SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 what did we sing to the opposing fans ''you've only come to see Okocha'' our crowds were excellent thanks to the star names such as jay jay and youri,plus the fact of our decent league positions and quality of football don't forget the extra prize money on offer by finishing higher up the league,plus commercial revenue,so the sums start to add up now don't they ? scowcroft wouldn't have put too many bums on seats,nor produce the quality required by the moaning reebok masses. you say crowds in the last couple of years have been 24,000 without star names. that's the last couple of years,what have they got to do with okocha and scowcroft argument ? at that time when okocha and co signed,we were virtually selling out,with the likes of scowcroft we'd have struggled to sell out against united. so i'll have to say bollocks to you pal re the extra revenue The 3,000-4,000 extra tickets bring in slightly more revenue, granted. And my WHOLE FUCKING POINT in this thread is that this would have worked if it was a sustainable method. It wasn't. Those fans didn't stay when these star players left, leaving several other highly paid older players to cover with less income, as I've pointed out so many times. It's even been said by enzo in this thread as well. Players of the ilk of Okocha and Djorkaeff became unavailable, it was a temporary transfer policy which Sam exploited to great effect. Hence, unsustainable. I know that's a large word, so I'll translate it for you. It means "not able to be continued for an extended time". You've taken my point about Sam being the main cause for the debt, and turned it into a comparison of apples and oranges with regards to transfer dealings. And you have the audacity to say that it's me who has taken it out of context. You should stick to pretending to have mates in high places and making up transfer rumours. You're (marginally) better at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DazBob Posted August 28, 2012 Members Share Posted August 28, 2012 Crumbs, Snoop! Is frustration setting in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Ratwhite Posted August 28, 2012 Site Supporter Share Posted August 28, 2012 Can someone summarise this thread please, like a fucking novel. Especially on phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Crumbs, Snoop! Is frustration setting in? Yes . I'm sick of repeating myself for someone to take the topic off on a skew again. It's driving me mental. Can someone summarise this thread please, like a fucking novel. Especially on phone Basically, it started with miamiwhite saying Gartside and Coyle have destroyed the club from the lofty heights that we are now (apparently) entitled to, and comparing Allardyce's transfer policy to Coyles. I then pointed out that Sam was responsible (in the majority) for our current debt and then we argued back and forth over that for 3 pages. I'd give it a skip if you don't like repetition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyStardust Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Do I think he's solely responsible for Bolton's debt? No, that was mostly panic buying by Megson I then pointed out that Sam was responsible (in the majority) for our current debt and then we argued back and forth over that for 3 pages. I'd give it a skip if you don't like repetition. Repetition is certainly something missing from your arguments. Alongside facts, sanity and a lack of agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Ratwhite Posted August 28, 2012 Site Supporter Share Posted August 28, 2012 Yes ::. I'm sick of repeating myself for someone to take the topic off on a skew again. It's driving me mental. Basically, it started with miamiwhite saying Gartside and Coyle have destroyed the club from the lofty heights that we are now (apparently) entitled to, and comparing Allardyce's transfer policy to Coyles. I then pointed out that Sam was responsible (in the majority) for our current debt and then we argued back and forth over that for 3 pages. I'd give it a skip if you don't like repetition. Thanks Snoop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamiwhite Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 The 3,000-4,000 extra tickets bring in slightly more revenue, granted. And my WHOLE FUCKING POINT in this thread is that this would have worked if it was a sustainable method. It wasn't. Those fans didn't stay when these star players left, leaving several other highly paid older players to cover with less income, as I've pointed out so many times. It's even been said by enzo in this thread as well. Players of the ilk of Okocha and Djorkaeff became unavailable, it was a temporary transfer policy which Sam exploited to great effect. Hence, unsustainable. I know that's a large word, so I'll translate it for you. It means "not able to be continued for an extended time". You've taken my point about Sam being the main cause for the debt, and turned it into a comparison of apples and oranges with regards to transfer dealings. And you have the audacity to say that it's me who has taken it out of context. You should stick to pretending to have mates in high places and making up transfer rumours. You're (marginally) better at that. did i say you've taken it out of context ? i said others have,without pointing the finger directly. 3,000 or 4,000 extra bring in hell of a lot of extra revenue,not just a slight increase,i'd do your sums again pal i don't have to pretend to have friends in high places,just go through the archives on here,esp pics with okocha and co at his house. carlos and seasoned traveller are clearly visible on those. you don't know me from adam,so i wouldn't try and mock me without asking around re my contacts,which you could only presumably dream of,but i won't try to mock you on that. a point to ponder on,maybe sam's scouting network and contacts in the game are hell of a lot better than the managers who've been in the reebok hotseat since his departure,hence he could have sustained his policy,but that's a case of if's and and's. cheers for the definition of unsustainable,i never knew what that large word meant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoopJohnnyJohn Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Repetition is certainly something missing from your arguments. Alongside facts, sanity and a lack of agendas. Did you even read any of the posts? Sam left a shit squad, which needed "panic buying" to bolster. Good God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 what did we sing to the opposing fans ''you've only come to see Okocha'' I doubt many visiting fans go home to their small town in Arsenal in a Bolton ambulance to shag their sister, mind. Don't believe all you sing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughmungus Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Did you even read any of the posts? Sam left a shit squad, which needed "panic buying" to bolster. Good God. Wrong ! Sam was shafted and left because he knew he needed new players and the board wouldn't take the chance which I think would have paid off, as he had got a bit fed up of flying around Europe spending hours trying to convince players to come to a place they had never heard of. The debt was never going to get better as it was unsustainable ( your word not mine) when they failed to get a return on the stock market and Burnden Park ended up being worth a lot less than planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Can someone summarise this thread please, like a fucking novel. Especially on phone This is about the top and bottom of it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted August 28, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 28, 2012 Wrong ! Sam was shafted and left because he knew he needed new players and the board wouldn't take the chance which I think would have paid off, as he had got a bit fed up of flying around Europe spending hours trying to convince players to come to a place they had never heard of. The debt was never going to get better as it was unsustainable ( your word not mine) when they failed to get a return on the stock market and Burnden Park ended up being worth a lot less than planned. when is sam suing panorama and yes, it's relevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newquaywhite Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Its not! It's a giraffe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyStardust Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Did you even read any of the posts? Sam left a shit squad, which needed "panic buying" to bolster. Good God. A shit squad. That had just finished 8th. And with players that we sold for circa £30m. And that had a lower wage bill than last year. Yes there were players that were getting old. Needed panic buying ? Really ? The fact that the new managers *chose* to bring new players in without clearing out the old guard (you know, like at every club that isn't bankrolled by a sugar daddy insist on) can hardly be blamed on Allardyce (Athough you do actually blame Allardyce because future managers couldn't get the best out of them ) What I genuinely dont get is how you seem to blame Allardyce for the the £29m (think of that figure for a second) increase in the debt achieved in 2010 (3 years after he left, and arguably after any contracts 'his' players may have had would have expired). Or the £30m loss incurred in 2007-2009 (despite wages & amortisation being lower than football income in both those years). Or the £12m loss in the last financial year. I don't see how you can blame Allardyce for leaving a wage bill of £30.6m in 2007 when in 2010 it had rose to £46.4m in 2010, despite a smaller proporional rise in revenue. I fail to see how you apportion blame to a manager who oversaw a club for 8 years in which the debt rose from circa £11m in 1999 to £43m in 2007 for the £65m rise in that debt in the years AFTER he leaves the club. I reaaly don't understand why you think that the failings of the chairman in his selection, and the choices and decisions of the Messrs Lee, Megson & Coyle are solely at the feet of Allardyce. My apologies to all concerned for bringing facts into the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The fact that the new managers *chose* to bring new players in without clearing out the old guard (you know, like at every club that isn't bankrolled by a sugar daddy insist on) can hardly be blamed on Allardyce You can't just hide contracts behind the cupboard. The "old guard" weren't up to it, didn't command a transfer fee and were on wages nobody else was willing to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Ratwhite Posted August 29, 2012 Site Supporter Share Posted August 29, 2012 This is about the top and bottom of it.... Fantastic Summary Birch have a 1+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek smalls Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 All of it? Fat Sam loves himself - FACT. Fat Sam thought he should be the England manager - FACT. Brendan Rogers got the Liverpool job due to the way Swansea play football - almost certain FACT. Roy Hodgson got the England job for many reasons, one of them being the football Fulham played in Europe - FACT. Fat Sam had to drop down a league after being sacked by Blackburn and Newcastle - cast iron FACT. Yes he does, yes he did, Rogers may be out of a job by Christmas, Hodgson (like Rodgers) was a politically correct choice (and did fuck all at Liverpool) Allardyce has a reputation for playing shit football and being a cunt as we all know and thats why he hasn`t had a top job The point I would like to make here is that a debt is only a problem if you can`t service it. When Allardyce was Manager we were going upwards, the debt was manageable, the squad would have rotated over time and there would have been no problem. It only became a problem because he wanted to take it to the next level, fell out with Gartside and did one. What followed was a complete collapse which left us exposed for which you cannot blame him. Silly talk to say its his fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Carlos Posted August 30, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 30, 2012 See, I reckon when he resigned, it was a bluff. I reckon he'd threatened to walk loads of times before to get more money spent. I reckon he bullied Garty into commiting to expenditure that we couldn't realistically afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bolty58 Posted August 30, 2012 Members Share Posted August 30, 2012 See, I reckon when he resigned, it was a bluff. I reckon he'd threatened to walk loads of times before to get more money spent. I reckon he bullied Garty into commiting to expenditure that we couldn't realistically afford. So it's all conjecture then? We'll all know for certain when Sam or Gartys memoirs come out. In the meantime, is there any real point in speculating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 the squad would have rotated over time and there would have been no problem. It only became a problem because he wanted to take it to the next level How would the squad have 'rotated', exactly? This 'next level' shit is bollocks. As I see it, Sam knew his squad of ageing stars had run its race. He needed X amount to maintain the standard because the loans/free transfer market he'd mined so well had all but gone for us. Gartside told him we didn't have that kind of money to spend, Allardyce fucked off and left us to rebuild his decrepit squad. The suggestion that three or four new faces alongside Campo, Speed and Stelios would have seen us join the Champions League elite is incredible, and absolving Allardyce of all blame because he gave us some cracking away days is just gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted August 30, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 30, 2012 See, I reckon when he resigned, it was a bluff. I reckon he'd threatened to walk loads of times before to get more money spent. I reckon he bullied Garty into commiting to expenditure that we couldn't realistically afford. he got blown out on the transfer front at christmas and left with 3 games of the season left within 8 months Megson was spending about £15M in the Jan transfer market, and a further £8M on Elmander within 12 I just think they got bored of each other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted August 30, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 30, 2012 was it megson who produced evidence that he inherited shite out of the players he picked up, once you excluded jussi, nolan and davies, the rest played about another 50 prem games between them - and that might be generous cos i'm struggling to think who they were i'm excluding anelka cos he obviously wasn't shite but he obviously wasn't hanging around, either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted August 30, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 30, 2012 he got blown out on the transfer front at christmas and left with 3 games of the season left within 8 months Megson was spending about £15M in the Jan transfer market, and a further £8M on Elmander within 12 I just think they got bored of each other did we not sell anelka at the same time? could you imagine fatty being told he had to do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted August 30, 2012 Moderators Share Posted August 30, 2012 was it megson who produced evidence that he inherited shite out of the players he picked up, once you excluded jussi, nolan and davies, the rest played about another 50 prem games between them - and that might be generous cos i'm struggling to think who they were i'm excluding anelka cos he obviously wasn't shite but he obviously wasn't hanging around, either there was also meite, campo, stelios, diouf, jobrien still knocking about maybe they thought picking up cheap unknowns/loans big wages and turning them into winners could be done by any old manager then lee proved it couldn't with alonso, wilhelmsson, braaten et al so they thought best to actually give the next one some cash to spend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrener Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Can we have some more tits up! Photos please?0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.