Andy Carroll and Jose Enrique

[LeazesMag 0]

our 2 crown jewels.

 

How long before they are sold ?

[Guest]

our 2 crown jewels.

 

How long before they are sold ?

 

 

Depends how much more financial soil is needed to fill the financial hole left by the financially incompetent previous owners of the football club.

[LeazesMag 0]

our 2 crown jewels.

 

How long before they are sold ?

 

 

Depends how much more financial soil is needed to fill the financial hole left by the financially incompetent previous owners of the football club.

 

[Guest]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

[Guest]

Worth noting here by the way Leazes, and this won't suit your argument, that Mike Ashley was in charge when we bought Enrique.

 

The last left-back we signed under your man Freddy? An unfit Oliver Bernard after the window closed and we'd failed to sign anybody for that position And the money hadn't dried up?

[LeazesMag 0]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

[Flair 0]

Here we go.

[Guest]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top clubs have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

Edited August 29, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[Guest]

He's said nowt about Ashley/Enrique signing and the Shepherd/Bernard one like

[LeazesMag 0]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

[Guest]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

[Guest]

Try and answer that with reference to finances and figures relevant to the time instead of the usual Leazes dodgeball of hoping I'm looking forward to relegation scraps, which you resort to when you can't answer the actual point being made.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

 

what do you think they should have done with the 50m quid? Put it in the bank and looked at it ?

[Guest]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

 

what do you think they should have done with the 50m quid? Put it in the bank and looked at it ?

 

 

Pathetic question to respond with because they never had £50m they borrowed it, care to actually answer a question at some point today instead of attempting to counter it with another question?

[Guest]

I'll ask again

 

Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend? At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it? If we were to continue spending, where would the money come from?

[ChezGiven 0]

Barton has been arguably better than Enrique this season.

[Park Life 71]

Barton has been arguably better than Enrique this season.

 

Was just about to say that.

 

Reg the debate, I'm pretty sure AC will be here till his mid-twenties and Ricky for another couple of seasons.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3279]

To add fuel to the flame.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/au...hampions-league

 

in 2012 clubs with big debts will not be allowed in the champions league no exceptions. Judged on spend to turnover ratio so even big bankrollers like Man City would not qualify.

 

I wait with baited breath.

[Guest]

To add fuel to the flame.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/au...hampions-league

 

in 2012 clubs with big debts will not be allowed in the champions league no exceptions. Judged on spend to turnover ratio so even big bankrollers like Man City would not qualify.

 

I wait with baited breath.

 

 

Another company owned by the arab who owns City will just sponsor City for a billion. I love the idea of it and it'd be great for us as a club, but can't help but think there'll be an encyclopaedia of loopholes

[LeazesMag 0]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

 

what do you think they should have done with the 50m quid? Put it in the bank and looked at it ?

 

 

Pathetic question to respond with because they never had £50m they borrowed it, care to actually answer a question at some point today instead of attempting to counter it with another question?

 

Pathetic of you to not appreciate the best directors we have had at the club for at least 50 years. There is always ways to make money. I repeat. To be successful you need to spend money. Everybody is in debt. Why would you rather we fought relegation battles and lose our best players than qualify for europe ?

 

Shame you are too young to realise what a state this club was in when the Halls and Shepherd saved it, and even bigger shame you are too up your own arse to listen to somebody who knows better than you.

[Guest]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

 

what do you think they should have done with the 50m quid? Put it in the bank and looked at it ?

 

 

Pathetic question to respond with because they never had £50m they borrowed it, care to actually answer a question at some point today instead of attempting to counter it with another question?

 

Pathetic of you to not appreciate the best directors we have had at the club for at least 50 years. There is always ways to make money. I repeat. To be successful you need to spend money. Everybody is in debt. Why would you rather we fought relegation battles and lose our best players than qualify for europe ?

 

Shame you are too young to realise what a state this club was in when the Halls and Shepherd saved it, and even bigger shame you are too up your own arse to listen to somebody who knows better than you.

 

I ask where the money would come from and that's your fucking answer? Holy fucking shit leazes. You're a laughing stock. Why don't you buy the club if there's always ways to make money? Go make some! You can appoint Shepherd as your chairman Come on, expand on this and entertain us all.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Just leave them to it, everyone.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

 

what do you think they should have done with the 50m quid? Put it in the bank and looked at it ?

 

 

Pathetic question to respond with because they never had £50m they borrowed it, care to actually answer a question at some point today instead of attempting to counter it with another question?

 

Pathetic of you to not appreciate the best directors we have had at the club for at least 50 years. There is always ways to make money. I repeat. To be successful you need to spend money. Everybody is in debt. Why would you rather we fought relegation battles and lose our best players than qualify for europe ?

 

Shame you are too young to realise what a state this club was in when the Halls and Shepherd saved it, and even bigger shame you are too up your own arse to listen to somebody who knows better than you.

 

I ask where the money would come from and that's your fucking answer? Holy fucking shit leazes. You're a laughing stock. Why don't you buy the club if there's always ways to make money? Go make some! You can appoint Shepherd as your chairman Come on, expand on this and entertain us all.

 

Listen and learn lad. How old are you ? I bet most of them think its you thats talking utter shit by the way

 

Anyway, if its so easy running a football club that qualifies for europe regularly, which is what you clearly think, then why don't YOU do it

[Guest]

I think I know what's happened with Leazes. He's lost all sense of realism in regards of money.

 

He doesn't understand that Shepherd didn't spend money, he spent the club's money. Then accuses Ashley for spending the club's money on paying off the club's debt that Shepherd left. As opposed to doing what, Leazes? Getting into more debt? Can you elaborate for me what other options he had, without suggesting that he personally bankroll it, because Shepherd never did that.

 

Can you explain why the crowds have gone down, then tell us exactly how to recover the lost revenue to spend in the first place ?

 

Then tell us how many of the successful clubs aren't in debt ? As you appear to think success can be obtained with 1m quid signings or behaving like a nursery club to ManU by loaning their players.

 

The crowds went down because the dontgiveashit overpaid big name wankers that Shepherd liked to sign got us relegated.

 

the crowds went up in the first instance because the club bought overpaid big name wankers that challenged for the title and played in europe regularly. The crowds were still coming to the club when the club went down, minus the overpaid big name wankers the vast majority of who were sold by your man Ashley and replaced by cheaper inferior players.

 

If we're answering questions with questions, can you tell me which top players have their debt because of borrowing for transfers? May I also point out that Jose Enrique, the gem as you call him, was £6m, Colo was £10m, Barton £5m, Smith £6m etc, all signed when Ashley came in Kind of pours cold water onto that argument doesn't it

 

Would you rather big money was still being spent and the clubs finances be allowed to sprial out of control or do you agree that to spend sensibly and balance the books, even if it means taking a step backwards to take a step forwards, is likely to put us in a healthier position to push for top spots in the future?

 

You need to spend money to be successful in football. Fact. The bit in bold, is you living in fairyland I'm afraid, if you think your man has serious ambitions for this football club other than seeing it as a way to make money and an outlet for Sports Direct.

 

 

And at what point, after dropping out of the top 4, spending £50m+ of future income and failing to get back into the top 4, do you step back and realise that you've just spent a lot of money achieved nothing. Do you think we're a big enough club to be able to shrug off £50m and continue to spend. At what point does that spending become reckless? Or because we have a big ground does that mean we can spend unlimited money and nobody ever has to worry about it?

 

what do you think they should have done with the 50m quid? Put it in the bank and looked at it ?

 

 

Pathetic question to respond with because they never had £50m they borrowed it, care to actually answer a question at some point today instead of attempting to counter it with another question?

 

Pathetic of you to not appreciate the best directors we have had at the club for at least 50 years. There is always ways to make money. I repeat. To be successful you need to spend money. Everybody is in debt. Why would you rather we fought relegation battles and lose our best players than qualify for europe ?

 

Shame you are too young to realise what a state this club was in when the Halls and Shepherd saved it, and even bigger shame you are too up your own arse to listen to somebody who knows better than you.

 

I ask where the money would come from and that's your fucking answer? Holy fucking shit leazes. You're a laughing stock. Why don't you buy the club if there's always ways to make money? Go make some! You can appoint Shepherd as your chairman Come on, expand on this and entertain us all.

 

Listen and learn lad. How old are you ? I bet most of them think its you thats talking utter shit by the way

 

Anyway, if its so easy running a football club that qualifies for europe regularly, which is what you clearly think, then why don't YOU do it

 

because I don't have the money to buy one?

[Guest]

Why don't you tell Mike Ashley that there's always ways to make money? This advice alone will stop us running at a loss overnight and I'm sure he'd be more inclined to spend more on transfers. Everyones a winner! Or were you talking shit?