Swiss_tony Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 I think even me or you could become billionaires if we were given a completely monopoly on retail at Heathrow airport. You have bored people with lots of money and hours to spare, what else are they going to do. and that's why you're here posting on a msgboard and they own a football club.
Monsell1976 Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 Be careful you might get your IP address blocked from the forum for having a difference of opinion. Saying that I've never been blocked before, but I'm guessing I have as this forum doesn't work through wifi but works on 3 g, and every other site works on wifi.
MC Prussian Posted 24 July 2013 Posted 24 July 2013 Be careful you might get your IP address blocked from the forum for having a difference of opinion. Saying that I've never been blocked before, but I'm guessing I have as this forum doesn't work through wifi but works on 3 g, and every other site works on wifi. Try again, but this time, more coherent. and that's why you're here posting on a msgboard and they own a football club. And that's why you're posting on here and they own a football club.
cc_star Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 He could have been sacked before this financial year started. As I said yesterday, if you are asked to slash costs at any company and actually end up improving results and slashing costs, the owners aren't going to be too displeased. This is it. Costs of getting rid of NP have nothing to do with him still being here as he could have been paid off before the deadline and you're point about results & costs... they aren't going to be too unhappy. It's just a shame all that money was blown & NP can't feel the full benefit of sustainable investment.
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Definition of a troll to you = anyone that doesnt agree with you = mostof the posters Definition of a troll is you, someone who takes something someone said and twists it into something else just to get a reaction.
cc_star Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 O'Neill also took over a top three side and had a woeful start to his reign. It took four months for his style and methods to produce results. You'd think he took us from relegation zone to playoff victory the way people go on, fact is we were already a good side & he almost ballsed it up
Corky Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Be careful you might get your IP address blocked from the forum for having a difference of opinion. Saying that I've never been blocked before, but I'm guessing I have as this forum doesn't work through wifi but works on 3 g, and every other site works on wifi. Has this ever actually happened?
seenitall Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Has this ever actually happened? to me - three times so far
Monsell1976 Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Don't know just a bit odd I could access everything through my wifi but fox talk, turned wifi off my iPhone then straight on FT, like I say never been blocked from using this forum, so couldn't say, but I believe you can be blocked. Might just be my paranoid mind😔
seenitall Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 In answer to the OP on this ......if you don't get sacked after taking 6 points from 30 something (can't be arsed to look it up) you are probably pretty safe. Plus, the owners may be working on the 'pre disastered' theory - it is unlikely that any manager would be bad enough once to have a run like that - the odds on it happening twice must be staggering and therefore you might as well keep him - even he can't be that bad twice in two years
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 There are many people moaning about players on high salaries, not doing enough on the field. Pearson is on £1,000,000 a year, and is on it because the owners foolishly believed he would have got us promoted by now. Well he hasn't. If the high earning players are to blame, then this high earning manager is equally to blame, and costing us a fortune for his failure to achieve his objective.
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 to me - three times so far Actually you got a temporary ban by the owner for being your usual trolling self, not for having a different opinion. Mark is hardly the biggest Pearson fan in the world so you can't pull that card.
seenitall Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Actually you got a temporary ban by the owner for being your usual trolling self, not for having a different opinion. Mark is hardly the biggest Pearson fan in the world so you can't pull that card. Which is you trolling me....I am no troll, just not prepared to tow the party line re the owners and the current management. I must admit some of the suck ups do make me over react from what I actually believe sometimes for dramatic effect but that is hardly trolling. What would be most interesting on FT is if the owner (whoever he might be) were prepared to have a non 'club suck up' as an administrator to add a bit of balance. I'd be happy to apply.........
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Which is you trolling me....I am no troll, just not prepared to tow the party line re the owners and the current management. I must admit some of the suck ups do make me over react from what I actually believe sometimes for dramatic effect but that is hardly trolling. What would be most interesting on FT is if the owner (whoever he might be) were prepared to have a non 'club suck up' as an administrator to add a bit of balance. I'd be happy to apply......... There is plenty of balance, because you and anyone else is free to express their opinion. The only people who get bans are either regularly abusive or on the wind up, nothing to do with their opinion. If that was the case you wouldn't even be posting on here now. You do troll, you do it regularly. I warned you not long ago about twisting what people have said.
seenitall Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial No, you were trolling end of story. The owner who doesn't even like Pearson thought you were trolling. So again stop trying to pull that card and perhaps think about what you post.
seenitall Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 No, you were trolling end of story. The owner who doesn't even like Pearson thought you were trolling. So again stop trying to pull that card and perhaps think about what you post. Are you the owner Babs?
MooseBreath Posted 25 July 2013 Author Posted 25 July 2013 From what has happened so far their only business objective appears to be squeezing every bit of money out of us as possible at interest rates a bank wouldn't dare put on a customer. If they did jhave a plan I'd love to see it, it wouldn't look out of the place on the first round of the junior apprentice. Even if we get to the Prem soon which looks unlikely we'll need to be there a few years for them to get their money back. . They did say they were going to convert the debt to equity. We're still waiting obviously, but I don't think they are liars. Certainly nothing about the way they've conducted themselves would suggest that they are anything but a class act. Hopefully when they do convert the debt to equity these arguments against the owners will die out. As for getting their money back. Who says they want to? The club seems like a branding exercise to me. You don't get a direct return from a tv advert, the value comes from increased revenue elsewhere in the business. I'm not overly enthusiastic about the club being reduced to an advert for a far eastern business, but that's where we are, and i'd much rather be here than in the hands of one of those owners who really do want to bleed their clubs dry.
MC Prussian Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 There are many people moaning about players on high salaries, not doing enough on the field. Pearson is on £1,000,000 a year, and is on it because the owners foolishly believed he would have got us promoted by now. Well he hasn't. If the high earning players are to blame, then this high earning manager is equally to blame, and costing us a fortune for his failure to achieve his objective. Oh, look. Another one. The owners didn't give Pearson simply a contract just because they thought he'd get us promoted by now. Pearson got the contract because the owners, getting to terms with reality after the Eriksson debacle, believe that he is the right man for the job, as he has proven in the past.
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Are you the owner Babs? If I was I don't think I'd have ignored the urge to consign you to the bin forever.
Leicesterpool Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Who would people want say if Pearson left the club right now? Your not allowed to say Martin O'Neill!
seenitall Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 If I was I don't think I'd have ignored the urge to consign you to the bin forever. And I though opposites attract
Babylon Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Who would people want say if Pearson left the club right now? Your not allowed to say Martin O'Neill! Martin O'Neill
cc_star Posted 25 July 2013 Posted 25 July 2013 Are all the people quoting FFP as a reason to have low expectations this season aware that the rules apply to all clubs, not just us??? We posted record losses for outside the top flight last season. I think we were £27,000,000 in the red (and that's just last year, never mind the huge losses ran up before on our Thai sponsored debt mountain) getting those losses down to the maximum allowed - something like -£6m, means we have to do more work than most, far far more... So they don't effect everyone equally The three relegated sides receive £20m-ish & there are another 4 or 5 sides in receipt of parachute payments too, then the remainder of the clubs didn't blow their club's future during a professional con man's tenureship And even if we do get the losses down to that much, it's still a loss added on to our debt mountain they've built up in our name So far we're into them for over £100m and we're still to finish as high in the league as we did before they loaded us with this debt. When people say they're good businessmen... They probably are. After all they're turning them lending us £100m into us owning them £108m (and obviously more as debt goes unpaid as more losses are piled on top of this).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.