Llambias - "we will need replacements in the summer"

[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.

Alright, 10 then.

Well, the only metric is results so until they match the results of those midfields of the last 10 years I don't think you can argue that's the case.

I'm being facetious of course but, then again, you started it.

[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.

Well, the only metric is results so until they match the results of those midfields of the last 10 years I don't think you can argue that's the case.

I'm being facetious of course but, then again, you started it.

I was exaggerating for effect. The midfield of 2002 to 2004 had Shearer and Bellamy in front of them too. Speed, Viana, Jenas or Dyer were all good players but as a central 2, i'd have loved to have seen the current 2 in that team especially with Solano and Robert out wide.

[Guest alex]

It's a results-based business, Chez. Subjective opinions aside, unless this side come 3rd you're wrong.

Edited November 18, 2011 by alex

[ChezGiven 0]

Nonsense of course but i take the point you're making.

[Guest alex]

Look, we could've discussed this sensibly but, as usual, you spoilt for yourself and everyone else.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

You naughty boy Chez.

[ChezGiven 0]

FYI

 

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.

 

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

[Guest alex]

Too late

Edited November 18, 2011 by alex

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

What Leazes and a few others continue to ignore is that when Ashley bought us we were not exactly tearing trees up and signing superstars were we

 

He did splash some cash, fucked up royaly and the rest is history. I guess if anyone on here was in the position were your business was paying Alan Smith 50k a week you may well want to tread with caution on future deals.

 

You can't argue with the quality and value of recent additions, although Leazes will argue they were just lucky signings. If we sign Modiga and he scores 10 goals then people will spout he's gonna get sold in summer. The negativity of some is unreal, we are above ALL the clubs we are realistically competing with and have a great team spirit and some class players.

 

Ashley is and may always well be a cunt and renaming the ground is unforgiveable but so far his on the field plan is holding its own

[McFaul 35]

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.

He's not right. His point is about profit being more important than turnover. It's a total load of bollocks.

[McFaul 35]

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.

I simplified it, to make you understand and your generic point earlier, you've at least made more solid by providing more stats. You've just proved that the size of the business at Newcastle was marginally bigger than that of Tottenham, but they were managed better which resulted in a profit.

[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.

He's not right. His point is about profit being more important than turnover. It's a total load of bollocks.

I think his actual point was that Spur's profit was more important than our turnover. I said thats correct because of how sticky costs are (players on long term contracts that cant be changed on an annual basis). Whatever, Spurs were in a better financial health than us in 2007, arguing the opposite is silly.

[Toonpack 9988]

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.

I simplified it, to make you understand and your generic point earlier, you've at least made more solid by providing more stats. You've just proved that the size of the business at Newcastle was marginally bigger than that of Tottenham, but they were managed better which resulted in a profit.

 

What I did NOT say (as you state I did) is that profit is more important than turnover.

 

The point in question was Spurs in relation to NUFC, not a corner shop in elation to NUFC (or MUFC for that matter).

 

They were richer then and as a result are richer now.

[LeazesMag 0]

What Leazes and a few others continue to ignore is that when Ashley bought us we were not exactly tearing trees up and signing superstars were we

 

He did splash some cash, fucked up royaly and the rest is history. I guess if anyone on here was in the position were your business was paying Alan Smith 50k a week you may well want to tread with caution on future deals.

 

You can't argue with the quality and value of recent additions, although Leazes will argue they were just lucky signings. If we sign Modiga and he scores 10 goals then people will spout he's gonna get sold in summer. The negativity of some is unreal, we are above ALL the clubs we are realistically competing with and have a great team spirit and some class players.

 

Ashley is and may always well be a cunt and renaming the ground is unforgiveable but so far his on the field plan is holding its own

 

what you and others continue to ignore, is the lessons of history and what other clubs show you that needs to be done to be successful.

 

The successful clubs buy the best players and these "trophy players" because its the way to win trophies, this has been the case for over a hundred years, if it was possible to do it by finding kids kicking a ball in Africa and sand dunes, they would all have been doing it like that. Like my reply to you earlier, I've said this hundreds of times too.

 

This is not "looking backwards", it is looking forwards at what needs to be done. If you and others like you associate these sort of actions with the old owners, it sort of proves my whole point. Again.

[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.

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.

 

I didn't say who is getting carried away, as it happens, Alex is most definitely one who also has his feet on the ground and a bit of common sense.

 

Once again, you are simply commenting on things that have happened. Do you have any judgements on anything ?

[LeazesMag 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.

 

and unlike Rob Lee, neither of them will stay at the club for their whole career. They will both move to a club attempting to win things and play in europe.

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

and the point is, he will NOT push the boat out and aim for higher positions.

 

People need to get real, and see this, rather than rabbit on saying how we "need" to do such and such........it just isn't going to happen.

[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.

 

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.

 

I've said a million times that I don't expect the owner - and the last ones - to compete financially with ManU [now joined by Man City and Chelsea], but if you allow yourself to be convinced that the likes of Spurs and Liverpool are beyond us, and also accept selling our best players to clubs like Villa, Wigan, West Ham, QPR and the money to disappear down a big black hole, then more fool you.

This is reality, because it is what is happening.

 

We should be putting a stop to these sort of ambitions and expectations. Like yesterday.

[sniffer 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.

 

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.

 

I've said a million times that I don't expect the owner - and the last ones - to compete financially with ManU [now joined by Man City and Chelsea], but if you allow yourself to be convinced that the likes of Spurs and Liverpool are beyond us, and also accept selling our best players to clubs like Villa, Wigan, West Ham, QPR and the money to disappear down a big black hole, then more fool you.

This is reality, because it is what is happening.

 

We should be putting a stop to these sort of ambitions and expectations. Like yesterday.

 

And yet, over the years we have been more likely to sell a player to Liverpool or Spurs than buy one from them. Until we match their ambition, we'll always be viewed as behind them.

[Pacinofan 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.

 

I wouldn't call 33 million net a huge injection of cash. KD has sold 14 players bringing in 78 million and lowering the wage bill at the same time. John Henry and Werner are far from having cold feet judging by their comments.

[ChezGiven 0]

If you can be arsed, be interested to see the 14 players and their prices.

[Pacinofan 0]

That should have read got rid of 14 players, as some went on a free. The undisclosed ones are usually guesstimates Chez.

 

http://www.lfchistory.net/Transfers/ByManager/24-0

[spongebob toonpants 4155]

Starting to look like we might need a replacement for Tiote

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2063855/Chelsea-want-sign-Cheick-Tiote-Newcastle.html

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Pardew told the Sunday Sun that he might sell a player if a club plays way over the odds (as we all know).

 

So the Mail made up a story linking Tiote with a move away because that's very cheap and easy journalism.

 

Seriously - why on earth do people pay any attention to these fucking 'Sportsmail Reporter' articles? I don't care if I'm sounding condescending here. They are of absolutely no worth or journalistic integrity whatsoever. They're made-up. Stop reading them.

[jonasjuice 0]

There seems to be a weird psychological thing where some people will instantly discard or discredit 'good' transfer rumours (more often than not rightly so mind) but will hold up Tiote/Coloccini rumours as some sort of solid proof that they're away.

 

Not aimed at spongebob btw, he's my favourite sea dwelling poster.