Ashley's Transfer History thread

[LeazesMag 0]

Football has no soul. Ridiculous amounts of TV money saw to that, in concert with a Mr Bosmann and the advantage/opportunity he created for agents along with the odd oligarch/sheik here and there.

 

those who think european places and success is defined by balance sheets have no soul.

 

Genuine football supporters, who put their cash into the club however, are the same as they have always been.

[Toonpack 9464]

those who think european places and success is defined by balance sheets have no soul.

 

Genuine football supporters, who put their cash into the club however, are the same as they have always been.

 

Who thinks that ???

 

The balance sheet undoubtedly drives a sustained opportunity for success but does not in itself define success.

[LeazesMag 0]

Who thinks that ???

 

The balance sheet undoubtedly drives a sustained opportunity for success but does not in itself define success.

 

14th biggest revenues in football ? Why do they need more revenue by selling their best players and not backing their manager ? What's gone wrong ? What did you think of Mike Ashley BEFORE the end of the summer deadline, now that you have came to the conclusion he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, and could have saved yourself a lot of bollocks if you had listened to me ages ago] and where is the missing 27m quid of the Carroll cash ?

Edited January 20, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9464]

14th biggest revenues in football ? What's gone wrong ? What did you think of Mike Ashley BEFORE the end of the summer deadline, now that you have came to the conclusion he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, and could have saved yourself a lot of bollocks if you had listened to me ages ago] and where is the missing 27m quid of the Carroll cash ?

 

:icon_lol:

[The Fish 10872]

"synonymous with marquee signings on sky-high wages, bought for vastly-inflated fees"

 

I tried arguing against this in another thread by looking at ALL of our most expensive signings, but it's basically bollocks innit?

 

Owen and Luque have made us synonymous?

 

Shearer, Tino, Ferdinand, Peacock, Albert, Barton (W), Batty, Fox, Speed, Robert, Martins, Cole, Woodgate count or nowt in our pile of "Big" signings that were good business.

Can't it also be argued that players like Duff, Boumsong are marquee signings on inflated wages? Duff by virtue of reputation, Boumsong by virtue of the fee paid?

 

We have, under H&S, spent a lot of money and offered high wages. Often to secure players who who may have chosen the London clubs or Manchester/ Liverpool if it weren't for those deciding factors?

 

I don't believe that we only ever paid over the odds, but I'd say that we did so more than a lot of Premier League clubs in our position.

[Happy Face 29]

"synonymous with marquee signings on sky-high wages, bought for vastly-inflated fees"

 

I tried arguing against this in another thread by looking at ALL of our most expensive signings, but it's basically bollocks innit?

 

Owen and Luque have made us synonymous?

 

Shearer, Tino, Ferdinand, Peacock, Albert, Barton (W), Batty, Fox, Speed, Robert, Martins, Cole, Woodgate count or nowt in our pile of "Big" signings that were good business.

Can't it also be argued that players like Duff, Boumsong are marquee signings on inflated wages? Duff by virtue of reputation, Boumsong by virtue of the fee paid?

 

We have, under H&S, spent a lot of money and offered high wages. Often to secure players who who may have chosen the London clubs or Manchester/ Liverpool if it weren't for those deciding factors?

 

I don't believe that we only ever paid over the odds, but I'd say that we did so more than a lot of Premier League clubs in our position.

 

Is Duff making Fulham synonomous with marquee signings? I don't think he is or should to us. Relatively cheap for an experienced premier league player of proven quality.

 

Boumsong...maybe. But more brown envelope than marquee imo.

[The Fish 10872]

"synonymous with marquee signings on sky-high wages, bought for vastly-inflated fees"

 

I tried arguing against this in another thread by looking at ALL of our most expensive signings, but it's basically bollocks innit?

 

Owen and Luque have made us synonymous?

 

Shearer, Tino, Ferdinand, Peacock, Albert, Barton (W), Batty, Fox, Speed, Robert, Martins, Cole, Woodgate count or nowt in our pile of "Big" signings that were good business.

Can't it also be argued that players like Duff, Boumsong are marquee signings on inflated wages? Duff by virtue of reputation, Boumsong by virtue of the fee paid?

 

We have, under H&S, spent a lot of money and offered high wages. Often to secure players who who may have chosen the London clubs or Manchester/ Liverpool if it weren't for those deciding factors?

 

I don't believe that we only ever paid over the odds, but I'd say that we did so more than a lot of Premier League clubs in our position.

 

Is Duff making Fulham synonomous with marquee signings? I don't think he is or should to us. Relatively cheap for an experienced premier league player of proven quality.

 

Boumsong...maybe. But more brown envelope than marquee imo.

 

Duff's stock plummetted during his spell at Newcastle. I'd say his brand was just past, but still near it's peak when we signed him, whereas when Fulham got him they were taking a punt on someone who hadn't performed well for a while. He was also signed when, really, that wasn't the weakest position. We had a very promising winger already at the club who was performing well and whose nose was instantly put out of joint the minute Duff showed up. Duff was signed, imo, as much to make a show of ambition, as much as signing a decent player.

[Happy Face 29]

He only cost us £1m more than Gary McSheffrey went for in the same window. Don't see it as marquee at all.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Quite a few people were mumbling that Duff had become shit over the last 2 seasons he was at Chelsea too. Unfortunately it is hard to hear mumbling.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[The Fish 10872]

He only cost us £1m more than Gary McSheffrey went for in the same window. Don't see it as marquee at all.

Henderson went for £15m less than Carroll, is he now not marquee?

[LeazesMag 0]

14th biggest revenues in football ? What's gone wrong ? What did you think of Mike Ashley BEFORE the end of the summer deadline, now that you have came to the conclusion he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, and could have saved yourself a lot of bollocks if you had listened to me ages ago] and where is the missing 27m quid of the Carroll cash ?

 

:icon_lol:

 

 

you've had all weekend to reply to genuine questions, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you haven't.

[LeazesMag 0]

"synonymous with marquee signings on sky-high wages, bought for vastly-inflated fees"

 

I tried arguing against this in another thread by looking at ALL of our most expensive signings, but it's basically bollocks innit?

 

Owen and Luque have made us synonymous?

 

Shearer, Tino, Ferdinand, Peacock, Albert, Barton (W), Batty, Fox, Speed, Robert, Martins, Cole, Woodgate count or nowt in our pile of "Big" signings that were good business.

Can't it also be argued that players like Duff, Boumsong are marquee signings on inflated wages? Duff by virtue of reputation, Boumsong by virtue of the fee paid?

 

We have, under H&S, spent a lot of money and offered high wages. Often to secure players who who may have chosen the London clubs or Manchester/ Liverpool if it weren't for those deciding factors?

 

I don't believe that we only ever paid over the odds, but I'd say that we did so more than a lot of Premier League clubs in our position.

 

we also got higher positions for the money, much higher and more consistently high positions and european football and champions League. Which is the whole idea, wouldn't you agree ?

 

What makes me laugh about posts like this, is the cherry picking on the presumption that we ought to get every single transfer correct and/or every other club bar NUFC does so. Nobody gets every transfer right, not even Peter Taylor and Brian Clough did that.

 

The overall results of the 2 different strategies are crystal clear.

Edited January 23, 2012 by LeazesMag

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

There's still about £20million of the Carroll money to spend, until that gets spent, he's still a cunt.

You are as short sighted as Leazes

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Very patronising to effectively be told who we should and shouldn't respect tbh. Assumes it's readership is 5 years old and for that reason alone it can get to fuck.

 

Nose to the grindstone and shut the fuck up basically.

 

only a 5 year old can seriously believe that selling your best players and pocketing the cash is the way to build a successful football club.

Change the record you bore

[toonotl 2988]

There's still about £20million of the Carroll money to spend, until that gets spent, he's still a cunt.

You are as short sighted as Leazes

 

Isn't that guy asian?

 

Reported.

[Toonpack 9464]

"synonymous with marquee signings on sky-high wages, bought for vastly-inflated fees"

 

I tried arguing against this in another thread by looking at ALL of our most expensive signings, but it's basically bollocks innit?

 

Owen and Luque have made us synonymous?

 

Shearer, Tino, Ferdinand, Peacock, Albert, Barton (W), Batty, Fox, Speed, Robert, Martins, Cole, Woodgate count or nowt in our pile of "Big" signings that were good business.

Can't it also be argued that players like Duff, Boumsong are marquee signings on inflated wages? Duff by virtue of reputation, Boumsong by virtue of the fee paid?

 

We have, under H&S, spent a lot of money and offered high wages. Often to secure players who who may have chosen the London clubs or Manchester/ Liverpool if it weren't for those deciding factors?

 

I don't believe that we only ever paid over the odds, but I'd say that we did so more than a lot of Premier League clubs in our position.

 

we also got higher positions for the money, much higher and more consistently high positions and european football and champions League. Which is the whole idea, wouldn't you agree ?

 

What makes me laugh about posts like this, is the cherry picking on the presumption that we ought to get every single transfer correct and/or every other club bar NUFC does so. Nobody gets every transfer right, not even Peter Taylor and Brian Clough did that.

 

The overall results of the 2 different strategies are crystal clear.

 

It was borrowed money, i.e. money we didn't have and when wasted was irreplaceable and it ran out. (no-one outside of Leeds and Portsmouth operated like that as the "one and only" policy).

[The Fish 10872]

we also got higher positions for the money, much higher and more consistently high positions and european football and champions League. Which is the whole idea, wouldn't you agree ?

 

What makes me laugh about posts like this, is the cherry picking on the presumption that we ought to get every single transfer correct and/or every other club bar NUFC does so. Nobody gets every transfer right, not even Peter Taylor and Brian Clough did that.

 

The overall results of the 2 different strategies are crystal clear.

 

I absolutely agree that the point of football is to win, or to at the very least aim to get as close to winning as possible.

 

But answer me this;

 

Did Ashley initially make big money signings, and only when the economy stuttered and his lovely new dog turned on him, did he alter his spending policy. Now that we've returned to the Premier League and are safe from relegation, he's spending money is he not?

 

Ashley financed the signing of Jonas, Enrique, Colo, Guthrie, Xisco when first he took over, then calamity struck and he (to protect his toy) put away his wallet. Now, I don't think this was a good thing, I just don't think he understood that he could have saved/made more money if we'd stayed in the Premier League, but if you looked at the team that went down it seems he'd have expected it to survive without much adding to it. He still should have, but that's hopefully a lesson learnt.

 

Looking on the face of it, it seems that the biggest successes at Newcastle United are overwhelmingly the players we've signed for cheap, or reasonable fees. The one notable exception being Shearer imo.* From Kilcline through Lee, Beardsley's return, Given, Solano, and so on. All of them were signed for a reasonable fee and went on to be pivotal and universally appreciated.

 

I'm all for signing the best Striker in the world for a world record fee, but frankly, unless a seismic shift in our finances, or football on the whole, occurs, we'll not see those days again. SO until that happens I'll take delight from good performances on the pitch (when they happen.. thanks Fulham) and I'll take solace in the record of Graham Carr.

 

If we didn't have him, I'd be concerned. Honestly I would, but look at the players that he has found. They're not only quality, but they've also apparently settled very quickly into the club. I've no concerns about the mind-sets of Cabaye, Tiote, Ba and because of Carr's success, I've faith that Cisse will also be a player that acclimatises to what it means to be a Newcastle United player. Even Ben Arfa who, of all our players seems the most fractious, appears to want to do well for the fans and the shirt regardless of Pardew. Instead of stropping off and sitting on the bench with a lip on, he's trying to prove AP wrong and the fans faith in him is warranted.

 

As an aside, towards the end of the H&S era, I was surprised when a player took pride in the shirt, rather than expecting it. This is as much due to the poor scouting as it was the manager's fault.

 

I just like our team a hell of a lot more these days, I see pride, I see power I see a bad ass mother, who won't take, no shit, offa nobody.

 

To answer your final point, You can't measure the two strategies against each other yet. H&S ran the club for decade, Ashley has another 5 years. If after those five years are up we've appeared in a few cup finals and we've had European competition would you consider that parity? (Given that you've stated our rivals are no longer Man U and Man City which would mean the title challenges we had under H&S are beyond us).

 

 

 

*I can only talk about the teams that I had the (mis)fortune to see.

[sandman02uk 0]

Who thinks that ???

 

The balance sheet undoubtedly drives a sustained opportunity for success but does not in itself define success.

 

14th biggest revenues in football ? Why do they need more revenue by selling their best players and not backing their manager ? What's gone wrong ? What did you think of Mike Ashley BEFORE the end of the summer deadline, now that you have came to the conclusion he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, and could have saved yourself a lot of bollocks if you had listened to me ages ago] and where is the missing 27m quid of the Carroll cash ?

 

Quick question, do you know the difference between revenue and net income? not looking for a fight, genuine question

 

don't come back with your usual bollocks, I go to matches and put my money into the club

[toonotl 2988]

don't come back with your usual bollocks, I go to matches and put my money into the club

 

Yeh. Come fight this guy. But before you do. Tie both your hands behind your back.

[sandman02uk 0]

you what?

[LeazesMag 0]

we also got higher positions for the money, much higher and more consistently high positions and european football and champions League. Which is the whole idea, wouldn't you agree ?

 

What makes me laugh about posts like this, is the cherry picking on the presumption that we ought to get every single transfer correct and/or every other club bar NUFC does so. Nobody gets every transfer right, not even Peter Taylor and Brian Clough did that.

 

The overall results of the 2 different strategies are crystal clear.

 

I absolutely agree that the point of football is to win, or to at the very least aim to get as close to winning as possible.

 

But answer me this;

 

Did Ashley initially make big money signings, and only when the economy stuttered and his lovely new dog turned on him, did he alter his spending policy. Now that we've returned to the Premier League and are safe from relegation, he's spending money is he not?

 

Ashley financed the signing of Jonas, Enrique, Colo, Guthrie, Xisco when first he took over, then calamity struck and he (to protect his toy) put away his wallet. Now, I don't think this was a good thing, I just don't think he understood that he could have saved/made more money if we'd stayed in the Premier League, but if you looked at the team that went down it seems he'd have expected it to survive without much adding to it. He still should have, but that's hopefully a lesson learnt.

 

Looking on the face of it, it seems that the biggest successes at Newcastle United are overwhelmingly the players we've signed for cheap, or reasonable fees. The one notable exception being Shearer imo.* From Kilcline through Lee, Beardsley's return, Given, Solano, and so on. All of them were signed for a reasonable fee and went on to be pivotal and universally appreciated.

 

I'm all for signing the best Striker in the world for a world record fee, but frankly, unless a seismic shift in our finances, or football on the whole, occurs, we'll not see those days again. SO until that happens I'll take delight from good performances on the pitch (when they happen.. thanks Fulham) and I'll take solace in the record of Graham Carr.

 

If we didn't have him, I'd be concerned. Honestly I would, but look at the players that he has found. They're not only quality, but they've also apparently settled very quickly into the club. I've no concerns about the mind-sets of Cabaye, Tiote, Ba and because of Carr's success, I've faith that Cisse will also be a player that acclimatises to what it means to be a Newcastle United player. Even Ben Arfa who, of all our players seems the most fractious, appears to want to do well for the fans and the shirt regardless of Pardew. Instead of stropping off and sitting on the bench with a lip on, he's trying to prove AP wrong and the fans faith in him is warranted.

 

As an aside, towards the end of the H&S era, I was surprised when a player took pride in the shirt, rather than expecting it. This is as much due to the poor scouting as it was the manager's fault.

 

I just like our team a hell of a lot more these days, I see pride, I see power I see a bad ass mother, who won't take, no shit, offa nobody.

 

To answer your final point, You can't measure the two strategies against each other yet. H&S ran the club for decade, Ashley has another 5 years. If after those five years are up we've appeared in a few cup finals and we've had European competition would you consider that parity? (Given that you've stated our rivals are no longer Man U and Man City which would mean the title challenges we had under H&S are beyond us).

 

 

 

*I can only talk about the teams that I had the (mis)fortune to see.

 

He's had 4 years of a supposed "5 year plan", the old regime went from one foot in the 3rd division to 2nd in the premiership in just over 2 years.

 

Mike Ashley will NEVER match the old regime until he stops selling our best players and backs his manager. And pigs might fly.

[LeazesMag 0]

14th biggest revenues in football ? What's gone wrong ? What did you think of Mike Ashley BEFORE the end of the summer deadline, now that you have came to the conclusion he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, and could have saved yourself a lot of bollocks if you had listened to me ages ago] and where is the missing 27m quid of the Carroll cash ?

 

:icon_lol:

 

 

you've had all weekend to reply to genuine questions, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you haven't.

 

bump

 

Maybe someone can insist this is answered ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Very patronising to effectively be told who we should and shouldn't respect tbh. Assumes it's readership is 5 years old and for that reason alone it can get to fuck.

 

Nose to the grindstone and shut the fuck up basically.

 

only a 5 year old can seriously believe that selling your best players and pocketing the cash is the way to build a successful football club.

Change the record you bore

 

I'm correct, whatever your "opinion"

[LeazesMag 0]

Who thinks that ???

 

The balance sheet undoubtedly drives a sustained opportunity for success but does not in itself define success.

 

14th biggest revenues in football ? Why do they need more revenue by selling their best players and not backing their manager ? What's gone wrong ? What did you think of Mike Ashley BEFORE the end of the summer deadline, now that you have came to the conclusion he is "recouping" [ie pocketing the cash, and could have saved yourself a lot of bollocks if you had listened to me ages ago] and where is the missing 27m quid of the Carroll cash ?

 

Quick question, do you know the difference between revenue and net income? not looking for a fight, genuine question

 

don't come back with your usual bollocks, I go to matches and put my money into the club

 

how much more income do they need than the 14th biggest in football ? Thus not needing to sell their best players ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue

[CleeToonFan 1]

Leazes, few questions, not being horrible or anything I just want to know your opinion.

1. Let's say we sold a player, let's say Ba for 50 million, obviously wouldn't happen but let's say we did. We then spen 20 million of that 50 million on 5 class players who make the squad better, would you be happy?

2. If that team then won the league, what'd your opinion be?

3. Do you really think we should be spending more money at the minute? If so, how much and on who?

4. I personally believe that we should spend bit by bit as a way of steadily increasing our team. 10 million when needed on Cisse for example rather than spunking it when not needed just because we have it. Would you rather we went 25 million by the end of January on players we may not arguably need or would you rather the bank balance be fully in the black and have the money to spend if say in July a great new player becomes available for cheap.

5. I also think that it's hard to compare the current owners with Freddy since the games changed so much. What are your opinions on this belief? I personally see two reigns of Ashley, one of idiocy leading the relegation, and one which starts in July 09 which is admittedly stringent, but which is slowly getting us on the rise.

To clarify i'm not particularly pro-Ashley or anti-Ashley, I just want the best for the team and if Ashley gained 25 mill a season in transfers but as a squad we improved i'd be happy. You may not share my view but i'm sure you understand it.