SIGNED - Anton Ferdinand

[tidus_mi2]

At the very least he's good cover for the current centre backs, Pearce and Morrison are coming in for some rightful criticism at the moment but both on their day are top Championship defenders, they just need to get back on form.

[BR2]

In reply to the nerd Ian Royal:-

It's not "out there" (with accounts being a year out of date) and to what extent were unsustainable wages paid when we had £30 million + in the year that we were in the Premier League plus Shane Long money(?) and then parachute payments plus some TV money and of course the little matter of Mad Stad ticket sales and profit from matchday sales (incl. a very expensive car park) all adding up to a tidy sum ?
The way you speak is as if there was no income during Anton's time and he is such an easy target to blame for all ills.
The Anton "screw up" is IMHO exaggerated but that is just an opinion (as is yours)and I really don't believe that the Pog earns £60 k per week as intimated here by some people-if that is the case then heads should roll amongst Howe and the cronies who are there to advise the owners and the board about the club's finances.

What is most disturbing though is the stuff about external borrowing and the farce that a club like ours should be in a position of having to sell a player to pay a tax bill that would have been outstanding and known for some time.
BTW don't you dare have the gall to "comment on you working in finance for 50 years"-have some respect for your elders and betters.

If the Thais are not bringing some new money I would be surprised and hearing the mad man on TV yesterday it sounds as though new signings will be forthcoming.
If that happens will you be writing to the club suggesting that no money should be spent on new players-I'm sure your comments would be appreciated about as much as they generally are on here.
BTW money is money whether that be parachute payments or from new investors/owners/partners-there is no stipulation from the Premier League that the money has to be used to cover contracted Premier League wages.

[BR2]

So serious that I posted it twice.

No, it's because you're such a f***ing idiot, Mr "I-know-it-all".

Royal Rother is equally a f***ing idiot.

Where has the nasty screwball been all this time?
His deeply considered input has been greatly missed.
Presumably the mods have now dealt with him because of use of aggressive and abusive language or whatever the exact terms of membership state and either a red or yellow card issued.
I expect most other posters would demand a red and a Suarez-type recommendation for help to be sought.

[melonhead]

he's disabled, and we fear coming across as disabalists if we complain about him
he rules the forums by fear and intimidation

[Ian Royal]

In reply to the nerd Ian Royal:-

It's not "out there" (with accounts being a year out of date) and to what extent were unsustainable wages paid when we had £30 million + in the year that we were in the Premier League plus Shane Long money(?) and then parachute payments plus some TV money and of course the little matter of Mad Stad ticket sales and profit from matchday sales (incl. a very expensive car park) all adding up to a tidy sum ?

The accounts show we made a loss of ~ £12m in 11/12 - unsustainable wages
The accounts show we made a loss of ~ £2m in 12/13 - unsustainable wages
We didn't shift high earners for 13/14, there was probably a relegation wage reduction, but our previous experience taught us it wasn't as big as the drop in income. And that season we shifted big earners and for big money. Ergo, last season we had unsustainable wages. As supported by the Vibrac loan on our parachute payment to cover our costs.
Of course, you'd actually know this if you made the effort to find out about our financial situation.

The way you speak is as if there was no income during Anton's time and he is such an easy target to blame for all ills.
The Anton "screw up" is IMHO exaggerated but that is just an opinion (as is yours)and I really don't believe that the Pog earns £60 k per week as intimated here by some people-if that is the case then heads should roll amongst Howe and the cronies who are there to advise the owners and the board about the club's finances.

Why exactly is it that you think the man in charge's responsibility is exaggerated and yet Howe should be sacked? I don't know what Pog's on. I do know our wage budget in 2012/13 was over £40m That says unsustainable wages. There's plenty of reasons to infer that Pog, Drenthe and co were not McDermott/Adkin's choices and were Anton buys. We know Anton was a big part of getting Pog to us and we know Adkins has binned Drenthe spectacularly. It's not hard to put together.

What is most disturbing though is the stuff about external borrowing and the farce that a club like ours should be in a position of having to sell a player to pay a tax bill that would have been outstanding and known for some time.
BTW don't you dare have the gall to "comment on you working in finance for 50 years"-have some respect for your elders and betters.

I didn't comment, quite deliberately, on you working in finance. I'll show you some respect when you show me something that suggests you're worthy of it. I'll reply based on what you write, ta. I'd suggest that comment about elders and betters speaks more about you than me.

So here again, apparently the club is a farce, but you don't believe it can be the fault of the man who was in charge and did a runner. It has to be other people, who have proved over many years who they could prudently run a club. Even though it's been openly acknowledged that it was Anton's men Samuelson and Obolenski that got Vibrac involved, and Anton that failed to deliver on the investment he promised.

If the Thais are not bringing some new money I would be surprised and hearing the mad man on TV yesterday it sounds as though new signings will be forthcoming.

I certainly hope so, but I wouldn't expect anything until we get some actual facts involved. Paying off Anton's debts is a pretty good start on its own.

If that happens will you be writing to the club suggesting that no money should be spent on new players-I'm sure your comments would be appreciated about as much as they generally are on here.

No, because I trust the people who run the club to run it and that they know better than me, or anyone else on here. Until they prove otherwise.

BTW money is money whether that be parachute payments or from new investors/owners/partners-there is no stipulation from the Premier League that the money has to be used to cover contracted Premier League wages.

Blindingly obvious. Although the whole point of the parachute payments was to stagger the drop of income so clubs didn't have to make drastic cuts in spending (screwing over players) when they got relegated.

We absolutely could spend the parachute money on new players. Although it should be staggeringly obvious to anyone capable of basic arithmatic that if you have a wages budget of £22m (half the PL bugdet which would be a big ask based on previous experience) and non-parachute payment income of £15m (about what it was last time). Then spending parachute payments on transfer fees and new wages is going to leave you with a problem. Because you've got to magic £7m from out of thin air. Not to mention the parachute payments don't appear to be paid until the end of the season, so you don't actually have them to spend yet. Without getting another punishing loan of course.

[sandman]

he's disabled, and we fear coming across as disabalists if we complain about him
he rules the forums by fear and intimidation

[floyd__streete]

Would Anton Ferdinand improve our squad? Yes, if he's available bring him in.

Would Shinfield resident Anton Rodgers (who played scottish lawyer Alec Calendar in 90's hit sitcom 'May to December') improve our squad? Yes, if he's available bring him in.

#thanksAnton

[Mr.Swainey]

Would Shinfield resident Anton Rodgers (who played scottish lawyer Alec Calendar in 90's hit sitcom 'May to December') improve our squad? Yes, if he's available bring him in.

Recently signed for Swindon.

[Victor Meldrew]

In reply to the nerd Ian Royal:-

It's not "out there" (with accounts being a year out of date) and to what extent were unsustainable wages paid when we had £30 million + in the year that we were in the Premier League plus Shane Long money(?) and then parachute payments plus some TV money and of course the little matter of Mad Stad ticket sales and profit from matchday sales (incl. a very expensive car park) all adding up to a tidy sum ?

The accounts show we made a loss of ~ £12m in 11/12 - unsustainable wages
The accounts show we made a loss of ~ £2m in 12/13 - unsustainable wages
We didn't shift high earners for 13/14, there was probably a relegation wage reduction, but our previous experience taught us it wasn't as big as the drop in income. And that season we shifted big earners and for big money. Ergo, last season we had unsustainable wages. As supported by the Vibrac loan on our parachute payment to cover our costs.
Of course, you'd actually know this if you made the effort to find out about our financial situation.

The way you speak is as if there was no income during Anton's time and he is such an easy target to blame for all ills.
The Anton "screw up" is IMHO exaggerated but that is just an opinion (as is yours)and I really don't believe that the Pog earns £60 k per week as intimated here by some people-if that is the case then heads should roll amongst Howe and the cronies who are there to advise the owners and the board about the club's finances.

Why exactly is it that you think the man in charge's responsibility is exaggerated and yet Howe should be sacked? I don't know what Pog's on. I do know our wage budget in 2012/13 was over £40m That says unsustainable wages. There's plenty of reasons to infer that Pog, Drenthe and co were not McDermott/Adkin's choices and were Anton buys. We know Anton was a big part of getting Pog to us and we know Adkins has binned Drenthe spectacularly. It's not hard to put together.

What is most disturbing though is the stuff about external borrowing and the farce that a club like ours should be in a position of having to sell a player to pay a tax bill that would have been outstanding and known for some time.
BTW don't you dare have the gall to "comment on you working in finance for 50 years"-have some respect for your elders and betters.

I didn't comment, quite deliberately, on you working in finance. I'll show you some respect when you show me something that suggests you're worthy of it. I'll reply based on what you write, ta. I'd suggest that comment about elders and betters speaks more about you than me.

So here again, apparently the club is a farce, but you don't believe it can be the fault of the man who was in charge and did a runner. It has to be other people, who have proved over many years who they could prudently run a club. Even though it's been openly acknowledged that it was Anton's men Samuelson and Obolenski that got Vibrac involved, and Anton that failed to deliver on the investment he promised.

If the Thais are not bringing some new money I would be surprised and hearing the mad man on TV yesterday it sounds as though new signings will be forthcoming.

I certainly hope so, but I wouldn't expect anything until we get some actual facts involved. Paying off Anton's debts is a pretty good start on its own.

If that happens will you be writing to the club suggesting that no money should be spent on new players-I'm sure your comments would be appreciated about as much as they generally are on here.

No, because I trust the people who run the club to run it and that they know better than me, or anyone else on here. Until they prove otherwise.

BTW money is money whether that be parachute payments or from new investors/owners/partners-there is no stipulation from the Premier League that the money has to be used to cover contracted Premier League wages.

Blindingly obvious. Although the whole point of the parachute payments was to stagger the drop of income so clubs didn't have to make drastic cuts in spending (screwing over players) when they got relegated.

We absolutely could spend the parachute money on new players. Although it should be staggeringly obvious to anyone capable of basic arithmatic that if you have a wages budget of £22m (half the PL bugdet which would be a big ask based on previous experience) and non-parachute payment income of £15m (about what it was last time). Then spending parachute payments on transfer fees and new wages is going to leave you with a problem. Because you've got to magic £7m from out of thin air. Not to mention the parachute payments don't appear to be paid until the end of the season, so you don't actually have them to spend yet. Without getting another punishing loan of course.

I might take you post seriously if,when the question is about money, you could spell the word arithmetic.
Schooling today eh?
It just turns out aggressive "know-it-all, bugger all" types as my late father-in-law used to say.
All assumptions Ian with very little facts-yours is just a slant on things just as it was for the posting that Floyd destroyed elsewhere.
I don't want to be too personal but are you a little chap with a big chip on his shoulder always wanting to play with the big boys but never accepted?

[Victor Meldrew]

In reply to the nerd Ian Royal:-

It's not "out there" (with accounts being a year out of date) and to what extent were unsustainable wages paid when we had £30 million + in the year that we were in the Premier League plus Shane Long money(?) and then parachute payments plus some TV money and of course the little matter of Mad Stad ticket sales and profit from matchday sales (incl. a very expensive car park) all adding up to a tidy sum ?

The accounts show we made a loss of ~ £12m in 11/12 - unsustainable wages
The accounts show we made a loss of ~ £2m in 12/13 - unsustainable wages
We didn't shift high earners for 13/14, there was probably a relegation wage reduction, but our previous experience taught us it wasn't as big as the drop in income. And that season we shifted big earners and for big money. Ergo, last season we had unsustainable wages. As supported by the Vibrac loan on our parachute payment to cover our costs.
Of course, you'd actually know this if you made the effort to find out about our financial situation.

The way you speak is as if there was no income during Anton's time and he is such an easy target to blame for all ills.
The Anton "screw up" is IMHO exaggerated but that is just an opinion (as is yours)and I really don't believe that the Pog earns £60 k per week as intimated here by some people-if that is the case then heads should roll amongst Howe and the cronies who are there to advise the owners and the board about the club's finances.

Why exactly is it that you think the man in charge's responsibility is exaggerated and yet Howe should be sacked? I don't know what Pog's on. I do know our wage budget in 2012/13 was over £40m That says unsustainable wages. There's plenty of reasons to infer that Pog, Drenthe and co were not McDermott/Adkin's choices and were Anton buys. We know Anton was a big part of getting Pog to us and we know Adkins has binned Drenthe spectacularly. It's not hard to put together.

What is most disturbing though is the stuff about external borrowing and the farce that a club like ours should be in a position of having to sell a player to pay a tax bill that would have been outstanding and known for some time.
BTW don't you dare have the gall to "comment on you working in finance for 50 years"-have some respect for your elders and betters.

I didn't comment, quite deliberately, on you working in finance. I'll show you some respect when you show me something that suggests you're worthy of it. I'll reply based on what you write, ta. I'd suggest that comment about elders and betters speaks more about you than me.

So here again, apparently the club is a farce, but you don't believe it can be the fault of the man who was in charge and did a runner. It has to be other people, who have proved over many years who they could prudently run a club. Even though it's been openly acknowledged that it was Anton's men Samuelson and Obolenski that got Vibrac involved, and Anton that failed to deliver on the investment he promised.

If the Thais are not bringing some new money I would be surprised and hearing the mad man on TV yesterday it sounds as though new signings will be forthcoming.

I certainly hope so, but I wouldn't expect anything until we get some actual facts involved. Paying off Anton's debts is a pretty good start on its own.

If that happens will you be writing to the club suggesting that no money should be spent on new players-I'm sure your comments would be appreciated about as much as they generally are on here.

No, because I trust the people who run the club to run it and that they know better than me, or anyone else on here. Until they prove otherwise.

BTW money is money whether that be parachute payments or from new investors/owners/partners-there is no stipulation from the Premier League that the money has to be used to cover contracted Premier League wages.

Blindingly obvious. Although the whole point of the parachute payments was to stagger the drop of income so clubs didn't have to make drastic cuts in spending (screwing over players) when they got relegated.

We absolutely could spend the parachute money on new players. Although it should be staggeringly obvious to anyone capable of basic arithmatic that if you have a wages budget of £22m (half the PL bugdet which would be a big ask based on previous experience) and non-parachute payment income of £15m (about what it was last time). Then spending parachute payments on transfer fees and new wages is going to leave you with a problem. Because you've got to magic £7m from out of thin air. Not to mention the parachute payments don't appear to be paid until the end of the season, so you don't actually have them to spend yet. Without getting another punishing loan of course.

I might take you post seriously if,when the question is about money, you could spell the word arithmetic.
Schooling today eh?
It just turns out aggressive "know-it-all, bugger all" types as my late father-in-law used to say.
All assumptions Ian with very little facts-yours is just a slant on things just as it was for the posting that Floyd destroyed elsewhere.
I don't want to be too personal but are you a little chap with a big chip on his shoulder always wanting to play with the big boys but never accepted?

If I were voted the most unpopular poster on here like you were I think I would
(a) Question if there is any point on keeping up the posts and
(b)Try to work out why I were so unpopular and maybe consider the tone and manner of the postings.

[SpaceCruiser]

Nice to see you pop in on the way back from the pub, now do run along to your special place Village.

Whereas you are a sad and lonely amoeba deep in your cesspit where no living thing in their sane mind would approach. Stay there and rot for all we care.

[Royal Rother]

Oh ok then.

[Royal Rother]

And Victor, I have no idea what poll you are talking about but Ian Royal is, and always has been, a good poster on RFC related issues.

The armchair / radio "jokes" roll on and on and on but that doesn't count for diddly. People who have been STHs for many years unbroken post a right load of drivel so I really don't think we should get hung up about attendance.

[Victor Meldrew]

And Victor, I have no idea what poll you are talking about but Ian Royal is, and always has been, a good poster on RFC related issues.

The armchair / radio "jokes" roll on and on and on but that doesn't count for diddly. People who have been STHs for many years unbroken post a right load of drivel so I really don't think we should get hung up about attendance.

Relating to Ian not going to matches-not by me for a couple of years..
There was a topic a few weeks ago where Ian came tops as the most unpopular poster-with his tone of posting and no semblance of humour it is quite obvious why all those other posters felt that way.
It's far from being just me.

[Royal Rother]

Yeah ok. Let's not forget this is a forum that has in the past consistently voted Space Cruiser as one of its favourite posters...

[biff]

This truly is playground stuff

dinnerladys coming!!

[Ian Royal]

Would Anton Ferdinand improve our squad? Yes, if he's available bring him in.

Would Shinfield resident Anton Rodgers (who played scottish lawyer Alec Calendar in 90's hit sitcom 'May to December') improve our squad? Yes, if he's available bring him in.

#thanksAnton

Another prick called Anton associated with Reading.

[Ian Royal]

And Victor, I have no idea what poll you are talking about but Ian Royal is, and always has been, a good poster on RFC related issues.

The armchair / radio "jokes" roll on and on and on but that doesn't count for diddly. People who have been STHs for many years unbroken post a right load of drivel so I really don't think we should get hung up about attendance.

As usual, Vic's wrong. There wasn't a poll.

I got a lot of nominations for worst. Unsurprisingly given I can be a bit of a twat, will argue with absolutely anyone if I disagree with them, have posted regularly for almost 10 years and am perfectly happy to chuck about insults to amuse myself / underline a point. I suppose that last bit comes under the "bit of a twat" bit. I'm not tragic enough to count up if I got the most or not. Maybe Vic did and that's how he knows I am. Oh, and the person who started it and first nommed me actually later said it was tongue in cheek and that he thought I was alright (IRL)

He fails to mention I got several noms for best posters too. And at least one of them couldn't be sarcastic because it came from an American.

But this all comes from a man who thinks Cambridge is a backwater. Nuff said really.

[Royal Rother]

It's simple really. People think you're humourless because of your Avatar.

Change it to this and everyone's perception of you will change in a heartbeat! Mark my words....

[paultheroyal]

Some page this...