Happy Face 29 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Therefore we should too? Seriously? For someone that complains about me putting words in his mouth you've taken quite a leap there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Therefore we should too? Seriously? For someone that complains about me putting words in his mouth you've taken quite a leap there. It was a question. Putting words in your mouth would be stating 'so you think..'. Thats your trick, not mine Were you just adding Man U to the list of Man city/Chelsea i.e. the clubs who can afford to spend huge amounts? The difference with Man U is that their debt structure is completely different and even with the interest and re-payments, they still make a profit. This allows them to carry (or service the debt) and invest from the remaining profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers They should be following the Mike Ashley method and selling all their best players to clear their debts and look for replacements in the schools of Stretford. The ManU fans will be mortified when they realise they are doing it all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 snore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 snore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Incomparable and you know it. That is debt from their leveraged purchase by the Glazers, which is also more than covered by their profits, they do not go into debt to buy players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers They should be following the Mike Ashley method and selling all their best players to clear their debts and look for replacements in the schools of Stretford. The ManU fans will be mortified when they realise they are doing it all wrong. Ignoramus If you even began to understand, you'd realise that the "live within your means" model is exactly what they do. Edited June 25, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers They should be following the Mike Ashley method and selling all their best players to clear their debts and look for replacements in the schools of Stretford. The ManU fans will be mortified when they realise they are doing it all wrong. Ignoramus If you even began to understand, you'd realise that the "live within your means" model is exactly what they do. as do the likes of Bolton, Blackburn ie your role models, those who sell their best players and don't give the money to their managers although we are three times the club that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Incomparable and you know it. That is debt from their leveraged purchase by the Glazers, which is also more than covered by their profits, they do not go into debt to buy players. and our "debts" in 2007 were mostly down to a stadium expansion ? Until the financial whizz kid Ashley set about his "streamlining" etc and increased them, after paying them all off of course, according to Dekka, then he hadn't paid them off, then he had, then he hadn't ...... then he sold our best striker for a whopping fee to a team we used to compete with and conned everybody like you into making the money disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Incomparable and you know it. That is debt from their leveraged purchase by the Glazers, which is also more than covered by their profits, they do not go into debt to buy players. and our "debts" in 2007 were mostly down to a stadium expansion ? Until the financial whizz kid Ashley set about his "streamlining" etc and increased them, after paying them all off of course, according to Dekka, then he hadn't paid them off, then he had, then he hadn't ...... then he sold our best striker for a whopping fee to a team we used to compete with and conned everybody like you into making the money disappear. "mostly" down to the stadium expansion, Oh wait a minute, except for the £30Mill bank debt probably used to make up the gap to allow dividends and nice salaries for the whole family (oh and the warehouse and offices in Gibraltar, hotbed of football that it is and paying Kenny to use offices in SJP) plus £27Mill outstanding transfer fees, and £25Mill of Northern Rock money spent before we had it. So not "mostly" after all. Over and above the sale price £52 Million was their take (well the amounts we know about anyway) pitty that wasn't re-invested eh? (like in the summer we could/should have pressed on but got Bowyer on a free instead, and then it all went wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Incomparable and you know it. That is debt from their leveraged purchase by the Glazers, which is also more than covered by their profits, they do not go into debt to buy players. and our "debts" in 2007 were mostly down to a stadium expansion ? Until the financial whizz kid Ashley set about his "streamlining" etc and increased them, after paying them all off of course, according to Dekka, then he hadn't paid them off, then he had, then he hadn't ...... then he sold our best striker for a whopping fee to a team we used to compete with and conned everybody like you into making the money disappear. "mostly" down to the stadium expansion, Oh wait a minute, except for the £30Mill bank debt probably used to make up the gap to allow dividends and nice salaries for the whole family (oh and the warehouse and offices in Gibraltar, hotbed of football that it is and paying Kenny to use offices in SJP) plus £27Mill outstanding transfer fees, and £25Mill of Northern Rock money spent before we had it. So not "mostly" after all. Over and above the sale price £52 Million was their take (well the amounts we know about anyway) pitty that wasn't re-invested eh? (like in the summer we could/should have pressed on but got Bowyer on a free instead, and then it all went wrong). I don't give a fuck about a pittance on a warehouse, or an office in Gib, this is where people like you and your hatred consumes all your logical thought, it comes between you and your wits man. They backed their managers and gave me Champions League football, top footballers and put the club at the top table competing where they should be doing. A warehouse and an office in Gib is fuck all. As for the "Bowyer summer", we spent 9m on Woodgate in the January, in advance of the summer. Forward planning ? I would have thought the last person who would bring up something like that would be you [but sadly some of the morons on skunkers do the same thing] you preach one minute about "controlled spending", then you - like now - slate them for NOT spending money [in the "Bowyer summer"] that they don't have ie because they had used up the transfer budgets buying Woodgate, ahead of any rivals, a smart piece of business at the time, but no credit given by those who beat up "Fred" with any stick they can think of. You slate them for spending money they "don't have" then slate them for not spending money they "don't have". You're mad. Hyporcritical, and move the goalposts to suit your agenda "anything Fred did lets do differently" Edited June 25, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Incomparable and you know it. That is debt from their leveraged purchase by the Glazers, which is also more than covered by their profits, they do not go into debt to buy players. and our "debts" in 2007 were mostly down to a stadium expansion ? Until the financial whizz kid Ashley set about his "streamlining" etc and increased them, after paying them all off of course, according to Dekka, then he hadn't paid them off, then he had, then he hadn't ...... then he sold our best striker for a whopping fee to a team we used to compete with and conned everybody like you into making the money disappear. "mostly" down to the stadium expansion, Oh wait a minute, except for the £30Mill bank debt probably used to make up the gap to allow dividends and nice salaries for the whole family (oh and the warehouse and offices in Gibraltar, hotbed of football that it is and paying Kenny to use offices in SJP) plus £27Mill outstanding transfer fees, and £25Mill of Northern Rock money spent before we had it. So not "mostly" after all. Over and above the sale price £52 Million was their take (well the amounts we know about anyway) pitty that wasn't re-invested eh? (like in the summer we could/should have pressed on but got Bowyer on a free instead, and then it all went wrong). I don't give a fuck about a pittance on a warehouse, or an office in Gib, this is where people like you and your hatred consumes all your logical thought, it comes between you and your wits man. They backed their managers and gave me Champions League football, top footballers and put the club at the top table competing where they should be doing. A warehouse and an office in Gib is fuck all. As for the "Bowyer summer", we spent 9m on Woodgate in the January, in advance of the summer. Forward planning ? I would have thought the last person who would bring up something like that would be you [but sadly some of the morons on skunkers do the same thing] you preach one minute about "controlled spending", then you - like now - slate them for NOT spending money [in the "Bowyer summer"] that they don't have ie because they had used up the transfer budgets buying Woodgate, ahead of any rivals, a smart piece of business at the time, but no credit given by those who beat up "Fred" with any stick they can think of. You slate them for spending money they "don't have" then slate them for not spending money they "don't have". You're mad. Hyporcritical, and move the goalposts to suit your agenda "anything Fred did lets do differently" You make good points, on the surface. So we'd used up the transfer budget on Woodgate (£9Mill) and all we could afford was Bowyer. Ah well that's a pitty, and you're right I don't endorse mad spending, certainly not to go chasing the unattainable, sadly we were there, we had attained it, all we needed to do was consolidate. If only we'd had a bigger budget. Damn shame that the company (club) that very year, chose to buy back some of it's own shares and strangely only to purchase them from a single shareholder (SJH), £4.5 Million it paid for them, or the equivalent of an additional 50% on the transfer budget. Same year, they also entered into an initial 3 year agreement (worth a million quid or put differently, equivalent to 11% of that years transfer budget) to pay some company for the honour of using offices within SJP, the company was called Shepherd Manpower Services. The club had net assetts worth £36Mill that year, surely the ownership could have lent the club some money (they'd only made about£15Mill from the club by then), shit they could even secured it and charged some interest, or maybe they could have gone without pay (director pay was thick end of £2 Mill or circa 20% of the transfer budget). You see the transfer budget could have been about 80% bigger than it was with no mad spending by the club. That figure doesn't include what Dividends were paid that year either, (I don't know how much that was). No mad spending but maybe just a tightening of the ownership belt, speculate to accumulate, we didn't even have to "chase it" we were there. In 2003 even £4.5 Mill would have been plenty enough for a half decent player, perhaps someone who maybe, just might, have scored that penalty against Partizan. Edited June 26, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Nice jacket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not. Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Therefore we should too? Seriously? For someone that complains about me putting words in his mouth you've taken quite a leap there. It was a question. Putting words in your mouth would be stating 'so you think..'. Thats your trick, not mine Were you just adding Man U to the list of Man city/Chelsea i.e. the clubs who can afford to spend huge amounts? The difference with Man U is that their debt structure is completely different and even with the interest and re-payments, they still make a profit. This allows them to carry (or service the debt) and invest from the remaining profit. They all can, and they all do from a position of debt. We hit a problem in that our debt outstripped our assets, which has to be dealt with. But at what cost? You don't sell St James' Park and play your games on the town moor to make a quick return. That's the approach with replacing Carroll with Kuqi though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolly Potter MD 0 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) I have to have a chuckle every time, when somebody highlights our inactivity in the transfer market during the Bowyer Window, and with it lay blame at the foot of the board/FF's door - the side's downfall in the 2nd leg against Partisan, with comments like 'if we had another 4.5m or half decent player to knock in that penalty etc, the club's fortunes could have been that much different'. That 4.5 million question is the great 'IF', and it's picking-at-straws argument is diluted into insignificance if they could recall the attacking balance of play pertaining to the aforementioned fixture, particularly the first half. Robson's tactics were too conservative, and allowed Partizan to dictate attacking terms. Robson handed them free ticket to get back into the tie (away from home, in a hostile fortress, which should have provided a minimum 1 goal advantage against a team, albeit a solid technical outfit but hardly world beaters from a 2nd or 3rd tier league comp), and with it handing them an opportunity to gain some self-belief. Robson was the real culprit that Summer, and the same could be a said for the first few weeks of the following campaign when we gave our rivals a headstart............ and Robert & Speed bought the playing group's concerns to the fore. Edited June 26, 2011 by Year Zero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Nice jacket. . . what the fuck's he come as like !? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConsettMag 0 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 So when Man U sold Ronaldo for 80m did that mean they were a selling club? Every player at every club has a price. If Real Madrid offered 500m for Messi then Barca would sell. It's all about whether you are offered stupid money. Carroll is a 15-20m player at best (and thats based on potential being filled). No club would have turned down 35m for him. And it's only fucking June, and we've made more progress in the transfer window than any other PL team, judge them when the season starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 So when Man U sold Ronaldo for 80m did that mean they were a selling club? Every player at every club has a price. If Real Madrid offered 500m for Messi then Barca would sell. It's all about whether you are offered stupid money. Carroll is a 15-20m player at best (and thats based on potential being filled). No club would have turned down 35m for him. And it's only fucking June, and we've made more progress in the transfer window than any other PL team, judge them when the season starts. Nani, Valencia and now Ashley Young are slightly better replacements for Ronaldo than Kuqi was for Carroll though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Nice jacket. Based on that outfit, I'd drug test him. He looks like an extra from the pikey camp in Snatch. Hopefully he's taking his LFC career seriously by getting pissed and stoned every night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. in a nutshell. Instead of going round in circles and instead of the football accountants trotting out all the excuses, that is the bottom line, and the record of Mike Ashley so far suggests that this is most definitely NOT going to happen and this money is NOT going to be re-invested in purchases by his appointed manager. When Man U sold Ronaldo did Fergie go on a 60/70 mil spending spree?? I doubt the 35mil will be used solely on transfers but I will be disappointed if we don't sign more quality players, its not all down to fees if we do smart business. Look at Hernandez, 7 mil?? There must be more out there like him That's the bit I can't comprehend that people don't get. Apart from City and Chelsea none of the "succesfull" clubs spend what they don't have. Man U have debts of £478m They've spent over £44m this year (so far), they're after a keeper next. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?te...mTabs=transfers Incomparable and you know it. That is debt from their leveraged purchase by the Glazers, which is also more than covered by their profits, they do not go into debt to buy players. and our "debts" in 2007 were mostly down to a stadium expansion ? Until the financial whizz kid Ashley set about his "streamlining" etc and increased them, after paying them all off of course, according to Dekka, then he hadn't paid them off, then he had, then he hadn't ...... then he sold our best striker for a whopping fee to a team we used to compete with and conned everybody like you into making the money disappear. "mostly" down to the stadium expansion, Oh wait a minute, except for the £30Mill bank debt probably used to make up the gap to allow dividends and nice salaries for the whole family (oh and the warehouse and offices in Gibraltar, hotbed of football that it is and paying Kenny to use offices in SJP) plus £27Mill outstanding transfer fees, and £25Mill of Northern Rock money spent before we had it. So not "mostly" after all. Over and above the sale price £52 Million was their take (well the amounts we know about anyway) pitty that wasn't re-invested eh? (like in the summer we could/should have pressed on but got Bowyer on a free instead, and then it all went wrong). I don't give a fuck about a pittance on a warehouse, or an office in Gib, this is where people like you and your hatred consumes all your logical thought, it comes between you and your wits man. They backed their managers and gave me Champions League football, top footballers and put the club at the top table competing where they should be doing. A warehouse and an office in Gib is fuck all. As for the "Bowyer summer", we spent 9m on Woodgate in the January, in advance of the summer. Forward planning ? I would have thought the last person who would bring up something like that would be you [but sadly some of the morons on skunkers do the same thing] you preach one minute about "controlled spending", then you - like now - slate them for NOT spending money [in the "Bowyer summer"] that they don't have ie because they had used up the transfer budgets buying Woodgate, ahead of any rivals, a smart piece of business at the time, but no credit given by those who beat up "Fred" with any stick they can think of. You slate them for spending money they "don't have" then slate them for not spending money they "don't have". You're mad. Hyporcritical, and move the goalposts to suit your agenda "anything Fred did lets do differently" You make good points, on the surface. So we'd used up the transfer budget on Woodgate (£9Mill) and all we could afford was Bowyer. Ah well that's a pitty, and you're right I don't endorse mad spending, certainly not to go chasing the unattainable, sadly we were there, we had attained it, all we needed to do was consolidate. If only we'd had a bigger budget. Damn shame that the company (club) that very year, chose to buy back some of it's own shares and strangely only to purchase them from a single shareholder (SJH), £4.5 Million it paid for them, or the equivalent of an additional 50% on the transfer budget. Same year, they also entered into an initial 3 year agreement (worth a million quid or put differently, equivalent to 11% of that years transfer budget) to pay some company for the honour of using offices within SJP, the company was called Shepherd Manpower Services. The club had net assetts worth £36Mill that year, surely the ownership could have lent the club some money (they'd only made about£15Mill from the club by then), shit they could even secured it and charged some interest, or maybe they could have gone without pay (director pay was thick end of £2 Mill or circa 20% of the transfer budget). You see the transfer budget could have been about 80% bigger than it was with no mad spending by the club. That figure doesn't include what Dividends were paid that year either, (I don't know how much that was). No mad spending but maybe just a tightening of the ownership belt, speculate to accumulate, we didn't even have to "chase it" we were there. In 2003 even £4.5 Mill would have been plenty enough for a half decent player, perhaps someone who maybe, just might, have scored that penalty against Partizan. 2 of the 3 players who missed penalties that night were Shearer [say no more] and Woodgate [9m]. When it comes to penalties, a transfer fee means absolutely nothing, if ever we needed proof that your entire motivation is to find any old stick to throw at "Fred", then this is it. To say a "4.5m quid player may have scored the penatlty" - or made any difference at all to what was like a lot of things down to the performance on the night - says everything. You are now coming out of the same train of thought which says 1. Keegan "failed" because he "lost a 12 point lead". 2. The entire regime of the Halls and Shepherd "failed" because we won nothing. Which you have said before [words to that effect] If we had signed a "4.5m player" and still lost, you would have criticised them for spending money before securing qualification ? Don't say you wouldn't, because all you people would have done precisely that. Interesting in that you have spent all this time frowning and casting your wannabee-accountants eye at gambling on football transfers, and now you are saying this is precisely what they should have done [when it suits your agenda to do so that is. If "failing" is coming 2nd in the league a couple of times, and losing 2 FA Cup Finals, and qualifying for the Champions League and europe regularly, give me some more of this relegation fighting instead eh ? - is that how your mind works - at least if you survive a relegation fight you have something to celebrate on the last day of the season - is that it ? We lost that match against Partizan because of the performance on the night, we started 1-0 up and went into that match with everything to play for. As Year Zero says, Robson made mistakes that night, I'm not really surprised that some people can blame the board ie "Fred", for the managers mistakes and players performances on the night. To be in a Champions League qualifier or to settle for survival in the premiership eh ? What a difficult choice that is ..... Edited June 26, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 the boy Carroll's not the brightest, mistaking Beyonce for Boyzone there . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) ...penny starting to drop yet? ALAN PARDEW today insisted that Newcastle United are not finished yet in the transfer market. The Toon boss is still in the hunt for a left-sided player and a striker, and revealed to the Chronicle today that he is expecting at least one more new face to be on the plane for the Magpies’ trip to the United States. As it stands, Newcastle – who are still trying to add Swansea City star Neil Taylor to their ranks – could field a team packed with potential if everyone stays fit. Hatem Ben Arfa and Dan Gosling are back from injury, and have new boys Yohan Cabaye, Sylvain Marveaux and Demba Ba to go into the mix with Fabricio Coloccini, Joey Barton and Cheick Tiote – plus Jose Enrique if Pardew can hold on to the ace Spaniard. Speaking on his progress on the transfer front, Pardew told the Chronicle: “We’re all looking forward to getting back to work next Monday. “The squad is looking healthy and, hopefully, there are still one or two to come. “They won’t be in before July 4, but we hope to get one in before the tour of America – and there could well be one after the tour.” We reported last night that United are not in the running for Chelsea starlet Daniel Sturridge, however, the chase for Charles N’Zogbia is thought to be ongoing as the Frenchman looks to secure his release from Wigan. Newcastle continue to be linked with Reading ace Shane Long, and Pardew’s excellent understanding with Brian McDermott – who he worked with at the Royals – may yet sway a deal. Pardew said: “We are still looking to get another striker – whether or not they will wear No 9, we will have to see.” Speculation that United are on the trail of Velez Sarsfield striker Juan Manuel Martinez has also come to the fore in the last couple of days, but interest in Swiss midfielder Tranquillo Barnetta of Bayer Leverkusen is thought to have been dropped by the Magpies. Reading striker Long is currently on holiday, but said before his departure: “If a club comes in for me we will deal with it. But that hasn’t happened so it’s business as usual as far as I’m concerned.” Hopefully 1 or 2? Hope, could... sounds very promising. From the Carroll sale onwards there has been a profit of £33.5M in transfer fees including the business that has been wrapped up thus far in the summer. Source Edit - Realised this was posted elsewhere. Oh well. Edited July 1, 2011 by OzToonFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney 0 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Wages man!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted July 1, 2011 Author Share Posted July 1, 2011 Wages man!!! I don't buy that. Our squad is no bigger than last season and we're shod of Campell and Nolan's hefty wages in addition to Carroll's. The total for the three new players may exceed that, but only marginally if it was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Wages man!!! I don't buy that. Our squad is no bigger than last season and we're shod of Campell and Nolan's hefty wages in addition to Carroll's. The total for the three new players may exceed that, but only marginally if it was the case. you can't say that man, you'll spoil the summer for CT, Deano, jaysouthernmag and Toonpack, all wanking away there in expectation of aiming for the dizzy heights of 10th place, as stated by Dekka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now