It Was Like Eastenders

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Even if you can't see his direct value to the side I'd not sell Jonas. He forms part of the Spanish speaking connection along with Coloccini and our strongest player Enrique. Selling him could very well upset that balance, not something we want to do recklessly after building it over the last season.

 

Otherwise the other movements are all acceptable if superior players are bought. That's the one thing we're all having problems beleiving with the current owner. Forgetting the mistakes that ultimately lead to our premier league demise largely the right moves have been made in terms of the player market. The off-season will be the real test, one that will ultimately signal the intentions of he owner. If he hasn't learnt a lesson from his lack of investment in the past then he's clearly got no hope.

 

 

Listen the bottom line is we should be promoted tomorrow. If he's the C**t that most think he is and just wants to sell then we should be back on the market by Tuesday. If this is the case, I will be gutted and hate the man for eternity (at least til May)

 

If he's not going to sell and once promotion is achieved then I would beg of Mike Ashley to come out and tell us what will happen next. That will keep the stability going for everyone.

[NUFC_Mag 0]

Even if you can't see his direct value to the side I'd not sell Jonas. He forms part of the Spanish speaking connection along with Coloccini and our strongest player Enrique. Selling him could very well upset that balance, not something we want to do recklessly after building it over the last season.

 

Otherwise the other movements are all acceptable if superior players are bought. That's the one thing we're all having problems beleiving with the current owner. Forgetting the mistakes that ultimately lead to our premier league demise largely the right moves have been made in terms of the player market. The off-season will be the real test, one that will ultimately signal the intentions of he owner. If he hasn't learnt a lesson from his lack of investment in the past then he's clearly got no hope.

 

That's a good point and he does seem popular throughout the squad. I think the way to play it is, if he has a good WC and someone comes in for him we shouldn't stand in his way.

 

Rip a few from Portsmouth if possible

 

O'Hara (though his price will be inflated)

Maybe Yebda?

 

 

dunno

 

How much do you reckon for O'Hara? quite keen on him. Diamanti is sound technically as well.

 

I think if Colo has a good world cup he could be difficult to hang on to even with his wages.

[The Fish 8947]

Even if you can't see his direct value to the side I'd not sell Jonas. He forms part of the Spanish speaking connection along with Coloccini and our strongest player Enrique. Selling him could very well upset that balance, not something we want to do recklessly after building it over the last season.

 

Otherwise the other movements are all acceptable if superior players are bought. That's the one thing we're all having problems beleiving with the current owner. Forgetting the mistakes that ultimately lead to our premier league demise largely the right moves have been made in terms of the player market. The off-season will be the real test, one that will ultimately signal the intentions of he owner. If he hasn't learnt a lesson from his lack of investment in the past then he's clearly got no hope.

 

That's a good point and he does seem popular throughout the squad. I think the way to play it is, if he has a good WC and someone comes in for him we shouldn't stand in his way.

 

Rip a few from Portsmouth if possible

 

O'Hara (though his price will be inflated)

Maybe Yebda?

 

 

dunno

 

How much do you reckon for O'Hara? quite keen on him. Diamanti is sound technically as well.

 

I think if Colo has a good world cup he could be difficult to hang on to even with his wages.

 

O'Hara will demand a large fee for a few reasons; he's young and English, He's to be sold by 'appy 'arry, he's had a good season and he's been hyped by the media. I'd be surprised to see a reasonable asking price of anything below £8m

 

I'm not sure Colo's even on the plane to be honest.

[OTF 6129]

Colo hasn't had a meaningful part to play in the Argentinian side for some time now. At a pinch might get into he squad. It will take a number of injuries for him to play any sort of minutes for them.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why do you think Leeds imploded Leazes? Was it because they didn't spend enough?

 

 

If you want to win, it costs money. Ever heard of the phrase "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle".

 

Amazed at your dumbness. You sound just like some of the dicks on Newcastle Online

Again...so why didn't Leeds win? You sound like the bloke who spends his life savings at the bookies saying "If I don't put a bet on, how can I ever win?"

 

It's a nonsense argument. I've already said several times that you need to spend money but ONLY if that money is spent wisely and ONLY if you can afford the debt. We'd run out of credit and were going nowhere fast....or do you think we were on the verge of greatness before Ashley arrived. Seriously. I want you to answer the specific question.

 

Were we about to win something before Ashley came along?

 

do you bet on the lottery ? How come you don't win every week then ? Your questions are getting dafter by the second.

 

Its piss easy this spending money wisely, in fact its so so soooooooo easy, how doesn't everybody do it

 

By the way, for their spending, you got the 5th most qualified team for europe including the Champions League, the 5th highest average position, an expanded stadium full to capacity every home game [they must have done something right ],

world class footballers attracted to the club, 2 FA Cup Finals, and one of the highest turnovers in world football.

 

All on the back of bad appointments and wasting money. Not bad going eh.

 

I don't bet on the lottery. The odds of me losing a pound are loads loads loads loads loads loads higher than me winning a million quid (which btw is statistically more likely to wreck my life than improve it).

 

 

Now let's suppose for a second I DID play the lottery.

 

 

When do you think I should stop buying tickets and sort my life out?

 

When I'd lost my wife?

 

My house?

 

My kids?

 

 

 

 

Are you telling us all Leazes that in your opinion there is NEVER a time when you should stop spending money on a possible good outcome?

 

You should be official adviser to Alex Ferguson trotting out such wisdoms as that, I don't think he would agree though.

Avoiding the question again Leazes? That's weird.

 

Alex Ferguson wouldn't have bought Boumsong to please Willy McKay.

 

Do you see the point yet?

 

You have to spend money in the right way. If you succeed you got it right, if you fail you got it wrong.

 

That's why it's difficult.

 

 

...but you can't say the guy who shot and missed got it right. Shepherd's job wasn't to back shit managers, his job was to hire the right people to get those decisions right. He didn't.

 

he bought Veron though And that Uruguay player [name escapes me] and others. Berbatov isn't setting the place alight either. But NUFC are the only club that make bad buys, in your deluded little world.

 

A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years.

 

Not too bad.

Your yardstick of success seems a bit weird Leazes. How do you explain all the other teams who spent less than us but still won trophies?

 

 

As for Alex Ferguson....he also bought Cantona and Schmeichel and won fucking loads of trophies.

 

I'd forgive the Luques and the Boumsongs if we'd have won something. Or is winning something just an irrelevance to you?

 

 

You can say we qualified for Europe over and over again as much as you like. It's your "fall back" argument I think you just cut and paste it from your little book of Leazisms.

 

 

I remember us being shit for most of my 38 years on this planet. The fact that Sir John Hall/Kevin Keegan and later Freddie Shepherd/Bobby Robson gave us some good years isn't lost on me. That doesn't mean that Shepherd is above criticism though for not capitalising on that success. As I asked you earlier, where is your evidence that we were going in the right direction?

 

Their are only 3 domestic trophies to be won. Are you saying that 17 other premiership clubs are unsuccessful and for that reason shouldn't have bothered trying to be successful ?

 

Your logic is seriously flawed. But as you have also convinced yourself that 5 steps backwards and one step forward again under Ashley is "progress" I'm not surprised.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why do you think Leeds imploded Leazes? Was it because they didn't spend enough?

 

 

If you want to win, it costs money. Ever heard of the phrase "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle".

 

Amazed at your dumbness. You sound just like some of the dicks on Newcastle Online

Again...so why didn't Leeds win? You sound like the bloke who spends his life savings at the bookies saying "If I don't put a bet on, how can I ever win?"

 

It's a nonsense argument. I've already said several times that you need to spend money but ONLY if that money is spent wisely and ONLY if you can afford the debt. We'd run out of credit and were going nowhere fast....or do you think we were on the verge of greatness before Ashley arrived. Seriously. I want you to answer the specific question.

 

Were we about to win something before Ashley came along?

 

do you bet on the lottery ? How come you don't win every week then ? Your questions are getting dafter by the second.

 

Its piss easy this spending money wisely, in fact its so so soooooooo easy, how doesn't everybody do it

 

By the way, for their spending, you got the 5th most qualified team for europe including the Champions League, the 5th highest average position, an expanded stadium full to capacity every home game [they must have done something right ],

world class footballers attracted to the club, 2 FA Cup Finals, and one of the highest turnovers in world football.

 

All on the back of bad appointments and wasting money. Not bad going eh.

 

I don't bet on the lottery. The odds of me losing a pound are loads loads loads loads loads loads higher than me winning a million quid (which btw is statistically more likely to wreck my life than improve it).

 

 

Now let's suppose for a second I DID play the lottery.

 

 

When do you think I should stop buying tickets and sort my life out?

 

When I'd lost my wife?

 

My house?

 

My kids?

 

 

 

 

Are you telling us all Leazes that in your opinion there is NEVER a time when you should stop spending money on a possible good outcome?

 

You should be official adviser to Alex Ferguson trotting out such wisdoms as that, I don't think he would agree though.

Avoiding the question again Leazes? That's weird.

 

Alex Ferguson wouldn't have bought Boumsong to please Willy McKay.

 

Do you see the point yet?

 

You have to spend money in the right way. If you succeed you got it right, if you fail you got it wrong.

 

That's why it's difficult.

 

 

...but you can't say the guy who shot and missed got it right. Shepherd's job wasn't to back shit managers, his job was to hire the right people to get those decisions right. He didn't.

 

he bought Veron though And that Uruguay player [name escapes me] and others. Berbatov isn't setting the place alight either. But NUFC are the only club that make bad buys, in your deluded little world.

 

A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years.

 

Not too bad.

 

Diego Forlan is the Uruguay player, not great for Man Utd but doing well at Athletico.

 

In regard to evaluating the running of a club, should this not be measured relatively speaking? For example, only 4 more teams may have qualified for Europe than we did under Hall and Shepherd, yet clubs with little or no European hopes (even over this 15 year peroid) may have been run "better" than us as they possibly progressed more in regard to stature, position or silverware.

 

Basically, should we not measure how "well" a club is run contextually? for instance, paying attention to the resources at their disposal and what they can and have achieved with them?

 

do you have any idea the state the club was in when they found it in 1992 ?

 

Do you think Everton had a better 15 years than we did because they won the FA Cup in 1995 ? Or do you think Joe Royle is a better manager than Keegan because he won a trophy and KK didn't ie with Everton in 1995? Is this your point ?

 

No...I am not name-dropping. I am merely suggesting that your benchmark of achieving European success as an indicator of a clubs spending credibility is potentially misleading and ignorant of the context of the clubs and how they interpret "success."

 

I also think you have to consider the long-term effects of this spending as well. Rangers may have bought much of the SPL titles in the 90's but this was not sustainable and now they are up shit creek financially. The legacy of transfer dealings should be considered as well as any success or failures they bring in the short run.

 

 

So ? They capitalised on the potential fanbase - which nobody else has done including the current owner and I will be very surprised if he does - and over the 15 years we were the 5th most qualified team for europe, brought international top quality footballers, filled the ground, expanded the stadium, had the 5th highest average league position and played in 2 FA Cup Finals. Whats your problem apart from the obvious disappointment of coming 2nd on 4 occasions which is hardly the fault of the board ?

[LeazesMag 0]

The Hall/Shepherd business model only came off the rails when Souness wasted £50m. Before that it had helped NUFC make huge strides forward on the pitch and delivered a new stadium without running up unmanageable debts. The play it safe model is equally vulnerable to one manager fucking it all up, or one owner as last season proved. The difference is one of ambition and given the choice I’d rather see the club go for it. Only we can’t because the cost of relegation has set us back years and it’ll take a long period of spending next to nowt before we recover. Thanks Mike.

 

exactly. Especially given our fanbase and proven potential.

Edited April 5, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

I hate Bank Holiday Mondays. All you ever see is repeats.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I hate Bank Holiday Mondays. All you ever see is repeats.

 

[TheGreatNUFCSwindle 0]

Why do you think Leeds imploded Leazes? Was it because they didn't spend enough?

 

 

If you want to win, it costs money. Ever heard of the phrase "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle".

 

Amazed at your dumbness. You sound just like some of the dicks on Newcastle Online

Again...so why didn't Leeds win? You sound like the bloke who spends his life savings at the bookies saying "If I don't put a bet on, how can I ever win?"

 

It's a nonsense argument. I've already said several times that you need to spend money but ONLY if that money is spent wisely and ONLY if you can afford the debt. We'd run out of credit and were going nowhere fast....or do you think we were on the verge of greatness before Ashley arrived. Seriously. I want you to answer the specific question.

 

Were we about to win something before Ashley came along?

 

do you bet on the lottery ? How come you don't win every week then ? Your questions are getting dafter by the second.

 

Its piss easy this spending money wisely, in fact its so so soooooooo easy, how doesn't everybody do it

 

By the way, for their spending, you got the 5th most qualified team for europe including the Champions League, the 5th highest average position, an expanded stadium full to capacity every home game [they must have done something right ],

world class footballers attracted to the club, 2 FA Cup Finals, and one of the highest turnovers in world football.

 

All on the back of bad appointments and wasting money. Not bad going eh.

 

I don't bet on the lottery. The odds of me losing a pound are loads loads loads loads loads loads higher than me winning a million quid (which btw is statistically more likely to wreck my life than improve it).

 

 

Now let's suppose for a second I DID play the lottery.

 

 

When do you think I should stop buying tickets and sort my life out?

 

When I'd lost my wife?

 

My house?

 

My kids?

 

 

 

 

Are you telling us all Leazes that in your opinion there is NEVER a time when you should stop spending money on a possible good outcome?

 

You should be official adviser to Alex Ferguson trotting out such wisdoms as that, I don't think he would agree though.

Avoiding the question again Leazes? That's weird.

 

Alex Ferguson wouldn't have bought Boumsong to please Willy McKay.

 

Do you see the point yet?

 

You have to spend money in the right way. If you succeed you got it right, if you fail you got it wrong.

 

That's why it's difficult.

 

 

...but you can't say the guy who shot and missed got it right. Shepherd's job wasn't to back shit managers, his job was to hire the right people to get those decisions right. He didn't.

 

he bought Veron though And that Uruguay player [name escapes me] and others. Berbatov isn't setting the place alight either. But NUFC are the only club that make bad buys, in your deluded little world.

 

A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years.

 

Not too bad.

 

Diego Forlan is the Uruguay player, not great for Man Utd but doing well at Athletico.

 

In regard to evaluating the running of a club, should this not be measured relatively speaking? For example, only 4 more teams may have qualified for Europe than we did under Hall and Shepherd, yet clubs with little or no European hopes (even over this 15 year peroid) may have been run "better" than us as they possibly progressed more in regard to stature, position or silverware.

 

Basically, should we not measure how "well" a club is run contextually? for instance, paying attention to the resources at their disposal and what they can and have achieved with them?

 

do you have any idea the state the club was in when they found it in 1992 ?

 

Do you think Everton had a better 15 years than we did because they won the FA Cup in 1995 ? Or do you think Joe Royle is a better manager than Keegan because he won a trophy and KK didn't ie with Everton in 1995? Is this your point ?

 

No...I am not name-dropping. I am merely suggesting that your benchmark of achieving European success as an indicator of a clubs spending credibility is potentially misleading and ignorant of the context of the clubs and how they interpret "success."

 

I also think you have to consider the long-term effects of this spending as well. Rangers may have bought much of the SPL titles in the 90's but this was not sustainable and now they are up shit creek financially. The legacy of transfer dealings should be considered as well as any success or failures they bring in the short run.

 

 

So ? They capitalised on the potential fanbase - which nobody else has done including the current owner and I will be very surprised if he does - and over the 15 years we were the 5th most qualified team for europe, brought international top quality footballers, filled the ground, expanded the stadium, had the 5th highest average league position and played in 2 FA Cup Finals. Whats your problem apart from the obvious disappointment of coming 2nd on 4 occasions which is hardly the fault of the board ?

 

 

THIS ...

[LeazesMag 0]

Why do you think Leeds imploded Leazes? Was it because they didn't spend enough?

 

 

If you want to win, it costs money. Ever heard of the phrase "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle".

 

Amazed at your dumbness. You sound just like some of the dicks on Newcastle Online

Again...so why didn't Leeds win? You sound like the bloke who spends his life savings at the bookies saying "If I don't put a bet on, how can I ever win?"

 

It's a nonsense argument. I've already said several times that you need to spend money but ONLY if that money is spent wisely and ONLY if you can afford the debt. We'd run out of credit and were going nowhere fast....or do you think we were on the verge of greatness before Ashley arrived. Seriously. I want you to answer the specific question.

 

Were we about to win something before Ashley came along?

 

do you bet on the lottery ? How come you don't win every week then ? Your questions are getting dafter by the second.

 

Its piss easy this spending money wisely, in fact its so so soooooooo easy, how doesn't everybody do it

 

By the way, for their spending, you got the 5th most qualified team for europe including the Champions League, the 5th highest average position, an expanded stadium full to capacity every home game [they must have done something right ],

world class footballers attracted to the club, 2 FA Cup Finals, and one of the highest turnovers in world football.

 

All on the back of bad appointments and wasting money. Not bad going eh.

 

I don't bet on the lottery. The odds of me losing a pound are loads loads loads loads loads loads higher than me winning a million quid (which btw is statistically more likely to wreck my life than improve it).

 

 

Now let's suppose for a second I DID play the lottery.

 

 

When do you think I should stop buying tickets and sort my life out?

 

When I'd lost my wife?

 

My house?

 

My kids?

 

 

 

 

Are you telling us all Leazes that in your opinion there is NEVER a time when you should stop spending money on a possible good outcome?

 

You should be official adviser to Alex Ferguson trotting out such wisdoms as that, I don't think he would agree though.

Avoiding the question again Leazes? That's weird.

 

Alex Ferguson wouldn't have bought Boumsong to please Willy McKay.

 

Do you see the point yet?

 

You have to spend money in the right way. If you succeed you got it right, if you fail you got it wrong.

 

That's why it's difficult.

 

 

...but you can't say the guy who shot and missed got it right. Shepherd's job wasn't to back shit managers, his job was to hire the right people to get those decisions right. He didn't.

 

he bought Veron though And that Uruguay player [name escapes me] and others. Berbatov isn't setting the place alight either. But NUFC are the only club that make bad buys, in your deluded little world.

 

A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years.

 

Not too bad.

 

Diego Forlan is the Uruguay player, not great for Man Utd but doing well at Athletico.

 

In regard to evaluating the running of a club, should this not be measured relatively speaking? For example, only 4 more teams may have qualified for Europe than we did under Hall and Shepherd, yet clubs with little or no European hopes (even over this 15 year peroid) may have been run "better" than us as they possibly progressed more in regard to stature, position or silverware.

 

Basically, should we not measure how "well" a club is run contextually? for instance, paying attention to the resources at their disposal and what they can and have achieved with them?

 

do you have any idea the state the club was in when they found it in 1992 ?

 

Do you think Everton had a better 15 years than we did because they won the FA Cup in 1995 ? Or do you think Joe Royle is a better manager than Keegan because he won a trophy and KK didn't ie with Everton in 1995? Is this your point ?

 

No...I am not name-dropping. I am merely suggesting that your benchmark of achieving European success as an indicator of a clubs spending credibility is potentially misleading and ignorant of the context of the clubs and how they interpret "success."

 

I also think you have to consider the long-term effects of this spending as well. Rangers may have bought much of the SPL titles in the 90's but this was not sustainable and now they are up shit creek financially. The legacy of transfer dealings should be considered as well as any success or failures they bring in the short run.

 

 

So ? They capitalised on the potential fanbase - which nobody else has done including the current owner and I will be very surprised if he does - and over the 15 years we were the 5th most qualified team for europe, brought international top quality footballers, filled the ground, expanded the stadium, had the 5th highest average league position and played in 2 FA Cup Finals. Whats your problem apart from the obvious disappointment of coming 2nd on 4 occasions which is hardly the fault of the board ?

 

 

THIS ...

 

why doesn't he answer

[NUFC_Mag 0]

Why do you think Leeds imploded Leazes? Was it because they didn't spend enough?

 

 

If you want to win, it costs money. Ever heard of the phrase "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle".

 

Amazed at your dumbness. You sound just like some of the dicks on Newcastle Online

Again...so why didn't Leeds win? You sound like the bloke who spends his life savings at the bookies saying "If I don't put a bet on, how can I ever win?"

 

It's a nonsense argument. I've already said several times that you need to spend money but ONLY if that money is spent wisely and ONLY if you can afford the debt. We'd run out of credit and were going nowhere fast....or do you think we were on the verge of greatness before Ashley arrived. Seriously. I want you to answer the specific question.

 

Were we about to win something before Ashley came along?

 

do you bet on the lottery ? How come you don't win every week then ? Your questions are getting dafter by the second.

 

Its piss easy this spending money wisely, in fact its so so soooooooo easy, how doesn't everybody do it

 

By the way, for their spending, you got the 5th most qualified team for europe including the Champions League, the 5th highest average position, an expanded stadium full to capacity every home game [they must have done something right ],

world class footballers attracted to the club, 2 FA Cup Finals, and one of the highest turnovers in world football.

 

All on the back of bad appointments and wasting money. Not bad going eh.

 

I don't bet on the lottery. The odds of me losing a pound are loads loads loads loads loads loads higher than me winning a million quid (which btw is statistically more likely to wreck my life than improve it).

 

 

Now let's suppose for a second I DID play the lottery.

 

 

When do you think I should stop buying tickets and sort my life out?

 

When I'd lost my wife?

 

My house?

 

My kids?

 

 

 

 

Are you telling us all Leazes that in your opinion there is NEVER a time when you should stop spending money on a possible good outcome?

 

You should be official adviser to Alex Ferguson trotting out such wisdoms as that, I don't think he would agree though.

Avoiding the question again Leazes? That's weird.

 

Alex Ferguson wouldn't have bought Boumsong to please Willy McKay.

 

Do you see the point yet?

 

You have to spend money in the right way. If you succeed you got it right, if you fail you got it wrong.

 

That's why it's difficult.

 

 

...but you can't say the guy who shot and missed got it right. Shepherd's job wasn't to back shit managers, his job was to hire the right people to get those decisions right. He didn't.

 

he bought Veron though And that Uruguay player [name escapes me] and others. Berbatov isn't setting the place alight either. But NUFC are the only club that make bad buys, in your deluded little world.

 

A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years.

 

Not too bad.

 

Diego Forlan is the Uruguay player, not great for Man Utd but doing well at Athletico.

 

In regard to evaluating the running of a club, should this not be measured relatively speaking? For example, only 4 more teams may have qualified for Europe than we did under Hall and Shepherd, yet clubs with little or no European hopes (even over this 15 year peroid) may have been run "better" than us as they possibly progressed more in regard to stature, position or silverware.

 

Basically, should we not measure how "well" a club is run contextually? for instance, paying attention to the resources at their disposal and what they can and have achieved with them?

 

do you have any idea the state the club was in when they found it in 1992 ?

 

Do you think Everton had a better 15 years than we did because they won the FA Cup in 1995 ? Or do you think Joe Royle is a better manager than Keegan because he won a trophy and KK didn't ie with Everton in 1995? Is this your point ?

 

No...I am not name-dropping. I am merely suggesting that your benchmark of achieving European success as an indicator of a clubs spending credibility is potentially misleading and ignorant of the context of the clubs and how they interpret "success."

 

I also think you have to consider the long-term effects of this spending as well. Rangers may have bought much of the SPL titles in the 90's but this was not sustainable and now they are up shit creek financially. The legacy of transfer dealings should be considered as well as any success or failures they bring in the short run.

 

 

So ? They capitalised on the potential fanbase - which nobody else has done including the current owner and I will be very surprised if he does - and over the 15 years we were the 5th most qualified team for europe, brought international top quality footballers, filled the ground, expanded the stadium, had the 5th highest average league position and played in 2 FA Cup Finals. Whats your problem apart from the obvious disappointment of coming 2nd on 4 occasions which is hardly the fault of the board ?

 

 

THIS ...

 

why doesn't he answer

 

I'm not contesting those achievements in anyway, I am also not trying to assert that our progress wasnt impressive. I was merely suggesting that we should evaluate clubs contextually on how well they are run as opposed to measuring them by European credentials which are not a realistic possibility for the majority. I think this is an unfair benchmark.

 

I derived that view from you when you said this:

 

"A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years"

 

Yet when you start mentioning factors such as stature, attendances and the quality of player a club can attract, then I am in agreement with you. I just think the European measure of success is a bit uncomprehensive.

 

I also still stand by the view that transfer dealings should be evaluated in the long run as well as the short run.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why do you think Leeds imploded Leazes? Was it because they didn't spend enough?

 

 

If you want to win, it costs money. Ever heard of the phrase "if you don't buy a ticket you won't win the raffle".

 

Amazed at your dumbness. You sound just like some of the dicks on Newcastle Online

Again...so why didn't Leeds win? You sound like the bloke who spends his life savings at the bookies saying "If I don't put a bet on, how can I ever win?"

 

It's a nonsense argument. I've already said several times that you need to spend money but ONLY if that money is spent wisely and ONLY if you can afford the debt. We'd run out of credit and were going nowhere fast....or do you think we were on the verge of greatness before Ashley arrived. Seriously. I want you to answer the specific question.

 

Were we about to win something before Ashley came along?

 

do you bet on the lottery ? How come you don't win every week then ? Your questions are getting dafter by the second.

 

Its piss easy this spending money wisely, in fact its so so soooooooo easy, how doesn't everybody do it

 

By the way, for their spending, you got the 5th most qualified team for europe including the Champions League, the 5th highest average position, an expanded stadium full to capacity every home game [they must have done something right ],

world class footballers attracted to the club, 2 FA Cup Finals, and one of the highest turnovers in world football.

 

All on the back of bad appointments and wasting money. Not bad going eh.

 

I don't bet on the lottery. The odds of me losing a pound are loads loads loads loads loads loads higher than me winning a million quid (which btw is statistically more likely to wreck my life than improve it).

 

 

Now let's suppose for a second I DID play the lottery.

 

 

When do you think I should stop buying tickets and sort my life out?

 

When I'd lost my wife?

 

My house?

 

My kids?

 

 

 

 

Are you telling us all Leazes that in your opinion there is NEVER a time when you should stop spending money on a possible good outcome?

 

You should be official adviser to Alex Ferguson trotting out such wisdoms as that, I don't think he would agree though.

Avoiding the question again Leazes? That's weird.

 

Alex Ferguson wouldn't have bought Boumsong to please Willy McKay.

 

Do you see the point yet?

 

You have to spend money in the right way. If you succeed you got it right, if you fail you got it wrong.

 

That's why it's difficult.

 

 

...but you can't say the guy who shot and missed got it right. Shepherd's job wasn't to back shit managers, his job was to hire the right people to get those decisions right. He didn't.

 

he bought Veron though And that Uruguay player [name escapes me] and others. Berbatov isn't setting the place alight either. But NUFC are the only club that make bad buys, in your deluded little world.

 

A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years.

 

Not too bad.

 

Diego Forlan is the Uruguay player, not great for Man Utd but doing well at Athletico.

 

In regard to evaluating the running of a club, should this not be measured relatively speaking? For example, only 4 more teams may have qualified for Europe than we did under Hall and Shepherd, yet clubs with little or no European hopes (even over this 15 year peroid) may have been run "better" than us as they possibly progressed more in regard to stature, position or silverware.

 

Basically, should we not measure how "well" a club is run contextually? for instance, paying attention to the resources at their disposal and what they can and have achieved with them?

 

do you have any idea the state the club was in when they found it in 1992 ?

 

Do you think Everton had a better 15 years than we did because they won the FA Cup in 1995 ? Or do you think Joe Royle is a better manager than Keegan because he won a trophy and KK didn't ie with Everton in 1995? Is this your point ?

 

No...I am not name-dropping. I am merely suggesting that your benchmark of achieving European success as an indicator of a clubs spending credibility is potentially misleading and ignorant of the context of the clubs and how they interpret "success."

 

I also think you have to consider the long-term effects of this spending as well. Rangers may have bought much of the SPL titles in the 90's but this was not sustainable and now they are up shit creek financially. The legacy of transfer dealings should be considered as well as any success or failures they bring in the short run.

 

 

So ? They capitalised on the potential fanbase - which nobody else has done including the current owner and I will be very surprised if he does - and over the 15 years we were the 5th most qualified team for europe, brought international top quality footballers, filled the ground, expanded the stadium, had the 5th highest average league position and played in 2 FA Cup Finals. Whats your problem apart from the obvious disappointment of coming 2nd on 4 occasions which is hardly the fault of the board ?

 

 

THIS ...

 

why doesn't he answer

 

I'm not contesting those achievements in anyway, I am also not trying to assert that our progress wasnt impressive. I was merely suggesting that we should evaluate clubs contextually on how well they are run as opposed to measuring them by European credentials which are not a realistic possibility for the majority. I think this is an unfair benchmark.

 

I derived that view from you when you said this:

 

"A FACT by the way, is that only 4 clubs [yes FOUR] qualified for europe more than we did under the Halls and Shepherd, that means only FOUR clubs generally speaking ran their clubs and spent money better over the course of 15 years"

 

 

 

No it isn't. It means that we were the 5th best team in the country over a period spanning 15 years. When they found the club, we were about 40th. This season we are 21st.