Suarez .... sociopath

[BWFC_Insane]

Probably bumbling around the lower middle of the Championship...oh...

Yet we'd not have signed half the players we did, seen Europe, the top 8 etc etc....

And I bet LK would be moaning about lack of ambition. It is easy to moan about whatever you don't have.

Like us Chelsea are in debt to one man but again would they really be better off if they'd "cut their cloth accordingly" all along? I'm not so sure.

[Lord Kangana]

Were we really this much in debt when those things happened? Really?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Were we really this much in debt when those things happened? Really?

Surely this is correct. The glory days were under Sam (Megson inherited and ruined one European adventure) and Sam left because the club wouldn't run up the debt (allegedly) "to go to the next level". The huge increase in debt came later.

[LeverEnd]

Were we really this much in debt when those things happened? Really?

Surely this is correct. The glory days were under Sam (Megson inherited and ruined one European adventure) and Sam left because the club wouldn't run up the debt (allegedly) "to go to the next level". The huge increase in debt came later.

That's how I understand it.
Sam left so they showed financial ambition by giving loads of cash and a high wage bill to.... Gary Megson and Owen Coyle. Nice one.

[BWFC_Insane]

Were we really this much in debt when those things happened? Really?

It is when we started borrowing money from Eddie Davies.

So when we started increasing the debt.

We already had some historical debt from building the Reebok etc, but that was when the significant loans for transfers started from Eddie.

Obviously they continued, but if you want to live within your means then Diouf, Anelka etc wouldn't have happened.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I think we took the spending to a whole new level after Megson arrived. That was when the real problems started.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Were we really this much in debt when those things happened? Really?

It is when we started borrowing money from Eddie Davies.

So when we started increasing the debt.

We already had some historical debt from building the Reebok etc, but that was when the significant loans for transfers started from Eddie.

Obviously they continued, but if you want to live within your means then Diouf, Anelka etc wouldn't have happened.

I don't understand. We sold Diouf and Anelka for far more than we paid for them (granted the Elk represented most of the profit). The poor deals came later.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think we took the spending to a whole new level after Megson arrived. That was when the real problems started.

Of course the wages went up as the costs of staying up and rebuilding a side went up.

As below nobody is suggesting Anelka and Diouf were poor deals. But the club borrowed the money. They didn't have it. It's well documented at the time.

So if you don't want debt those deals wouldn't have happened.

People can't have it both ways, they can't bemoan the debt yet say Allardyce wasn't backed. I'm not suggesting wrong decisions weren't made but I think either we started borrowing from Eddie or we didn't. You can't hedge your bets and say it is ok when the conditions suit and not when they don't.

Easy in hindsight to say where we went wrong but I wonder if Eddie would have written his first cheque with given what he knows now.....

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

There was a big hike in wages as well Monty. Arguably wages have hurt us far more than transfer fees.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'm not saying no to sustainable debt, I am saying no to debt that would hamper a small country, which is where we seem to have been headed...

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not saying no to sustainable debt, I am saying no to debt that would hamper a small country, which is where we seem to have been headed...

It's like gambling though. Once Eddie invested in a few players what does he do then? Say 'no more'? What I'd we struggle and he looks like losing that investment upon relegation? Cut losses and give in or sign some more cheques in the hope that we stumble upon a formula that keeps us up.

You can see what happens. All clubs with large debts started like that. Easy to start, hard to stop.

Clearly he's stopped now, one might say too late, but again you can't have it all ways.....

[Montreal Wanderer]

There was a big hike in wages as well Monty. Arguably wages have hurt us far more than transfer fees.

Fair enough, but the bottom line is that whatever cash you have to buy players you can spend it shrewdly or stupidly. It seems to me Sam was a lot shrewder than his successors. I realize this is hindsight, Insano, but it is also true. I don't want it both ways - I want a shrewd manager!

[BWFC_Insane]

There was a big hike in wages as well Monty. Arguably wages have hurt us far more than transfer fees.

Fair enough, but the bottom line is that whatever cash you have to buy players you can spend it shrewdly or stupidly. It seems to me Sam was a lot shrewder than his successors. I realize this is hindsight, Insano, but it is also true. I don't want it both ways - I want a shrewd manager!

Allardyce has hardly been a shrewd buyer since leaving us has he? He's no magician. No manager gets everything right all the time. He wanted 6M here to buy Alan Smith. In hindsight Eddie would have lost his money either way.

[Worthy4England]

There was a big hike in wages as well Monty. Arguably wages have hurt us far more than transfer fees.

Fair enough, but the bottom line is that whatever cash you have to buy players you can spend it shrewdly or stupidly. It seems to me Sam was a lot shrewder than his successors. I realize this is hindsight, Insano, but it is also true. I don't want it both ways - I want a shrewd manager!

Allardyce has hardly been a shrewd buyer since leaving us has he? He's no magician. No manager gets everything right all the time. He wanted 6M here to buy Alan Smith. In hindsight Eddie would have lost his money either way.

He managed to keep us, Newcastle, Blackburn and West Ham in the Premier League - that's fairly shrewd.

[BWFC_Insane]

There was a big hike in wages as well Monty. Arguably wages have hurt us far more than transfer fees.

Fair enough, but the bottom line is that whatever cash you have to buy players you can spend it shrewdly or stupidly. It seems to me Sam was a lot shrewder than his successors. I realize this is hindsight, Insano, but it is also true. I don't want it both ways - I want a shrewd manager!

Allardyce has hardly been a shrewd buyer since leaving us has he? He's no magician. No manager gets everything right all the time. He wanted 6M here to buy Alan Smith. In hindsight Eddie would have lost his money either way.

He managed to keep us, Newcastle, Blackburn and West Ham in the Premier League - that's fairly shrewd.

He will be well down financially on his deals. Which is what we are talking about. The market changed. To stay up clubs had to start paying inflated fees for average players. Allardyce included. That he is a better manager than anyone we've had since does not deflect from the point that once Eddie started giving out handouts, sooner or later we end up with a large debt or he cuts his losses earlier.

[Worthy4England]

There was a big hike in wages as well Monty. Arguably wages have hurt us far more than transfer fees.

Fair enough, but the bottom line is that whatever cash you have to buy players you can spend it shrewdly or stupidly. It seems to me Sam was a lot shrewder than his successors. I realize this is hindsight, Insano, but it is also true. I don't want it both ways - I want a shrewd manager!

Allardyce has hardly been a shrewd buyer since leaving us has he? He's no magician. No manager gets everything right all the time. He wanted 6M here to buy Alan Smith. In hindsight Eddie would have lost his money either way.

He managed to keep us, Newcastle, Blackburn and West Ham in the Premier League - that's fairly shrewd.

You've made an assumption that the aim is to buy then sell for more. No-one said that was the script at Bolton whilst he was here, as far as I'm aware...

The measure of success seemed to be how far we could get up the Prem League with a budget of £x...

He will be well down financially on his deals. Which is what we are talking about. The market changed. To stay up clubs had to start paying inflated fees for average players. Allardyce included. That he is a better manager than anyone we've had since does not deflect from the point that once Eddie started giving out handouts, sooner or later we end up with a large debt or he cuts his losses earlier.

If you assume that the criteria is buy to sell at a profit, then yes, you're probably correct. I don't remember that being the measure of success whilst he was here. Blackburn's criteria was probably stay up, West Ham's was almost certainly get up and stay up. Anyone's guess what Newcastle's delusions are. In mo case does he or any other Manager set their own budgets....

[Worthy4England]

Buggered up the quotes somewhere there....

[BWFC_Insane]

Worthy the conversation stemmed from LK commenting on our debt and how it reflects poorly on how we've been run. My point was that the alternative was never to ask Eddie to find any player purchases and live within our means. My point being that once he started spending it became a vicious cycle.

[Lord Kangana]

F*ck sake give up for once, you're wrong.

[BWFC_Insane]

F*ck sake give up for once, you're wrong.

I'm clearly not. You just want to push some nonsense agenda. You can't argue that debt is fine until you decide it isn't. You either accept that we lived within our means and didn't stretch to buying players or you don't. Either the club should have lived off its own finances or it shouldn't.