Net Spend about 10m

[Park Life 71]

Looking at some vague numbers and the 12m we received for Milner, it looks like we haven't really spent much in terms of how our squad was and the distinct lack of quality and cover in some areas.

 

Thoughts?

[Happy Face 29]

I think Villa have spent over £50M and we've had a better window.

[2bias 3]

10m is not good at all.

[ohhh_yeah 2991]

WoW...

[Happy Face 29]

I think Villa have spent over £50M and we've had a better window.

 

did they have as much to strengthen though?

 

 

No, because they've had the same manager in for 3 years, who's steadily built up a squad he can tweak, rather than having to start again on the first team year after year.

[Guest alex]

Me and Ritchie were discussing this and Ashley's net spend has been pretty low since he arrived. I agree with Happy Face in that we've had a decent window but if we're going to start catching our rivals then we'll simply have to start spending more money.

[Isegrim 10017]

I think we would have spent more if we had got other players we were in for. It wasn't the fees that restricted our spending but the contract terms we offered to players.

[2bias 3]

Me and Ritchie were discussing this and Ashley's net spend has been pretty low since he arrived. I agree with Happy Face in that we've had a decent window but if we're going to start catching our rivals then we'll simply have to start spending more money.

for what we have spent we have done well to be fair. but it would be nice if ashely put his hand in his pocket more

[Park Life 71]

jonnypd excellent post from N.O.....

 

"we're not allowed to criticise until the transfer window is closed.... ....oh wait, the mantra is now - we're not allowed to criticise.

 

there's a few myths floating around that dont seem to tally with the actual state of affairs. and these refer to the behind the scenes team and the owner rather than on-the-pitch affairs, as that is what this thread is about. (fyi i think we've improved slightly on the pitch to what we had at the end of last season)

 

1. apparently we can't compete with other clubs and we should be pleased if we can break even in the transfer market as that's about our level these days. is that what people are really saying? all a sudden we're supposed to be worse off than we were a few years back?

 

the answer is - have they missed the past few years of investment by a billionaire owner and tv cash injection of at least £18m+ per season? we should have plenty of money to spend, either ashley is being tight with the purse strings & failing to push the boat out or the negotiation team of jiminez and wise is messing up badly. either way this reflects negatively on the owner. people are saying the failue to invest is down to us not being able to compete with other clubs. that is tautological - the truth is the other way round - if there is a reason we can't compete with other clubs it is BECAUSE we've failed to invest

 

2. apparently because we're not in europe we can't get top quality players.

 

the answer is - anyone with an ounce of sense knows this argument is bullshit so can we please put it to bed? yes being out of europe may mean we miss out on some of the targets who eventually move to much bigger clubs, but if you are willing to go that bit further in the pursuit of the best you will land your targets. there are plenty of players out there, it is not like Keegan would've had one player in mind for a position, so that if we miss out on that one player, we don't strengthen at all. in this instance we were able to land two top players which in itself invalidates the claim that being out of europe means we can't get quality. it's a self-defeating argument. Man City were able to attract players like Elano and Petrov last summer despite no european football. We were able to spend £36m in one window under Souness despite no european football.

 

for those making the argument that we can't compete with sides in europe, specifically yorkie, ask yourself this - how come we beat one of these fabled euro teams, Pompey, for the signature of Jonas? i'm guessing it is because we got in there early, did business professionaly and gave him what he wanted. when it came to Coloccini we ended up paying the extra money that deportivo wanted to secure him. these are two successes for which the backroom staff deserve credit, but it's not enough by itself, we should've done this in other instances too. of course in retrospect it now looks like the Coloccini move was paid for by the departures of Faye and Milner, and since Jonas came on a negligable fee/free, it seems to suggest the problem lies more with Ashley than with Wise and co.

 

3. earlier in the window people said we were prepared to spend big and compete. now people are saying we can't compete and must build slowly. why must we now build slowly but two months ago we were on the verge on spending big?

 

the answer is we dont have to build slowly or act in a conservative manner. people have compared this summer to robson's first transfer windows but the situations could barely be more different. we've not spent anything for two years now and robson's spending increase was sanctioned on the back of a new cash injection which at that time happened to be the stadium expansion. there is a direct parallel, a present day equivalent, in the injection of cash from new TV Money. this summer should've also witnessed a comparable surge in spending.

[Douggy B 0]

20 million more than we spend...just to put it in perspective.

[Park Life 71]

20 million more than we spend...just to put it in perspective.

 

You sold players worth 70m, it's not a comparison is it?

 

Don't muddy the waters Danny I'm not in the mood.

[Douggy B 0]

20 million more than we spend...just to put it in perspective.

 

You sold players worth 70m, it's not a comparison is it?

 

Don't muddy the waters Danny I'm not in the mood.

 

You're not in the mood? We started the window with the best strike force in the league and have ended up with Bent, An unproven Russian and a championship player on loan...

 

Oh and the Russia is cup tied for the Uefa.

 

And you aint in the mood? Right-o

[Guest alex]

20 million more than we spend...just to put it in perspective.

 

You sold players worth 70m, it's not a comparison is it?

 

Don't muddy the waters Danny I'm not in the mood.

 

You're not in the mood? We started the window with the best strike force in the league and have ended up with Bent, An unproven Russian and a championship player on loan...

 

Oh and the Russia is cup tied for the Uefa.

 

And you aint in the mood? Right-o

Ramos out!

[Happy Face 29]

Between '03 and '05, our total net spend for those 3 YEARS was only £10M.

[Flair 0]

Top post, I mean just look at Manchester shietty, they are buying good/world class players, where as we are buying relatively unproven spanish/argentinian talent (except colo).

 

Jo- £19m

Robinho- £32.5m

Zablata- £6.6m

Kompany- £7m

Wright-Phillips- £11m

Ben Haim- Free

Etuhu- £2m

[Happy Face 29]

20 million more than we spend...just to put it in perspective.

 

You sold players worth 70m, it's not a comparison is it?

 

Don't muddy the waters Danny I'm not in the mood.

 

You're not in the mood? We started the window with the best strike force in the league and have ended up with Bent, An unproven Russian and a championship player on loan...

 

Oh and the Russia is cup tied for the Uefa.

 

And you aint in the mood? Right-o

 

I'm loving how Danny has gone from cock-a-hoop to miserable as fook.

 

[Isegrim 10017]

jonnypd excellent post from N.O.....

 

I don't agree with the "attacting players" bit.

 

Of course we can high profile attract players without being in Europe (but I don't consider someone like Petrov as one) - by just throwing obscene money at them. That is how we got players in the past, like Luque, Emre and Viana. The problem is that it will really unbalance the wage structure (plus we apparently also have still over 20m of outstanding transfer fees from the past). We already have seen how someone like Milner acted about a team mate getting a better contract than him. We also still have the likes of Smith who are nothing more than fringe players but earning super star wages. What would you have to offer a star player then to make him fairly treated?

 

Of course this balancing act to sort out mistakes from the past is painful as it means another "gap year" when other clubs seem to move away from us. I only can hope that it really works out once we have reached the point of return.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Isegrim

[Fop 1]

Of course this balancing act to sort out mistakes from the past is painful as it means another "gap year" when other clubs seem to move away from us. I only can hope that it really works out once we have reached the point of return.

 

I think we're relatively fucked now anyway.

 

If Man City get the sort of cash they are talking about, it leaves 5 into 4 places and the chances of someone breaking into that 5 from the rest of the team (barring another Abudhabidoo/KGB take-over) is pretty slim.

 

6th is probably the new fifth and the chances of us genuinely breaking into that 5 are pretty unlikely.

[Guest alex]

Of course this balancing act to sort out mistakes from the past is painful as it means another "gap year" when other clubs seem to move away from us. I only can hope that it really works out once we have reached the point of return.

 

I think we're relatively fucked now anyway.

 

If Man City get the sort of cash they are talking about, it leaves 5 into 4 places and the chances of someone breaking into that 5 from the rest of the team (barring another Abudhabidoo/KGB take-over) is pretty slim.

 

6th is probably the new fifth and the chances of us genuinely breaking into that 5 are pretty unlikely.

Although it's a canny post from Johnnypd, Isegrim is right. And while you may be right re: Man City, that isn't anything the board can be faulted for or can do anything about. I'm not convinced by the new board but I do think that the spending and wages under the last board had got out of hand (albeit with good intentions) and that needs sorting.

This Man City thing is another worrying development for the have-nots in football though. You wonder where it will all end.

[Fop 1]

I think surviving the next few years in good financial shape might be a victory in itself.

 

A few more clubs with stupid foreign backing behind them and then the whole Premiership becomes a house of cards (and the whole anti-debt/wage structure legislation looks more inviting).

 

 

 

It does completely suck for thoughts about regaining old Keegan or Robson days though.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

I think surviving the next few years in good financial shape might be a victory in itself.

 

A few more clubs with stupid foreign backing behind them and then the whole Premiership becomes a house of cards (and the whole anti-debt/wage structure legislation looks more inviting).

 

 

 

It does completely suck for thoughts about regaining old Keegan or Robson days though.

That's in place in Italy too isn't it? If so, it doesn't contradict EU or Uefa regs.

[Fop 1]

I think surviving the next few years in good financial shape might be a victory in itself.

 

A few more clubs with stupid foreign backing behind them and then the whole Premiership becomes a house of cards (and the whole anti-debt/wage structure legislation looks more inviting).

 

 

 

It does completely suck for thoughts about regaining old Keegan or Robson days though.

That's in place in Italy too isn't it? If so, it doesn't contradict EU or Uefa regs.

 

I'm not sure, although they were looking at all sorts when the Italian league nearly bankrupt itself a few years ago. Most everything contradicts some EU or Uefa (or Fifa) regs though.

 

 

At least there maybe some comfort in seeing Man U glory hunters faces when/if Man City win the league.

[Guest alex]

I think surviving the next few years in good financial shape might be a victory in itself.

 

A few more clubs with stupid foreign backing behind them and then the whole Premiership becomes a house of cards (and the whole anti-debt/wage structure legislation looks more inviting).

 

 

 

It does completely suck for thoughts about regaining old Keegan or Robson days though.

That's in place in Italy too isn't it? If so, it doesn't contradict EU or Uefa regs.

 

I'm not sure, although they were looking at all sorts when the Italian league nearly bankrupt itself a few years ago. Most everything contradicts some EU or Uefa (or Fifa) regs though.

 

 

At least there maybe some comfort in seeing Man U glory hunters faces when/if Man City win the league.

Iirc the Italian system requires that the wages do not exceed a certain percentage of turnover. The penalties are relegation and so on. I think that is what happened to Fiorentina.

Not that I give a fuck at this moment in time.

[snakehips 0]

I think surviving the next few years in good financial shape might be a victory in itself.

 

A few more clubs with stupid foreign backing behind them and then the whole Premiership becomes a house of cards (and the whole anti-debt/wage structure legislation looks more inviting).

 

 

 

It does completely suck for thoughts about regaining old Keegan or Robson days though.

 

Surviving. I guess that is all we can look forward to, as big Ash obviously doesn't want to spend his money on NUFC (despite his comments of 'you can't take it with you' when he first took over and everyone was anticipating him getting his cheque book out).

[Flair 0]

I think we can look forward to a cash injection in January, by then he will have "investors" in the club.