LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. obsessed. You spouted for years how "embarrassed" you were at having a team that played in europe, saying how anybody but Fred would do better and you wouldn't be so embarrassed. Poor little diddums. Better than the Halls and Shepherd - I have to put this in, because for all your self proclaimed intelligence, you STILL appear to think someone with less than 30% of the shares ran the club and made all the big decisions single handed. You're obsessed with me, and won't admit that you were spouting shit and got it all wrong. I don't "argue" with anybody, only thick cunts who didn't see a good board when we had one. Not really my fault that you and others were so dumb. I've only replied because it was such a long post and finding faults with what I post. Just this once. Obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. obsessed. You spouted for years how "embarrassed" you were at having a team that played in europe, saying how anybody but Fred would do better and you wouldn't be so embarrassed. Poor little diddums. Better than the Halls and Shepherd - I have to put this in, because for all your self proclaimed intelligence, you STILL appear to think someone with less than 30% of the shares ran the club and made all the big decisions single handed. You're obsessed with me, and won't admit that you were spouting shit and got it all wrong. I don't "argue" with anybody, only thick cunts who didn't see a good board when we had one. Not really my fault that you and others were so dumb. I've only replied because it was such a long post and finding faults with what I post. Just this once. Obsessed. That was practically all made up and/or continued to miss the point spectacularly so I won't bother responding to the 'points' raised. If I genuinely was "obsessed" then I would, but I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wavey Davey 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 obsessed. You spouted for years how "embarrassed" you were at having a team that played in europe, saying how anybody but Fred would do better and you wouldn't be so embarrassed. I can bet good money he didn't say this. And yes, I temprorarily took you off ignore to view this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 group hug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Not taking sides as I don't think it's got much to do with Ashley anyway but the crowds are still remarkably good and I think under Shepherd we'd have had a slight downturn anyway. The reason for this is people being worried about their finances, job cuts etc. but (probably most significantly) you can watch just about every Newcastle game, home or away on the foreign telly in any number of pubs in and around the town these days. Worth considering what the crowds would have been had Keegans return and the 3 year ticket scheme not come in. Definitely enticed me back and I think quite a few others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. you're obsessed with what Shepherd took out, like others. Who gives a fuck about renting warehouses etc, and it was the Halls who couldn't wait to get their money and run when the sale was made, not Shepherd. This sort of thing ie renting warehouses happens in all walks of life, you're not a kid, you should be aware of this. When the club is growing to the size it grew to under them, and competing with all the other top clubs, a small amount of money on warehouses and shares, relatively speaking, is fuck all. You say you were aware of where the club was in 1991 ? I really find that hard to believe. You should be aware that in the 70's and 80's, money disappeared, and was never saw again, the same as we won't see the bulk of this 35m quid from the sale of Carroll. Who is taking out ? People like you, with this obsessed hatred of Shepherd for some reason, just make me laugh. Nobody is denying at the time the sale was made, the club needed to rebuild and maybe change direction for a while and re-think their strategy, the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance of this, and I have said this numerous times. The difference being, unlike Mike Ashley, they would then have aimed for the top again, like they did after Bobby Robson's first few years. Mike Ashley won't do this. The sooner we get owners like the Halls and Shepherd again, the sooner we will get close to getting back into europe etc, making trophy signings etc that do this. It makes me laugh that people like mancmag proclaim I'm a WUM, rather than admit he was completely wrong. Laughable. At least some people have it about them to admit that they got it all wrong. We will never qualify for the Champions League under ownership of Mike Ashley. I said this almost as soon as he had his foot through the door, and everybody disagreed with me. Not my fault that is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 obsessed. You spouted for years how "embarrassed" you were at having a team that played in europe, saying how anybody but Fred would do better and you wouldn't be so embarrassed. I can bet good money he didn't say this. And yes, I temprorarily took you off ignore to view this. I hope you have learned something then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Holy fuckin smokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. Quite simply an excellent post young man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 The truth is, Shepherd could have all the ambition in the world and it'd be no use to us now because he hasn't got the personal financial clout and he wouldnt be able to get the credit to do what Leazes wants. And Skids is right, those days had drawn to a close before Ashley took over. Ashley is a monumentally capricious dick. He has the personal financial clout (and then some) and chooses not to exercise it. That wasn't always the case as he actually came in throwing money about, but then the arse went out of world markets and finance and he realised the club was costing him a (personal) fortune because of Shepherd's spending of money that didnt exist. It certainly wasn't Shepherds money that was being frittered away in any event. Anyway that was all Ashley's fault because he didn't do due diligence and his subsequent change in outlook ('spend big', changing 360 to 'drive down costs') was only consistent with the man's caprice anyway. Leazes basically makes stuff up for the most part and attributes statements to people that they simply haven't made. For instance I have absolutely no problem in accepting that Shepherd was more 'ambitious' than Ashley, because it's just self evident. But if you point out quite properly that he was ambitious with tick money that i) just isn't available anymore and ii) was invested at no risk to himself, he fails to see that that has any relevance to the debate. Instead he wheels out the line that Newcastle are a big club (we are) and should be ambitious (I don't disagree), but then seems to take the view that the ambition should be funded entirely by Mike Ashley's own personal bank account. Again that is a perfectly valid position to take, but if you do adopt that line you have to understand that i) the 'size' of the club is pretty much an irrelevance, because it's not the club's money you're wanting spent in the first place, and ii) no matter how much you harp on about Shepherd, what you're asking Ashley to do is something entirely different to what Shepherd ever did, because Shepherd never did invest vast sums of his own personal fortune. He dismisses any moderate or objective appraisals as being pro-Ashley and unambitious, instead of acknowledging what they are, which is simply a common sense overview of the two regimes. Skids is in constant battle with him and I know it gets a bit daft from time-to-time but he never makes the outlandish claims about Ashley that Leazes tries to portray, he simply pulls him up for talking shite. At the end of the day though, the number of years he's trolled round various boards and got into arguments with all and sundry, it's pretty obvious he's not worth arguing with to start with. If he was anything other than in tragic earnest about it all, he'd be the best WUM ever. obsessed. You spouted for years how "embarrassed" you were at having a team that played in europe, saying how anybody but Fred would do better and you wouldn't be so embarrassed. Poor little diddums. Better than the Halls and Shepherd - I have to put this in, because for all your self proclaimed intelligence, you STILL appear to think someone with less than 30% of the shares ran the club and made all the big decisions single handed. You're obsessed with me, and won't admit that you were spouting shit and got it all wrong. I don't "argue" with anybody, only thick cunts who didn't see a good board when we had one. Not really my fault that you and others were so dumb. I've only replied because it was such a long post and finding faults with what I post. Just this once. Obsessed. That was practically all made up and/or continued to miss the point spectacularly so I won't bother responding to the 'points' raised. If I genuinely was "obsessed" then I would, but I'm not. Good. You can therefore fuck off now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Excellent post, sums it up perfectly. Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. Im not interested in getting into the whole Shepherd/Ashely argument because Shepherd had his problems/ issues/ whatever we want to call them and I agree with Mancy that he had ran his course. What Shepherd did bring to the table that Ashley has no concept of is the view that Debt can be reduced/ profits increased not just through cost cutting but increasing the turnover. Nothing Ashley has done since coming here could be argued as increasing the revenue of the club. All the thoughts on debt reduction etc are made by cutting corners which unlike a market stall often results in much bigger losses through the likes of relegation. exactly. Small time, no ambition, no future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. you're obsessed with what Shepherd took out, like others. Who gives a fuck about renting warehouses etc, and it was the Halls who couldn't wait to get their money and run when the sale was made, not Shepherd. This sort of thing ie renting warehouses happens in all walks of life, you're not a kid, you should be aware of this. When the club is growing to the size it grew to under them, and competing with all the other top clubs, a small amount of money on warehouses and shares, relatively speaking, is fuck all. You say you were aware of where the club was in 1991 ? I really find that hard to believe. You should be aware that in the 70's and 80's, money disappeared, and was never saw again, the same as we won't see the bulk of this 35m quid from the sale of Carroll. Who is taking out ? People like you, with this obsessed hatred of Shepherd for some reason, just make me laugh. Nobody is denying at the time the sale was made, the club needed to rebuild and maybe change direction for a while and re-think their strategy, the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance of this, and I have said this numerous times. The difference being, unlike Mike Ashley, they would then have aimed for the top again, like they did after Bobby Robson's first few years. Mike Ashley won't do this. The sooner we get owners like the Halls and Shepherd again, the sooner we will get close to getting back into europe etc, making trophy signings etc that do this. It makes me laugh that people like mancmag proclaim I'm a WUM, rather than admit he was completely wrong. Laughable. At least some people have it about them to admit that they got it all wrong. We will never qualify for the Champions League under ownership of Mike Ashley. I said this almost as soon as he had his foot through the door, and everybody disagreed with me. Not my fault that is it ? Laughable and at the same time utterly pointless arguing when your basic comprehension is so completely defective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. you're obsessed with what Shepherd took out, like others. Who gives a fuck about renting warehouses etc, and it was the Halls who couldn't wait to get their money and run when the sale was made, not Shepherd. This sort of thing ie renting warehouses happens in all walks of life, you're not a kid, you should be aware of this. When the club is growing to the size it grew to under them, and competing with all the other top clubs, a small amount of money on warehouses and shares, relatively speaking, is fuck all. You say you were aware of where the club was in 1991 ? I really find that hard to believe. You should be aware that in the 70's and 80's, money disappeared, and was never saw again, the same as we won't see the bulk of this 35m quid from the sale of Carroll. Who is taking out ? People like you, with this obsessed hatred of Shepherd for some reason, just make me laugh. Nobody is denying at the time the sale was made, the club needed to rebuild and maybe change direction for a while and re-think their strategy, the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance of this, and I have said this numerous times. The difference being, unlike Mike Ashley, they would then have aimed for the top again, like they did after Bobby Robson's first few years. Mike Ashley won't do this. The sooner we get owners like the Halls and Shepherd again, the sooner we will get close to getting back into europe etc, making trophy signings etc that do this. It makes me laugh that people like mancmag proclaim I'm a WUM, rather than admit he was completely wrong. Laughable. At least some people have it about them to admit that they got it all wrong. We will never qualify for the Champions League under ownership of Mike Ashley. I said this almost as soon as he had his foot through the door, and everybody disagreed with me. Not my fault that is it ? Laughable and at the same time utterly pointless arguing when your basic comprehension is so completely defective. Crap and you know it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 You just claimed I called you a WUM. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Do you at least see what I'm getting at about comprehension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest You FCB Get Out Of Our Club Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Shepherd never put anything in, but took loads out. you're obsessed with what Shepherd took out, like others. Who gives a fuck about renting warehouses etc, and it was the Halls who couldn't wait to get their money and run when the sale was made, not Shepherd. This sort of thing ie renting warehouses happens in all walks of life, you're not a kid, you should be aware of this. When the club is growing to the size it grew to under them, and competing with all the other top clubs, a small amount of money on warehouses and shares, relatively speaking, is fuck all. You say you were aware of where the club was in 1991 ? I really find that hard to believe. You should be aware that in the 70's and 80's, money disappeared, and was never saw again, the same as we won't see the bulk of this 35m quid from the sale of Carroll. Who is taking out ? People like you, with this obsessed hatred of Shepherd for some reason, just make me laugh. Nobody is denying at the time the sale was made, the club needed to rebuild and maybe change direction for a while and re-think their strategy, the appointment of Allardyce was an admittance of this, and I have said this numerous times. The difference being, unlike Mike Ashley, they would then have aimed for the top again, like they did after Bobby Robson's first few years. Mike Ashley won't do this. The sooner we get owners like the Halls and the Shepherds again, the sooner we will get close to getting back into europe etc, making trophy signings etc that do this. It makes me laugh that people like mancmag proclaim I'm a WUM, rather than admit he was completely wrong. Laughable. At least some people have it about them to admit that they got it all wrong. We will never qualify for the Champions League under ownership of Mike Ashley. I said this almost as soon as he had his foot through the door, and everybody disagreed with me. Not my fault that is it ? I couldn't even tell you why but it always makes me laugh when you say that Agree with the vast majority of your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Who cares if your landlord let's himself in and empties you wallet and harvests your vegetable patch, as long as your house is one of the best 4 in the street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Currently my house is the 11th best but everyone else in the street have just returned from B&Q with carloads of paint, wallpaper and general DIY equipment. Ive checked the garage and it turns out wor lass has just sold off the only tin of that nice cream paint we had to the bloke next door leaving us with a couple of rolls of 1970s flock wallpaper and half an old tin of custard yellow paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19826 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Currently my house is the 11th best but everyone else in the street have just returned from B&Q with carloads of paint, wallpaper and general DIY equipment. Ive checked the garage and it turns out wor lass has just sold off the only tin of that nice cream paint we had to the bloke next door leaving us with a couple of rolls of 1970s flock wallpaper and half an old tin of custard yellow paint. nice analogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I like my house but I'll be happier once the hallway is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Currently my house is the 11th best but everyone else in the street have just returned from B&Q with carloads of paint, wallpaper and general DIY equipment. Ive checked the garage and it turns out wor lass has just sold off the only tin of that nice cream paint we had to the bloke next door leaving us with a couple of rolls of 1970s flock wallpaper and half an old tin of custard yellow paint. Unlucky:( did the previous landlord buy paint on credit from harrods, overpaying and secured against the house? Did he move this on, leaving you unable to afford b and q? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Pud lives in a geet flash millenium tower btw so if it's got 70's flock wallpaper he's put that up himself. Only himself to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 And Alex wants to ignore the hallway and concentrate on the kitchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 And Alex wants to ignore the hallway and concentrate on the kitchen. Have you seen the price of a new kitchen man? My sister is paying £6k just for the fucking worktops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19826 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 we payed £9k in our old flat for a new kitchen refit. the kitchen was the size of a small shoebox as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 we payed £9k in our old flat for a new kitchen refit. the kitchen was the size of a small shoebox as well. Nice analogy btw. 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