Pardew - two players max to come in during the January window

[Happy Face 29]

Why does 7th signify the rot setting in for Shepherd, but the best we can hope for now?

As he always bangs on about champions league, challenging the top etc then 7th would have been poor, 14th the previous season?

 

7th and 14th were poor for Shepherd.

 

For Ashley that's about the peak.

 

Still not sure how you think you're making a point that hurts Leazes' argument.

[Phil 6]

Why does 7th signify the rot setting in for Shepherd, but the best we can hope for now?

 

7th was massively over achievement due to a late run of form.

 

The rot is in the decision making process behind the scenes. For example in 15 years not one single manager had an exit clause put into his contract. Beggars belief given how often they were changed.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, can you answer these questions without resorting to talking about the usual stuff.

1, what were our league positions the last 2 seasons under the previous owners?

2, which players were signed/sold/let go in the same period?

3, do you still think the Carroll sale wasn't good business?

4, would you have liked Barton/Nolan to get the 4 year deals they wanted?

 

I look forward to your answers

 

1. I am not cherry picking and talking about 2 seasons out of 15. Why do you not want to talk about the entire 15 years ?

2. what ?

3. One person or transfer doesn't encompass the entire transfer policy of the club. As it happens, it has only been "good business" for Mike Ashley, not Newcatle United, as Mike Ashley has pocketed the transfer fee. Why do you think one transfer encompasses the entire setup and policy of the club ? This is the same mentality of those who think Michael Owen encompassed the entire transfer policy of the club, in 15 years. Quite amazing.

4. Why do you think it was a good decision to "get rid" of Barton ? Quite amazing too. You STILL don't really understand the idea that it is YOUR MANAGER who should be deciding who he wants to keep etc, and that he should also be given the money for transfer fees for sales to spend how he sees fit and improve his own team. is this a difficult idea to grasp for you or something ?

 

I look forward to you waking up to the real world, and how a progressive and ambitious big football club is set up and conducts itself, which I am trying to explain.

 

I never mentioned Micheal Owen encompassing the transfer policy of the previous owners, I know we had some class players BUT the last few years before the sale the wheels were coming off, finishing 14th and 7th

 

Letting Barton go or paying him 50k a week on a 5 year deal, no contest in the real world. You obviously would have given it tom him, NOLAN?? any answers on that one

 

How do you know the 35mil has not gone into the club?? just because the manager isnt given it doesnt mean it has not been spent on running the club

 

As for the manager not controlling transfers, not really harmed spurs has it??

 

I'm pleased you mentioned 7th, only 12 months before the club was sold. How long has it taken Mike Ashley to finish 7th ? Oh, he hasn't done it yet, so much for the "wheels coming off".

 

Nolan doesn't encompass the entire transfer policy any more than Owen does. The FACT is that the club are competing at the lower end of the market, ie see clubs like Blackburn, Bolton etc. One player does NOT prove anything about the policy and setup of the club. See next paragraph, you STILL don't understand this do you ?

 

Where has the 35m quid gone ? Has it gone on the "running of the club", this is how selling clubs are set up, not progressive clubs. Progressive clubs are or should be those with the biggest revenues, who don't or shouldn't need to sell their best players to put the money into operating costs. I would say Newcastle United come into that category, rather than clubs half the size, for instance Blackburn and Bolton, who sell their best players and don't/can't/choose not to [delete as appropriate] give their managers the money from sales to allow him to build the best football team that he can, and actually keeping their best players too whenever possible rather than sell them against his wishes.

 

I'm getting tired of telling you this. Maybe someone else will have a go ?

 

If you think Redknapp isn't picking the players Spurs buy and sell, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[LeazesMag 0]

Why does 7th signify the rot setting in for Shepherd, but the best we can hope for now?

 

7th was massively over achievement due to a late run of form.

 

The rot is in the decision making process behind the scenes. For example in 15 years not one single manager had an exit clause put into his contract . Beggars belief given how often they were changed.

 

and everybody does this except us then ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Why does 7th signify the rot setting in for Shepherd, but the best we can hope for now?

As he always bangs on about champions league, challenging the top etc then 7th would have been poor, 14th the previous season?

 

7th and 14th were poor for Shepherd.

 

For Ashley that's about the peak.

 

 

 

thats about the size of it. Changed ie lower, expectations.

[Park Life 70]

I have doubts we'll get more than Maiga in Jan...Maybe a loan. Might not even get anyone. Bam!

[JawD 31]

I could have walked into any of 5 thread here

[manc-mag 1]

I could have walked into any of 5 thread here

 

 

So true like, was just thinking the same thing. Jesus wept.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Leazes, can you answer these questions without resorting to talking about the usual stuff.

1, what were our league positions the last 2 seasons under the previous owners?

2, which players were signed/sold/let go in the same period?

3, do you still think the Carroll sale wasn't good business?

4, would you have liked Barton/Nolan to get the 4 year deals they wanted?

 

I look forward to your answers

 

1. I am not cherry picking and talking about 2 seasons out of 15. Why do you not want to talk about the entire 15 years ?

2. what ?

3. One person or transfer doesn't encompass the entire transfer policy of the club. As it happens, it has only been "good business" for Mike Ashley, not Newcatle United, as Mike Ashley has pocketed the transfer fee. Why do you think one transfer encompasses the entire setup and policy of the club ? This is the same mentality of those who think Michael Owen encompassed the entire transfer policy of the club, in 15 years. Quite amazing.

4. Why do you think it was a good decision to "get rid" of Barton ? Quite amazing too. You STILL don't really understand the idea that it is YOUR MANAGER who should be deciding who he wants to keep etc, and that he should also be given the money for transfer fees for sales to spend how he sees fit and improve his own team. is this a difficult idea to grasp for you or something ?

 

I look forward to you waking up to the real world, and how a progressive and ambitious big football club is set up and conducts itself, which I am trying to explain.

 

I never mentioned Micheal Owen encompassing the transfer policy of the previous owners, I know we had some class players BUT the last few years before the sale the wheels were coming off, finishing 14th and 7th

 

Letting Barton go or paying him 50k a week on a 5 year deal, no contest in the real world. You obviously would have given it tom him, NOLAN?? any answers on that one

 

How do you know the 35mil has not gone into the club?? just because the manager isnt given it doesnt mean it has not been spent on running the club

 

As for the manager not controlling transfers, not really harmed spurs has it??

 

I'm pleased you mentioned 7th, only 12 months before the club was sold. How long has it taken Mike Ashley to finish 7th ? Oh, he hasn't done it yet, so much for the "wheels coming off".

 

Nolan doesn't encompass the entire transfer policy any more than Owen does. The FACT is that the club are competing at the lower end of the market, ie see clubs like Blackburn, Bolton etc. One player does NOT prove anything about the policy and setup of the club. See next paragraph, you STILL don't understand this do you ?

 

Where has the 35m quid gone ? Has it gone on the "running of the club", this is how selling clubs are set up, not progressive clubs. Progressive clubs are or should be those with the biggest revenues, who don't or shouldn't need to sell their best players to put the money into operating costs. I would say Newcastle United come into that category, rather than clubs half the size, for instance Blackburn and Bolton, who sell their best players and don't/can't/choose not to [delete as appropriate] give their managers the money from sales to allow him to build the best football team that he can, and actually keeping their best players too whenever possible rather than sell them against his wishes.

 

I'm getting tired of telling you this. Maybe someone else will have a go ?

 

If you think Redknapp isn't picking the players Spurs buy and sell, you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Ashley wants the club to be self financing so the money has to come from somewhere

 

The previous owners ran the club on credit and racked up debts

 

No doubt they had more success, we had great players and played in Europe.

 

My arguement is the money ran out and we struggled even before Ashley bought the club.

[toonotl 2453]

LM: Hypothetically speaking if we managed to finish in the top four this season would you consider that a lesser/equal/or greater achievement than a top four finish under Shepherd?

 

There is absolutely no comparison. How thick are you to even presume there could be a comparison ? How can one hypothetical 4th top finish [which will never happen anyway, or even near] prompt any comparison to the long term future and prospects of the club.

 

If you were to make a comparison [as you wish to do so] how can you possibly say that one top 4 finish is anywhere near both the first 4 years of the previous regime and the long term under the previous regime ?

 

I'm not going to go into a long winded explanation about what I actually did and did not say, what hypothetical means or how declaring comparison redundant blunts your own argument. I'll just say this. I made no comparison. I asked you to compare a hypothetical fourth place finish under Ashley versus a fourth place finish under Shepherd.

 

Now, I will give you credit for evading the question because you are aware of its inherent dangers for the validity of your view rather than for purely reflexive reasons. Nevertheless, the question remains valid and unanswered so please answer it.

[LeazesMag 0]

LM: Hypothetically speaking if we managed to finish in the top four this season would you consider that a lesser/equal/or greater achievement than a top four finish under Shepherd?

 

There is absolutely no comparison. How thick are you to even presume there could be a comparison ? How can one hypothetical 4th top finish [which will never happen anyway, or even near] prompt any comparison to the long term future and prospects of the club.

 

If you were to make a comparison [as you wish to do so] how can you possibly say that one top 4 finish is anywhere near both the first 4 years of the previous regime and the long term under the previous regime ?

 

I'm not going to go into a long winded explanation about what I actually did and did not say, what hypothetical means or how declaring comparison redundant blunts your own argument. I'll just say this. I made no comparison. I asked you to compare a hypothetical fourth place finish under Ashley versus a fourth place finish under Shepherd.

 

Now, I will give you credit for evading the question because you are aware of its inherent dangers for the validity of your view rather than for purely reflexive reasons. Nevertheless, the question remains valid and unanswered so please answer it.

 

if I don't answer questions, idiots like you ask why, if I do ask questions, idiots like Fish and mancmag accuse me of derailing threads.

 

What I have said stands, which Alex and Happy Face have also commented on in their own ways. Please explain what the difference is between Ashley finishing 4th on one occasion and the HALLS AND Shepherd finishing 4th - or in the top 4 - on

6 occasions ?

 

Why is 4th under Mike Ashley a roaring success and under the old regime a waste of time etc etc etc....blah blah blah.......

 

If anything, the previous regime had far bigger climb to these positions than Mike Ashley, who took over an established top premiership club, rather than one on its knees staring at the 3rd division.

 

Why do you ignore these facts ? Do you think football was invented in 1992 too ?

[ChezGiven 0]

It doesnt need an answer. Objectively, finishing 4th now is a greater achievement. Its not even a discussion point.

[LeazesMag 0]

It doesnt need an answer. Objectively, finishing 4th now is a greater achievement. Its not even a discussion point.

 

rubbish Chez. They finished 3rd after 2 and a half years, Ashley took over an established top premiership football club and has got nowhere near that after 4 years [and won't so your fantasy is irrelevant anyway]

Edited November 22, 2011 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

It doesnt need an answer. Objectively, finishing 4th now is a greater achievement. Its not even a discussion point.

 

rubbish.

 

Its not. I'd bore you with models of competition from economic theory, carefully explaining the market distortions and how these have increased since we last qualified but i cant be arsed and it would be boring. The key points are global market revenues, oil money, higher % of total income for all clubs is collectively bargained. The world has changed dramatically since the 90's and each of those changes has 'distorted' the ability to compete and concentrated power and resources into an elite. Spurs may well get a top 4 place this season but it will be because Chelsea have mis-managed their resources.

[toonotl 2453]

Exactly. The question doesn't need an answer, it obviously would be more difficult now. However, LM is duty bound to deny this objective reality for the self-perceived hammer blow of validity to come across in his argument.

 

It gives him a falsely gained sense of weightiness for his argument while wilfully ignoring the realities of the situation comparatively.

 

See above for his duty bound denial of said reality which does not highlight his deluded outlook but rather his understanding of the misgivings of his stance. This is what frustrates me. You have to operate in the real world to be taken seriously and LM simply does not, by choice. A lot of the points he makes are valid but they are overshadowed by the blinkered approach he uses to make them.

[Happy Face 29]

 

Yeah Leazes. You're wrong because if we managed to finish 4th in an alternate reality then it would exceed previous achievements.

 

You don't have to disagree just because It's Leazes you know e everyone.

[ChezGiven 0]

I disagree because it is more difficult. The more difficult nature of the conditions are about as objective as you can get requiring no opinion whatsoever. Unsurprised by your comments though seeing as you love facile comparisons

[Dr Gloom 19879]

While I appreciate the fact the new look of the forum means the ignore tool results in me barely noticing when leazes posts, the problem of me having to read his stuff through others' quote pyramids remains. Can the mods please fix this? I'm utterly bored of reading him post the same old shite in every single thread. Would be great if ignore could also block quotes. Is it possible to do this?

[Happy Face 29]

I disagree because it is more difficult. The more difficult nature of the conditions are about as objective as you can get requiring no opinion whatsoever. Unsurprised by your comments though seeing as you love facile comparisons

 

I'm not disagreeing it's harder to finish 4th now.

 

I'm laughing that finishing 4th is being used as an argument to big up ashley...who's not finished top half.

[Guest alex]

Talk of finishing 4th may be a tad premature.

[LeazesMag 0]

It doesnt need an answer. Objectively, finishing 4th now is a greater achievement. Its not even a discussion point.

 

rubbish.

 

Its not. I'd bore you with models of competition from economic theory, carefully explaining the market distortions and how these have increased since we last qualified but i cant be arsed and it would be boring. The key points are global market revenues, oil money, higher % of total income for all clubs is collectively bargained. The world has changed dramatically since the 90's and each of those changes has 'distorted' the ability to compete and concentrated power and resources into an elite. Spurs may well get a top 4 place this season but it will be because Chelsea have mis-managed their resources.

 

if they or any other big club gets into that top 4 - and challenges Man City, ManU and Chelsea or even gets close - then it is because they have decided to attempt it. If you don't attempt it, then you won't. Its as simple as that, and despite the "economic reality" [which is NOT the reason why people wanted rid of "Shepherd", but not the Halls it would seem which is curious to say the least] this is what you must do, and we are not doing it and aren't going to do it, we are going to continue to sell our best players, and will NEVER build on any half decent group of players we assemble and try to go the whole hog into those top places.

 

Like it or not, this is what will happen, and time will prove me to be absolutely correct.

 

The only way Newcastle United will go is down, we will have highs and lows as everyone does, but finishing in a top half position of the premiership is the absolute peak that will be achieved under this current policy adopted by the owner.

[LeazesMag 0]

I disagree because it is more difficult. The more difficult nature of the conditions are about as objective as you can get requiring no opinion whatsoever. Unsurprised by your comments though seeing as you love facile comparisons

 

I'm not disagreeing it's harder to finish 4th now.

 

I'm laughing that finishing 4th is being used as an argument to big up ashley...who's not finished top half.

 

this sort of argument makes me smile. People make out that it was easy to finish 4th ffs. It has always been hard to finish in the top places. In the 70's and 80's we never did it at all. [because we sold our best players and shopped around the Netto type market for replacements. Co-incidence eh?]

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Yeah Leazes. You're wrong because if we managed to finish 4th in an alternate reality then it would exceed previous achievements.

 

You don't have to disagree just because It's Leazes you know e everyone.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

While I appreciate the fact the new look of the forum means the ignore tool results in me barely noticing when leazes posts, the problem of me having to read his stuff through others' quote pyramids remains. Can the mods please fix this? I'm utterly bored of reading him post the same old shite in every single thread. Would be great if ignore could also block quotes. Is it possible to do this?

 

Give it a rest you big bairn. And stop posting the same old shite.

 

You are now repeating what I told you years ago when you disagreed. You're no better than those tosspots on Newcastle Online for your hypocrisy.

Edited November 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[ewerk 26576]

You do realise that he won't be able to see your post?