Guest Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Sir John, Fred here, we need to cut costs and maintain turnover, I'm thinking less meat in the pies and cheaper bog roll in the gents then next summer it's bye bye sibbers hellooooii messi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3604 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3604 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Sacking managers every couple of months isn't the best thing for the wage bill either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Tell you what Leazes, I've known you were pretty thick for a while. I mean, I thought he's not a total idiot, his spelling is generally okay, but he's clearly not the brightest. But to come in his thread and not be able to grasp the concept of disposable income, despite the attempt to drill the message home, is pretty fucking spectacular. The clubs OUTGOINGS, were BIGGER than the INCOMINGS. I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself here. Please state how much of the incoming money you think is left to 'speculate', after the outgoing money (remember here, this is bigger than this in coming money) has gone out of the club. If you accept that this is less than zero, please state which of the outgoing money you suggest Ashley doesn't pay in order to 'speculate'. When Ashley doesn't pay this outgoing money, because he's spent it on players, do you think the persons that that money, that he's just spent on players, was owed to will still expect to be paid? If so, and Ashley says he's spent it, do you think that said person will pursue the money through legal avenues? Anyone able to help out here? I'm trying my best to dumb it down. He doesn't grasp the concept of paying bills. What next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Tell you what Leazes, I've known you were pretty thick for a while. I mean, I thought he's not a total idiot, his spelling is generally okay, but he's clearly not the brightest. But to come in his thread and not be able to grasp the concept of disposable income, despite the attempt to drill the message home, is pretty fucking spectacular. The clubs OUTGOINGS, were BIGGER than the INCOMINGS. I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself here. Please state how much of the incoming money you think is left to 'speculate', after the outgoing money (remember here, this is bigger than this in coming money) has gone out of the club. If you accept that this is less than zero, please state which of the outgoing money you suggest Ashley doesn't pay in order to 'speculate'. When Ashley doesn't pay this outgoing money, because he's spent it on players, do you think the persons that that money, that he's just spent on players, was owed to will still expect to be paid? If so, and Ashley says he's spent it, do you think that said person will pursue the money through legal avenues? Anyone able to help out here? I'm trying my best to dumb it down. He doesn't grasp the concept of paying bills. What next You are asking where the money is coming from. I'm telling you that, when your man bought the club, the club was generating the 14th highest turnover in football. Presumably he had ideas to spend less, which he has implemented, so where is the income from the 14th highest turnover in football going ? How much more money do you think he needs ? I think the 14th highest turnover in football is good going personally, and more than meets any criteria as to what anybody could think was the potential income of the football club. So where is it, and why does he need more than this to avoid selling our best players to balance the books, now he has made his cuts in expenditure ? Kids stuff. Edited February 8, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. So. He inherited a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football, right ? What is he now doing with this money, having made his cuts ? I presume the club's turnover is still the 14th biggest, right ? If not, has it gone up or down, and if it has gone down, that isn't good business is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Tell you what Leazes, I've known you were pretty thick for a while. I mean, I thought he's not a total idiot, his spelling is generally okay, but he's clearly not the brightest. But to come in his thread and not be able to grasp the concept of disposable income, despite the attempt to drill the message home, is pretty fucking spectacular. The clubs OUTGOINGS, were BIGGER than the INCOMINGS. I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself here. Please state how much of the incoming money you think is left to 'speculate', after the outgoing money (remember here, this is bigger than this in coming money) has gone out of the club. If you accept that this is less than zero, please state which of the outgoing money you suggest Ashley doesn't pay in order to 'speculate'. When Ashley doesn't pay this outgoing money, because he's spent it on players, do you think the persons that that money, that he's just spent on players, was owed to will still expect to be paid? If so, and Ashley says he's spent it, do you think that said person will pursue the money through legal avenues? Anyone able to help out here? I'm trying my best to dumb it down. He doesn't grasp the concept of paying bills. What next You are asking where the money is coming from. I'm telling you that, when your man bought the club, the club was generating the 14th highest turnover in football. Presumably he had ideas to spend less, which he has implemented, so where is the income from the 14th highest turnover in football going ? How much more money do you think he needs ? I think the 14th highest turnover in football is good going personally, and more than meets any criteria as to what anybody could think was the potential income of the football club. So where is it, and why does he need more than this to avoid selling our best players to balance the books, now he has made his cuts in expenditure ? Kids stuff. So it's that simple This club is running at a loss. Losing money. I'll buy in, spend less and BISH BASH BOSH ALAKAZAM, 14th bigger turnover in football and loads of profit to speculate. The tragic thing is, you actually do see it as being that simple. Tragic. Edited February 8, 2011 by AshleysSkidMark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. So. He inherited a club with the 14th biggest turnover in football, right ? What is he now doing with this money, having made his cuts ? I presume the club's turnover is still the 14th biggest, right ? If not, has it gone up or down, and if it has gone down, that isn't good business is it The club is still running at a loss. Expecting him to start generating a profit whilst maintaining turnover when we were losing money Unfortunately, people like Owen on the club record deal that Shepherd gave him didn't have the fight to keep us in the top division, which was obviously a set back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I presume the club's turnover is still the 14th biggest, right ? If not, has it gone up or down, and if it has gone down, that isn't good business is it Do you think that's what its all about like? I'll dumb it down for ya, again. Scenario 1. You've got a turnover of £100m. This is the 14 biggest in football. However, your outgoings are £120m. Scenario 2. You've got a turnover of £50m. This is the 50th biggest in football. Your outgoings, however, are only £30m. Which do you think is the healthiest and in the best position to compete Leazes? You're such an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Genuinely feel like I'm teaching primary school maths here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26415 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 I presume the club's turnover is still the 14th biggest, right ? If not, has it gone up or down, and if it has gone down, that isn't good business is it Given that we were in the Championship last season I'm guessing that it took a bit of a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3604 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 If Ashley had undertaken due diligence he would have understood the extent of the club’s financial position and paid an appropriate price. As it was he didn’t and paid far too much. It was his mistake and he should pay the price, not the supporters. Why should we suffer because he fucked up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3604 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3604 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls There wasn't time for due dilligence and you accuse others of having a primary school level grasp of the facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Leazes and Skidder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan because it meant selling our best players and being relegated ? Fairly basic lad, even for you. Do you accept that the 14th biggest turnover in football is enough money for the club to speculate with and therefore should not have to sell its best players ? No, I do not accept that it is big enough if... The outgoings are bigger than the turnover. Do you accept that I need this to sink in before I can stop laughing at you? So cutting outgoings and maintaining high turnover means selling best players and getting relegated?? Why did you just suggest that that was all Ashley needed to do then? Tying yourself in knots again wash, rinse, repeat The old board actually looked like they realised the need for a period of retrenhment, as they had before after the Woodgate signing -hence the appointment of Allerdyce -Alas we will never know as Ashley came in and started doling out 60k/week contracts to the likes of Alan Smith left right and centre. Aye, the old board had realised that they had skinted the club so appointed a manager who made his name spending nothing. They were about to pay the cost of their own reckless ambition, unfortunately for Ashley, he bought the club and inherited the blame for this in certain obsessed, possessive people's eyes. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Leazes of, just in reverse. You are judging Ashley by the actions of Shepherd/Hall, inventing positions for other people to argue against and ignoring points that don't fit your preconceived opinions We will never know what would have happened if Shepherd was still at the helm, he may have driven the club forward with the casino, found new funding from elsewhere, put it into administration sold it Sheik Yermoney. Its completely pointless to speculate. What we do know is the club was in the top 15 revenue generators in the world -that is not in doubt. The reason Ashley is so bad an owner has very little at this stage to do with Shepherd/Hall. You seem to forget he paid off the debt in a popularist flourish on arrival. The problems since then are very much of his making.Putting the management into such disarray that we managed to achieve relegation is astonishing He even managed to inflate the wage bill from the previous administration with a combination of managerial sackings, ill judged contracts and jobs for the boys. (How many of the mega contracts we are still paying were signed under Shepherd/Hall?) His ownership is devaluing the club, receipts are down, sponsorship is down, corporate is down-this is nobodies fault but his own. People aren't blaming him for the problems he inherited-they are blaming him for the problems he has created How am i? The casino idea was fuckin' desperation man, a long shot to say the least. The facts are, and they are facts, that the club was debted up the the eyeballs and there was no money left, as indicated by the signings of Bernard, Rossi, Sibierski, the exact kind of bargain basement and loan signings that Ashley gets slated for from leazes. I don't blindly defend ashley, so for you to say I'm guilty of the same thing in reverse in just stupid. He inherited a lot of problems and created more himself. Leazes blames him for the problems he inherited (not spending money), which is why I am pulling him up. The evidence shows that the money was gone before Ashley came. Leazes calls Ashley unambitious for not spending money that isn't there and wasn't there when he got here. How is that a problem he created? Stop talking shit. Leazes is dead right-of course he is unambitious. He has also run the club disasterously badly. Fact is he did spend money when he first bought the club, and he spent it badly -that wasn't Shepherds fault. He made matters worse by sacking at great cost, financially and to our reputation, Allerdyce and Keegan. He engineered the relegation of the club, none of this is Shepherds fault by the way. He has through no fault of Shepherd collapsed the income, and wasted untold money. He paid off the debt when he came in -since then he has made terrible decsision after terrible decision -none of which have been Shepherd or Hall or anybody elses fault. The reason he is a bad chairman is not anybodies fault but his own. Your obsession with everything wrong at the club now and for evermore being the fault of the previous owners is even more misplaced than Leazes unwillingness to admit any fault for them. You are so blinded by your hatred for Leazes point of view you can't see that you've dissappeared up your own arsehole. You are a blinkered boring fool, you follow Leazes about posting the same tedious shite. He can't make an post about Ashley without you appearing to go on about Shepherd, even when it is completely unrelated to the point-you actually go on about Shepherd more that he does You know how Leazes used to derail every thread with the same argument again and again -that's you that is There's so much wrong with that I'm not going to bother taking it all apart because I've been on nights and I can't be arsed. You're a fucking tool. You've got the same comprehension issues that Leazes has. I DO NOT THINK THAT MIKE ASHLEY IS A GOOD OWNER/CHAIRMAN AND NEVER HAVE. Let's get that clear. BECAUSE MIKE ASHLEY IS A BAD OWNER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN SHEPHERD WAS A GOOD ONE. Leazes runs around spouting that he was right along, was he fuck. He doesn't comprehend that we've gone from a failing ownership to a bad one. He doesn't acknowledge that the previous owners had fucking had it. Mike Ashley being bad or even worse doesn't make them any better. That's all I do, pull him up for talking shit and gloating about being right when he clearly wasn't. You obviously don't read any of these posts I make or you'd know all of this. You're a fuckin' nob you, a full on cock. Leazes might be a bit thick and a bit of a twat sometimes, but you're a full on nob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls There wasn't time for due dilligence and you accuse others of having a primary school level grasp of the facts Quick, Freddy's ill, this is your chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 The information that has come out since suggests that there wasn't time for due diligence and it was a now or never type deal pushed through by the halls :lol: Another boring nob crawls out the woodwork with nothing to contribute. I don't care if you're laughing. You're such a boring cock that when you are laughing, it's not usually funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now