***Official Mike Ashley Euro express thread***

[manc-mag 1]

You probably need to go back about 3 seasons though for the last time Spurs sold a proper first-team starter (when everyone was fit), i.e. Berbatov. Since then it's always been those surplus to requirements, which probably accounts for their recent arrival as genuine contenders / possible CL regulars. Sooner or later you have to start hanging onto your better players.

 

Good point that tbf. The next level of continued 'progress' as it were.

 

Didn't come to Spurs quickly and probably isn't on Ashley's radar anytime soon (if at all), which means we'll still see players out the door and look to replace them. Emphasis will remain on the replacements for at least another season or so yet, so the back room/scouting is going to need to keep coming up with the goods. Perhaps the only thing I'm happy to say with certainty is I'm confident that the players coming in are at least joining a club they want to join now (for the right reasons) and that does count for a lot. We got that wrong for a long time (across both 'regimes').

[Toonpack 9129]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/investor/investor_annual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

[Christmas Tree 4676]

I know what you're getting at btw, CT. But it doesn't work out that easily imo. Graham Carr has done well so far but to expect him to keep it up and not to sign the off duffer is unrealistic. I mean, if he was a genius he would've been doing it forever, wouldn't he? Anyway, all I meant was that keeping Tiote falls within that notion of sustainability because of what he cost and his wages, therefore we can keep him without Ashley throwing his own money at the club.

 

Aye I understand what your saying but if we don't sell the odd star player where will the money come from for the next batch of star players?

 

I think we all know that due to players wages there is very little going to come from club revenues unless we break the CL at some point.

 

Regarding Graham Carr, I agree he's not Superman but the good PR we have created by with the Cabayes, Ba's, Kruls etc combined with good performances will see lots of players and agents seeing us as a good route to the premier league.

 

If I was a young foreign player wanting to play regularly, make good money and catch the eye of the really big fish, then I think you would be hard pushed to find a better home than us.

 

The trick as you and others have indicated is to spot that moment in time when an owner needs to give that little extra push to be one of the big boys. Personally I think we are a year or two away from that.

 

I think if they can get the club breaking even / in profit and at the same time have a few more Santons and less Lovenkrands in the squad he might be tempted to give it a go. If not then we will be a very attractive purchase.

[Happy Face 29]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

 

Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

[manc-mag 1]

I actually think he'd be tempted to retain players now if the world markets were in order. ie if he could see a CL place with an exit strategy. It's the lack of exit that means he won't step the liabilities up iyam as it's him that's saddled with them effectively. There was a time when there were queues for PL clubs, but it must be quiet as the grave these days-which is obviously the only real consideration to a completely non-sentimental money man who's paid the (in hindsight) frankly ludicrous sums Ashley has.

[Guest alex]

I know what you're getting at btw, CT. But it doesn't work out that easily imo. Graham Carr has done well so far but to expect him to keep it up and not to sign the off duffer is unrealistic. I mean, if he was a genius he would've been doing it forever, wouldn't he? Anyway, all I meant was that keeping Tiote falls within that notion of sustainability because of what he cost and his wages, therefore we can keep him without Ashley throwing his own money at the club.

 

Aye I understand what your saying but if we don't sell the odd star player where will the money come from for the next batch of star players?

 

I think we all know that due to players wages there is very little going to come from club revenues unless we break the CL at some point.

 

Regarding Graham Carr, I agree he's not Superman but the good PR we have created by with the Cabayes, Ba's, Kruls etc combined with good performances will see lots of players and agents seeing us as a good route to the premier league.

 

If I was a young foreign player wanting to play regularly, make good money and catch the eye of the really big fish, then I think you would be hard pushed to find a better home than us.

 

The trick as you and others have indicated is to spot that moment in time when an owner needs to give that little extra push to be one of the big boys. Personally I think we are a year or two away from that.

 

I think if they can get the club breaking even / in profit and at the same time have a few more Santons and less Lovenkrands in the squad he might be tempted to give it a go. If not then we will be a very attractive purchase.

From my pov, when the likes of Tiote goes (hypocthetically) it's another kick in the stotts and another opportunity at team building lost. It's more or less admitting mid-table / sneaking 7th place is as good as it gets. While I accept that's probably realistic I'm not going to try and justify it especially (sorry to reiterate the fact) when he's an affordable asset. We've only had half a good season in the PL under Ashley and while I've thoroughly enjoyed it I don't for one minute assume we've discovered some long-term magic formula. I'm more of the mindset that signing players like Cabaye and Tiote for what amounts to buttons is something that doesn't come along too often. If you then let them go without a fight the first time one of the big boys comes sniffing then there's very little to get excited about for the future imo, as if you do sign more 'star players' then they're only here for a couple of seasons at the most. Quite sobering tbh. Not like you to bring things down to earth with a thud

[Toonpack 9129]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

 

Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

 

IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end).

 

Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends.

[Guest alex]

I actually think he'd be tempted to retain players now if the world markets were in order. ie if he could see a CL place with an exit strategy. It's the lack of exit that means he won't step the liabilities up iyam as it's him that's saddled with them effectively. There was a time when there were queues for PL clubs, but it must be quiet as the grave these days-which is obviously the only real consideration to a completely non-sentimental money man who's paid the (in hindsight) frankly ludicrous sums Ashley has.

Agreed.

[Happy Face 29]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

 

Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

 

IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end).

 

Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends.

 

I was referring to the rambler. Don't be so defensive.

[trophyshy 7066]

As has been noted this is the first time in MA's reign we've looked like we can compete on our day and actually have 4 or 5 star players, mostly young too.

 

Sales made now will therefore be the most difficult to take but it's not unreasonable to expect they'd have to fit in with previous strategy, i.e. player's contract close to the end or massive offer comes in or player is being an arse. Having said that we know Ashley's a loose cannon, so it's just conjecture.

 

I'm hopeful the Virgin money might, at least, delay any sales until the summer. As I said elsewhere though, it would be nice not to have to think/feel this way. In terms of the expressed ambition we are there or thereabouts. I imagine if a large bid comes in then Pardew will be asked if he thinks the team can meet the ambition without 'star player'. Pardew will say no only to be told they fucking better had do.

[LeazesMag 0]

I know what you're getting at btw, CT. But it doesn't work out that easily imo. Graham Carr has done well so far but to expect him to keep it up and not to sign the off duffer is unrealistic. I mean, if he was a genius he would've been doing it forever, wouldn't he? Anyway, all I meant was that keeping Tiote falls within that notion of sustainability because of what he cost and his wages, therefore we can keep him without Ashley throwing his own money at the club.

 

Aye I understand what your saying but if we don't sell the odd star player where will the money come from for the next batch of star players?

 

I think we all know that due to players wages there is very little going to come from club revenues unless we break the CL at some point.

 

Regarding Graham Carr, I agree he's not Superman but the good PR we have created by with the Cabayes, Ba's, Kruls etc combined with good performances will see lots of players and agents seeing us as a good route to the premier league.

 

If I was a young foreign player wanting to play regularly, make good money and catch the eye of the really big fish, then I think you would be hard pushed to find a better home than us.

 

The trick as you and others have indicated is to spot that moment in time when an owner needs to give that little extra push to be one of the big boys. Personally I think we are a year or two away from that.

 

I think if they can get the club breaking even / in profit and at the same time have a few more Santons and less Lovenkrands in the squad he might be tempted to give it a go. If not then we will be a very attractive purchase.

From my pov, when the likes of Tiote goes (hypocthetically) it's another kick in the stotts and another opportunity at team building lost. It's more or less admitting mid-table / sneaking 7th place is as good as it gets. While I accept that's probably realistic I'm not going to try and justify it especially (sorry to reiterate the fact) when he's an affordable asset. We've only had half a good season in the PL under Ashley and while I've thoroughly enjoyed it I don't for one minute assume we've discovered some long-term magic formula. I'm more of the mindset that signing players like Cabaye and Tiote for what amounts to buttons is something that doesn't come along too often. If you then let them go without a fight the first time one of the big boys comes sniffing then there's very little to get excited about for the future imo, as if you do sign more 'star players' then they're only here for a couple of seasons at the most. Quite sobering tbh. Not like you to bring things down to earth with a thud

 

exactly

[LeazesMag 0]

Had we not being through "those years" with Ashley I think some would look at how we are currently run, bearing in mind the reality of today's football world, and come to the conclusion we have never been run better.

 

Every aspect of the club from financial to youth to backroom to management to quality on the pitch seems excellent.

 

Sure we will sadly have to sacrifice the odd Tiote along the way, but there isn't really any other way to do it these days unless you bag an Arab.

 

Comparing the football financial reality of today to the times of SJH is just stupidity. Worlds apart.

 

sadly, this is where you and others like you fall down.

 

What I say is correct. There is no reason whatsover why we should behave like Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs etc, like we did previously.

 

Who consistently "cash in" on players and thus make profits and thus are sustainable and thus have become relatively succesfull.

 

Edit: The other two you mention do not, as a rule, make losses on player transactions either btw. and the absolutely don't "go into debt" to buy players - ever.

 

What you are complaining about at NUFC is EXACTLY 100% how the succesfull teams operate, i.e. within their means. Greater means = greater player investment (much of which is based upon a history of buying low and selling high). It really is that simple.

 

please explain how a club that had the 14th largest turnover in football [higher than Spurs, and finished above Spurs during all the years they were ran by Alan Sugar on the same lines as Mike Ashley is running Newcastle] has suddenly had to start living "within their means"

 

Then tell us where the Carroll cash has done, and why the club - if it didn't intend to give the cash back to the manager - didn't tell Liverpool to fuck off like Spurs told Chelsea when they asked about Modric ?

 

Your comparison with Spurs is a joke, we are doing nothing like Spurs and haven't ever since Mike Ashley bought this football club.

Edited January 12, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9129]

Had we not being through "those years" with Ashley I think some would look at how we are currently run, bearing in mind the reality of today's football world, and come to the conclusion we have never been run better.

 

Every aspect of the club from financial to youth to backroom to management to quality on the pitch seems excellent.

 

Sure we will sadly have to sacrifice the odd Tiote along the way, but there isn't really any other way to do it these days unless you bag an Arab.

 

Comparing the football financial reality of today to the times of SJH is just stupidity. Worlds apart.

 

sadly, this is where you and others like you fall down.

 

What I say is correct. There is no reason whatsover why we should behave like Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs etc, like we did previously.

 

Who consistently "cash in" on players and thus make profits and thus are sustainable and thus have become relatively succesfull.

 

Edit: The other two you mention do not, as a rule, make losses on player transactions either btw. and the absolutely don't "go into debt" to buy players - ever.

 

What you are complaining about at NUFC is EXACTLY 100% how the succesfull teams operate, i.e. within their means. Greater means = greater player investment (much of which is based upon a history of buying low and selling high). It really is that simple.

 

please explain how a club that had the 14th largest turnover in football [higher than Spurs, and finished above Spurs during all the years they were ran by Alan Sugar on the same lines as Mike Ashley is running Newcastle] has suddenly had to start living "within their means"

 

Then tell us where the Carroll cash has done, and why the club - if it didn't intend to give the cash back to the manager - didn't tell Liverpool to fuck off like Spurs told Chelsea when they asked about Modric ?

 

Your comparison with Spurs is a joke, we are doing nothing like Spurs and haven't ever since Mike Ashley bought this football club.

 

NO, it'd be a waste of time, you are too thick to understand it.

 

BTW we're living within our means beacause that's the way to do it (as proven by ALL the succesfull clubs). You don't live beyond your means and be succesfull long term (ask Leeds and Porstmouth).

[ewerk 30176]

We spent more than we brought in. It's not difficult to understand.

[LeazesMag 0]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

 

Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

 

IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end).

 

Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends.

 

usual rubbish. You tell me any "big" club that sells their best players and pockets the cash without backing their manager.

[LeazesMag 0]

Had we not being through "those years" with Ashley I think some would look at how we are currently run, bearing in mind the reality of today's football world, and come to the conclusion we have never been run better.

 

Every aspect of the club from financial to youth to backroom to management to quality on the pitch seems excellent.

 

Sure we will sadly have to sacrifice the odd Tiote along the way, but there isn't really any other way to do it these days unless you bag an Arab.

 

Comparing the football financial reality of today to the times of SJH is just stupidity. Worlds apart.

 

sadly, this is where you and others like you fall down.

 

What I say is correct. There is no reason whatsover why we should behave like Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs etc, like we did previously.

 

Who consistently "cash in" on players and thus make profits and thus are sustainable and thus have become relatively succesfull.

 

Edit: The other two you mention do not, as a rule, make losses on player transactions either btw. and the absolutely don't "go into debt" to buy players - ever.

 

What you are complaining about at NUFC is EXACTLY 100% how the succesfull teams operate, i.e. within their means. Greater means = greater player investment (much of which is based upon a history of buying low and selling high). It really is that simple.

 

please explain how a club that had the 14th largest turnover in football [higher than Spurs, and finished above Spurs during all the years they were ran by Alan Sugar on the same lines as Mike Ashley is running Newcastle] has suddenly had to start living "within their means"

 

Then tell us where the Carroll cash has done, and why the club - if it didn't intend to give the cash back to the manager - didn't tell Liverpool to fuck off like Spurs told Chelsea when they asked about Modric ?

 

Your comparison with Spurs is a joke, we are doing nothing like Spurs and haven't ever since Mike Ashley bought this football club.

 

NO, it'd be a waste of time, you are too thick to understand it.

 

BTW we're living within our means beacause that's the way to do it (as proven by ALL the succesfull clubs). You don't live beyond your means and be succesfull long term (ask Leeds and Porstmouth).

 

I'd rather ask Liverpool, Spurs [since Levy took over rather than Alan Sugar] and Arsenal [all teams we beat and challenged under the previous regime] if that's OK

 

Shame you are too thick to understand the name of the game here is FOOTBALL business, not a high street shop.

 

Aspire to be like the Boltons, Blackburns etc, and you will....errrrr.....become like the Boltons and the Blackburns.

Edited January 12, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

We spent more than we brought in. It's not difficult to understand.

 

it obviously is for you. Have you seen the team play and input your own cash lately ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Given he cost £3.5m and is paid within the current wage structure you can maintain where we are currently at / progress within those contraints without selling the likes of Tiote. I'd suggest the owner's reaction to bids for him is another litmus test as to where he actually wants to take us.

 

But he has already said the club needs to be self financing so I guess you could argue that one Tiote sold for £20 million gets you another Santon, Cabaye, and still have 10 mill change.

 

 

 

and it is far more likely to get you a Perch, Obertan, Lovenkrands, Best, Simpson or Routledge. In the real world. Who can't even be sold on because no fucker wants them.

[ewerk 30176]

We spent more than we brought in. It's not difficult to understand.

 

it obviously is for you. Have you seen the team play and input your own cash lately ?

 

So you can't comprehend that we couldn't continue to spend more than we earned?

[LeazesMag 0]

We spent more than we brought in. It's not difficult to understand.

 

it obviously is for you. Have you seen the team play and input your own cash lately ?

 

So you can't comprehend that we couldn't continue to spend more than we earned?

 

answer the question...

 

or buy yourself a long range telescope with the money you are saving.

[Toonpack 9129]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

 

Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

 

IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end).

 

Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends.

 

usual rubbish. You tell me any "big" club that sells their best players and pockets the cash without backing their manager.

 

All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger.

 

It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often.

 

Man U - Ronaldo

Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc

Scouse - Alonso, Torres

Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov

[ewerk 30176]

We spent more than we brought in. It's not difficult to understand.

 

it obviously is for you. Have you seen the team play and input your own cash lately ?

 

So you can't comprehend that we couldn't continue to spend more than we earned?

 

answer the question...

 

or buy yourself a long range telescope with the money you are saving.

 

I'm fairly confident that I spend more money in attending games most seasons than you do.

 

You're a lost cause.

Edited January 12, 2012 by ewerk

[LeazesMag 0]

Spurs were spending £13m to £20m gross, season on season ten years ago, at least between 2001 and 2004. Net spend was £5m to £10m.

 

Wondering if that was within their means at that time? Their profits over 7 years are impressive, but if it's a position ten years in the making were they speculating to accumulate in those interim years?

 

Even a decade later, it's cloud cuckoo land that we would spend that kind of money.

 

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart)

 

http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html

 

They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

 

Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary.

 

IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end).

 

Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends.

 

usual rubbish. You tell me any "big" club that sells their best players and pockets the cash without backing their manager.

 

All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger.

 

It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often.

 

Man U - Ronaldo

Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc

Scouse - Alonso, Torres

Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov

 

why are you not answering the question in its entirety ?

Edited January 12, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

We spent more than we brought in. It's not difficult to understand.

 

it obviously is for you. Have you seen the team play and input your own cash lately ?

 

So you can't comprehend that we couldn't continue to spend more than we earned?

 

answer the question...

 

or buy yourself a long range telescope with the money you are saving.

 

I'm fairly confident that I spend more money in attending games most seasons than you do.

 

You're a lost cause.

 

1. I don't think so.

 

2. You're stupid, and know fuck all about the football club

[NJS 4358]

All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger.

 

It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often.

 

Man U - Ronaldo

Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc

Scouse - Alonso, Torres

Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov

 

A lot of Wenger's early success was built on the money they got for Petit and Overmars.

 

It's interresting that LM derides the "live within your means" view but I thought that's what we did pretty much until about 2003. It was only when Shepherd started spending through credit that I think it got dodgy.