Llambias - "we will need replacements in the summer"

[LeazesMag 0]

You're right Leazes, its nothing to do with 'trophy signings'

 

of course not, its all about selling your best players to the teams attempting to win trophies, and not replace them and backing their managers, you should tell Alex Ferguson he should be buying players like James Perch and Leon Best instead of Ashley Young and Phil Jones.

 

He should have been following the Mike Ashley blueprint for the last 25 years or so, and might not have wasted so much money. As indeed, the Keegan/Dalglish/Gullitt/Robson years were a waste of time too, we should have tried to balance the books for all those years, just like the mackems did for instance, and celebrated relegations and promotions to/from the 2nd division instead of reaching FA Cup Finals, and failing to qualify for the quarter finals of the Champions League.

 

 

So let me get this straight, because we signed Perch and Best we are a selling club or something? Its got nothing to do with money spent, the only metric is the quality of the players brought in and the number of games won. Are you saying we have not brought quality players into the club? Are you saying they arent in the same league as players who played for us under the previous board? The results could take a tumble or they could continue, no ones quite sure for now.

 

Colocinni one of the best defenders we have ever had at this club. Tiote and Cabaye are without doubt the best central midfield this club has had for nigh on 15 years, arguably longer. Steven Taylor and Sammy Ameobi are homegrown talents that are beginning to actually blossom. Tim Krul has developed here into one of the best keepers in Europe. Demba Ba is a top class centre forward. Jonas has turned in some exceptional performances this season and has improved his game. Ben Arfa is one of the most naturally talented footballers ever to play for NUFC.

 

Its not about spending money, its about getting quality players to sign on the dotted line.

 

Where is the money and replacement for Carroll ? Ba should have been bought in addition to that ?

 

You're becoming mega-defensive of Ashley mate, so defensive its untrue.

[LeazesMag 0]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

 

please tell me how many clubs are making a loss and how many of those clubs have ceased to exist .... is this where you are coming from here ?

[McFaul 35]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

The £34m loss over the previous two seasons were largely his doing, well they were all his doing. A billionaire with any pride should've rectified it out of his own pocket. Remind me how far in the black we are with transfer dealings since 2007. £65m isn't it?

 

 

 

Ahead of Spurs in what way?

We had consistently bigger turnovers than Tottenham up to 2007. Significantly (£30m) so in the early 00s, they've turned it around. Shame we never got Levi, but jews know how to make money I'll give them that.

[ChezGiven 0]

Doesnt matter whose fault it was, thats where the money has gone. Without it we wouldnt have pushed the club forward in the summer and wouldnt be about to do that again in January.

 

We are about £35-40m up since 2007, nowt if you exclude Carroll basically and that takes no account of the 10-20% agent fees.

 

Its not about defending Ashley its about having pride in the players who play for our club and giving them the credit they deserve. Defensive? Its funny no one accuses anybody being defensive when a mackem wum comes along to take the piss out of the club, i use essentially the same arguments.

 

Spurs were ahead of us in on the pitch and financially in 2007 and were moving in the right direction, we were stagnating at best.

[ChezGiven 0]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

 

please tell me how many clubs are making a loss and how many of those clubs have ceased to exist .... is this where you are coming from here ?

 

No. Tell me would you have like to have signed Crouch like ambitious Stoke or Ba like selling club Newcastle?

[Toonpack 9978]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

The £34m loss over the previous two seasons were largely his doing, well they were all his doing. A billionaire with any pride should've rectified it out of his own pocket. Remind me how far in the black we are with transfer dealings since 2007. £65m isn't it?

 

 

 

Ahead of Spurs in what way?

We had consistently bigger turnovers than Tottenham up to 2007. Significantly (£30m) so in the early 00s, they've turned it around. Shame we never got Levi, but jews know how to make money I'll give them that.

 

Despite their lower turnover they made significant profits, we always made losses. The supposed "advantage" of the turnover did not exist. They haven't "turned it around" they've just kept doing what they've been doing. They, even with less income, were "richer" than us.

[manc-mag 1]

We basically need Liverpool to pipe down a bit on the transfer front-a poor return for them this year under chequebook Dalglish will give the external backers cold feet about repeating the huge injections they've underwritten thus far. Spurs aren't going to throw daft money at us for our players so that's not a major issue. Man U, Man C and Chelsea can all comfortably knock on the door and offer more so that remains a fact of life, but they haven't yet so it's unknown how well they rate any of our players. Our efforts have to be i) ambitious to the extent that we're prepared to pay decent money for talent to fit a system of play and resist all but the top buying clubs to retain those players once theyre through the doors, and ii) pragmatic enough to have the scouting constantly focussed on the market where we know theres a danger we may lose a player. The latter part of that jigsaw also includes busting a gut to keep all of your players sweet and happy to be at the club if at all possible because there is a role for that and its something we've largely neglected in the past, assuming simply that massive wages alone should be enough to earn you loyality and commitment.

 

We've been too reactive and not pro-active enough for me in some areas and theres been no excuse for that (striker), because it's a system that has practically no margin for error in it. cf where you're prepared to spend money on a succession of players til you get the right one. Where we have actually bought though in the last couple of seasons, it has been encouraging.

 

I think it's pretty obvious where the strengths and weaknesses (meaning previous, current and future) lie, given the system we've adopted. Nobody's under any illusion that Ashley's whim remains the biggest potential single future pitfall either.

[Toonpack 9978]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

 

please tell me how many clubs are making a loss and how many of those clubs have ceased to exist .... is this where you are coming from here ?

 

How many of those making losses, that have not "ceased to exist", are not supported by "rich" ownership ??

[Park Life 71]

Reg Liv..Dalglish will be gone by the end of the season/summer and it will take another 100m to rectify his transfer bungles.

 

Right now we are getting that extra 10% out of the squad and Liv still really haven't gelled or know how to play IMO buying Carroll has complicated things. Not sure the Liv backers will dive in to the market so freely next summer.

 

 

IF we can push on a little in Jan and then consolidate in the summer (maybe sell only ONE BIG PLAYER and buy 2/3 more scratch and sniff prospects, IMO we may be able to stay with Liv or maybe even sneak ahead. Suarez getting a 6 game ban or someting of that ilk will also grease our wheels. For me Spurs are competing with Arsenal for the 4th CL slot. It would be a body blow if LIv don't get in the CL this year as I think that was the plan on which money has been gambled.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

Tbh, £35m for Carroll would, under normal circumstances, be a great piece of business. The problem then was the suspicion that it wouldn't be reinvested. That turned out to be the case. And while I rate Ba, he's more comfortable playing off someone. Best has fulfilled that target man role reasonably well (and much better than most of us hoped for). The worry for me would be that Ba has a dodgy knee, Best isn't really the long-term answer and Shola is Shola. There's Ben Arfa too but can he and Ba play together anyway? Questionable, certainly in the 4-4-2 that has served us so well. Basically I think we're a striker short, specifically someone who can hold the ball and play with his back to goal. Maybe we'll get him in January as there are noises about done deals with the likes of Maiga (who I know very little about). In any case you'd like to think someone is coming in, although we've all cause to be cynical about whether that actually happens as forwards don't come cheap and you have the problem of wages being commensurate with the transfer fee on top of that. I think manc-mag was certainly correct when he said that the efforts and performances of the players so far meant that they deserved some reinforcements in January. Otherwise any progress made won't be built upon and the likes of Cabaye will have their heads turned.

[manc-mag 1]

Liverpool and Spurs compete at wildly different financial levels btw, it's a footballing nonsense to equate the two. We've lost players to Liverpool, in the last year-who in the last year have competed at the financial levels of Man City.

 

we competed with Liverpool and were ahead of Spurs when Mike Ashley bought the club chum.

 

Do you deal in facts, or are you still just babbling on like a rock ape.

 

I'm talking about now though as it's pointless discussing what Liverpool and Spurs were doing then. Liverpool are spending vast fortunes now. They competed with Man C in spending last year, but you've clearly stated you don't advocate matching Man C for spending.

 

Spurs is a fantastic set up for a club of their means. If we replicated many aspects of their approach I'm sure we could kick on again. Spurs aren't on a par with Liverpool though and we wouldn't be either if we did replicate their system so what you're saying still doesnt make sense on that level. You're confusing results and spending and picking and choosing the bits of the argument to suit.

 

It goes back to what I've said before though Leazes, you can condense your post into just saying: spend as much as the top spenders. It's a perfectly valid statement of desire, but it's not a financial reality.

[McFaul 35]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

 

How would you have covered the £34m loss accumulated over the previous two seasons?

The £34m loss over the previous two seasons were largely his doing, well they were all his doing. A billionaire with any pride should've rectified it out of his own pocket. Remind me how far in the black we are with transfer dealings since 2007. £65m isn't it?

 

 

 

Ahead of Spurs in what way?

We had consistently bigger turnovers than Tottenham up to 2007. Significantly (£30m) so in the early 00s, they've turned it around. Shame we never got Levi, but jews know how to make money I'll give them that.

 

Despite their lower turnover they made significant profits, we always made losses. The supposed "advantage" of the turnover did not exist. They haven't "turned it around" they've just kept doing what they've been doing. They, even with less income, were "richer" than us.

That's a funny statement that though. So if I own a corner shop and make a turnover of £150,000 with out goings of £130,000 there's £20,000 profit, so I'm richer than £180m turnover Man Utd because they only broke even? Have a word man.

 

Chez what agent ever got a 20% fee????

 

I think Ashley should be allowing us to spend a lot more on transfer fees, I agree it's not about the actual amount, but if we only pushed the boat out a bit more, we'd have a fucking good squad. Valencia did it for years under Rafa, 1/4 the income of Real Madrid yet they won the league twice in 2004 and 2006.

[LeazesMag 0]

We basically need Liverpool to pipe down a bit on the transfer front-a poor return for them this year under chequebook Dalglish will give the external backers cold feet about repeating the huge injections they've underwritten thus far. Spurs aren't going to throw daft money at us for our players so that's not a major issue. Man U, Man C and Chelsea can all comfortably knock on the door and offer more so that remains a fact of life, but they haven't yet so it's unknown how well they rate any of our players. Our efforts have to be i) ambitious to the extent that we're prepared to pay decent money for talent to fit a system of play and resist all but the top buying clubs to retain those players once theyre through the doors, and ii) pragmatic enough to have the scouting constantly focussed on the market where we know theres a danger we may lose a player. The latter part of that jigsaw also includes busting a gut to keep all of your players sweet and happy to be at the club if at all possible because there is a role for that and its something we've largely neglected in the past, assuming simply that massive wages alone should be enough to earn you loyality and commitment.

 

We've been too reactive and not pro-active enough for me in some areas and theres been no excuse for that (striker), because it's a system that has practically no margin for error in it. cf where you're prepared to spend money on a succession of players til you get the right one. Where we have actually bought though in the last couple of seasons, it has been encouraging.

 

I think it's pretty obvious where the strengths and weaknesses (meaning previous, current and future) lie, given the system we've adopted. Nobody's under any illusion that Ashley's whim remains the biggest potential single future pitfall either.

 

we all know what HAS happened, dummy, what do you think WILL happen ?

[manc-mag 1]

Different sort of player like but Ba probably is a better all round player. Shame we didn't have both of them like as they could definitely play together imo.

 

precisely. People can make as many excuses as they like, and babble on about "prudency and value", but at the end of the day, we should be playing Carroll and Ba up front, and a progressive club aiming for genuine success on the pitch would have done exactly that.

Tbh, £35m for Carroll would, under normal circumstances, be a great piece of business. The problem then was the suspicion that it wouldn't be reinvested. That turned out to be the case. And while I rate Ba, he's more comfortable playing off someone. Best has fulfilled that target man role reasonably well (and much better than most of us hoped for). The worry for me would be that Ba has a dodgy knee, Best isn't really the long-term answer and Shola is Shola. There's Ben Arfa too but can he and Ba play together anyway? Questionable, certainly in the 4-4-2 that has served us so well. Basically I think we're a striker short, specifically someone who can hold the ball and play with his back to goal. Maybe we'll get him in January as there are noises about done deals with the likes of Maiga (who I know very little about). In any case you'd like to think someone is coming in, although we've all cause to be cynical about whether that actually happens as forwards don't come cheap and you have the problem of wages being commensurate with the transfer fee on top of that. I think manc-mag was certainly correct when he said that the efforts and performances of the players so far meant that they deserved some reinforcements in January. Otherwise any progress made won't be built upon and the likes of Cabaye will have their heads turned.

 

Absolutely nails it as a pure footballing assessment for me.

 

Also clear evidence of people not 'getting carried away' on here, contrary to the daily claims that that's the case.

[LeazesMag 0]

Liverpool and Spurs compete at wildly different financial levels btw, it's a footballing nonsense to equate the two. We've lost players to Liverpool, in the last year-who in the last year have competed at the financial levels of Man City.

 

we competed with Liverpool and were ahead of Spurs when Mike Ashley bought the club chum.

 

Do you deal in facts, or are you still just babbling on like a rock ape.

 

I'm talking about now though as it's pointless discussing what Liverpool and Spurs were doing then. Liverpool are spending vast fortunes now. They competed with Man C in spending last year, but you've clearly stated you don't advocate matching Man C for spending.

 

Spurs is a fantastic set up for a club of their means. If we replicated many aspects of their approach I'm sure we could kick on again. Spurs aren't on a par with Liverpool though and we wouldn't be either if we did replicate their system so what you're saying still doesnt make sense on that level. You're confusing results and spending and picking and choosing the bits of the argument to suit.

 

It goes back to what I've said before though Leazes, you can condense your post into just saying: spend as much as the top spenders. It's a perfectly valid statement of desire, but it's not a financial reality.

 

At the end of the day though, we are selling our best players, without the managers agreement on occasions if not most or all of the time, and not giving him the monies received which allows him to build on his current good footballers with more and "go higher".

 

People can say what they like about prudency etc, but if you seriously want to reach for the top places you hit a point where you have to play the transfer game the way that they do.

 

If Mike Ashley had any intention of doing that, we would have seen it by now. His ambitions and aims are crystal clear.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

"Excuses"

 

You're so one-sided, it's painful.

 

and correct. I realise you have an irrational hatred of a certain personality which affects your judgement, but that is your problem.

 

Eh?

[Guest alex]

Mike Ashley would literally have to sell Sports Direct and spend all the proceeds to compete the top 3 though. You can argue he could have more of a go but that's about it, realistically.

[Park Life 71]

It's fair to say we're competing for 7th with the likes of Everton and Villa and we are curently streets ahead of them. Still think that if key inj hit and the lack of sqaud depth (if not partially rectifyied in Jan) could see us finish as low as 10th. It's frustrating because the squad is really only 2/3 short of really having a go this year ie 7th and upwards.

[ChezGiven 0]

Talk of Cabaye having his head turned might be a wee bit premature.

 

Stevie, agent fees are a % of the value of the salary over the contract + % of transfer fee. When the player goes on a free the % rises significantly. 10% is normal if there is a fee, 20% is probably too high but will be somewhere near there when there is no fee.

 

Toonpack is right. With a turnover of £100m, outgoings at £110m with the vast % of that due to wages which are fixed legally for the term of contracts meaning they cant be reduced without selling the player you are in a far worse position than a club with a turnover of £85m with a wage bill of less than £50m / outgoings £65m, with those players on the books having long term value to the club. Turnover is just one metric of financial performance or health.

[manc-mag 1]

Liverpool and Spurs compete at wildly different financial levels btw, it's a footballing nonsense to equate the two. We've lost players to Liverpool, in the last year-who in the last year have competed at the financial levels of Man City.

 

we competed with Liverpool and were ahead of Spurs when Mike Ashley bought the club chum.

 

Do you deal in facts, or are you still just babbling on like a rock ape.

 

I'm talking about now though as it's pointless discussing what Liverpool and Spurs were doing then. Liverpool are spending vast fortunes now. They competed with Man C in spending last year, but you've clearly stated you don't advocate matching Man C for spending.

 

Spurs is a fantastic set up for a club of their means. If we replicated many aspects of their approach I'm sure we could kick on again. Spurs aren't on a par with Liverpool though and we wouldn't be either if we did replicate their system so what you're saying still doesnt make sense on that level. You're confusing results and spending and picking and choosing the bits of the argument to suit.

 

It goes back to what I've said before though Leazes, you can condense your post into just saying: spend as much as the top spenders. It's a perfectly valid statement of desire, but it's not a financial reality.

 

At the end of the day though, we are selling our best players, without the managers agreement on occasions if not most or all of the time, and not giving him the monies received which allows him to build on his current good footballers with more and "go higher".

 

People can say what they like about prudency etc, but if you seriously want to reach for the top places you hit a point where you have to play the transfer game the way that they do.

 

If Mike Ashley had any intention of doing that, we would have seen it by now. His ambitions and aims are crystal clear.

 

That's basically just another way of saying spend the same as Man C and Man U etc etc though, which elsewhere you say you don't advocate. if you see my point.

 

This is all I mean really Leazes with all due respect - what you put forward is the dream when everyone else is trying to get to grips with the current financial reality. That's not just in terms of looking inwards at the ownership of NUFC but outwards at the profiles of our rivals. Now. Today.

[Park Life 71]

Mike Ashley would literally have to sell Sports Direct and spend all the proceeds to compete the top 3 though. You can argue he could have more of a go but that's about it, realistically.

 

You only live once.

[Guest alex]

Talk of Cabaye having his head turned might be a wee bit premature.

 

So is talk about Cabaye and Tiote being the best midfield partnership we've had in at least 15 years tbh.

[Guest alex]

Mike Ashley would literally have to sell Sports Direct and spend all the proceeds to compete the top 3 though. You can argue he could have more of a go but that's about it, realistically.

 

You only live once.

It would be awful if he popped his clogs with all that money in the bank

[ChezGiven 0]

Talk of Cabaye having his head turned might be a wee bit premature.

 

So is talk about Cabaye and Tiote being the best midfield partnership we've had in at least 15 years tbh.

Alright, 10 then.

[Toonpack 9978]

So if I own a corner shop and make a turnover of £150,000 with out goings of £130,000 there's £20,000 profit, so I'm richer than £180m turnover Man Utd because they only broke even? Have a word man.

 

Yet another over simplification.

 

Between 2005 and 2007

 

NUFC cummulative turnover = £257.2 Million, cummulative losses = £45.6 Million

 

Spurs cummulative turnover = £247.8 Million, cummulative profits = £21.7 Million

 

So they turned over £9.4 Million less than us (3.7%), but made/retained £67.3 Million more than us from mariginally less, so yes I would say that was richer.