to come to us and so West Ham would be forced into accepted our lower offer.

 

Edit: Aye, what Barney said.

Edited February 23, 2010 by ewerk

[LeazesMag 0]

As for Carrick, if that is true what makes you think he wanted to sign for Newcastle and not stay in London with Spurs ?

 

Exactly, that was the problem. I remember hearing at the time that Shepherd was convinced he'd only want to come to us and so West Ham would be forced into accepted our lower offer.

 

Edit: Aye, what Barney said.

 

 

Never mind, I'm sure every other team in the world signs every player they want, apart from us under the Halls and Shepherd.

 

We are doing just greeeaaat now.

[ewerk 26686]

Because that's exactly what I said.

[manc-mag 1]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

[peasepud 59]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

[manc-mag 1]

There is no disputing the fact that Shepherd put us into debt, its also though imho no dispute that he did so for the right reasons, he chased the "holy grail" as Ewerk said but frankly I commend him for that. If we'd been told that we werent going to push for Europe in order to consolidate and save money then there would have been hell on.

Theres no disupting however that Shepherd (and even more so) the Halls made a vast amount of money out of our club. Personally however Id still rather see us in the CL and our chairman pay himself £20m dividends per season that the position we're in now.

 

The whole concept of football being a business is based on success, no football club can be a money maker if its continually losing games and not competing. Success on the pitch means additional gate receipts, more shirt sales, more exposure on SKY/MoTD etc which in itself means even more merchandise sales on top. Back then we were everyones 2nd team, many a kid got two shirts for Christmas, their own clubs and ours.

 

The only way to get that success is to invest in the team, yes some teams hit lucky and manage that through careful, good quality buys while others go out and buy up the best there is. We tried that and it was merely those world class players not performing fully that didnt win us something major. Yes, Shepherd made some terrible decisions at times and made his gob go at others but at the end of the day (Roeder aside) he never put in a manager because they were cheap or a Yes man. He did it because he (wrongly) thought they were good for the job.

 

If the roles had been reversed and we'd sat and watched Sunderland buy the players we were at the time we'd have had Shepherds head on a stick.

 

Despair when I see these arguments tbh, Pud. A chairman's job isn't to blindly do what the fans want or to try and be popular, they're in a completely different position to the supporter. Supporters are entitled to be complete mongs and can call for every short-term extortionate trophy signing they want as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't provide a chairman with a defence to allegations of incompetence if they adopt the same strategy for success, even if it is popular at the time.

 

"Will this £20 million signing please the fans?" Just stop and imagine a top Premiership club being run along those lines. Doesn't happen. The fact that this is acceptable ex post facto rationalisation for us speaks volumes tbh.

 

What I was getting at is the fact people come on now moaning that Shepherd spent too much money yet if back then the Makems had been spending that kind of dosh while we were frugal then the likes of this place would have imploded and been screaming for him to spend the cash. I also dont think that a chairman/ owner should buy players because it looks good or will placate the fans, purchases should be the managers decision and based on how they'll enhance the squad.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing regarding players purchased though. Owen, Smith etc all looked to be good players before they came to us. LMs argument that Shepherd backed his managers is valid, he spent the money chasing the dream of success rather than thinking "5 years down the line we could be skint and buying Leon friggin Best".

 

Give me that any day.

 

There's a reason for this too. It's because they had no respect for the institution. There's a reason for that too.

 

I'll let you have a stab at it.

[ewerk 26686]

He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Unfortunately he took the option that we're still paying for.

 

That's not to say that Ashley would've spent more had we not had the debts we had.

[peasepud 59]

He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Unfortunately he took the option that we're still paying for.

 

That's not to say that Ashley would've spent more had we not had the debts we had.

 

I think people seem to believe that Ashley bought the club and on day 2 was told "oh theres another £150m debt you didnt know about".

 

Thats not the case, he knew exactly what the debt position was, he merely didnt know that some of it had to be paid back immediately.