Kitman

Perhaps they’re right? Coming hot on heels of the fan pleasing end to the transfer window, I found myself thinking ‘replacing the club’s name on the east stand with a SD advert will surely be the last straw’ and other stupid thoughts like ‘this has to be the straw that finally stirs supporters in action' and ‘there’s no way we’ll carry on turning up like a bunch of compliant sheep who like getting shitted on after this’. Then I thought ‘but we’ve spent the best part of four years letting this bloke disrespect us and our club without ever trying to give him a metaphoric kick in the balls’ and ‘every time anyone suggests a serious protest the response is it’ll make no difference so let’s do fuck all’ Does this make us stupid or loyal? Answers on a postcard to GetOutOfOurClubUFatCockneyBastard@St James Park. Whether people like it or not FMA & co. will take continued ticket sales as tacit approval of their methods. 10,000 empty seats? Might be the way of the future.....

Your been a tad harsh there Alex Deano was pounding the keyboard with clenched fists and tears of rage when he wrote that.....

I certainly think there's been a concerted effort to bring down the wage bill and sign players on the cheap or for free so they can be re-sold at a profit. Some aspects of it have made sense ie not offering long contracts to old knackers and not signing old knackers in the first place. Our injury list is better too. However, I can't understand the wilful neglect of the squad's needs. The absence of striking talent, the lack of cover in defence, forcing out top performers when the marginal cost of increasing their contract shouldn't exceed the signing fee of replacement players. Except they're not really replaced, and PL hardened players are replaced with unproven imports on lower wages as the OP says. It only makes sense if you take the view that the squad is being assessed from a financial rather than footballing point of view. As CT is fond of pointing out, you need a lot of money to compete with the top 6 so there's no point in trying. I think that's the club's philosophy. There's no point in trying so let's make sure we make money in the process. However the overall effect is corrosive. Nobody gets too excited because there's always disappointment, cynicism and apathy are the natural mindsets. Nobody supports a club to follow the balance sheet, the grinding down of excitement and enjoyment and the absence of ambition translates into empty seats and indifference. The club's heirarchy won't give two hoots of course as the money will continue to roll in. But I fear for the long term health of the club with this lot in charge, the best we can hope for is someone comes in with an offer that's too good to refuse.

So no striker signed, a bland self congratulatory statement is issued, and lo and behold a rash of stories appear about Ben Arfa's imminent return from injury. They must think we're fucking stupid.

Squidward They needn't have bothered with this statement. It doesn't explain anything or even apologise for the outcome. It's a waste of time.

All seems a bit unnecessary Deano.

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh? I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty. There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted. You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

If he had any shame, yes. 100%.

1 October according to physioroom.com I suspect our entire game plan is to see how he does as a support striker with either Ba or Best up front. Our relative comfort in the league could hinge on how well he comes back and how lucky we are with injuries, given our paucity of striking options and lack of defensive cover. No doubt we'll be back in for a striker in January if all goes to shit. 100% this time.

Please God, not Diouf. Woman beating shit of a man.

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

Perhaps Deano could go double or quits for the January window......

Why don't you just use the hoover them up with the extension thingy (with no fitting on the end)? You'll find they make a very satisfying 'thock' noise as they hurtle to their deaths, and you can do it from a distance. I used to pick up spiders and chuck 'em out the window (because I'm nails) but my missus would hoover the buggers to death if I wasn't in......which is just as well as I'm not sure I'd have survived the shock of seeing her with a hoover in her hand......

Dumb and obese. Not a good combination.

Well am 38 and i had convinced myself by Tuesday night that we would get a striker so you're in company anyway. However, when we sold Enrique i was in the same hopeful state of mind (without reason at that moment) and Gemmill basically made a strong case and post that he wouldnt be replaced and we wouldnt get a striker. Thats when i caught myself and realised aye, getting carried away with hope but the form book is there for all to see. So i reset the expectations and assumed no one was coming in. Then we signed Santon, hormones went through the roof and there was me refreshing french transfer market websites. Ffs. Yes, well santon felt like we were gathering momentum, and between a LB and striker, I thought LB was the less likely. On a number of fronts I thought a new striker was a no brainer. How wrong can you get

He must be on glue. I rarely go on there anymore.

To be fair Pardew's career was rapidly heading down the toilet before we took him on. In fact it was down the toilet, into the sewer and bobbing its way towards the sea when we threw him a lifeline. So I don't think he'll jump ship before he's put in a good shift with us regardless of the barriers placed in his way, not unless he's got somewhere good to go to. I'm pretty confident he would have known what he was getting into before he accepted the hotseat. That's assuming of course he's not nuts deep in gambling debts as is rumoured. In which case he'll cling on for grim death like a limpet, whatever humiliation he has to ensure, otherwise Big Tony and his mates will cut his knackers off with a rusty spoon. Or something.

"The lying bitch was asking for it, officer"

I don't know why I expected us to sign a striker. My head said nothing would happen. My heart said they couldn't be that stupid. I'm a bit disappointed with myself, 44 years old and still a bit gullible.

I don't think we'll get relegated but I don't think Ashley will allow any signifcant investment in the team until the club can both fund itself and repay his loans.