PaddockLad 17660 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Spurs can keep a certain level of player happy on a cieling of 80k a week in London, and its done them well. I don't think our max is anywhere near that. Thats the difference. Players can get more money at more successful clubs, or clubs in London like Spurs,Arsenal and Chelsea. For us to get the level of sponsorship Spurs get we'll have to at least match Spurs' league finishes over the last 5 or 6 seasons. That won't happen on our wage cieling, 250 miles from London. Not a fuckin chance. And to be fair to Fred he knew he had to pay top dollar to get a certain level of player here. Scot Parker turned down champions league football at Everton and took 70k a week here instead. Not saying thats the way we should be going, and for me Tiote is twice the player Parker ever was,but there are limitations to where we can go with the system thats being suggested here. Not without selling 6 or 7 of the current first team in the next 12-18 months to generate the funds, and Spurs didnt do that. Neither do manu. Or anybody else. Is there another game in town? probably not. Unless the Geordie Abramovich appears, and thats unlikely as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Spurs can keep a certain level of player happy on a cieling of 80k a week in London, and its done them well. I don't think our max is anywhere near that. Thats the difference. Players can get more money at more successful clubs, or clubs in London like Spurs,Arsenal and Chelsea. For us to get the level of sponsorship Spurs get we'll have to at least match Spurs' league finishes over the last 5 or 6 seasons. That won't happen on our wage cieling, 250 miles from London. Not a fuckin chance. And to be fair to Fred he knew he had to pay top dollar to get a certain level of player here. Scot Parker turned down champions league football at Everton and took 70k a week here instead. Not saying thats the way we should be going, and for me Tiote is twice the player Parker ever was,but there are limitations to where we can go with the system thats being suggested here. Not without selling 6 or 7 of the current first team in the next 12-18 months to generate the funds, and Spurs didnt do that. Neither do manu. Or anybody else. Is there another game in town? probably not. Unless the Geordie Abramovich appears, and thats unlikely as well. exactly. Alternatively, you can take the route Mike Ashley has chosen, which is not to bother trying to complete and behaving like a 2nd rate selling club instead. Which meets with the approval of the "anybody but Fred" brigade and the wannabee financial whizz kids on message boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 "The higher up the table we finish the easier it will be to attract not only new sponsors but also top players. We are now getting sound-bytes from agents that they would like to get their players here. It is a good sign." Might be a while, the match sponsor on Saturday was (honestly) "Dave's Stag Do!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 'kinell - proper Pheonix Nights carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Leazes,When Rangers come out of administration do you think they will be afforded the same credit terms by financial institutions? Of course it effects clubs its just you are too dense to see it. If a club doesn't have rich owners willing to bankroll it then its got to be run in a sensible way otherwise, sooner or later the inevitable happens. Not necessarly going bust but certainly cutting back on wages and transfer fees etc they are obviously going to sink without trace and/or get beat by Berwick Rangers every week in front of 25 supporters, so sayeth the financial experts. I don't think anyone said that and that is the typical answer I would expect from you. Try answering the points I made rather than posting a stupid, flippant response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 It's only £210 a head if you and 11 mates want to do it and get seats in the Milburn. Or get 15 mates to pay £220 each and you can get an executive box too. http://www.nufc.co.uk/page/Hospitality/MatchSponsorship Toontastic should sponsor a game with all those donations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Spurs can keep a certain level of player happy on a cieling of 80k a week in London, and its done them well. I don't think our max is anywhere near that. Thats the difference. Players can get more money at more successful clubs, or clubs in London like Spurs,Arsenal and Chelsea. For us to get the level of sponsorship Spurs get we'll have to at least match Spurs' league finishes over the last 5 or 6 seasons. That won't happen on our wage cieling, 250 miles from London. Not a fuckin chance. And to be fair to Fred he knew he had to pay top dollar to get a certain level of player here. Scot Parker turned down champions league football at Everton and took 70k a week here instead. Not saying thats the way we should be going, and for me Tiote is twice the player Parker ever was,but there are limitations to where we can go with the system thats being suggested here. Not without selling 6 or 7 of the current first team in the next 12-18 months to generate the funds, and Spurs didnt do that. Neither do manu. Or anybody else. Is there another game in town? probably not. Unless the Geordie Abramovich appears, and thats unlikely as well. exactly. Alternatively, you can take the route Mike Ashley has chosen, which is not to bother trying to complete and behaving like a 2nd rate selling club instead. Which meets with the approval of the "anybody but Fred" brigade and the wannabee financial whizz kids on message boards. Nice cherry picking there Leazes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Spurs can keep a certain level of player happy on a cieling of 80k a week in London, and its done them well. I don't think our max is anywhere near that. Thats the difference. Players can get more money at more successful clubs, or clubs in London like Spurs,Arsenal and Chelsea. For us to get the level of sponsorship Spurs get we'll have to at least match Spurs' league finishes over the last 5 or 6 seasons. That won't happen on our wage cieling, 250 miles from London. Not a fuckin chance. And to be fair to Fred he knew he had to pay top dollar to get a certain level of player here. Scot Parker turned down champions league football at Everton and took 70k a week here instead. Not saying thats the way we should be going, and for me Tiote is twice the player Parker ever was,but there are limitations to where we can go with the system thats being suggested here. Not without selling 6 or 7 of the current first team in the next 12-18 months to generate the funds, and Spurs didnt do that. Neither do manu. Or anybody else. Is there another game in town? probably not. Unless the Geordie Abramovich appears, and thats unlikely as well. exactly. Alternatively, you can take the route Mike Ashley has chosen, which is not to bother trying to complete and behaving like a 2nd rate selling club instead. Which meets with the approval of the "anybody but Fred" brigade and the wannabee financial whizz kids on message boards. Nice cherry picking there Leazes not cherry picking at all. I stand by everything I have said for years. Highlighting the most significant phrase in the post [or rather the point that constantly needs to be rammed home to nuggetheads, has nothing to do with cherry picking. What I would call cherry picking though, is those who pick out two or three poor signings in 15 years as some sort of proof that a transfer policy which gave us the best league positions in a 15 year period was inferior to another which will get nowhere near the same success, growth of the club, revenues, profile and champions league/european qualifictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Arsenal make £63m from player sales but won't invest it all into transfers, what a terrible way to run a club, selling the players and pocketing the cash. No way they will ever challenge the top 4. Selling club. Mmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31209 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Arsenal make £63m from player sales but won't invest it all into transfers, what a terrible way to run a club, selling the players and pocketing the cash. No way they will ever challenge the top 4. Selling club. Mmmmmm They have been though, for the past few years. And as a result they have regressed as a team and as a club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Arsenal make £63m from player sales but won't invest it all into transfers, what a terrible way to run a club, selling the players and pocketing the cash. No way they will ever challenge the top 4. Selling club. Mmmmmm They have been though, for the past few years. And as a result they have regressed as a team and as a club. Sign of the times, no team can compete with the mega bucks that are being chucked around and Arsenal are the proof of that. It's Man U, City, Chelsea then the rest. Spurs are currently leading the rest without spending ridiculous amounts of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31209 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Arsenal make £63m from player sales but won't invest it all into transfers, what a terrible way to run a club, selling the players and pocketing the cash. No way they will ever challenge the top 4. Selling club. Mmmmmm They have been though, for the past few years. And as a result they have regressed as a team and as a club. Sign of the times, no team can compete with the mega bucks that are being chucked around and Arsenal are the proof of that. It's Man U, City, Chelsea then the rest. Spurs are currently leading the rest without spending ridiculous amounts of money So they should give up and leave the money sitting in a bank? Rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31209 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? I never mentioned unlimited funds. I was making the point that if consistently sell your best players and don't reinvest the remaining funds then you will go backwards as a club. You disagree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? ah, and sensible investment in football is dead easy, in fact everybody else in football did it except NUFC under the old regime, and the new regime has decided not to even attempt it, and is keeping the bulk of the cash from sales rather than help their manager to attempt it, so that's OK then. Meanwhile, as - according to some on here - we were/are in with a chance of a Champions League place, just think what could have been if they had even thought about attempting it. A little bit of speculating may just have accumulated, but we have no chance of matching Man City's spending, so whats the point in trying to match the likes of Liverpool and Spurs ? Edited February 27, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? I never mentioned unlimited funds. I was making the point that if consistently sell your best players and don't reinvest the remaining funds then you will go backwards as a club. You disagree with that? crikey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31209 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? I never mentioned unlimited funds. I was making the point that if consistently sell your best players and don't reinvest the remaining funds then you will go backwards as a club. You disagree with that? crikey. I think you've mistaken my criticism of the previous board and an endorsement of the current owner. You were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I never mentioned unlimited funds. I was making the point that if consistently sell your best players and don't reinvest the remaining funds then you will go backwards as a club. You disagree with that? crikey. I think you've mistaken my criticism of the previous board and an endorsement of the current owner. You were wrong. I'm not and never have been interested in any particular personalities, they are irrelevant, I only noticed that you have - at least, finally - got the basic idea right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31209 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I think you've mistaken my criticism of the previous board and an endorsement of the current owner. You were wrong. I'm not and never have been interested in any particular personalities, they are irrelevant, I only noticed that you have - at least, finally - got the basic idea right. My initial point was made about Arsenal. We, on the other hand, will not post profits of £50m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) I think you've mistaken my criticism of the previous board and an endorsement of the current owner. You were wrong. I'm not and never have been interested in any particular personalities, they are irrelevant, I only noticed that you have - at least, finally - got the basic idea right. My initial point was made about Arsenal. We, on the other hand, will not post profits of £50m. I only answered that one particular point, with no reference to personalities. To repeat, my views [unlike those of other people] are not tainted or governed by whether or not I "like" somebody or think they are a cunt. It just doesn't matter. They either do right for the club and/or have the good and ambitions of the club at heart, or they do not. Edited February 27, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? ah, and sensible investment in football is dead easy, in fact everybody else in football did it except NUFC under the old regime, and the new regime has decided not to even attempt it, and is keeping the bulk of the cash from sales rather than help their manager to attempt it, so that's OK then. Meanwhile, as - according to some on here - we were/are in with a chance of a Champions League place, just think what could have been if they had even thought about attempting it. A little bit of speculating may just have accumulated, but we have no chance of matching Man City's spending, so whats the point in trying to match the likes of Liverpool and Spurs ? Liverpool did and they look doomed to fail in their quest for 4th, Spurs on the other hand are odds on, they have also done it without breaking the bank. That's what we should be aiming for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17660 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) We'll have to sell our best half dozen players and replace them with cheaper but better players. Spurs didn't need to let their best players go because they paid them more than we're willing to pay ours as part of the "plan". What we're doing is admirable in a way but seeing as our crowds piss over all other teams bar 2 (if Arsenal keep going down the road they're currently on we'll soon see off their 20k bandwagon jumpers ) then I think we should be aiming a bit higher. The old order "big 4" we've had for the majority of the last decade is changing and when Fergie retires with his club 600mill in debt sometime in the next 2 years, it will largely be over. Now is the time to flex our muscles a bit but with our wage cieling probably half of what Spurs have paid on top of a far better base of talent then I think we'll miss the bus. Ambition isn't a dirty word, its a must for where we are at the moment if we want to take advantage of the change in circumstances of the leading clubs. Don't think the owner sees it like that though, but I do live in hope. 10 mill on Cisse is positive and may signal a change of gear in the transfer market. But if Demba and others are allowed to leave it will prove to be another false dawn for us. Edited February 27, 2012 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Didn't say that but its about sensible investment if you don't have unlimited funds, you disagree with that? ah, and sensible investment in football is dead easy, in fact everybody else in football did it except NUFC under the old regime, and the new regime has decided not to even attempt it, and is keeping the bulk of the cash from sales rather than help their manager to attempt it, so that's OK then. Meanwhile, as - according to some on here - we were/are in with a chance of a Champions League place, just think what could have been if they had even thought about attempting it. A little bit of speculating may just have accumulated, but we have no chance of matching Man City's spending, so whats the point in trying to match the likes of Liverpool and Spurs ? Liverpool did and they look doomed to fail in their quest for 4th, Spurs on the other hand are odds on, they have also done it without breaking the bank. That's what we should be aiming for aye, of course, Liverpool aren't looking to do it too. Make sure you don't tell anyone your secret aim, in case they think of it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 We'll have to sell our best half dozen players and replace them with cheaper but better players. Spurs didn't need to let their best players go because they paid them more than we're willing to pay ours as part of the "plan". What we're doing is admirable in a way but seeing as our crowds piss over all other teams bar 2 (if Arsenal keep going down the road they're currently on we'll soon see off their 20k bandwagon jumpers ) then I think we should be aiming a bit higher. The old order "big 4" we've had for the majority of the last decade is changing and when Fergie retires with his club 600mill in debt sometime in the next 2 years, it will largely be over. Now is the time to flex our muscles a bit but with our wage cieling probably half of what Spurs have paid on top of a far better base of talent then I think we'll miss the bus. Ambition isn't a dirty word, its a must for where we are at the moment if we want to take advantage of the change in circumstances of the leading clubs. Don't think the owner sees it like that though, but I do live in hope. 10 mill on Cisse is positive and may signal a change of gear in the transfer market. But if Demba and others are allowed to leave it will prove to be another false dawn for us. nailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 "The higher up the table we finish the easier it will be to attract not only new sponsors but also top players. We are now getting sound-bytes from agents that they would like to get their players here. It is a good sign." Might be a while, the match sponsor on Saturday was (honestly) "Dave's Stag Do!" It's very revealing, we're gong to need a lot of stag do's to get all that SD branding replaced. 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