madras

i don't think they did last time, just the strategy didn't get what we wanted. it's not like we said "we aren't ineterested in buying anyone" just that the deals didn't come off. And totally coincidentally they ALL came off this January when we were in relegation trouble. Whatever. well I wouldn't say it was coincidence but if you want to think we could've got sissoko, gouffran and mapou last summer for the prices we did in january then thats up to you. i'm not denying and never have that we spent a little because we were in trouble but the overall strategy of exploiting clauses/contract endings (paying under market value) is still there and it's a damn sight easier to spend 1.5 mill on a player worth a lot more (sisssoko,gouffran) than an extra 1.5mill who may not (de jong, debuchy). for what it's worth had sissoko,gouffran and mapou been available at those prices last summer do you think we'd have bought them then ?

It confirmed that they were prepared to spend to stay up, in the Summer they weren't prepared to spend to kick on. in anita, that dutch forward and debuchy they appeared to be willing to spend more than they did in january.

i don't think they did last time, just the strategy didn't get what we wanted. it's not like we said "we aren't ineterested in buying anyone" just that the deals didn't come off.

Hopefully they'll learn from it. i'd guess the last window has just confirmed that strategy.

Financially, we're doing well and I appreciate what they've done and they don't need to spin it. I don't support the balance sheet, I support the team which they failed to strangthen. i can agree with that. what gets me is those now praising the transfer strategy when in my eyes it's the same one we pursued last summer. sometime it works, sometimes it doesn't.

If we are including wages in these figures it has to work both ways. I don't remember us claiming to have received money for Carroll, Nolan, Ba, Enrique etc.. and included how much we would have paid them which has now been saved. Exactly and thank f*** someone's said that. Don't hear much talk of getting the likes of Smith and Xisco off the wage bill either, yet he'll crow on about additions to the wage bill like we give them it all in 50 pound notes when they walk through the door. the only thing that counts in that respect is the total paid out in wages in total. edit......totally!

htt...... "We wouldn't have had a glass if it weren't for Sir John and Saint Kev (followed by 2pages of waffle)" Mick...."Ashley puts his own mark on the glass to con us as to where half way is" cp40....."keegnas glass was always full, I've neve seen a glass like it and probably never will again" Madras...."it's not a glass, it's a beaker"

Minus £7million for Ba too. 3.5 if the rumours about us getting half, him getting half are to be believed. so thats 15.5million for agents/signing on fees. as i said before, possible but unlikely and probably not far off.

We won't have paid wages up front which he's clearly factored in, my point is that we didn't spend £31 million in January like he's claimed. I don't think they're trying to fool anyone with that, like. They've always counted the 'full' cost of the player in transfers, rightly or wrongly. i.m, not sure wages are included in the 31mill figure.

Think he's talking about 31m over the contracts of the players in question tbh. I don't agree with looking at it like that, talk about that when the contracts are done but doesn't bother me if he does. kind of agree but if those are all up front fees as opposed to wages that will be paid over the course of the ciontract then they may be right. to be honest it reads like he's talking transfer fees and agents fees, one off signing on fees, not full length contracts.

what were the prices again ? all guesses, mapou 6.7mill gouffran 1.5mill sissoko 1.5mill haidara 3.5mill debuchy 5mill mbabu 1mill total of 19.2mill, leaves 12mill for agents fees and signing on fees....................possible but unlikely.

"who would've paid off the debt" well hall didn't, thats like saying, who was going to pay off the debt we had when he left the club in the hands of tweedle dee and tweedle dum. the situation ashley inherited was one of huge debts and future income hocked, hall was in a position on taking over that almost whatever they created they could use and it was a time when loads of money was just about to start pouring in to football. I'm not doing down what we achieved under Hall snr but trying to point out that ashley inherited a pile of shite aswell (not that it will wash with you as I know you have a personal thing with ashley for not giving keegan carte blanche)

can't say i feel proud at the figures, just pleased we aren't making huge losses anymore and running up unsustainable levels of debt.

doesn't the law of avarages count for every game then ?

The rest wouldn't be there if we were sold, it would be eliminated at the point of sale. I do love how they bang on about the change of control on the secured loan. Aside from the fact anyone buying a company assumes all debt has to be repaid, it was even in the public domain (was mentioned in the Chronicle a couple of times). is it not different with the debt being held by the owner ? for example, potential buyer offers £100mill inclusive of the debt, then it's up to the owner to decide to accept or not, as opposed to banks etc holding the debt. does it put us in a better position in that ashley, should he need/want to, just cut his losses and can accept however much he wants whereas the banks would want the lot ?

it's why the fulham game, seemingly forgotten, is as big as those around it. 3 poiunts from that and we are safe and able to relax for the derby. don't really want to go into that game "needing" points.

Apparently we are Puma's biggest customer from what I've read somewhere. We still domestically in the top 4 in the UK for selling kits, plenty of potential to make more money. We probably are one of Puma's biggest, however the money earned from them pales in comparison compared to other shirt deals. Puma aren't exactly coining it in the UK market either. We do sell a shedload of shirts, but would require someone like Nike to boost us in a more global market. would we really sell significantly more tops worldwide if they were nike as opposed to puma ? (is the "worldwide" redundant in that sentence ?)

Mark Douglas also mentions this in today's Journal. the worry for me is that while it may well be one of the biggest deals in our clubs history, it'll give some scary perspective on where we are in the scheme of things, ie compared to the deals of spurs, liverpool etc.

According to Del Boy he was pre-contracted to join us in the summer anyway. monaco were at that time a second tier club. had they been spunking millions all over the shop and been in the top flight (which looks likely come the summer) he may have thought differently.

the business done in january was seemingly brought forward due to the dodgy position we found ourselves in but the plan is still the same as it was in the summer, in the main getting players for under their supposed market value. sometimes it'll pay off and they'll look good, sometimes it wont and they'll look like mugs. for all they say they got it wrong in the summer, if that situation arose again I'd doubt they'd do things differently.

I can see monaco putting in a carroll type bid for cabaye in the summer.

now i realise it's tabloid tittle tattle (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manchester-city-roberto-mancini-again-1788964) but if they werent to be far out, if monaco were to do a citeh/chelsea/PSG, you'd think cabaye would be high on their list. His stock seems to have risen massively in france over the last year. have to say i'm a bit worried. as a player alone he's in the 22mill plus area but i cant help feel it;s on his back that we have debuchy,sissoko, mapou and I have him down as our captain next season. more worried asbout losing him than anyone else including ben arfa.

Up to Haidara for me. I would prefer him to play but if he isn't there yet mentally he isn't going to put in a performance that matches his ability and is likely to bottle* the odd important challenge. *Don't mean that to sound harsh, he has every right to be a little concerned. everyones had a tackle that they've thoughts been serious like that, badly timed, accidental on other occasions, we get on with it. he's not coming back from a ben arfa type thing. if his mentality is affected by this the lad will have much greater problems in his career.

WTF Id rather have 2 derby games to really add some excitement into our season than have 2 meaningless games against Derby. The massive rush for tickets this morning suggests I'm not alone. Aye but surely you would be disappointed rather than "really hating it".... If they go down its party time! I wouldn't give a f*** if they got relegated for the next 5 seasons and went bust and not longer existed. c***s. I would genuinely hate it. Football is about these games and local rivalries etc and losing our only rival (probably forever as they're not coming back up) would leave a massive gap in our footballing lives. I admit I don't take the rivalry as seriously as most btw, only when it matters. i think you are in a minority jack, a very small minority. Probably, for now at least. If they go down and stay down you'll realise I'm right i'm old enough to have spent a few seasons with them in a division below us. I liked it.

WTF Id rather have 2 derby games to really add some excitement into our season than have 2 meaningless games against Derby. The massive rush for tickets this morning suggests I'm not alone. Aye but surely you would be disappointed rather than "really hating it".... If they go down its party time! I wouldn't give a f*** if they got relegated for the next 5 seasons and went bust and not longer existed. c***s. I would genuinely hate it. Football is about these games and local rivalries etc and losing our only rival (probably forever as they're not coming back up) would leave a massive gap in our footballing lives. I admit I don't take the rivalry as seriously as most btw, only when it matters. i think you are in a minority jack, a very small minority.