Ashley's Transfer History thread

[Happy Face 29]

Demba Cisse will potentially be £9m, but for now, he's £7.5m....

 

http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2012/01/18/papiss-cisse-signs-for-newcastle-united-in-7-5m-deal-61634-30145038/

 

 

And Santon £5m comes from the BBC..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14716581

 

 

Rather than bias, bollocks or hyperbole, sometimes it's just a best guess based on the sources available, more often than not actually, given our penchant for not disclosing fees.

[ChezGiven 0]

For Cisse, that is clear bias, as that is the lowest figure published in any source, was published on the day when no one had known about the story beforehand and is subsequently reported at 10m by the same publication at a later data. Its nowhere near a best guess based on sources available because the highest occurring figure in public sources is 9m, then 10m. I think only one source ever said 7.5m and that was on the day of the transfer and the one you keep repeating.

 

The Santon article is again on the day of the transfer so before any further digging or information comes to light and says 'in the region of'. The 5.3m figure appears in many sources. Its a shame someone supposedly trained in stats actually has no idea what bias means.

[Happy Face 29]

For Cisse, that is clear bias, as that is the lowest figure published in any source, was published on the day when no one had known about the story beforehand and is subsequently reported at 10m by the same publication at a later data. Its nowhere near a best guess based on sources available because the highest occurring figure in public sources is 9m, then 10m. I think only one source ever said 7.5m and that was on the day of the transfer and the one you keep repeating.

 

The Santon article is again on the day of the transfer so before any further digging or information comes to light and says 'in the region of'. The 5.3m figure appears in many sources. Its a shame someone supposedly trained in stats actually has no idea what bias means.

 

£10m was the first figure reported for Cisse, which was later dropped to £7.5m, potentially growing to higher amounts. I assume he has to play at least 1 game for that to happen.

 

In addition to the journal, this was reported in the Telegraph...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/9020957/Newcastle-close-to-signing-Papiss-Demba-Cisse-Demba-Bas-Senegal-strike-partner.html

 

The Guardian

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jan/18/newcastleunited-premierleague

 

Chronicle

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/multimedia/newcastle-united/images/2012/01/18/nufc-sign-papiss-demba-cisse-72703-30148236/

 

The Mirror

 

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Newcastle-New-No-9-Papiss-Cisse-says-he-can-make-Demba-Ba-an-even-more-dangerous-striker-article855110.html

 

and many others I'm not going to waste more time looking for. Show me something correcting these reports, to say it was a more expensive up front payment and I'll change it. People just spout numbers and provide no source as if I'm pulling them out of thin air.

 

This is entirely imperfect and I'm sick of having the argument to tell the truth. Undisclosed fees are going to vary in reporting. Soccerbase says Ben Arfa was £2m and I've got his fee closer to £6m. My bias towards Ashley is clearly a disgrace there too.

[ChezGiven 0]

Easy to show you, try posting reports from the day after when the fee reported changes. Checked the Telegraph one and its from just before we sign him, Luke Edwards has consistently used the 10m (not even the 9m) figure since that day.

 

You re-post a chronicle article from the same day, just after me explaining that they changed their reported figure after that day.

 

Everyone knows Ben Arfa was 5.75m as thats what the Marseille press reported. You are biased towards Ashely because you dont report the one outlier from a shit source?

 

Sorry, not my fault i pay attention to these things.

[LeazesMag 0]

Demba Cisse was £9million not £7.5million and Santon £5.3million as opposed to £5million.

 

accuracy is important, but not just in figures. It's worth while realising the difference between statements, hyperbole and just outright bollocks.

 

which is your speciality.

[Happy Face 29]

Easy to show you, try posting reports from the day after when the fee reported changes. Checked the Telegraph one and its from just before we sign him, Luke Edwards has consistently used the 10m (not even the 9m) figure since that day.

 

You re-post a chronicle article from the same day, just after me explaining that they changed their reported figure after that day.

 

Everyone knows Ben Arfa was 5.75m as thats what the Marseille press reported. You are biased towards Ashely because you dont report the one outlier from a shit source?

 

Sorry, not my fault i pay attention to these things.

 

Again, failure to show your working.

 

There's one (Shearer) article I can find where Luke Edwards refers to £10m - from the day he arived, hardly a consistent insistence, and the £10m mentioned is not even in the body of the article and does nothing to contradict the multitude of stories that say it's an ultimate incentive based total.

[Gemmill 44413]

As a member of the South Shields alumni, I'm on Team HF for this one. I reserve the right to denounce him if someone produces some damning evidence.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

The amount doesn't matter, its the player that does. The fee is only relevant to those who constantly ask where the Carroll money is and to support their pointless argument they will always quote the lowest fee possible. The easiest way to look at it is Demba BA and Papiss Cisse are both quality players regardless of the cost

[JawD 99]

Im with you on that one. A player is only worth financially what someone will pay for them. What they are worth on the pitch is performance based. You could argue that we have had Cisse and Ba for Carroll and in every which way that is a cracking deal. We have two players, not one. We have arguably more quality in both. We have change to spare for use as they see fit. Yes this is in hindsight and yes I was pissed off when we sold AC but now can look back and say it was a good deal.

[LeazesMag 0]

The amount doesn't matter, its the player that does. The fee is only relevant to those who constantly ask where the Carroll money is and to support their pointless argument they will always quote the lowest fee possible. The easiest way to look at it is Demba BA and Papiss Cisse are both quality players regardless of the cost

 

do you ever listen, and absorb anything? The question is not the replacement for Carroll but where the cash has gone ? Do you see this ? Why has the rest of the team not been improved with the rest of the cash ? Are you really so stupid and gullible that this needs to be explained 1000 times to you ?

 

See that daft thread CT has started saying we can qualify for the Champions League. What could have been if we had actually used this cash, all of it, to put up a serious challenge ?

 

I seriously don't think that you, and others, will ever understand.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't give a shit what we pay for who. I'd be happy to sell 11 players a season, raking in hundreds of millions if the free transfers we brought in to replce them were better.

 

 

This thread was started years ago though. At a time when Ashley and his odious mouthpiece were harping on about the money they were pumping in to bankroll the club Abramovich stylee. It was interesting then, to note the totals when you couldn't believe a word they were saying.

 

Now they've stopped spouting bollocks I'm not so fussed. I'll keep it going though, cos they could always start spouting bollocks again.

[ewerk 30270]

do you ever listen, and absorb anything? The question is not the replacement for Carroll but where the cash has gone ? Do you see this ? Why has the rest of the team not been improved with the rest of the cash ? Are you really so stupid and gullible that this needs to be explained 1000 times to you ?

 

 

Do you ever ask the question, where did the cash come from? When we were making losses, year after year.

[manc-mag 1]

I don't give a shit what we pay for who. I'd be happy to sell 11 players a season, raking in hundreds of millions if the free transfers we brought in to replce them were better.

 

 

This thread was started years ago though. At a time when Ashley and his odious mouthpiece were harping on about the money they were pumping in to bankroll the club Abramovich stylee. It was interesting then, to note the totals when you couldn't believe a word they were saying.

 

Now they've stopped spouting bollocks I'm not so fussed. I'll keep it going though, cos they could always start spouting bollocks again.

 

Very reasonable approach to it iyam. Well put.

[manc-mag 1]

do you ever listen, and absorb anything? The question is not the replacement for Carroll but where the cash has gone ? Do you see this ? Why has the rest of the team not been improved with the rest of the cash ? Are you really so stupid and gullible that this needs to be explained 1000 times to you ?

 

 

Do you ever ask the question, where did the cash come from? When we were making losses, year after year.

 

I'm not arsed about Hall and Shepherds dividends fwiw, (contrary to what he's said in the past), I view it as a fact of footballing life and the excesses of the professional game. In fact I wouldn't expect millionaires to work for free even if they did enjoy it. But his failure to attack Shepherd and Hall for their dividends if that could have alternatively been viewed as 'money for players' shows just how much of a spoon the man is. As much a stranger to logic as he is agenda crazed. The two have to go hand in hand though I spose if you want to live that deluded life.

[ChezGiven 0]

Easy to show you, try posting reports from the day after when the fee reported changes. Checked the Telegraph one and its from just before we sign him, Luke Edwards has consistently used the 10m (not even the 9m) figure since that day.

 

You re-post a chronicle article from the same day, just after me explaining that they changed their reported figure after that day.

 

Everyone knows Ben Arfa was 5.75m as thats what the Marseille press reported. You are biased towards Ashely because you dont report the one outlier from a shit source?

 

Sorry, not my fault i pay attention to these things.

 

Again, failure to show your working.

 

There's one (Shearer) article I can find where Luke Edwards refers to £10m - from the day he arived, hardly a consistent insistence, and the £10m mentioned is not even in the body of the article and does nothing to contradict the multitude of stories that say it's an ultimate incentive based total.

 

You are the one cherry picking, every single story out there contradicts your number apart from the two from the same day in the Chronicle. Why should i prove that every single media publication includes this, thats ridiculous? If you think that the 7.5m figure persisted and was the reflected and considered opinion of anyone after the transfer date, then find the article and show us.

 

Do i think you pick numbers that suit whatever point you are trying to support? Yes. Do i think you're intellectually honest? No.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

do you ever listen, and absorb anything? The question is not the replacement for Carroll but where the cash has gone ? Do you see this ? Why has the rest of the team not been improved with the rest of the cash ? Are you really so stupid and gullible that this needs to be explained 1000 times to you ?

 

How can you complain about getting the quality of players we've acquired for less than what Carroll cost? That's simply outstanding business. Cisse was a sign of real intent, and I'm going to be positive and assume that Pardew is happy enough with what he's got to excuse the lack of defensive cover being brought in during the window just gone.

 

edit; please try and argue this point.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Monroe Transfer

[Happy Face 29]

Easy to show you, try posting reports from the day after when the fee reported changes. Checked the Telegraph one and its from just before we sign him, Luke Edwards has consistently used the 10m (not even the 9m) figure since that day.

 

You re-post a chronicle article from the same day, just after me explaining that they changed their reported figure after that day.

 

Everyone knows Ben Arfa was 5.75m as thats what the Marseille press reported. You are biased towards Ashely because you dont report the one outlier from a shit source?

 

Sorry, not my fault i pay attention to these things.

 

Again, failure to show your working.

 

There's one (Shearer) article I can find where Luke Edwards refers to £10m - from the day he arived, hardly a consistent insistence, and the £10m mentioned is not even in the body of the article and does nothing to contradict the multitude of stories that say it's an ultimate incentive based total.

 

You are the one cherry picking, every single story out there contradicts your number apart from the two from the same day in the Chronicle. Why should i prove that every single media publication includes this, thats ridiculous? If you think that the 7.5m figure persisted and was the reflected and considered opinion of anyone after the transfer date, then find the article and show us.

 

Do i think you pick numbers that suit whatever point you are trying to support? Yes. Do i think you're intellectually honest? No.

 

You're in a Leazesesque circular argument of dwindling returns, refusing to back it up with any sources whatsoever. You said only one report mentioned £7.5m. I produced 4 instantly that said it, not only on the day, but in the following days and in many publications.

 

You said Edwards has repeatedly referred to £10m, and you can't show anywhere he's done that apart from the dubious one I mention from the same day of my multiple reports. I've even looked at his tweets going back a fortnight.

 

Getting tedious.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

No you didnt, you picked 3 which were before the transfer takes place or on the same day and which are contradicted by later versions of the same paper. You didnt produce 4 pieces of evidence at all and that right there is a classic example of you trying to put spurious numbers next to arguments to back them up. From reading your post, you would assume that your figure was the most widely reported. I know thats not true.

 

Fuck all that intellectually dishonesty though, Sky's deadline day totaliser said 9m and thats good enough for me. Why are you desperately clinging onto the lower end of the confidence interval btw?

[Happy Face 29]

So you're absolutley certain it was £10m cos Luke Edwards said so all the time (which he never).... and cos Sky said £9m?

 

Tell you what. Post a link to one paper dated after the 19th quoting £9m or £10m and I'll go with that, just for you.

 

I literally do not give a single fuck beyond a ballpark figure.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Hey! You two! Get a fucking room

[ChezGiven 0]

So if you are 1.5m or even 2.5m out on each transfer the ball park gives a good idea of net spend over 5 years?

 

The BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian and Bild.de all quote 10m. Caulkin says 9m on 19th in the times, so lets use that. I had a quick look for the Luke Edward's piece but cant see it either, i know thats the figure he used later though.

[Happy Face 29]

So if you are 1.5m or even 2.5m out on each transfer the ball park gives a good idea of net spend over 5 years?

 

The BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian and Bild.de all quote 10m. Caulkin says 9m on 19th in the times, so lets use that. I had a quick look for the Luke Edward's piece but cant see it either, i know thats the figure he used later though.

 

Ooooh, close but no cigar. I want to change it for you, really I do, but I need a link

 

If I'm £2.5m out on every tranfer you'll be able to produce a contrasting list to show how Ashley actually has a net spend.

[ewerk 30270]

Is it really that important?

[Happy Face 29]

Is it really that important?

 

No

 

Edited February 3, 2012 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

do you ever listen, and absorb anything? The question is not the replacement for Carroll but where the cash has gone ? Do you see this ? Why has the rest of the team not been improved with the rest of the cash ? Are you really so stupid and gullible that this needs to be explained 1000 times to you ?

 

 

Do you ever ask the question, where did the cash come from? When we were making losses, year after year.

 

I'm not arsed about Hall and Shepherds dividends fwiw, (contrary to what he's said in the past), I view it as a fact of footballing life and the excesses of the professional game. In fact I wouldn't expect millionaires to work for free even if they did enjoy it. But his failure to attack Shepherd and Hall for their dividends if that could have alternatively been viewed as 'money for players' shows just how much of a spoon the man is. As much a stranger to logic as he is agenda crazed. The two have to go hand in hand though I spose if you want to live that deluded life.

 

the difference is, as you clearly don't grasp this issue you utter deluded shithead, is that they backed their managers , despite a small dividend. The did not withhold millions in transfer money made from sales from their managers, they backed their managers. How thick are you ?

 

Two things in football that go hand in hand, and no club has ever been successful and ever will be if they don't combine the two, is success and backing your manager, which means allowing him to manage his own players and backing him to build and improve rather than force him to sell and replace cheaply.

 

If you would care to actually try and absorb this, then come back and show me clubs who have achieved consistent success and european qualification in football by doing it the "sell and replace cheaply" way, then come back but if not then you are only showing yourself to be a complete idiot, but I have known this already for a long time now.