ChezGiven 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Piss off, am on me tea break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15518 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'd absolutely love it if we finished higher than them. I'd love to see the look on Enrique's face if we do that. jejejejejejejeje Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I couldnt give a toss about a few million here or there (fucking hell ... cant believe I wrote that..), but what counts is never mind what we sold anyone for, the first eleven is the strongest its been for a long time, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Money spent really shouldn't matter. Cabaye, Tiote, Ba, Cisse, Santon, Williamson, Ben Arfa, Krul and Jonas all combined cost about as much as Carroll in transfer fees. Which would you rather have? A few are far too pre-occupied with money spent. Yes Carroll was sold for £35m but we replaced him with a much better forward for free, or we got 2 better forwards for a third of what he was sold for. If we continue like we have done recently we are likely to spend little whilst still improve the team and progress. We will bring in the odd dud but not a single manager in the league (past or present) is immune from that (Djemba Djemba, Veronx2, Jeffers, Torres, Shevchenko, Carroll, Robbie Keane to Liverpool, Aqualani, Forlan, Viana, Luque, trying to sell Alonso and replace him with Barry etc...) Actually someone posted Martin O'Neill's purchases for Villa on N-O, fuck me the majority were abysmal, about 3 that worked out from quite a list and I don't think there was a single player not purchased from the UK. Edited January 18, 2012 by Gejon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Not that it should come as a great surprise to anyone, but the writing is once again on the wall in relation to the whole Andy Carroll affair. Strengthen the team my arse. As for those suggesting this was premature, better luck next time. Surely there can be no more deluded supporters with a shred of intelligence that have any remaining hope for the current owner and board. 35m in Ben Arfa 5.75m Agent's fee's 7m Cisse 9m? Obertan 3m Cabaye - Nolan 2m 7% increase in wage bil - 4m 5m unaccounted for. That's if you choose to believe the amounts and figures provided by an owner and board who have admitted to lying and misleading the supporters, media etc. Good luck to you if you do. Ben Arfa cannot be feasibly counted towards the costs, regardless of what you attempt to argue when using your criteria because the board have said that the approach for Carroll came at the 11th hour, well after the fee and terms had been agreed for Ben Arfa. So you can't pick and choose when you want to believe what the board have said. Where did you get the agent fees of 7 million from? I don't think I've seen that figure mentioned previously. Why have you included Nolan's departure, but not Enrique's, or Routledge's? And where's the allowance for the freeing up of Barton's wages? Taking the clubs word it's more likely this: + 35m Carroll - 4.3m Cabaye + 4m Nolan + 2m Routledge - 3m Obertan + 6m (+2m) Enrique - 7m agent's fees - 4m mythical wage increase - 5m Santon - 9m Cisse -0.0003m table tennis table Profit 14.6997m I think for the most part the players who have been bought are very good, but let's not forget that the transfer window is not yet closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 A few are far too pre-occupied with money spent. Yes Carroll was sold for £35m but we replaced him with a much better forward for free, or we got 2 better forwards for a third of what he was sold for. More important for me is the ability to trust the powers that be. The powers that be who stated that the money (35m) from the Andy Carroll sale would be spent on improving the squad. I'd have less of an issue if they could be honest and upfront with their intentions. Some of the purchases have been wonderful, but I'd enjoy them even more if I could do away with the nagging feeling that the better our players perform the more likely our owners are to cash in on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If you dont understand why Ben Arfa's £5.75m transfer fee comes off any net assessment of the finance available to the club for transfers, then you're a moron. I dont think you're a moron OFT but being wrong about that is definitely, without question, moronic. The utterances of the board are not relevant to a financial analysis. Enrique and Santon cost the same, Nolan was sold for £2m, Routledge was ignored because £1 or £2m here or there inaccuracy is apparently fine, the agency fees were officially published and Barton's wages are included in the 7% increase. The financial calculus is important not in and of itself but because of what is constructed on the back of it. The point being, for anyone interested in the big picture is that whole arguments (enormous edifices of wailing paranoia) have been constructed on the back of the 'andy carroll con'. We are a selling club with no ambition, is/was a common point of view. Its not 'the club have money to spend and are not doing it', its that they want to be a yo-yo club, operating between the leagues like West Brom (according to HF), or just plain old boring like Bolton and Blackburn (according to LM). This is nonsense for a whole host of reasons, firstly because as of this week since Jan 2011 around £20 - 25m has left the club's finances. Secondly and most importantly, we have a cracking first 11, the best for many a season, the club is moving in the right direction, the ambition is subject to constraints but it clearly is constrained by reality. I've been saying this for fucking ages, all you had to do was pay attention. < --- for HF's benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) If you dont understand why Ben Arfa's £5.75m transfer fee comes off any net assessment of the finance available to the club for transfers, then you're a moron. I dont think you're a moron OFT but being wrong about that is definitely, without question, moronic. Haven't read your post completely (on the phone at the minute), but I'd have thought you were beyond the name calling. The way I see it is the Ben Arfa purchase bears absolutely no relation to the sale of Carroll from which the club received 35m. The club said that the 35m from the sale of Andy Carroll would be used to improve the squad. I don't care what the financial implications are regarding the Ben Arfa purchase going through in the same window as the Carroll sale, it (the sale) was made after the purchase of Ben Arfa had been agreed. Ergo, the 35m from Carroll's sale was not used to purchase Hatem, and the promise from the club to reinvest the money came after the sale. The net assessment of the "finances available to the club for transfers" did not include any money accrued from the sale of Andy Carroll, a player who they stated they did not want to sell, and only sold because the price was so high. Based off the slightly ambiguous statements subsequently made by the club the expectation was set that the regratable sale of Carroll had, at the least, provided 35m for the club to reinvest on improving the playing roster. Why don't you go back and include the dealings from the previous transfer window as they fall within the same financial year and would therefore fall within the same set of "finances available to the club for transfers"? Unlike some others on here I have absolutely no problem in being wrong. My opinion is fluid and dynamic and I take on board anything that becomes apparent to me. So far as I can see, in relation to the sale of Andy Carroll I have not been wrong. Time has lessened the expectations of the supporters in relation to the promised funds. In terms of the squad credit has to go to the scouting team for their recent forays into the market. BarrIng a few duds the signings have been superb and we have the strongest first 11 in quite some time. I'm excited about watching us play each week and looking forward to seeing Cisse line up for us. But, at the same time you can understand the skepticism regarding our signings given the amount of absolute duds that have been signed in recent times. We've paid a lot more for a lot less routinely and it's great to see that we're for the most part really getting some value for our pounds. Edited January 19, 2012 by OTF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21912 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Anyone who uses the word ergo is a pretentious moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44811 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Ergo fuck yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 7295 Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Anyone who uses the word ergo is a pretentious moron Furry muff mate, whatever you say. I prefer to mix it up and use it in place of therefore on occassion. If I use thus or hence will your evaluation of me improve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6582 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 As I said in pre-season. Its purely a preception thing. If Ba was signed for £7m and Cabaye for £10m then our outlook would have been completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The point being, for anyone interested in the big picture is that whole arguments (enormous edifices of wailing paranoia) have been constructed on the back of the 'andy carroll con'. We are a selling club with no ambition, is/was a common point of view. Its not 'the club have money to spend and are not doing it', its that they want to be a yo-yo club, operating between the leagues like West Brom (according to HF), You love telling everyone what I've said without actually quoting me don'ty you. Very Leazesesque. Where have I ever stated they "want " to be a yo-yo club? I've said we're being set up so relegation wouldn't hurt if it happened. Do you not agree? It's what you've lauded, the financial balancing act. We needed a replacement striker this time last year, but they wouldn't make the push for 12 months until we were safely ensconced in the top half, preferring the free option no-one else would risk because of his knee trouble. An excellent risk to have taken in hindsight. They preferred to risk relegation than spend the money without future income secured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think HF's taking a bit of an unfair slating on the back of one transfer in personally. As far as I can see he holds Leazes to account as much as anyone when he's in full-on daft mode and beyond that he tries to play a straight numbers game (where theres always going to be an approximation/element of speculation). Not an easy one to do but I don't think he's deliberately skewing things for or against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 A few are far too pre-occupied with money spent. Yes Carroll was sold for £35m but we replaced him with a much better forward for free, or we got 2 better forwards for a third of what he was sold for. More important for me is the ability to trust the powers that be. The powers that be who stated that the money (35m) from the Andy Carroll sale would be spent on improving the squad. I'd have less of an issue if they could be honest and upfront with their intentions. Some of the purchases have been wonderful, but I'd enjoy them even more if I could do away with the nagging feeling that the better our players perform the more likely our owners are to cash in on them. pointless talking to the gimps of the forum mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21912 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Anyone who uses the word ergo is a pretentious moron Furry muff mate, whatever you say. I prefer to mix it up and use it in place of therefore on occassion. If I use thus or hence will your evaluation of me improve? Moreover is another belter like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44811 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Strap yourselves in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 6582 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 They've proven to be dishonest. I'm not sure anyone is disputing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think HF's taking a bit of an unfair slating on the back of one transfer in personally. As far as I can see he holds Leazes to account as much as anyone when he's in full-on daft mode and beyond that he tries to play a straight numbers game (where theres always going to be an approximation/element of speculation). Not an easy one to do but I don't think he's deliberately skewing things for or against. Cheers. West Brom stretched to £7.5m on Shane Long, so the signing of Cisse for a similar fee (with add ons admittedly) is hardly a damning indictment of my West Brom comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think HF's taking a bit of an unfair slating on the back of one transfer in personally. As far as I can see he holds Leazes to account as much as anyone when he's in full-on daft mode and beyond that he tries to play a straight numbers game (where theres always going to be an approximation/element of speculation). Not an easy one to do but I don't think he's deliberately skewing things for or against. so. Do YOU think Mike Ashley will attempt to fulfill the potential of the club. This is after 4 years disageeing with me and you saying I was wrong. And disagreeing vehemently with me when I have said, clearly so even a fuckwit like you couldn't possibly misinterpret anything, that the club would be a sideline to support Sports Direct and a premiership club is all he wanted for that reason, so preserving premiership status is all he wanted, all he wanted was a small profit and would get it by selling a player if it wasn't gained operationally, because selling a player is easier and less risky than gambling on champions League qualification, and would never achieve that because fundamentally he was setting his sights lower as a football club than an owner of the club ought to be doing. I could go on. But is this or is it not what is becoming more obvious all the time ? Even deaders can see it, whereas yourself and other self proclaimed geniuses cannot, which is nothing short of hilarious. Unless of course, as for the vast majority of the time you say absolutely nothing other than cast a refelective eye on events and situations which have passed and became ever more clear, you really don't have any views at all, no judgements, no idea of how to setup a progressive football club, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Anyone who uses the word ergo is a pretentious moron anyone who does a spectacular u-turn and can't admit it is a pretentious moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think HF's taking a bit of an unfair slating on the back of one transfer in personally. As far as I can see he holds Leazes to account as much as anyone when he's in full-on daft mode and beyond that he tries to play a straight numbers game (where theres always going to be an approximation/element of speculation). Not an easy one to do but I don't think he's deliberately skewing things for or against. Cheers. West Brom stretched to £7.5m on Shane Long, so the signing of Cisse for a similar fee (with add ons admittedly) is hardly a damning indictment of my West Brom comparison. and yet, some people are pissing their pants at NUFC spending 7.5m quid out of a 35m kitty for the sale of a player. 27m quid left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 As I said in pre-season. Its purely a preception thing. If Ba was signed for £7m and Cabaye for £10m then our outlook would have been completely different. still leaves 27m quid though ? Wasn't that the reason for selling Carroll ie to improve the team and back the manager, what could you do with 27m quid in the transfer market ? There is no reason whatsover why they should not be allocating all of that money to Pardew to improve the team as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44811 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I've not kept up Leazes, but when you're mentally spending the Carroll cash, why aren't you taking the Obertan, Cabaye, Ben Arfa,Santon fees into account too exactly? 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