Matt

Glazers, Hicks & Gillett and our very own Mikey boy..... A low asking price won't save us from a bad owner, but it good make a good owner an even better one.

I've heard this argument before- that if we were sold for less we'd potentially end up with a worse owner. This is flawed on the basis that it assumed an owner's job is to pump in cash and the fact that £50m less spent on the club is £50m that could be invested in it. We're busy reaping the wonderful benefits of someone hideously overpaying in the first place, so I find it staggering that anyone takes this angle. Also, Ashley's business model is such that even if he can't sell, he'll simply let the fans gradually pay him back the investment by persistently turning up. His business model is built around the concept that he could do your gran up the arse and you'd still be there at five to three on saturday. So far, that part is working pretty well.

Look, if you're happy to spend £600-1000 a season to watch a football team that is simply incidental to a transfer investement fund, then go ahead. What is wrong with wanting to sign players because they are good to watch and not thinking about re-sale value. What does that matter to fans? We are not running the club so why do people take this Football Manager-like view, as if we pass on one player, the club will announce 'hey lads, we've saved a few bob, who should we get?' The club will make decisions regardless of what we think (and has shown this consistently) so why should people get het up about finances? Can you not just look forward to the football? It's fair enough if people don't rate Defoe, everyone can have an opinion on him as a player- but we shouldn't go around discounting players because we are unhappy with the impact on our free cash flow for the year. And nor does that mean anyone suggesting spending some money thinks that it all grows on trees and is disciple of Peter Ridsdale.

Come on, surely our annual accounts day is far more exciting that one of these football match things? I agree entirely- it's not about sell on value its about value to the team because that's what we pay money to watch. If he's worth it on the pitch them what's the issue? Why would I care what he's worth in the future when he's spent three or four years getting goals for us? Mike Ashley may see NUFC more as a transfer mill, but when the fans see it that way as well then we're really in the shit.

Putting gold taps on the borehole outlet.

Pip- I think the point here is that while in effect, Mike Ashley (Sports Direct) is largely the same as Mike Ashley (NUFC), when we are using the financial state of the club as an excuse for its spending policy, or using the line 'not a penny has left the club'. OK, so no cash has left, but clearly a benefit in kind which would otherwise may have generated external revenue for the club. From a practical view, just like the idea NUFC 'owe' Ashley £150m (or however much it is), any amount involved is irrelevant- but when only the NUFC side of the transaction is being used in the club's messaging, then I can see why people may see this as distortion of the truth. But frankly we should expect nothing else.

Worth bearing in mind all this free exposure when people pipe up about the 'debt' owed by the club to Ashley.

When he signed the 3-yr deal it was something like £12k.

We can't come out of this window with a deficient squad arguing "well, we wanted to strengthen but no-one wanted to by James Perch". Don't let the soundbites gradually shift your expectations downwards, which is exactly what they are trying to do. Given the improvement in income and cash in from transfers, the club should be in a position to make some modest expenditure on transfers- but if they can avoid that and still keep the fans turning up- then that is exactly what they will do. Not spending money doesn't annoy me that much. The expectations management from the lips of Pardew does.

SBR used to send much stronger outfits to non-league sides than under Gullit, where you were lucky if you got the reserves. It's a bit different now with Gateshead being a full-time outfit, offers a higher level of opposition than part-timers.

Perhaps if we could attract external advertising, rather than plastering every inch with SD logos, we could use this revenue to fund everyday expenses, instead of pleading poverty and selling our best players to pay the gas bill?

I don't know about you, but I am very excited about seeing the water bore in action.

The board have been proven of this already by a leading QC and now Pardew is backing his case with the shifting comments on the Carroll money. I'm amazed people are still taken in by this gradual expectations management. And you're right about the relentless focus on costs- this club is run to be cheap- that's why there are mulit-year year ticket offers. As long as you have constant revenue and continue to cut costs, profits go up. And why can we be sure revenue will stay constant? Well, those mugs will continue to pay for their ST regardless, always in the hope of next season- hence why you need to cancel the 10 year deal before Christmas and introducing the idea that anyone who opts out will have to pay far more when the good times come rolling back.

We have no debt to Ashley.

I don't see any worthy (in his view) club offering Barton a longer-term deal on the money he wants and the club have used this to their advantage. As long as he has an inflated view of his own worth, there is little point entering into negotiations. It's a high-risk strategy, but then Barton is a high-risk player. He was brilliant last season, but poor / injured/ incarcerated for the previous three. So maybe not too unreasonable to see how he fares this time round. Perhaps an October contract offer would be well-timed.

..his house.

Doesn't take much to do a bit of jetwashing. Any building needs a bit of and polish now and then, yet there are parts of SJP which probably haven't been touched in a decade.

I cannot see the club turning down £1m for a player who isn't starting and who has less than a year on his contract.

I'm in row U in the SE corner and stand for most of the game- I'm right in the middle of the corner to to sit means wedging my legs in so it's more out of practicality than anything else. Generally it is about 50/50 between standing and seated in U. Every row in front of me is usually sat down for most of the game unless there is some imminent attacking action.

I got shot down for saying the other week that we'd try to cash in on Best once another striker had joined. On first glance his record last season was decent, that's enough of a signal to the club to make a quick profit.

Fuck me, how is he on £45k a week? Massive step down from Jose, but let's be honest, who are we going to attract who is better?

That bit that I've highlighted in bold is the bit that I found most interesting...perhaps that's the bit that folks need to really get debating. The rest is more of the same old, same old. Just from personal experience working in and with small businesses in the area, I think the original quote is bollocks. There might not be enough small business development (not solely a NE phenomenon) but he's miles off the mark to suggest there isn't any.

Brilliant stuff. While everyone is aware of the need to balance the books, I cannot fathom this retrospective disdain of big-money signings. Yes, some of them were disasters. Equally, some of them were fabulous to watch. And Arsenal have the considerable advantage of being able to charge double the prices on their STs and a corporate section that shits gold ingots. They haven't got all that cash just from clever transfer dealings.

We're saving money by looking out for players who are in contractual disputes, we have to be prepared to take the other side. If Ben Arfa took the hump, we know the lengths he will go to in order to force a move. I hope this comes off, Ba was extremely impressive for West Ham.

There was one TV game where he got absolutely murdered at RB and was either subbed or switched for the second half.