Leazes Mag / AshleysSkidMark Love In

[Guest alex]

...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.

[Guest]

...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.

 

 

League finishes and accounts should suffice there.

 

I don't disagree about Ashley making mistakes in January, but I think in reality the decision to sell two player that want to leave isn't always as simple as being able to say 'shut up you're staying'. A costly mistake, but is it as inept as sacking Robson and giving Souness 55mill? The consequences were bigger, but in terms of the crime itself...

[Guest alex]

And another thing: Joe Kinnear. Jesus titty-fucking wept.

[Guest]

And another thing: Joe Kinnear. Jesus titty-fucking wept.

 

 

Agreed Maybe because Shepherd had been through all of the other available managers on the market

[Guest alex]

...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.

 

 

League finishes and accounts should suffice there.

 

I don't disagree about Ashley making mistakes in January, but I think in reality the decision to sell two player that want to leave isn't always as simple as being able to say 'shut up you're staying'. A costly mistake, but is it as inept as sacking Robson and giving Souness 55mill? The consequences were bigger, but in terms of the crime itself...

Consistent mid-table finishes = free-fall? Ok. As for the rest of it, you're cherry-picking. If you look at the Halls/Shepherd regime as a whole and compare it to Ashley's as a whole. Again, no contest I'm afraid. Edit: I also don't know how you can say an error of the last regime (you're daft if you think Shepherd did anything without the tacit agreement of the Halls) was worse than a one made by Ashley when you concede the latter had greater consequences.

Edited June 11, 2010 by alex

[Guest]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

[Guest alex]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

No, as I said, I judge their overall reign. It's quite telling that you feel the need make to put words into my mouth though.

[Guest]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

No, as I said, I judge their overall reign. It's quite telling that you feel the need make to put words into my mouth though.

 

 

The way their overall reign ended should be enough to make a fair judgement on them. 70% of revenue on wages, future income spent, etc.

[Guest alex]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

No, as I said, I judge their overall reign. It's quite telling that you feel the need make to put words into my mouth though.

 

 

The way their overall reign ended should be enough to make a fair judgement on them. 70% of revenue on wages, future income spent, etc.

It's obviously part of the judgement of their reign, yes. Where have I said it isn't btw? Not really sure what point you're making here - that you only judge stuff like that on how it ends? So SBR was a shit manager for us because his reign ended with the club being near the bottom of the league with whiff of him having lost the dressing room? Is that how it works or does it only apply to Shepherd?

[LeazesMag 0]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

 

 

do you think Brian Clough was a shit manager because Forest were relegated in his last season as their manager ?

[Guest]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

 

 

do you think Brian Clough was a shit manager because Forest were relegated in his last season as their manager ?

 

 

Before my time.

 

Do you think Portsmouth was well run because they won an F.A Cup?

[LeazesMag 0]

not much doubt about it.

 

This bloke is either thompers, or someone else on just the same sort of ridiculous wind up, or maybe he's stupid enough to actually believe what he says

[Guest]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

No, as I said, I judge their overall reign. It's quite telling that you feel the need make to put words into my mouth though.

 

 

The way their overall reign ended should be enough to make a fair judgement on them. 70% of revenue on wages, future income spent, etc.

It's obviously part of the judgement of their reign, yes. Where have I said it isn't btw? Not really sure what point you're making here - that you only judge stuff like that on how it ends? So SBR was a shit manager for us because his reign ended with the club being near the bottom of the league with whiff of him having lost the dressing room? Is that how it works or does it only apply to Shepherd?

 

 

No because it wasn't his fault that he was being undermined and Shepherd was buying players over his head. Judging a manager and juding a chairman/owner are two completely different kettles of fish so I don't see your point.

[Guest alex]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

No, as I said, I judge their overall reign. It's quite telling that you feel the need make to put words into my mouth though.

 

 

The way their overall reign ended should be enough to make a fair judgement on them. 70% of revenue on wages, future income spent, etc.

It's obviously part of the judgement of their reign, yes. Where have I said it isn't btw? Not really sure what point you're making here - that you only judge stuff like that on how it ends? So SBR was a shit manager for us because his reign ended with the club being near the bottom of the league with whiff of him having lost the dressing room? Is that how it works or does it only apply to Shepherd?

 

 

No because it wasn't his fault that he was being undermined and Shepherd was buying players over his head. Judging a manager and juding a chairman/owner are two completely different kettles of fish so I don't see your point.

I'm not judging them on the same criteria, I was using the example to illustrate the point it's ridiculous to only judge a reign on how it ends.

[Guest]

not much doubt about it.

 

This bloke is either thompers, or someone else on just the same sort of ridiculous wind up, or maybe he's stupid enough to actually believe what he says

 

 

I'm putting you on ignore you boring old bastard. I would take time to respond more thoroughly to you, but a good 75% of your posts make no sense at all and that laughing smiley doesn't make your points more valid it just makes you more annoying.

[Guest]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

No, as I said, I judge their overall reign. It's quite telling that you feel the need make to put words into my mouth though.

 

 

The way their overall reign ended should be enough to make a fair judgement on them. 70% of revenue on wages, future income spent, etc.

It's obviously part of the judgement of their reign, yes. Where have I said it isn't btw? Not really sure what point you're making here - that you only judge stuff like that on how it ends? So SBR was a shit manager for us because his reign ended with the club being near the bottom of the league with whiff of him having lost the dressing room? Is that how it works or does it only apply to Shepherd?

 

 

No because it wasn't his fault that he was being undermined and Shepherd was buying players over his head. Judging a manager and juding a chairman/owner are two completely different kettles of fish so I don't see your point.

I'm not judging them on the same criteria, I was using the example to illustrate the point it's ridiculous to only judge a reign on how it ends.

 

 

No, a managers reign is influenced by the backing he receives, therefore outside influences determine how well a manager does towards the end of his reign. Shepherd was at the top, pulling the strings, making the decisions. Completely inappropriate example to use.

[Guest alex]

I still don't see how you can argue it's fair to judge only the end of the reign or the errors they made. 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.

Edited June 11, 2010 by alex

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Neither do I. I actually said pretty much the opposite in fact.

[LeazesMag 0]

You judge them for the heights they reached, I judge them on their pathetic attempts to sustain it.

 

 

do you think Brian Clough was a shit manager because Forest were relegated in his last season as their manager ?

 

 

Before my time.

 

Do you think Portsmouth was well run because they won an F.A Cup?

 

 

what does it matter if it was before your time or not

[Guest]

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: LeazesMag.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

not much doubt about it.

 

This bloke is either thompers, or someone else on just the same sort of ridiculous wind up, or maybe he's stupid enough to actually believe what he says

 

 

I'm putting you on ignore you boring old bastard. I would take time to respond more thoroughly to you, but a good 75% of your posts make no sense at all and that laughing smiley doesn't make your points more valid it just makes you more annoying.

 

shame. You might learn something, although Alex is doing his best.

[Guest]

This is... peaceful I no longer find myself getting angry