Leazes Mag / AshleysSkidMark Love In

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes... when you mention the fact that we used to sign players like this... could it be argued that Damien Duff was one of those players? Exactly the same, a Chelsea winger leaving them because he is declining. Were you happy signing declining players on inflated wages at great expense to the clubs financial health?

 

for the record.........

 

 

 

What? You're completely bananas mate

 

I follow you ????????

 

 

the point of this is fairly straightforward btw

[Guest]

Leazes... when you mention the fact that we used to sign players like this... could it be argued that Damien Duff was one of those players? Exactly the same, a Chelsea winger leaving them because he is declining. Were you happy signing declining players on inflated wages at great expense to the clubs financial health?

 

for the record.........

 

 

 

What? You're completely bananas mate

 

I follow you ????????

 

 

the point of this is fairly straightforward btw

 

 

Indeed. I asked you a question in one thread and have been stalked by yourself ever since!

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes... when you mention the fact that we used to sign players like this... could it be argued that Damien Duff was one of those players? Exactly the same, a Chelsea winger leaving them because he is declining. Were you happy signing declining players on inflated wages at great expense to the clubs financial health?

 

for the record.........

 

 

 

What? You're completely bananas mate

 

I follow you ????????

 

 

the point of this is fairly straightforward btw

 

 

Indeed. I asked you a question in one thread and have been stalked by yourself ever since!

 

you mean like this

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry747637

 

and stop whining like a bairn man.

[Guest]

Leazes... when you mention the fact that we used to sign players like this... could it be argued that Damien Duff was one of those players? Exactly the same, a Chelsea winger leaving them because he is declining. Were you happy signing declining players on inflated wages at great expense to the clubs financial health?

 

for the record.........

 

 

 

What? You're completely bananas mate

 

I follow you ????????

 

 

the point of this is fairly straightforward btw

 

 

Indeed. I asked you a question in one thread and have been stalked by yourself ever since!

 

you mean like this

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry747637

 

and stop whining like a bairn man.

 

 

Aye, a bit of crack and your response confirmed the absence of any sense of humour!

[Craig 6302]

Honestly the pair of you are as bad as each other and both acting like a couple of bairns - "you're following me!" "nah, you're following me!"

 

Fuck's sake man up the pair of you - ASM I've told you already - stop replying to him and it'll stop....

[Guest]

Honestly the pair of you are as bad as each other and both acting like a couple of bairns - "you're following me!" "nah, you're following me!"

 

Fuck's sake man up the pair of you - ASM I've told you already - stop replying to him and it'll stop....

 

 

I know I know I knowwwww, he just rubs me up the wrong way

 

I'll keep him ignored

Edited June 11, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[The Fish 8989]

Honestly the pair of you are as bad as each other and both acting like a couple of bairns - "you're following me!" "nah, you're following me!"

 

Fuck's sake man up the pair of you - ASM I've told you already - stop replying to him and it'll stop....

 

Yeah ASM, let Leazes win

 

 

[Park Life 70]

...Ok, I still don't get your point alex. If you are referring to just the Owen deal, I think that the financial mess that was left ran much deeper than that.

I was referring to that specific point, yes. Isn't that what you were on about when you mentioned spending future revenues or whatever? Because that's the only example I can think of. Incidentally, that deal is now finished isn't it? So it would've been spent now anyway. If you've got any other specific points, I'll give my opinion on them. Rather than a 'all the money's gone' type comment. As that's a bit nebulous. I wonder where all the money Keegan was told he'd have to spend has gone btw. The same money Ashley told the fans would be available in his open letter. I fail to see how you can put that one on anyone else given he'd had 12 months to check the books out by then.

 

 

I always got the impression that that was money that Ashley was willing to invest, before the big fall out. I think the reason he isn't spending now is because the club has no money and he isn't willing to put the money up, whereas before, he was.

The fallout that happened at the end of the transfer window when KK left or the one where he wouldn't buy Modric? Neither one fits your theory, if you think about it because neither would have happened were he willing to invest.

 

 

He spent quite a bit in that window didn't he? The fallout didn't happen because he wasn't willing to invest, it happened because he was investing by backing Wise and not Keegan.

He recouped a canny bit as well. I think 'net spend' is what you need to look at really. I'm not saying Wise wasn't a factor. It was a combination of not giving KK the money he wanted and Wise undermining KK and selling players behind his back / promising him players he had no chance of getting (Schweinstiger). Are you on the fucking wind up btw?

 

 

Wind up why? You're the one defending Freddy Shepherd... Mike Ashley being a bad owner suddenly paints Shepherd in a positive light for some people whereas I'm not that naive.

 

It's like having Gary Glitter as an uncle but then accepting him into the family because you find out you're related to Ian Huntley

I'm not defending Shepherd as a whole, only against what I consider to be unfair accusations / shifting of the blame onto him for stuff Ashley is to blame for. Which is why I got into specifics. Nice try though.

 

It's all opinions alex, I got the feeling we were tail-spinning when Shepherd left and with shit lazy cunts tied into big money long term deals I think something had to give. Ashley made the mistake of selling our better well-paid players though, which I acknowledge makes him largely responsible. It's easy to look back at the Robson years and look at Freddy through rose tinted glasses, but the reality is that he backed Robson's last transfer window with the signings of £2million Carr, £2million Butt (and not Carrick) and then gave Souness 55 million to spend in his first 12 months. The bloke is a completely bananas

I've already acknowledge the Souness bit and agree about it being especially daft when you think about what Robson could have done with that money. Thing is like, Ashley's worse when it comes to running the club. Much worse. In my opinion

 

 

But Ashley took on the club after it had effectively had and blown it's big chance in the big football financial boom and was in free fall. Freddy and the Halls deserve credit to getting the club to they did (circumstances within football at the time certainly helped), but I think falling from top 5 with Bobby Robson in charge, especially considering that they ability to splash out 55 million, is the show of someone more inept than Mike Ashley. Freddy was more ambitious, but to fail that badly and quickly when you're trying that hard and spending that much is pretty spectacular. Mike Ashley got us relegated through lack of ambition, but it'd have cost him more to get us back into the top 4 than relegation cost him imo.

I don't think we were in freefall. Where's the evidence? Just your opinion again. Ashley took us down in particular taking the decision to make a profit in the January when we already in bother. That trumps anything the old board did with ease.

 

NOt sure how much say he has in it, but with hindsight we should have held onto those players till the summer, but the likes of Given and Zog had psychologically already left the club.

[LeazesMag 0]

...Ok, I still don't get your point alex. If you are referring to just the Owen deal, I think that the financial mess that was left ran much deeper than that.

I was referring to that specific point, yes. Isn't that what you were on about when you mentioned spending future revenues or whatever? Because that's the only example I can think of. Incidentally, that deal is now finished isn't it? So it would've been spent now anyway. If you've got any other specific points, I'll give my opinion on them. Rather than a 'all the money's gone' type comment. As that's a bit nebulous. I wonder where all the money Keegan was told he'd have to spend has gone btw. The same money Ashley told the fans would be available in his open letter. I fail to see how you can put that one on anyone else given he'd had 12 months to check the books out by then.

 

 

I always got the impression that that was money that Ashley was willing to invest, before the big fall out. I think the reason he isn't spending now is because the club has no money and he isn't willing to put the money up, whereas before, he was.

The fallout that happened at the end of the transfer window when KK left or the one where he wouldn't buy Modric? Neither one fits your theory, if you think about it because neither would have happened were he willing to invest.

 

 

He spent quite a bit in that window didn't he? The fallout didn't happen because he wasn't willing to invest, it happened because he was investing by backing Wise and not Keegan.

He recouped a canny bit as well. I think 'net spend' is what you need to look at really. I'm not saying Wise wasn't a factor. It was a combination of not giving KK the money he wanted and Wise undermining KK and selling players behind his back / promising him players he had no chance of getting (Schweinstiger). Are you on the fucking wind up btw?

 

 

Wind up why? You're the one defending Freddy Shepherd... Mike Ashley being a bad owner suddenly paints Shepherd in a positive light for some people whereas I'm not that naive.

 

It's like having Gary Glitter as an uncle but then accepting him into the family because you find out you're related to Ian Huntley

I'm not defending Shepherd as a whole, only against what I consider to be unfair accusations / shifting of the blame onto him for stuff Ashley is to blame for. Which is why I got into specifics. Nice try though.

 

It's all opinions alex, I got the feeling we were tail-spinning when Shepherd left and with shit lazy cunts tied into big money long term deals I think something had to give. Ashley made the mistake of selling our better well-paid players though, which I acknowledge makes him largely responsible. It's easy to look back at the Robson years and look at Freddy through rose tinted glasses, but the reality is that he backed Robson's last transfer window with the signings of £2million Carr, £2million Butt (and not Carrick) and then gave Souness 55 million to spend in his first 12 months. The bloke is a completely bananas

I've already acknowledge the Souness bit and agree about it being especially daft when you think about what Robson could have done with that money. Thing is like, Ashley's worse when it comes to running the club. Much worse. In my opinion

 

 

But Ashley took on the club after it had effectively had and blown it's big chance in the big football financial boom and was in free fall. Freddy and the Halls deserve credit to getting the club to they did (circumstances within football at the time certainly helped), but I think falling from top 5 with Bobby Robson in charge, especially considering that they ability to splash out 55 million, is the show of someone more inept than Mike Ashley. Freddy was more ambitious, but to fail that badly and quickly when you're trying that hard and spending that much is pretty spectacular. Mike Ashley got us relegated through lack of ambition, but it'd have cost him more to get us back into the top 4 than relegation cost him imo.

I don't think we were in freefall. Where's the evidence? Just your opinion again. Ashley took us down in particular taking the decision to make a profit in the January when we already in bother. That trumps anything the old board did with ease.

 

NOt sure how much say he has in it, but with hindsight we should have held onto those players till the summer, but the likes of Given and Zog had psychologically already left the club.

 

 

and we could easily end up in the hands of someone far worse than Mike Ashley

[Guest alex]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign. I'd also add it's mostly supposition on your part anyway - i.e. where we were headed under the last regime, rather than where we actually were. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Because it means all of their success was built on an unsustainable business model. Which taints their achievements.

It taints their achievements aye. It doesn't complete negate them though. That's basically what I've been saying anyway though. You're the one saying you judge them on where they finished up and the mistakes they made. I'm arguing for a more balanced overview.

 

 

I don't think spending future income to achieve a couple of seasons in europe is anything to shout about at all though. In fact I think there's a few decent premiership sides that could probably go down that route now but choose not to, and that's why they were above us when Shepherd left.

 

Ahhh good old hindsight again, tbf Shearer, what a waste of cash he was too after all we won nowt when he was here

 

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

 

so you are confirming we shouldn't have bothered signing him then

 

Or are you going to blame Shepherd for losing 2 FA Cup Finals

 

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

We were 2nd the season before we bought Shearer so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

[LeazesMag 0]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign. I'd also add it's mostly supposition on your part anyway - i.e. where we were headed under the last regime, rather than where we actually were. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Because it means all of their success was built on an unsustainable business model. Which taints their achievements.

It taints their achievements aye. It doesn't complete negate them though. That's basically what I've been saying anyway though. You're the one saying you judge them on where they finished up and the mistakes they made. I'm arguing for a more balanced overview.

 

 

I don't think spending future income to achieve a couple of seasons in europe is anything to shout about at all though. In fact I think there's a few decent premiership sides that could probably go down that route now but choose not to, and that's why they were above us when Shepherd left.

 

Ahhh good old hindsight again, tbf Shearer, what a waste of cash he was too after all we won nowt when he was here

 

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

 

so you are confirming we shouldn't have bothered signing him then

 

Or are you going to blame Shepherd for losing 2 FA Cup Finals

 

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

We were 2nd the season before we bought Shearer so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

 

Any old stick to beat Shepherd with - although Shepherd wasn't chairman when we bought Shearer

 

Thompers true to form.

[Guest]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign. I'd also add it's mostly supposition on your part anyway - i.e. where we were headed under the last regime, rather than where we actually were. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Because it means all of their success was built on an unsustainable business model. Which taints their achievements.

It taints their achievements aye. It doesn't complete negate them though. That's basically what I've been saying anyway though. You're the one saying you judge them on where they finished up and the mistakes they made. I'm arguing for a more balanced overview.

 

 

I don't think spending future income to achieve a couple of seasons in europe is anything to shout about at all though. In fact I think there's a few decent premiership sides that could probably go down that route now but choose not to, and that's why they were above us when Shepherd left.

 

Ahhh good old hindsight again, tbf Shearer, what a waste of cash he was too after all we won nowt when he was here

 

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

 

so you are confirming we shouldn't have bothered signing him then

 

Or are you going to blame Shepherd for losing 2 FA Cup Finals

 

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

We were 2nd the season before we bought Shearer so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

 

 

With defensive players needed more than attacking ones needed to kick on would you not agree? Anyway, signing Shearer has nothing to do with my point.

[LeazesMag 0]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign. I'd also add it's mostly supposition on your part anyway - i.e. where we were headed under the last regime, rather than where we actually were. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Because it means all of their success was built on an unsustainable business model. Which taints their achievements.

It taints their achievements aye. It doesn't complete negate them though. That's basically what I've been saying anyway though. You're the one saying you judge them on where they finished up and the mistakes they made. I'm arguing for a more balanced overview.

 

 

I don't think spending future income to achieve a couple of seasons in europe is anything to shout about at all though. In fact I think there's a few decent premiership sides that could probably go down that route now but choose not to, and that's why they were above us when Shepherd left.

 

Ahhh good old hindsight again, tbf Shearer, what a waste of cash he was too after all we won nowt when he was here

 

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

 

so you are confirming we shouldn't have bothered signing him then

 

Or are you going to blame Shepherd for losing 2 FA Cup Finals

 

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

We were 2nd the season before we bought Shearer so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

 

 

With defensive players needed more than attacking ones needed to kick on would you not agree? Anyway, signing Shearer has nothing to do with my point.

 

you said this

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

you also said this

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

 

as Alex pointed out, Manu and Arsenal did not have 10 other players better than our other 10, we finished 2nd in the league, only ManU finished above us. And they also conceded only 2 goals more than we did in the entire season.

 

Are you also blaming Shepherd for this ? Do you blame him when it rains too

Edited June 13, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Guest]

I hope he's not putting an effort into replying to my posts because he's on ignore

[peasepud 59]

With defensive players needed more than attacking ones needed to kick on would you not agree? Anyway, signing Shearer has nothing to do with my point.

 

Yes it does.

 

We signed Shearer for a World Record fee at the time, do you think we had the cash lying around? did we shite, we borrowed it and used sponsorship money to pay for him.

 

This whole bollocks put about by Ashley on how bad it was to use the NR money paid at the start of the sponsorship deal to buy a player is exactly that...bollocks. What else would you have preferred was done with it? put it in the bank and gain interest? pay it off some other loan?

 

Still at least those days are gone, now we merely mortgage off payments we havent even received yet to cover an overdraft we never should have had in the first place.

[Tom 13836]

If that really is Thompers he's banned and the ban would stand...

[LeazesMag 0]

I hope he's not putting an effort into replying to my posts because he's on ignore

 

no effort at all lad, as I'm right, and not replying is just an admission that you know it

[Guest alex]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign. I'd also add it's mostly supposition on your part anyway - i.e. where we were headed under the last regime, rather than where we actually were. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Because it means all of their success was built on an unsustainable business model. Which taints their achievements.

It taints their achievements aye. It doesn't complete negate them though. That's basically what I've been saying anyway though. You're the one saying you judge them on where they finished up and the mistakes they made. I'm arguing for a more balanced overview.

 

 

I don't think spending future income to achieve a couple of seasons in europe is anything to shout about at all though. In fact I think there's a few decent premiership sides that could probably go down that route now but choose not to, and that's why they were above us when Shepherd left.

 

Ahhh good old hindsight again, tbf Shearer, what a waste of cash he was too after all we won nowt when he was here

 

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

 

so you are confirming we shouldn't have bothered signing him then

 

Or are you going to blame Shepherd for losing 2 FA Cup Finals

 

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

We were 2nd the season before we bought Shearer so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

 

 

With defensive players needed more than attacking ones needed to kick on would you not agree? Anyway, signing Shearer has nothing to do with my point.

That's completely different to what you said in your previous post though. You were suggesting we had a poor side and we signed Shearer to paper over the cracks (I can only assume that was your point anyway). Were that true Shearer wouldn't even have come. He could have gone just anyway in the world and while we are his home town, he came here in the firm belief it was to win things. With hindsight, defensive players were perhaps needed but the board sanctioned a move for Maldini at the same time Shearer was signed but he wouldn't come. We actually had a good defence though. Also, we had an excellent side with a class manager that had just missed out on the league and when that manager wanted to sign Shearer the board fully backed him. Are you honestly criticising them for that? I think a lot of what you've had a pop at them for is legitimate but you're way off on this one iyam.

[Guest The Three Lions]

This is one of the shitest threads I've ever seen on toontastic.

[Guest alex]

This is one of the shitest threads I've ever seen on toontastic.

The ST thread beats it hands down tbf.

[Guest The Three Lions]

This is one of the shitest threads I've ever seen on toontastic.

The ST thread beats it hands down tbf.

ST?

[Kevin 1]

If that really is Thompers he's banned and the ban would stand...

A bit like Stevie and The Three Lions, eh Tom ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign. I'd also add it's mostly supposition on your part anyway - i.e. where we were headed under the last regime, rather than where we actually were. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Because it means all of their success was built on an unsustainable business model. Which taints their achievements.

It taints their achievements aye. It doesn't complete negate them though. That's basically what I've been saying anyway though. You're the one saying you judge them on where they finished up and the mistakes they made. I'm arguing for a more balanced overview.

 

 

I don't think spending future income to achieve a couple of seasons in europe is anything to shout about at all though. In fact I think there's a few decent premiership sides that could probably go down that route now but choose not to, and that's why they were above us when Shepherd left.

 

Ahhh good old hindsight again, tbf Shearer, what a waste of cash he was too after all we won nowt when he was here

 

 

Sentimentally, no, but how many clubs since have broke the world transfer record and won nothing?

 

 

so you are confirming we shouldn't have bothered signing him then

 

Or are you going to blame Shepherd for losing 2 FA Cup Finals

 

 

Why break the transfer record and have one top top player if Man Utd and Arsenal's 10 other players are better than your other 10?

We were 2nd the season before we bought Shearer so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

 

 

With defensive players needed more than attacking ones needed to kick on would you not agree? Anyway, signing Shearer has nothing to do with my point.

That's completely different to what you said in your previous post though. You were suggesting we had a poor side and we signed Shearer to paper over the cracks (I can only assume that was your point anyway). Were that true Shearer wouldn't even have come. He could have gone just anyway in the world and while we are his home town, he came here in the firm belief it was to win things. With hindsight, defensive players were perhaps needed but the board sanctioned a move for Maldini at the same time Shearer was signed but he wouldn't come. We actually had a good defence though. Also, we had an excellent side with a class manager that had just missed out on the league and when that manager wanted to sign Shearer the board fully backed him. Are you honestly criticising them for that? I think a lot of what you've had a pop at them for is legitimate but you're way off on this one iyam.

 

sadly for him, that is all right.

 

It's probably why he's buggered off and ignored this thread now.

 

Well and truly trumped.

[LeazesMag 0]

buggered off. Confirmed.

[Guest I'm A Cunt]

The knob should be gone altogether.