Davide Santon signs a 5 year deal with Newcastle United

[Isegrim 9719]

I do prefer left footed players as left back, but have to say that ultimately it depends on their ability how they perform. Philipp Lahm for example is an excellent left back despite being right footed.

[Guest alex]

I bet the Chronic headline is: Stanton Wings Inter Toon. They've already used a variation on that for Pistone and Emre.

 

In fairness Ryder doesn't write the headlines, so I doubt they'd get the lads name wrong...

This thread keeps reminding me of Harry Dean, so blame him.

[ChezGiven 0]

As a cheap businessman, Ashley sees the ability to buy a piece of business machinery at price x, use it for 1 or 2 years and then sell it on for price x + y as a fantastic piece of business (and in the normal world it would be).

 

Imagine being a courier firm, buying a van for £5k which costs £50 p/w to run, using it for 2 years then selling it for £12k before going out and buying a new younger replacement van for £4k, that costs £70 p/w to run.

 

This is how he sees footballers. Sometimes it works and he now has the ultimate model in his head, Carroll purchase price zero, sell for £35m, replacement £6m

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique.

 

Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market.

He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in.

 

Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m.

You are presenting a model of Ashley's behaviour making grand claims for how you can see the real reasons for his purchases in the transfer market and presenting cases where he didnt buy the player or spend any money. In fact, using players sales from over 2 seasons ago is, imo, irrelevant to understanding current decision making. No one who has left the club this summer fits with your model.

[manc-mag 1]

As a cheap businessman, Ashley sees the ability to buy a piece of business machinery at price x, use it for 1 or 2 years and then sell it on for price x + y as a fantastic piece of business (and in the normal world it would be).

 

Imagine being a courier firm, buying a van for £5k which costs £50 p/w to run, using it for 2 years then selling it for £12k before going out and buying a new younger replacement van for £4k, that costs £70 p/w to run.

 

This is how he sees footballers. Sometimes it works and he now has the ultimate model in his head, Carroll purchase price zero, sell for £35m, replacement £6m

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique.

 

Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market.

He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in.

 

Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m.

 

Yeah but equally you can make the point that, Carroll aside, those players were all bought while we were still a 'spending club' (in relative terms). And Ashley has run a spending club-so those profits are made on selling the bigger ticket/recognised players. Might as well carry on with that model in that case as that's whats proven.

 

I just think it's an inevitable by product of offering modest wages at the end of the day-he thinks they're the best for the money he's prepared to spend.

[McFaul 35]

I bet the Chronic headline is: Stanton Wings Inter Toon. They've already used a variation on that for Pistone and Emre.

Stanton

 

It wouldn't surprise me if they call him Stanton.

 

Edited August 30, 2011 by McFaul

[manc-mag 1]

I bet the Chronic headline is: Stanton Wings Inter Toon. They've already used a variation on that for Pistone and Emre.

Stanton

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the name.

[malcolmdj 0]

saw and talked to him at the Toulon's tournament this summer. Good player but he is a really Italian fullback. Not attacking so much. He's really young, hope he accepts the changment between Italy and EPL.

[peasepud 59]

As a cheap businessman, Ashley sees the ability to buy a piece of business machinery at price x, use it for 1 or 2 years and then sell it on for price x + y as a fantastic piece of business (and in the normal world it would be).

 

Imagine being a courier firm, buying a van for £5k which costs £50 p/w to run, using it for 2 years then selling it for £12k before going out and buying a new younger replacement van for £4k, that costs £70 p/w to run.

 

This is how he sees footballers. Sometimes it works and he now has the ultimate model in his head, Carroll purchase price zero, sell for £35m, replacement £6m

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique.

 

Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market.

He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in.

 

Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m.

 

Yeah but equally you can make the point that, Carroll aside, those players were all bought while we were still a 'spending club' (in relative terms). And Ashley has run a spending club-so those profits are made on selling the bigger ticket/recognised players. Might as well carry on with that model in that case as that's whats proven.

Spending club?

 

Those 6 cost a total of just under £8m, if anything the purchase of those players and their subsequent sales galvanise the fact that you dont need to spend mega bucks to make a profit.

 

Why do you think it is that so many of our recent purchases are through clauses in the contract or appear to be purchased below their market value? Purchases often seem to be made this season on whether we can get them in cheap rather than if we actually need them to fill a gap. its a bit like the bent bargains corner in Tesco, you dont really need that massive cream cake but come on its half the normal price, you'd be daft not to.

 

Often however it goes in the fridge and has gone off before you can eat it.

[Guest alex]

I bet the Chronic headline is: Stanton Wings Inter Toon. They've already used a variation on that for Pistone and Emre.

Stanton

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the name.

[McFaul 35]

I bet the Chronic headline is: Stanton Wings Inter Toon. They've already used a variation on that for Pistone and Emre.

Stanton

 

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking when I read the name.

We're too old for names on the backs of shirts now like, but if I was going to do it I'd get......

 

ARCH

3

 

on the back of mine.

[Tom 14011]

PvanAanholt_ Patrick van aanholt

@

@dannysimpson12 have nufc signed a left back yet ....

[manc-mag 1]

As a cheap businessman, Ashley sees the ability to buy a piece of business machinery at price x, use it for 1 or 2 years and then sell it on for price x + y as a fantastic piece of business (and in the normal world it would be).

 

Imagine being a courier firm, buying a van for £5k which costs £50 p/w to run, using it for 2 years then selling it for £12k before going out and buying a new younger replacement van for £4k, that costs £70 p/w to run.

 

This is how he sees footballers. Sometimes it works and he now has the ultimate model in his head, Carroll purchase price zero, sell for £35m, replacement £6m

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique.

 

Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market.

He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in.

 

Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m.

 

Yeah but equally you can make the point that, Carroll aside, those players were all bought while we were still a 'spending club' (in relative terms). And Ashley has run a spending club-so those profits are made on selling the bigger ticket/recognised players. Might as well carry on with that model in that case as that's whats proven.

Spending club?

 

Those 6 cost a total of just under £8m, if anything the purchase of those players and their subsequent sales galvanise the fact that you dont need to spend mega bucks to make a profit.

 

Why do you think it is that so many of our recent purchases are through clauses in the contract or appear to be purchased below their market value? Purchases often seem to be made this season on whether we can get them in cheap rather than if we actually need them to fill a gap. its a bit like the bent bargains corner in Tesco, you dont really need that massive cream cake but come on its half the normal price, you'd be daft not to.

 

Often however it goes in the fridge and has gone off before you can eat it.

 

I realise they weren't massive buys just to clarify, but it seems like you're lumping quite a few different cases in together there. I'd say we were a spending club in general terms at the time in that we used to go and compete for a players signature against other clubs. That doesn't pertain anymore. Milner was an already established English talent. We wouldn't be in for that anymore. Those however are all indicators you'll have a re-sale value too.

 

We're now essentially looking at players where theres little or no competition for signature-and where there is competition you can pretty much guarantee our interest will end. That for me is the defining factor.

 

Also, ref: players coming even when theres no gap to fill I agree that happens and it's crap but I think they are bought simply because they're cheap-it's evidence of precisely that. How is their value realistically likely to rise if they're either i) not going to play or ii) played out of position?

Edited August 30, 2011 by manc-mag

[peasepud 59]

As a cheap businessman, Ashley sees the ability to buy a piece of business machinery at price x, use it for 1 or 2 years and then sell it on for price x + y as a fantastic piece of business (and in the normal world it would be).

 

Imagine being a courier firm, buying a van for £5k which costs £50 p/w to run, using it for 2 years then selling it for £12k before going out and buying a new younger replacement van for £4k, that costs £70 p/w to run.

 

This is how he sees footballers. Sometimes it works and he now has the ultimate model in his head, Carroll purchase price zero, sell for £35m, replacement £6m

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique.

 

Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market.

He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in.

 

Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m.

 

Yeah but equally you can make the point that, Carroll aside, those players were all bought while we were still a 'spending club' (in relative terms). And Ashley has run a spending club-so those profits are made on selling the bigger ticket/recognised players. Might as well carry on with that model in that case as that's whats proven.

Spending club?

 

Those 6 cost a total of just under £8m, if anything the purchase of those players and their subsequent sales galvanise the fact that you dont need to spend mega bucks to make a profit.

 

Why do you think it is that so many of our recent purchases are through clauses in the contract or appear to be purchased below their market value? Purchases often seem to be made this season on whether we can get them in cheap rather than if we actually need them to fill a gap. its a bit like the bent bargains corner in Tesco, you dont really need that massive cream cake but come on its half the normal price, you'd be daft not to.

 

Often however it goes in the fridge and has gone off before you can eat it.

 

We're now essentially looking at players where theres little or no competition for signature-and where there is competition you can pretty much guarantee our interest will end. That for me is the defining factor.

You could use that for either side of the argument tbf, if theres no competition then they cannot be as good as they are being bigged up to be. Surely we cant have the only scout thats able to spot potential in Inter Milan players? The logic seems to be though that they will come into the first team and hopefully perform, if they do then their value will increase. Its a win/win for the club, they get a player on the cheap that performs well and the profit margin is even greater if/when we come to sell him. Its all a gamble but by scouting out the players that seem to be undervalued then we're increasing our chances of winning that gamble.

 

Im not even arguing that is necessarily a bad way to do things as long as its not the only way we do them. A good mix of established Premiership players with good pedigree and proven ability as well as undervalued "gambles" to bring through the ranks.

 

More importantly, that strategy works if you reinvest the sale money on a further combination of the above not just even cheaper replacements.

[manc-mag 1]

As a cheap businessman, Ashley sees the ability to buy a piece of business machinery at price x, use it for 1 or 2 years and then sell it on for price x + y as a fantastic piece of business (and in the normal world it would be).

 

Imagine being a courier firm, buying a van for £5k which costs £50 p/w to run, using it for 2 years then selling it for £12k before going out and buying a new younger replacement van for £4k, that costs £70 p/w to run.

 

This is how he sees footballers. Sometimes it works and he now has the ultimate model in his head, Carroll purchase price zero, sell for £35m, replacement £6m

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique.

 

Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market.

He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in.

 

Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m.

 

Yeah but equally you can make the point that, Carroll aside, those players were all bought while we were still a 'spending club' (in relative terms). And Ashley has run a spending club-so those profits are made on selling the bigger ticket/recognised players. Might as well carry on with that model in that case as that's whats proven.

Spending club?

 

Those 6 cost a total of just under £8m, if anything the purchase of those players and their subsequent sales galvanise the fact that you dont need to spend mega bucks to make a profit.

 

Why do you think it is that so many of our recent purchases are through clauses in the contract or appear to be purchased below their market value? Purchases often seem to be made this season on whether we can get them in cheap rather than if we actually need them to fill a gap. its a bit like the bent bargains corner in Tesco, you dont really need that massive cream cake but come on its half the normal price, you'd be daft not to.

 

Often however it goes in the fridge and has gone off before you can eat it.

 

We're now essentially looking at players where theres little or no competition for signature-and where there is competition you can pretty much guarantee our interest will end. That for me is the defining factor.

You could use that for either side of the argument tbf, if theres no competition then they cannot be as good as they are being bigged up to be. Surely we cant have the only scout thats able to spot potential in Inter Milan players? The logic seems to be though that they will come into the first team and hopefully perform, if they do then their value will increase. Its a win/win for the club, they get a player on the cheap that performs well and the profit margin is even greater if/when we come to sell him. Its all a gamble but by scouting out the players that seem to be undervalued then we're increasing our chances of winning that gamble.

 

Im not even arguing that is necessarily a bad way to do things as long as its not the only way we do them. A good mix of established Premiership players with good pedigree and proven ability as well as undervalued "gambles" to bring through the ranks.

 

More importantly, that strategy works if you reinvest the sale money on a further combination of the above not just even cheaper replacements.

 

Don't disagree at all fwiw mate, I just don't know how realistic it is to get the established Prem players in if you stick to a very rigid to a wage cap. I think it's essentially that which drives us to other markets.

 

I think all thats for certain is we will see turnover of our better players and, irrespective of how we're doing at any given time, that is going to fuck the fans off such that even if we did see some progress up the league, it will probably be difficult to truly enjoy.

[Holden McGroin 6471]

I'm liking the sound of this signing. No place at Newcastle always sounds good. Anyone seen much of this lad? Got to be decent if Mourinho rates him...

 

Jose always used to speak highly of Steven Taylor.

[duo 0]

lee_ryder Lee Ryder

Welcome to the Toon Davide Santon #nufc

[Ayatollah Hermione 13769]

Signed.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Good, they can now concentrate fully on getting someone decent in to play up front.

[duo 0]

I'd actually keep Raylor at LB and play Santon at RB.

Edited August 30, 2011 by duo

[Monroe Transfer 0]

I'd actually keep Raylor at LB and play Santon at RB.

[duo 0]

I'd actually keep Raylor at LB and play Santon at RB.

You may mock but he has more impact on the field than Simpson.

[McFaul 35]

Well without sounding like a mug I reckon I can say with a certain authority, we've signed THE best defender the club has bought since Jonathan Woodgate. He's too good for the toon 4fs, but whoever managed it, fair play. BRILLIANT signing.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

I'd actually keep Raylor at LB and play Santon at RB.

You may mock but he has more impact on the field than Simpson.

If that's the case why wouldn't you play R.Taylor at RB as Santon can play LB??

[DEADMAN 0]

yea i checked him on fifa i got it wrong saying he wasnt listed on ther as he is rated 75 overall so not bad. im not getten my hopes up for a striker though but least we have our defence covered thats main thing

[duo 0]

Well without sounding like a mug I reckon I can say with a certain authority, we've signed THE best defender the club has bought since Jonathan Woodgate. He's too good for the toon 4fs, but whoever managed it, fair play. BRILLIANT signing.

Have to admit I am a bit wary about him adapting to the Premiership. I struggle to think of many Italian defenders who have performed well.