Ashley's Transfer History thread

[NJS 4371]

do you seriously think we can challenge for a Champions League position with a sell your best players and replace them with cheaper policy?

 

That's how Spurs have done/are doing it.

 

what a load of crap

 

How many times does it have to be explained - they funded most of their current squad from the sales of Carrick, Berbatov, Defoe (profit) and Keane(profit).

[PaddockLad 17087]

The Spurs "project" is interesting....I can see the similarities but at the moment I certainly don't trust the present club management enough to beleive that they'll see it through to the stage that Spurs are at as we see them now in 2012. When Redknapp took over they were bottom of the league but Comolli had recruited the basis of the present squad. Pardew has started from a much weaker posistion squad wise. Spurs have also waxed just as the (media) accepted "big 4" have dropped a level or two and have seen the incredible spending power of Man City blow everyone else out of the water.

 

Now is a good time to be a team "on the up" and in a lot of ways now is one of the most interesting times to be following us in our recent history. Don't know what the financial fair play rules will mean for any club in the top division but if we take them at face value then we're going to be looking pretty strong. Theres so many teams with huge debts, ourselves included. I think if your debt is owed via a club owner to a bank then your pretty much fucked (strong rumours that if West Ham fail to go up then they're screwed too) Ours is a different debt, its all owed to one man who, it would appear, hasn't borrowed a penny since he bought the club. That may well be very important indeed when you look at the debt manu are carrying and they will also see Fergie retire sooner rather than later.

 

Our present owners keep springing surprises (on me anyway, and I defy anyone who predicted who would have signed contracts with us in 2012 to say it was anything more than guesswork based on nothing in particular) so maybe we'll continue to progress for a couple of seasons until we reach where Spurs are now (maybe). But two of Spurs best 4 players are on loan and to move to the next level for them the other two will have to be sold. Will the replacements for Bale and Modric get them closer to Man Utd? It will be interesting to see them compete at the top level with that policy and build a new stadium like Arsenal have. As far as we're concerned I think we've gone from being incapable of making two good decisions/moves in a row to getting two out of three right. Thats progress as far as I can make out. We'll see.

Edited March 7, 2012 by PaddockLad

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

That's how Spurs have done/are doing it.

 

what a load of crap

 

How many times does it have to be explained - they funded most of their current squad from the sales of Carrick, Berbatov, Defoe (profit) and Keane(profit).

 

most ?

 

Do you mean they have handed the entire proceeds of those sales to their manager, plus more ?

 

Doesn't sound like the way NUFC are run to me.

 

You are better off on skunkers, where they also believe this crap.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

good reply. You utter shambles of a man.

[LeazesMag 0]

If they did, do you think it would be an equivalent achievement?

 

i didn't realise your man took over a club with one foot in the 3rd division, unable to sell for less than the transfer fee for one player ie Gazza at the time, a half full cowshed of a stadium ie 20,000 supporters ?

 

Or do you, like others, think the previous regime brought an end to decades of trophies and glorious success ?

If the club repeated the finishes of the previous board, it would be a bigger achievement. Pointless discussion as its not very likely, i was just looking for recognition that its a tougher, more competitive environment now.

 

would it bollocks Mike Ashley took over an established club with one of the biggest and best stadiums in europe with a fully expanded and committed fanbase, having played in europe for the best part of 15 years.

 

Compared to heading the way of Sheff Wed [i've said the state we were in hundreds of times and can only think that those who don't understand it must have not actually seen it, which explains their naivety]. There is absolutely no comparison, and he WILL NOT match them even with that massive head start.

 

I didn't think you were that deluded.

[Happy Face 29]

Ba > Carroll

 

Cabaye > Barton

 

Ben Arfa > Nolan

 

Santon < Enrique

 

Cisse we'll have to wait and see but if he is a good as we hope then you can swap him in for Ba which means

 

Ba > Nolan

 

Which when you look at it, explains why last year we were bottom half and this year we are top 6, which renders any reply to this utterly pointless.

 

That's not the positions we've replaced though is it?

 

Ben Arfa* was here before we sold Carroll, the first of those 4 to go.

 

RW - Barton > Obertan

LB - Enrique > Santon

 

CF - Ba > Carroll

CF/MF - Cisse/Cabaye > Nolan

 

*not that Ben arfa has been half as effective as Nolan either btw.

Which team have you been watching? Fuck me, if you hadnt noticed the fulcrum of our attack and style of play has changed this year, last year Barton was delivering balls into the box for Carroll, this season Cabaye is the creative fulcrum and has supplied a few goals for Ba.

 

Ba is also, if you hadnt noticed, a bit of a no.10 and likes to drop deep to pick up the ball, quite similar to Nolan's role when he was playing off the striker last year. Ben Arfa can also play that no. 10 role and has done ok with 4 goals this season. If Ben Arfa score 2 more goals, he'll be a long way down the road to replacing the only thing that Nolan offered. Him being on the books but not in the first team picture is a hugely relevant factor in the decision to sell Nolan.

 

The fact that you come at this from Obertan is Barton's replacement just shows how little you have grasped. Comparing us to Bolton is then just clutching at straws.

 

Barton played on the right, and won player of the season doing it. We currently struggle on the right hand side, but the lad we brought in specifically to play on the right wasn't his replacement. Gotcha!

 

I only repeated exactly what you'd said about Ba (better than Carroll) but that makes me a cretin for making the comparison. Roger!

 

Ben Arfa is a better replacement for Nolan despite rarely being played in Nolan's position and not supplying half the goals or assists. Righty O!

 

The fact you've you've been the one comparing Obertan and Barton before, but now want to say I'm a div to it, because it suits your argument about buying better replacements says it all.

[Happy Face 29]

Which when you look at it, explains why last year we were bottom half and this year we are top 6, which renders any reply to this utterly pointless.

 

Bolton were top 7 in March last year. I suppose that renders their relegation this season uttterly pointless.

I think you have just won 'the most pointless post of the year award'. What that adds to the discussion it literally nothing, its a pointless post with no relevance. Unless you want to argue that spending 10m on Cisse is the equivalent of selling your best striker and tying up two of your best players is like not offering new contracts to one of yoiur top players, or that being heavily in debt and needing to sell players is just like getting revenue ahead of costs for the first time in 5 years. Thats what you would need to be doing to actually support that post. Which if you are, makes you pointless.

 

It's only as pointless as saying, "We're 6th now, end off". If you want to make all those other points then...

 

Signing our best player to a new contract is great, it's also exactly what we did last year with Carroll.

 

Chances are we'll sell our best striker this summer too, especially if the clause rumour is true. As much as you could take the "ambition" view from signing Cisse (a striker we didn't need as Ba was flying - certainly not more than a CB - who would leave a double sized hole when the African nations rolls round in 2013), you could equally assume he'll act as a cheap alternative when we get good money for Ba.

 

I wouldn't want to compare debt with revenue at all, we have the 4th highest debt in the league, far in excess of what it was 5 years ago, so there's a long way to go on that score. If the point of turning a profit is to balance the debt, we have many more years of low investment ahead of us.

[Happy Face 29]

Looking forward to the accounts at the end of March. Financially there is little debate that the club has been stabalised. This summer I think we will see how much the current regime mean to push on.

 

There's no reason to believe we'd spend 5 years getting to a break even point.....then flash £50m to make a push on the top 4.

 

We might go incrementally higher than than in recent seasons, but I just can't see "push on" funds being made available.

[Christmas Tree 4697]

You are all very sad, very bored, very argumentative or women.

[ChezGiven 0]

Barton played on the right, and won player of the season doing it. We currently struggle on the right hand side, but the lad we brought in specifically to play on the right wasn't his replacement. Gotcha!

 

I only repeated exactly what you'd said about Ba (better than Carroll) but that makes me a cretin for making the comparison. Roger!

 

Ben Arfa is a better replacement for Nolan despite rarely being played in Nolan's position and not supplying half the goals or assists. Righty O!

 

The fact you've you've been the one comparing Obertan and Barton before, but now want to say I'm a div to it, because it suits your argument about buying better replacements says it all.

I've made the point repeatedly all season that Cabaye is Barton's replacement and i've made the point repeatedly about us changing our style of play. Your insistence to even say that Ben Arfa doesnt play in the same position as Nolan shows a canny basic lack of understanding of the game. I'm the one posting from the perspective of reality, the actual dynamics of the 11 on the pitch, the options that Pardew has available. You are making your point based 'he played on the RW, therefore the player in the RW position this year is the replacement'. Sorry, like been consistent in my approach to that point of view all season, its fucking bollocks.

[ChezGiven 0]

It's only as pointless as saying, "We're 6th now, end off". If you want to make all those other points then...

 

Signing our best player to a new contract is great, it's also exactly what we did last year with Carroll.

 

Chances are we'll sell our best striker this summer too, especially if the clause rumour is true. As much as you could take the "ambition" view from signing Cisse (a striker we didn't need as Ba was flying - certainly not more than a CB - who would leave a double sized hole when the African nations rolls round in 2013), you could equally assume he'll act as a cheap alternative when we get good money for Ba.

 

I wouldn't want to compare debt with revenue at all, we have the 4th highest debt in the league, far in excess of what it was 5 years ago, so there's a long way to go on that score. If the point of turning a profit is to balance the debt, we have many more years of low investment ahead of us.

Its a pointless comparison as it isnt a comparison, everything happening there is the opposite of what is happening with us. If you cant see that, then give up.

[Happy Face 29]

Barton played on the right, and won player of the season doing it. We currently struggle on the right hand side, but the lad we brought in specifically to play on the right wasn't his replacement. Gotcha!

 

I only repeated exactly what you'd said about Ba (better than Carroll) but that makes me a cretin for making the comparison. Roger!

 

Ben Arfa is a better replacement for Nolan despite rarely being played in Nolan's position and not supplying half the goals or assists. Righty O!

 

The fact you've you've been the one comparing Obertan and Barton before, but now want to say I'm a div to it, because it suits your argument about buying better replacements says it all.

I've made the point repeatedly all season that Cabaye is Barton's replacement and i've made the point repeatedly about us changing our style of play. Your insistence to even say that Ben Arfa doesnt play in the same position as Nolan shows a canny basic lack of understanding of the game. I'm the one posting from the perspective of reality, the actual dynamics of the 11 on the pitch, the options that Pardew has available. You are making your point based 'he played on the RW, therefore the player in the RW position this year is the replacement'. Sorry, like been consistent in my approach to that point of view all season, its fucking bollocks.

 

I agree you've been shaping the argument for a while.

 

I said Ben Arfa has rarely been utilised in Nolan's role. Not quite what you're suggesting I said.

 

Getting bogged down in the specifics though. The basic point was that our replacements have been about 50/50.....

 

Relative disappointments for whatever reason (so far) - Ben Arfa, Obertan, Marveaux

Impressive (so Far) - Ba, Cabaye, Santon

[ChezGiven 0]

 

would it bollocks Mike Ashley took over an established club with one of the biggest and best stadiums in europe with a fully expanded and committed fanbase, having played in europe for the best part of 15 years.

 

Compared to heading the way of Sheff Wed [i've said the state we were in hundreds of times and can only think that those who don't understand it must have not actually seen it, which explains their naivety]. There is absolutely no comparison, and he WILL NOT match them even with that massive head start.

 

I didn't think you were that deluded.

I think you missed my point, 20 years ago, once we were in the premier league we had roughly the same revenue as everyone else. Back then there was very little difference in revenue across clubs. We also had our best years before the stadium expansion so why is the stadium a clear advantage? It hasnt been an advantage to Arsenal. It hasnt been a massive advantage to Sunderland either. Surley we dont need a stadium, we just need to re-create the same conditions that existed when Keegan brought us up through to 1997? If we the stadium and the fanbase are all you need, how come we were shit from 2004 to 2007?

 

The bigger stadium meant the current owner started with a 60m hiddent debt, due diligence is an irrelevance before any mug pipes up with that. Its an advantage but not a clear one because of the debt and because historically we did better as a club before it. If the previous board gave this lot a committed fanbase, how come attendances started to fall before Ashley took over?

 

The bottom line is Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City have enormous revenue compared to us and that makes the competition stiffer. Now we have around one third to one quarter of the resources of 4 teams above us, it means its more of an achievement to qualify regularly for the Champions League, (which of course we have never done regularly).

 

Actually no, the bottom line is this: the financial concentration of power has led to a decrease in quality of the competition and it has become harder for clubs to compete with the financial elite. This point is so well recognised outside of knobheads on toon forums, that the European commiission has allowed UEFA to table legislation which goes slightly counter to the underlying principles of the common market. Financial Fair Play legislation is the incontrevertible proof that there has been a concentration of power at the top of football which has made it harder for clubs with less resources to succeed. Its a fact.

[LeazesMag 0]

If they did, do you think it would be an equivalent achievement?

 

i didn't realise your man took over a club with one foot in the 3rd division, unable to sell for less than the transfer fee for one player ie Gazza at the time, a half full cowshed of a stadium ie 20,000 supporters ?

 

Or do you, like others, think the previous regime brought an end to decades of trophies and glorious success ?

If the club repeated the finishes of the previous board, it would be a bigger achievement. Pointless discussion as its not very likely, i was just looking for recognition that its a tougher, more competitive environment now.

 

the starting points are massively different. One regime had one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, a cowshed of a stadium and couldn't sell it for less than it cost for one footballer. The other had one of the biggest grounds in europe, which was full every game, the 14th biggest revenues in world football, and an established club expected to qualify regularly for europe at the very least. Absolutely no comparison. This is by far the most deluded and daft post you have ever made Chez, with all due respect,

it's an absolute no brainer and what you say is a complete nonsense.

[NJS 4371]

6m debt versus 110m

[LeazesMag 0]

Looking forward to the accounts at the end of March. Financially there is little debate that the club has been stabalised. This summer I think we will see how much the current regime mean to push on.

 

There's no reason to believe we'd spend 5 years getting to a break even point.....then flash £50m to make a push on the top 4.

 

We might go incrementally higher than than in recent seasons, but I just can't see "push on" funds being made available.

 

the first line is something I also have said numerous times over the years, and a few certain posters dismissed as nonsense along with the other points that are now happening too.

 

It doesn't make any sense at all for the club to "make ends meet" then go for broke for the top 4. The pointers to the mentality inside the club have been obvious for years. It simply isn't going to happen. They will settle for premiership survival and the vehicle for Sports Direct rather than do that, and sell a player to make a profit if this is not done operationally. It's as obvious as the nose on your face and it's absolutely amazing that people are still bickering about it, and will do for the next few years in fact, at which point they will make posts proclaiming how it was all inevitable, unavoidable and the way to go for some reason.

[LeazesMag 0]

6m debt versus 110m

 

are you saying they shouldn't have expanded the stadium ? [which was due to finish the repayments soon by the way]. Is that more of the skunkers genius you are recycling ?

[LeazesMag 0]

would it bollocks Mike Ashley took over an established club with one of the biggest and best stadiums in europe with a fully expanded and committed fanbase, having played in europe for the best part of 15 years.

 

Compared to heading the way of Sheff Wed [i've said the state we were in hundreds of times and can only think that those who don't understand it must have not actually seen it, which explains their naivety]. There is absolutely no comparison, and he WILL NOT match them even with that massive head start.

 

I didn't think you were that deluded.

I think you missed my point, 20 years ago, once we were in the premier league we had roughly the same revenue as everyone else. Back then there was very little difference in revenue across clubs. We also had our best years before the stadium expansion so why is the stadium a clear advantage? It hasnt been an advantage to Arsenal. It hasnt been a massive advantage to Sunderland either. Surley we dont need a stadium, we just need to re-create the same conditions that existed when Keegan brought us up through to 1997? If we the stadium and the fanbase are all you need, how come we were shit from 2004 to 2007?

 

The bigger stadium meant the current owner started with a 60m hiddent debt, due diligence is an irrelevance before any mug pipes up with that. Its an advantage but not a clear one because of the debt and because historically we did better as a club before it. If the previous board gave this lot a committed fanbase, how come attendances started to fall before Ashley took over?

 

The bottom line is Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man City have enormous revenue compared to us and that makes the competition stiffer. Now we have around one third to one quarter of the resources of 4 teams above us, it means its more of an achievement to qualify regularly for the Champions League, (which of course we have never done regularly).

 

Actually no, the bottom line is this: the financial concentration of power has led to a decrease in quality of the competition and it has become harder for clubs to compete with the financial elite. This point is so well recognised outside of knobheads on toon forums, that the European commiission has allowed UEFA to table legislation which goes slightly counter to the underlying principles of the common market. Financial Fair Play legislation is the incontrevertible proof that there has been a concentration of power at the top of football which has made it harder for clubs with less resources to succeed. Its a fact.

 

are you also saying they shouldn't have expanded the stadium

 

The goalposts were the same for everybody. Remember SJH saying back in 1992 how things were going to go and the club had to make sure they got in on it ? What stopped other clubs doing the same thing "if they all had the same finance" ?

 

Stop being so defensive, you know damn well that Mike Ashley has had it easy compared to the previous owners, and still not matched them either or got anywhere close in 5 years.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

the starting points are massively different. One regime had one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, a cowshed of a stadium and couldn't sell it for less than it cost for one footballer. The other had one of the biggest grounds in europe, which was full every game, the 14th biggest revenues in world football, and an established club expected to qualify regularly for europe at the very least. Absolutely no comparison. This is by far the most deluded and daft post you have ever made Chez, with all due respect,

it's an absolute no brainer and what you say is a complete nonsense.

UEFA disagrees, the European Comission disagrees, men who have been in football all their life and have managed clubs, who have access to information beyond your wildest dreams all disagree.

 

Your basically a lone voice on a toon forum claiming what the whole football world recognises. This financial fair play has really just passed you.

 

One season later from your doomsday scenario, without investing a single penny into the stadium, we were off at the top of the premiership so all of those factors were irrelevant to success. Your argument makes no sense, otherwise it cant have been the previous board's actions that caused the upturn.

 

One seaon we're in a cowshed, the next we are competing at the top of the Premiership, it either wasnt as bad as all that in reality OR (ta dahhhh!!!), it was easier back then to achieve it.

 

Honestly just give up Leazes, the argument fails because 1. i have the backing of the legislation designed to address the problem i describe and 2. your scenario back then wasnt that bad as we were able to immediately succeed the following season with the same fanbase and the same stadium.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

That's not the positions we've replaced though is it?

 

Ben Arfa* was here before we sold Carroll, the first of those 4 to go.

 

RW - Barton > Obertan

LB - Enrique > Santon

 

CF - Ba > Carroll

CF/MF - Cisse/Cabaye > Nolan

 

*not that Ben arfa has been half as effective as Nolan either btw.

Which team have you been watching? Fuck me, if you hadnt noticed the fulcrum of our attack and style of play has changed this year, last year Barton was delivering balls into the box for Carroll, this season Cabaye is the creative fulcrum and has supplied a few goals for Ba.

 

Ba is also, if you hadnt noticed, a bit of a no.10 and likes to drop deep to pick up the ball, quite similar to Nolan's role when he was playing off the striker last year. Ben Arfa can also play that no. 10 role and has done ok with 4 goals this season. If Ben Arfa score 2 more goals, he'll be a long way down the road to replacing the only thing that Nolan offered. Him being on the books but not in the first team picture is a hugely relevant factor in the decision to sell Nolan.

 

The fact that you come at this from Obertan is Barton's replacement just shows how little you have grasped. Comparing us to Bolton is then just clutching at straws.

 

Barton played on the right, and won player of the season doing it. We currently struggle on the right hand side, but the lad we brought in specifically to play on the right wasn't his replacement. Gotcha!

 

I only repeated exactly what you'd said about Ba (better than Carroll) but that makes me a cretin for making the comparison. Roger!

 

Ben Arfa is a better replacement for Nolan despite rarely being played in Nolan's position and not supplying half the goals or assists. Righty O!

 

The fact you've you've been the one comparing Obertan and Barton before, but now want to say I'm a div to it, because it suits your argument about buying better replacements says it all.

 

he's not the only one calling people "divs" when they know they are totally wrong.

[LeazesMag 0]

the starting points are massively different. One regime had one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, a cowshed of a stadium and couldn't sell it for less than it cost for one footballer. The other had one of the biggest grounds in europe, which was full every game, the 14th biggest revenues in world football, and an established club expected to qualify regularly for europe at the very least. Absolutely no comparison. This is by far the most deluded and daft post you have ever made Chez, with all due respect,

it's an absolute no brainer and what you say is a complete nonsense.

UEFA disagrees, the European Comission disagrees, men who have been in football all their life and have managed clubs, who have access to information beyond your wildest dreams all disagree.

 

Your basically a lone voice on a toon forum claiming what the whole football world recognises. This financial fair play has really just passed you.

 

One season later from your doomsday scenario, without investing a single penny into the stadium, we were off at the top of the premiership so all of those factors were irrelevant to success. Your argument makes no sense, otherwise it cant have been the previous board's actions that caused the upturn.

 

One seaon we're in a cowshed, the next we are competing at the top of the Premiership, it either wasnt as bad as all that in reality OR (ta dahhhh!!!), it was easier back then to achieve it.

 

Honestly just give up Leazes, the argument fails because 1. i have the backing of the legislation designed to address the problem i describe and 2. your scenario back then wasnt that bad as we were able to immediately succeed the following season with the same fanbase and the same stadium.

 

the financial fair play league was NOT the reason why people booed a team for only finishing 5th and wanted "anybody but Fred", nor did they look into a crystal ball and see Man City taken over by a bunch of Arabs thus meaning NUFC had no chance of competing with clubs such as Spurs and Liverpool anymore.

 

And Mike Ashley isn't a financial genius who is looking into a crystal ball and seeing the financial fair play league either, he's just taking the club backwards into competing with the 2nd raters and this legislation has came along and fooled those "anyone but Fred" fools and/or gave them an excuse for not admitting that they were spouting a load of bollocks.

 

One seaon we're in a cowshed, the next we are competing at the top of the Premiership, it either wasnt as bad as all that in reality OR (ta dahhhh!!!), it was easier back then to achieve it.

 

by the way, THIS shows your complete ignorance, I didn't realise you were little more than a more educated thompers.

Edited March 7, 2012 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

Not saying any of that, just trying to get two very insular posters to look at the bigger picture. Financial Fair Play is a reaction to the extremity of the problem of concentration of financial power and is legislation that was put in place for the exact reasons i am stating, competition is now harder because of the changes to football finance.

 

The irony of your point about where we were when the previous board took over is that further supports my point. They appointed Keegan, shifted a few players in, won the championship and within 18 months we were at the top of the premiership.

 

If you think its the same environment nowadays then it would mean that by the 2013/14 Porstmouth could be in the CL places, which is about as close to impossible as you can get.

Edited March 7, 2012 by ChezGiven

[NJS 4371]

It has also taken Man City 4 years and 400m to get to a point of having a good chance of winning the league.

 

I still maintain the biggest factor in the success of the previous regime was more down to the two managers than anything they did. Obviously football was different in 96 as well.

[PaddockLad 17087]

It has also taken Man City 4 years and 400m to get to a point of having a good chance of winning the league. I still maintain the biggest factor in the success of the previous regime was more down to the two managers than anything they did. Obviously football was different in 96 as well.

 

We've spent half a season in the top 4, 18 months after being in Division 2. Its like 93/94 all over again if we're to go with what Chez is saying

 

With us its been undoubtedly down to the managers in the main part. Although we wouldnt have spent much time in the top 4 around the latter part of the last decade as it was virtually a closed shop at the time. Its in a complete state of flux now mind. Now is the time to strike when Arsenal and Chelsea look shadows of them former selves and Man Utd are up to their ears in debt and need to replace Fergie soon. Maybe we will be stronger in 18 months when we've sold a few and replaced a few. Bottom line is football is cyclical because humans control the finance of clubs, and humans often fuck it up, whatever the level of money sloshing around.

[LeazesMag 0]

It has also taken Man City 4 years and 400m to get to a point of having a good chance of winning the league.

 

I still maintain the biggest factor in the success of the previous regime was more down to the two managers than anything they did. Obviously football was different in 96 as well.

 

neither of them could or would have done it without the backing. Crikey. Nobody is mentioning Man City either. Man City being bankrolled is not the reason people said "anybody but Fred", nor did they say Man City being bankrolled was a reason NUFC had to give up trying to compete with and had not chance of beating or finishing above clubs such as Liverpool and Spurs.

 

How was football different, did they have more players, bigger goals, did we have one more player than the opposition, or did teams lie down and let us win ?

Edited March 7, 2012 by LeazesMag