Glenn transfer Policy will end in Tears

[Hog 0]

So come 12.01 tomorrow night I wonder if it really will all end in tears. Right now, with the Bates news I am afraid it will. Won''t stop me hoping for a miracle right to the end though, I just hope that for once we can get our business done early!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="BlyBlyBonkers"]

Anybody who quotes Leeds as an example seriously needs to be ignored.

Quite frankly it''s just intellectual dishonesty.

[/quote]

So it would be intellectual dishonesty to note that when Leeds went under, and were taken over by their new Cayman Islands owners, nobody really knows who but the suspicion is that Ken Bates owns the company in the tax haven, they left the local St Johns Ambulance with a 5 figure bill, and as they weren''t a "footballing creditor", they were only entitled to 1p in the pound, and that was only if there was anything left after the likes of Danny Mills and Robbie Fowler were paid their millions.

Ok, so talking about Leeds is intellectually dishonest, whatever that means...

How about Ipswich ? 

Or Leicester ?  Gary Lineker helped to bail them out after they went into administration.

Or Wimbledon / McDons ?

Millwall ? 

Wrexham ? 

Derby I think too. 

Burton Albion ? 

Huddersfield ? 

Bradford ? 

Middlesborough ?

Cardiff ?  Any day now I''d imagine.

Coventry ?  No - but they avoided it by the skin of their teeth.

43 clubs have gone into administration since Sky started showing the Premiership in 1992. 

Even accounting for relegation / promotion, that''s half the participants of the football league over that period.  And every time an administration occurs, local companies go under, charities are left as creditors.  The little bloke gets screwed.

You might feel that our lot are unambitious, that''s your right.  But they are honest.  They pay what''s owed, and they spend what they have.  They don''t overstretch themselves.  And now that they have a footballing man with contacts to practically everyone in the industry, they have an opportunity to get back into the big time.  In an ideal world, a mega-bucks investor would come in with an extra 10 million for every season until we enter the Premiership, and only ask for his money back in instalments after we get there.  With 8-1 odds in the Championship, you''d have to be a gambler to take those odds. 

Until such a gambler comes along, we have to make do with what we have.

That is, unless you''re in favour of sharp practice, a quick administration every 5 years and screwing over charities and small businesses for a 10 point deduction.  Should we call that the binner model, Bly ?  Thankfully, our lot are bright enough not to let that happen.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]So come 12.01 tomorrow night I wonder if it really will all end in tears. Right now, with the Bates news I am afraid it will. Won''t stop me hoping for a miracle right to the end though, I just hope that for once we can get our business done early![/quote]

 

For the 1843rd time, the loan window shuts in March.  We are looking mainly for loan players.  Who knows who might become available after the African Nations Cup ends ?  Or the FA Youth Cup for that matter ?  The world doesn''t end tomorrow night.

Did I mention that we''re unbeaten for 10 matches with our current squad ?

[corbs 0]

If we move forward some 2, 5, 10 years, some posters on here will still be trotting out the same tune, namely why don''t we spend money we do not have, and accusing everyone who does not agree with their view of having their collective heads in the sand, same old, same old, wave a magic wand and it all comes right!

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Anybody who quotes Leeds as an example seriously needs to be ignored.

Quite frankly it''s just intellectual dishonesty.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Oooohhhh!!! Get her!

What is intellectually dishonest about stating that if more money goes out than comes in, your debt increases? If you carry on spending more than you earn, you eventually go bust.
[/quote]

So you''re saying that increasing the Clubs debt is a bad thing then? How much has our debt increased under the current Board again? Are we eventually going to go bust?

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="BlyBlyBonkers"]

Anybody who quotes Leeds as an example seriously needs to be ignored.

Quite frankly it''s just intellectual dishonesty.

[/quote]

So it would be intellectual dishonesty to note that when Leeds went under, and were taken over by their new Cayman Islands owners, nobody really knows who but the suspicion is that Ken Bates owns the company in the tax haven, they left the local St Johns Ambulance with a 5 figure bill, and as they weren''t a "footballing creditor", they were only entitled to 1p in the pound, and that was only if there was anything left after the likes of Danny Mills and Robbie Fowler were paid their millions.

Ok, so talking about Leeds is intellectually dishonest, whatever that means...

How about Ipswich ? 

Or Leicester ?  Gary Lineker helped to bail them out after they went into administration.

Or Wimbledon / McDons ?

Millwall ? 

Wrexham ? 

Derby I think too. 

Burton Albion ? 

Huddersfield ? 

Bradford ? 

Middlesborough ?

Cardiff ?  Any day now I''d imagine.

Coventry ?  No - but they avoided it by the skin of their teeth.

43 clubs have gone into administration since Sky started showing the Premiership in 1992. 

Even accounting for relegation / promotion, that''s half the participants of the football league over that period.  And every time an administration occurs, local companies go under, charities are left as creditors.  The little bloke gets screwed.

You might feel that our lot are unambitious, that''s your right.  But they are honest.  They pay what''s owed, and they spend what they have.  They don''t overstretch themselves.  And now that they have a footballing man with contacts to practically everyone in the industry, they have an opportunity to get back into the big time.  In an ideal world, a mega-bucks investor would come in with an extra 10 million for every season until we enter the Premiership, and only ask for his money back in instalments after we get there.  With 8-1 odds in the Championship, you''d have to be a gambler to take those odds. 

Until such a gambler comes along, we have to make do with what we have.

That is, unless you''re in favour of sharp practice, a quick administration every 5 years and screwing over charities and small businesses for a 10 point deduction.  Should we call that the binner model, Bly ?  Thankfully, our lot are bright enough not to let that happen.

[/quote]blah, another excellent post from you. Unfortunately Bly has some sort of blindness when you try and put all the board do in some sort of context, he just doesn''t want to know. Good luck in getting him to debate this in a mature way, I think he will just come back with sarcastic and derogatory remarks.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="BlyBlyBonkers"]

Anybody who quotes Leeds as an example seriously needs to be ignored.

Quite frankly it''s just intellectual dishonesty.

[/quote]

So it would be intellectual dishonesty to note that when Leeds went under, and were taken over by their new Cayman Islands owners, nobody really knows who but the suspicion is that Ken Bates owns the company in the tax haven, they left the local St Johns Ambulance with a 5 figure bill, and as they weren''t a "footballing creditor", they were only entitled to 1p in the pound, and that was only if there was anything left after the likes of Danny Mills and Robbie Fowler were paid their millions.

Ok, so talking about Leeds is intellectually dishonest, whatever that means...

How about Ipswich ? 

Or Leicester ?  Gary Lineker helped to bail them out after they went into administration.

Or Wimbledon / McDons ?

Millwall ? 

Wrexham ? 

Derby I think too. 

Burton Albion ? 

Huddersfield ? 

Bradford ? 

Middlesborough ?

Cardiff ?  Any day now I''d imagine.

Coventry ?  No - but they avoided it by the skin of their teeth.

43 clubs have gone into administration since Sky started showing the Premiership in 1992. 

Even accounting for relegation / promotion, that''s half the participants of the football league over that period.  And every time an administration occurs, local companies go under, charities are left as creditors.  The little bloke gets screwed.

You might feel that our lot are unambitious, that''s your right.  But they are honest.  They pay what''s owed, and they spend what they have.  They don''t overstretch themselves.  And now that they have a footballing man with contacts to practically everyone in the industry, they have an opportunity to get back into the big time.  In an ideal world, a mega-bucks investor would come in with an extra 10 million for every season until we enter the Premiership, and only ask for his money back in instalments after we get there.  With 8-1 odds in the Championship, you''d have to be a gambler to take those odds. 

Until such a gambler comes along, we have to make do with what we have.

That is, unless you''re in favour of sharp practice, a quick administration every 5 years and screwing over charities and small businesses for a 10 point deduction.  Should we call that the binner model, Bly ?  Thankfully, our lot are bright enough not to let that happen.

[/quote]

Such passionate drivel, Blah.

You know, your most recent avatar always reminds me of  George ''Dubya'' Bush when I see it.

And now you have attacked my little assertion with such shock and awe, but failing quite miserably in the end. Weird. Maybe you''ll work it out one day though- but, there again, maybe not.

OTBC

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Such passionate drivel, Blah.

You know, your most recent avatar always reminds me of  George ''Dubya'' Bush when I see it.

And now you have attacked my little assertion with such shock and awe, but failing quite miserably in the end. Weird. Maybe you''ll work it out one day though- but, there again, maybe not.

OTBC[/quote]

No, I didn''t think you''d have an answer to my post either.  Haven''t you got a thread to start somewhere ?

All these trolls around, I should know better than to go under the bridge really.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="corbs"]If we move forward some 2, 5, 10 years, some posters on here will still be trotting out the same tune, namely why don''t we spend money we do not have, and accusing everyone who does not agree with their view of having their collective heads in the sand, same old, same old, wave a magic wand and it all comes right![/quote]

I simply want them to make the £6.3m received in selling players this season available to Roeder as they promised they would. Don`t you?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Anybody who quotes Leeds as an example seriously needs to be ignored.

Quite frankly it''s just intellectual dishonesty.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Oooohhhh!!! Get her!

What is intellectually dishonest about stating that if more money goes out than comes in, your debt increases? If you carry on spending more than you earn, you eventually go bust.
[/quote]

What Leeds did has about as much relevance to NCFC as what Real Madrid do. As for increasing debt, what is your opinion on the £6.5m in short-term loans the club took out to pay for the infill and some land? £2.5m has to be repayed this year and is almost certainly hampering our ability to back Roeder with decent money.