Cheick Tiote

[Toonpack 9934]

Aye, these arguments obviously get a bit repetitive but it's worth pointing out that unearthing the odd gem like Carroll and bringing in the likes of Tiote (too early to say how Ben Arfa will go) is all good but it's only a good thing if you actually hang onto these players rather than selling them in the hope that their cheap replacements will then come good and you'll gradually use this method to strengthen the squad. It's a recipe for fucking disaster tbh and anyone who disagrees with this (in my non-too-humble opinion) knows absolutely fuck all about football. Which is where our owner and chairman come in.

 

I woudl suggest that Man U, Arsenal and Spuds would tend to disagree, and any number of continental teams also patently know nowt about football.

They don't do it as a primary objective in the case of the three English clubs. There is nothing wrong with signing players with a potentially high resale value but the teams do this because they want young, hungry players rather than hasbeens or people who have lost their drive and focus. I would suggest we do it largely with potential profit in mind. I expect this to be backed up when Tiote leaves over the next 12 months. I seriously doubt our scouting network is anything like the 3 sides you mention either.

French clubs are a different matter because there is less money there and good players will eventually want to play for more high profile teams in more high profile leagues.

 

Spurs did, that's how they got their money to progress, they may not have stated it but I would suggest that the mainstay of their (all three mentioned) buying strategy is resale value (with the odd exception - Berbatov for example), if it wasn't, how do they make transfer profits all the time ??

 

It's one of the few ways left they can raise their revenues as just about all else (outside of TV dosh) has stagnated over the last three years.

[Guest alex]

I think that's 2+2=5 tbh. Arsenal always make a profit but that's not why Wenger operates the way he does imo. I seriously doubt Spurs wanted to sell Carrick or Berbatov or will want to sell Bale either. They've just bought and scouted well though. I doubt we'll agree on this but you can come back and say I told you so when we manage to qualify for the CL, since the clubs you've mentioned have all recently managed to do.

[LeazesMag 0]

You should be trying to buy players and have them for the best years of their careers.

 

If they DO leave - and while there are always other attractions in football - then the manager MUST be party to it and MUST be allowed to spend the money on who he wants and how he wants.

 

This is the key. Clubs like Bolton and Blackburn don't have top level capability, but NUFC most definitely do.

 

It is NOT going to happen under Mike Ashley, and has been obvious almost since he came through the door it wasn't going to happen.

 

People can defend the "business approach" as much as they like, but ultimately most clubs, when run by "businessmen" like Ashley [see Alan Sugar at Spurs too] don't get football and don't give supporters what they want [although some of them pretend they want the business model, but as soon as good players are bought again its a different story....]

 

Everything stems from winning on the pitch, but only if you set your sights at the level you should.

 

It's hard to see where this ever going to end to be honest, people should really be getting this by now.

[Guest alex]

I'd also add that, under the old regime, up until Souness arrived, we almost exclusively bought players who were sold at a profit and/or had a high resale value, and we were more successful but there's absolutely no way that that was the primary motive for buying these players.

[Toonpack 9934]

I'd also add that, under the old regime, up until Souness arrived, we almost exclusively bought players who were sold at a profit and/or had a high resale value, and we were more successful but there's absolutely no way that that was the primary motive for buying these players.

 

It should always be at least a consideration, unless you are looking for "icing on the cake", otherwise you end up in a financial shambles, sound familiar?

 

Regarding your other point about the Champions League, buying and selling on, for goodly profit (as in Spurs) is the only way we're ever going to be able to break into "the closed shop", in today's game there is no other way, without a bazillionaire.

 

It's symptomatic of the modern game, there is a turnover of players because players and agents ensure it happens because that's where their big bucks are, you need to recognise that and work accordingly.

 

There's a HUGE difference in how that can be implemented. How we'll do it remains to be seen.

 

There's two ways it can go - loads of cheap tat (£2-£3 mill) and sell on slightly less cheap say £4-£5 Mill, or buy £7-£12 Mill decent stuff and when the inevitable time comes sell of for £15-£20 Mill+, there's also the Bosman market as well.

 

Dunno which way we're going to go yet. We've scored on one bit of cheap tat (Tiote) and maybe scored on a higher ranged player (HBA) which IF he comes off will be worth a hell of a lot more than we paid.

 

There's a limit to the number of players that the monster rich teams want/need and there are dozens of players per position, all over the planet, who would improve our squad, you've just got to find them.

 

Whatever happens, if you get a silly offer, you take it, every time IMO. Of course you must reinvest it - that's the bit we don't know yet.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Toonpack

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I'm sure you've got this special little league table in your special little head whereby you've weighed up who's done the best by using some formula based on performance against spending but no one else is interested tbh.

dadoon might be.

[peasepud 59]

Aye, these arguments obviously get a bit repetitive but it's worth pointing out that unearthing the odd gem like Carroll and bringing in the likes of Tiote (too early to say how Ben Arfa will go) is all good but it's only a good thing if you actually hang onto these players rather than selling them in the hope that their cheap replacements will then come good and you'll gradually use this method to strengthen the squad. It's a recipe for fucking disaster tbh and anyone who disagrees with this (in my non-too-humble opinion) knows absolutely fuck all about football. Which is where our owner and chairman come in.

 

I woudl suggest that Man U, Arsenal and Spuds would tend to disagree, and any number of continental teams also patently know nowt about football.

They don't do it as a primary objective in the case of the three English clubs. There is nothing wrong with signing players with a potentially high resale value but the teams do this because they want young, hungry players rather than hasbeens or people who have lost their drive and focus. I would suggest we do it largely with potential profit in mind. I expect this to be backed up when Tiote leaves over the next 12 months. I seriously doubt our scouting network is anything like the 3 sides you mention either.

French clubs are a different matter because there is less money there and good players will eventually want to play for more high profile teams in more high profile leagues.

 

Spurs did, that's how they got their money to progress, they may not have stated it but I would suggest that the mainstay of their (all three mentioned) buying strategy is resale value (with the odd exception - Berbatov for example), if it wasn't, how do they make transfer profits all the time ??

 

It's one of the few ways left they can raise their revenues as just about all else (outside of TV dosh) has stagnated over the last three years.

 

I havent spent any time looking at Spurs so I cant agree or disagree that logic but one thing that does differ is the logic behind doing it. We appear to be buying cheap with our aim being to selling on at a profit while Spurs looks more like "buy good players we want and if we decide to sell or are offered silly money then we make a profit."

 

EDIT: Just realised Ive basically repeated what Alex said above

[Toonpack 9934]

Aye, these arguments obviously get a bit repetitive but it's worth pointing out that unearthing the odd gem like Carroll and bringing in the likes of Tiote (too early to say how Ben Arfa will go) is all good but it's only a good thing if you actually hang onto these players rather than selling them in the hope that their cheap replacements will then come good and you'll gradually use this method to strengthen the squad. It's a recipe for fucking disaster tbh and anyone who disagrees with this (in my non-too-humble opinion) knows absolutely fuck all about football. Which is where our owner and chairman come in.

 

I woudl suggest that Man U, Arsenal and Spuds would tend to disagree, and any number of continental teams also patently know nowt about football.

They don't do it as a primary objective in the case of the three English clubs. There is nothing wrong with signing players with a potentially high resale value but the teams do this because they want young, hungry players rather than hasbeens or people who have lost their drive and focus. I would suggest we do it largely with potential profit in mind. I expect this to be backed up when Tiote leaves over the next 12 months. I seriously doubt our scouting network is anything like the 3 sides you mention either.

French clubs are a different matter because there is less money there and good players will eventually want to play for more high profile teams in more high profile leagues.

 

Spurs did, that's how they got their money to progress, they may not have stated it but I would suggest that the mainstay of their (all three mentioned) buying strategy is resale value (with the odd exception - Berbatov for example), if it wasn't, how do they make transfer profits all the time ??

 

It's one of the few ways left they can raise their revenues as just about all else (outside of TV dosh) has stagnated over the last three years.

 

I havent spent any time looking at Spurs so I cant agree or disagree that logic but one thing that does differ is the logic behind doing it. We appear to be buying cheap with our aim being to selling on at a profit while Spurs looks more like buy good players we want and if we decide to sell or are offered silly money then we make a profit."EDIT: Just realised Ive basically repeated what Alex said above

 

Bold bit, I don't believe either of the two "methods" is proven to be our intended method, yet.

 

We've been buying cheap because that's all we could afford (IMO), if it continues (because now we really, 100%, no hiding place, can afford better) well then you have a point.

[Guest alex]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

Edited May 12, 2011 by alex

[Howmanheyman 33834]

Going to get abuse for this, but I don't think the fact that we sold Carroll automatically makes us a selling club.

 

The view that Ashley will do things on the cheap if he can get away with it is a fair one, though.

 

No need to abuse you, its the same for all clubs as Gejon says.

 

The point I'm making is the "replacement" policy. If we get Carlton Cole and Paul Konchesky then its highly unlikely they'll be anything like 5-1 v the mackems next season,no twatting Villa and away wins at the likes of Arsenal will be a virtual miracle given the squad we're likely to have. And all that points to one long 9 month struggle aganst relegation.

 

Time will tell. But am sharing most folks pessimism on here about this sumer.

Agreed.

 

Aye, these arguments obviously get a bit repetitive but it's worth pointing out that unearthing the odd gem like Carroll and bringing in the likes of Tiote (too early to say how Ben Arfa will go) is all good but it's only a good thing if you actually hang onto these players rather than selling them in the hope that their cheap replacements will then come good and you'll gradually use this method to strengthen the squad. It's a recipe for fucking disaster tbh and anyone who disagrees with this (in my non-too-humble opinion) knows absolutely fuck all about football. Which is where our owner and chairman come in.

Selling good players usually is. If the replacements are as good or better I'll be amazed. Still, at least Nicholarse from Poland will be proud.

[Toonpack 9934]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

[sammynb 3508]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

 

This is probably a dumb question but can you provide the proof for this?

Yeah I've seen the figures you're quoted and the arguments with Leaze but what Club sourced, available to all to see document can vouch for your claims?

[Guest alex]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

The drop into the Championship cost more than moderately backing KK and getting rid of messrs Wise and Llambias would've done yet we're still around so that unequivocably proves that the owner had money yet lacked foresight.

[Toonpack 9934]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

 

This is probably a dumb question but can you provide the proof for this?

Yeah I've seen the figures you're quoted and the arguments with Leaze but what Club sourced, available to all to see document can vouch for your claims?

 

Everything I've posted has come from multiple sources, the accounts, articles, blogs etc.

 

My comments about debt at other clubs is from general googling etc to find what each clubs position is/was - and that's what shows up that our debt was "different", i.e. being leveraged totally on the club. (I accept Man U and Liverpool are similarly leveraged but they make/made profits which covered repayments plus some, we didn't and haven't done profit hardly ever - £600K in 2005 and that only with the help of player transfer profit of £13.4 Million).

 

The best totally independent read I could suggest, in a single place, is the Swiss Ramble's piece. He's recently done another excellent one on the Prem League in general which is definitely also worth a read.

[Toonpack 9934]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

The drop into the Championship cost more than moderately backing KK and getting rid of messrs Wise and Llambias would've done yet we're still around so that unequivocably proves that the owner had money yet lacked foresight.

 

I agree. But good that he had the money because we needed it eh?

 

But my contention is 1) he was ploughing more money in than he expected just to keep operating (crass decisions that cost him more than would have been the case, notwithstanding) and 2) now he doesn't need to "plug the leak" so lets see what he does.

 

This is it, the summer will lay bare everything. For some it's laid bare already, for me not so clear cut, because of my view on the financial hole.

 

He's a grade "A" prick as I've said ad nauseum BUT I remain convinced without his (or someone like him's) money we'd have been screwed, happy to be shown up/convinced as being wrong. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

As far as his real plans/intentions are concerned, now (well the summer) is the time (as they say).

[Guest alex]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

The drop into the Championship cost more than moderately backing KK and getting rid of messrs Wise and Llambias would've done yet we're still around so that unequivocably proves that the owner had money yet lacked foresight.

 

I agree. But good that he had the money because we needed it eh?

 

But my contention is 1) he was ploughing more money in than he expected just to keep operating (crass decisions that cost him more than would have been the case, notwithstanding) and 2) now he doesn't need to "plug the leak" so lets see what he does.

 

This is it, the summer will lay bare everything. For some it's laid bare already, for me not so clear cut, because of my view on the financial hole.

 

He's a grade "A" prick as I've said ad nauseum BUT I remain convinced without his (or someone like him's) money we'd have been screwed, happy to be shown up/convinced as being wrong. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

As far as his real plans/intentions are concerned, now (well the summer) is the time (as they say).

TBH I think the only place where we differ is that you think there's a decent chance we'll spend adequately this summer.

[Toonpack 9934]

The separation between the owner's wealth and the club suits your argument though. They're not really two separate entities since he owns the club lock, stock and barrel. It's his money and he can do what the fuck he wants with it but the point remains that he not only has the money available but has actually put it into the club when he had to, i.e. to make up for the loss of revenue. He chose not to put money in the season we went down and that ended up being more costly for him in the long run.

 

I'm not arguing, I've stated my case.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say tbh. Yes relegation cost him more than non-relegation, but even discounting that, the amount of financial support necessary was very high and to expect more is unreasonable IMO, there's about 25% of his total wealth tied up in the club already (yes I know a lump of that is the purchase price).

 

If we weren't in such a pickle to start with, his "donations" would have funded all that we want, as I think was evidenced how he started off - with Collo/Jonas etc, but THEN he saw how deep the hole was and it all changed, of course that shortly after coincided with the backlash and the venom.

 

I totally agree he will do exactly what he wants, this summer we'll see what that "wants" is, because he doesn't need to do anything in terms of "support", no bailout required.

[Toonpack 9934]

Aye, wait and see. Everyone deserves a 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th chance.

 

In terms of the financials, this summer is his first chance. It's also his only chance, because it will truly define his policy.

 

We had no money man, how many times have I spelled that out and I still await any reasonable/meaningfull contradiction.

The drop into the Championship cost more than moderately backing KK and getting rid of messrs Wise and Llambias would've done yet we're still around so that unequivocably proves that the owner had money yet lacked foresight.

 

I agree. But good that he had the money because we needed it eh?

 

But my contention is 1) he was ploughing more money in than he expected just to keep operating (crass decisions that cost him more than would have been the case, notwithstanding) and 2) now he doesn't need to "plug the leak" so lets see what he does.

 

This is it, the summer will lay bare everything. For some it's laid bare already, for me not so clear cut, because of my view on the financial hole.

 

He's a grade "A" prick as I've said ad nauseum BUT I remain convinced without his (or someone like him's) money we'd have been screwed, happy to be shown up/convinced as being wrong. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

As far as his real plans/intentions are concerned, now (well the summer) is the time (as they say).

TBH I think the only place where we differ is that you think there's a decent chance we'll spend adequately this summer.

 

TBH I don't know if there's a decent chance or not. What I do believe is that there is nothing that should stand in the way of it now, except his intentions.

 

Edit - I would add, I don't see everything negative in everything that the club says as some do, for example the stated transfer policy is IMO eminently sensible - IF we re-invest profits. TBH I wouldn't even get upset if he does some claw back over time, so long as it was in a ratio that heavily favoured the club, 2 to 1 minimum.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Toonpack

[Guest alex]

The separation between the owner's wealth and the club suits your argument though. They're not really two separate entities since he owns the club lock, stock and barrel. It's his money and he can do what the fuck he wants with it but the point remains that he not only has the money available but has actually put it into the club when he had to, i.e. to make up for the loss of revenue. He chose not to put money in the season we went down and that ended up being more costly for him in the long run.

 

I'm not arguing, I've stated my case.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say tbh. Yes relegation cost him more than non-relegation, but even discounting that, the amount of financial support necessary was very high and to expect more is unreasonable IMO, there's about 25% of his total wealth tied up in the club already (yes I know a lump of that is the purchase price).

 

If we weren't in such a pickle to start with, his "donations" would have funded all that we want, as I think was evidenced how he started off - with Collo/Jonas etc, but THEN he saw how deep the hole was and it all changed, of course that shortly after coincided with the backlash and the venom.

 

I totally agree he will do exactly what he wants, this summer we'll see what that "wants" is, because he doesn't need to do anything in terms of "support", no bailout required.

I deleted that post anyway as I thought your previous reply was to mine and not sammy's post. Ignore it, basically.

That said, he'd owned the club for over a year when Collocini and Jonas were signed. My main issue with him is that he sold Keegan and, by extension, the fans a false dream. He'd had enough time to see the books properly when he did this too. He's been dishonest and duplicitous virtually from the off and that's worse in some ways than his incompetence. I don't trust him, basically. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. If he'd been more honest from the beginning about the state of where we were headed then he'd have been given a far greater amount of good feeling from the fans. However he was still lying through his teeth via the programme notes about "Kevin having money available for players" etc. well after he knew exactly what he'd gotten himself into. It's because of this I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. In addition to this getting Pardew in should tell you everything you need to know about his ambition.

Edited May 12, 2011 by alex

[Toonpack 9934]

The separation between the owner's wealth and the club suits your argument though. They're not really two separate entities since he owns the club lock, stock and barrel. It's his money and he can do what the fuck he wants with it but the point remains that he not only has the money available but has actually put it into the club when he had to, i.e. to make up for the loss of revenue. He chose not to put money in the season we went down and that ended up being more costly for him in the long run.

 

I'm not arguing, I've stated my case.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say tbh. Yes relegation cost him more than non-relegation, but even discounting that, the amount of financial support necessary was very high and to expect more is unreasonable IMO, there's about 25% of his total wealth tied up in the club already (yes I know a lump of that is the purchase price).

 

If we weren't in such a pickle to start with, his "donations" would have funded all that we want, as I think was evidenced how he started off - with Collo/Jonas etc, but THEN he saw how deep the hole was and it all changed, of course that shortly after coincided with the backlash and the venom.

 

I totally agree he will do exactly what he wants, this summer we'll see what that "wants" is, because he doesn't need to do anything in terms of "support", no bailout required.

I deleted that post anyway as I thought your previous reply was to mine and not sammy's post. Ignore it, basically.

That said, he'd owned the club for over a year when Collocini and Jonas were signed. My main issue with him is that he sold Keegan and, by extension, the fans a false dream. He'd had enough time to see the books properly when he did this too. He's been dishonest and duplicitous virtually from the off and that's worse in some ways than his incompetence. I don't trust him, basically. Once bitten, twice shy and all that. If he'd been more honest from the beginning about the state of where we were headed then he'd have been given a far greater amount of good feeling from the fans. However he was still lying through his teeth via the programme notes about "Kevin having money available for players" etc. well after he knew exactly what he'd gotten himself into. It's because of this I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. In addition to this getting Pardew in should tell you everything you need to know about his ambition.

 

Can't dissagree hugely, we can surmise what his "ambition" is, but as I think we agree we'll know for definite in the summer.

 

There's loads of "negative" vibes, but there are some positive so I can't say it's clear cut for me. (leaving aside my assertion that we needed a rich twat).

 

Firstly you don't make his sort of cash without being a lying duplicitous bastard.

 

He has supported the club financially big style and yet he does not charge interest, unlike virtually all other owners who are "in deep" (well all but Al Fayed). That would be an easy and perfectly reasonable way to make some coin, reduce his exposure.

 

He has leveraged his purchase, but the debt is to himself, interest free, he could have gone the Glazer/Hicks,Gillette route and tried to stick it to a bank and thus burden the club with the debt and the interest payments and been immediately £130Mill better off.

 

His "loans" are majorly unsecured, so he has no guarantee to get them back. (Al Fayed has secured £80 Mill of his on Fulham Assets, that said Fayed is in for over £250Mill-ish).

 

He still regularly comes to the games, which given his "popularity" I find very strange, it doesn't help protect his investment in any way. Maybe he likes it, I dunno.

 

I do reckon he'd flog the club at the drop of a hat, for the right offer mind.

[Guest alex]

I know you have to be a lying cunt to be that successful in business, TP (or it at least would be a big help). The point is though, his lies have made it harder for him at NUFC and probably were the main reason for the relegation (or the direct causes of the relegation - i.e. KK going and the ensuing chaos). There was no need to lie to the fans and KK either. I suppose if he'd been more upfront KK wouldn't have come, but that would've been for the best anyway in retrospect.

[Toonpack 9934]

I know you have to be a lying cunt to be that successful in business, TP (or it at least would be a big help). The point is though, his lies have made it harder for him at NUFC and probably were the main reason for the relegation (or the direct causes of the relegation - i.e. KK going and the ensuing chaos). There was no need to lie to the fans and KK either. I suppose if he'd been more upfront KK wouldn't have come, but that would've been for the best anyway in retrospect.

 

Totally agree, was always going to end badly for one or the other.

 

He's been a fool, totally, but everything he does is not premeditated evil and done out of some wierd obsession to grind us down, which some would have us believe, where even anything remotely positive has the worst possible conotation placed upon it, as unshakeable fact.

[Guest alex]

I know you have to be a lying cunt to be that successful in business, TP (or it at least would be a big help). The point is though, his lies have made it harder for him at NUFC and probably were the main reason for the relegation (or the direct causes of the relegation - i.e. KK going and the ensuing chaos). There was no need to lie to the fans and KK either. I suppose if he'd been more upfront KK wouldn't have come, but that would've been for the best anyway in retrospect.

 

Totally agree, was always going to end badly for one or the other.

 

He's been a fool, totally, but everything he does is not premeditated evil and done out of some wierd obsession to grind us down, which some would have us believe, where even anything remotely positive has the worst possible conotation placed upon it, as unshakeable fact.

Yeah, he's not that clued up tbh

Hopefully he is learning from those mistakes like. I accept January was an exceptional set of circumstances as well.

[Toonpack 9934]

I know you have to be a lying cunt to be that successful in business, TP (or it at least would be a big help). The point is though, his lies have made it harder for him at NUFC and probably were the main reason for the relegation (or the direct causes of the relegation - i.e. KK going and the ensuing chaos). There was no need to lie to the fans and KK either. I suppose if he'd been more upfront KK wouldn't have come, but that would've been for the best anyway in retrospect.

 

Totally agree, was always going to end badly for one or the other.

 

He's been a fool, totally, but everything he does is not premeditated evil and done out of some wierd obsession to grind us down, which some would have us believe, where even anything remotely positive has the worst possible conotation placed upon it, as unshakeable fact.

Yeah, he's not that clued up tbh

Hopefully he is learning from those mistakes like. I accept January was an exceptional set of circumstances as well.

 

 

Aye, as I've said all along, Summer will tell, and NO he doesn't get a deferral to January.

 

Net spend "should" be north of £20Mill (minimum) IMO, allowing for something left in the pot. I do not expect nor contemplate a net spend of anything near £40+ Mill.

 

Be interesting to see, as it appears circumstantially that the club is breaking even, if he continues to bankroll over and above the "living within the means" (that'll take the next accounts to see though) The UEFA rules allow for some subsidy, up to a max of £40 Mill (for next 3 years) - obviously he won't go near that, even if he does subsidise like.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Toonpack

[OTF 7485]

Why should only 20m be spent? Carroll alone was sold for 35m plus it's likely that another million or so will be recouped from Routledge. The two of them are off the books as is Xisco who is likely to stay in Spain. Given that Carroll was a couldn't say no opportunistic sale then surely the entire amount needs to be invested in the side to make the most of the opportunity that was too good to refuse. That would be the case if the owner was motivated to bring about success on the pitch, but sadly he's not. Ashley will always attempt to do what he thinks will bring about the most money. The way that he intends to do that is already clear from out movements in the market. Absolutely nothing they say can be taken at face value as there's always an ulterior motive. Conversely you can analyse just about everything they do as it is revealing their true intentions.

 

They've been gradually talking down the amount that will be spent in the summer which is a classic maneuver in resetting expectations with the assistance of time. If there had been this sort of talk in the immediate wake of Carroll's departure noone would have accepted it willingly. The more of this talk that comes out the more suspicious the circumstances surrounding Carroll's departure become. Quite simply they must have known about the interest in the player well before the deal was inked. The gamble was taken in not arranging any sort of meaningful replacement and they'll now be thinking that it has paid off. Even more so when they spend significantly less than was garnered from the sale. What's worrying is how easy the apparent financial success is coming for them. Carroll firstly, but then the increase in value of Tiote and the interest in Enrique appears to lead them to think they're on the right track. Sadly each of these moves further devalues the wider profile of the club, but that doesn't matter when you only have the foresight to care about short term financial goals.

 

..as for financial figures available online, they can paint just about any picture you like. Accounting is a crafty business though so there's no way we'll get a real indication of how much money Ashley is indirectly taking out of the club through payment to himself amongst other things.