Wullie

Man United got £60m TV money this season for winning the title - next season the club that finishes bottom will receive £63m, yet all the players, by and large, are going to be on the same wages. A massive increase in revenue with no increase in costs, and we're meant to believe that we're still completely skint and that signing players could place the club in jeopardy. Make no mistake about it, Mike Ashley is going to take most of that increase back out of his loan, whilst still taking the £10m he's already clearing out of course. That's ok though, because Leeds.

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it. Is that not the case? Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143 How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts? It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down. Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs. You're simplifying the argument again. I'm not saying that we can only spend exactly the profit we make. No business works like that. But one of two things has to happen. Either the trend has to be in the right direction (improving financial position overall, despite short-term losses) or we have to use credit to support our spending (either affordable credit from a bank or individual investment from an owner). The problem we had in the past was a rapidly-worsening debt position with credit getting more expensive. And the problem we have now is no more subsidy from the owner. We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp? We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it. Is that not the case? Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143 How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts? It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down. Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs. If we spent £100m on players tomorrow, the final profit/loss number in the accounts would still say the same as it did yesterday, the £100m would simply be in assets instead of cash. That's why your profit numbers that you're using to justify us not buying any players are a complete irrelevance.

Why do you keep mentioning profits as posted by the accounts as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

Plenty of clubs that finished above us have invested significantly. If they needed to, why don't we? Because the policy now is to only spend what we generate? Does that make it acceptable, because it's our policy? It is what it is. We are unlikely to see Ashley ploughing extra money in to facilitate a signing so we don't have much choice, but if that meant we had no money and couldn't compete then of course it wouldn't be acceptable for us as supporters. But that's by the by, we should be generating money, and we do have a budget. What it may mean though is that we have to use what money we have fairly carefully and might struggle to increase an offer for Gomis without affecting our chances of getting the right left winger in. This is possibly why Kinnear made the point that they needed to get the striker situation sorted before moving on to other areas. If we come out of this window with just Monsieur Remy mind, the whole fkn lot of them need pelting with s***. IF?! Yeah, if. I don't see it myself as I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that we have a fair of money allocated for this window. We're just having a 'mare trying to get the players we want for the prices we feel comfortable with. It's like going to Saville Row with 100 GBP (a "fair amount of money" some would say) and not being able to get yourself a bespoke suit. We undervalue other club's players (and constantly say it would take a king's randsom to buy one of our own), and indeed actually target players that we believe we can get under market value. It's not really surprising that other clubs often won't play ball, or that we are not seen as an ambitious club heading in the right direction by some of the players we target, because we're not and we're trying to take other clubs for a ride by targetting players with contractual issues etc. On the one hand this is clever, but not so much when it's the only policy you know, regardless of the needs of the squad or the manager. Great point this. "It'll take £20m for Tiote to go anywhere, btw can we have Debuchy for £4m please?"

Totally true, I would love us to be run as well as those two. Eh? That runs completely contrary to everything else you post Ian. Arsenal scoured the globe for a manager who ticked every box and found one of the greats - you're on record as saying you're content to keep Alan Pardew who we salvaged from a landfill after a League One club had binned him. Spurs have spent around £60m this summer, purely from money generated by the football club - you're on record as saying you don't want us to spend money in those quantities in case they flop. I made this point earlier about something else - you can't have it both ways! You want a good manager and sensible investment based on the massive income generated by the Premier League but when anyone says "sack Pardew and sign some players" you're first to jump up and shout them down.

Why are you sad about it? You've already said you take pleasure in us making shrewd signings. I just mean it's a shame that spending is so important for competing at the top of the league. And that the amount available depends totally on the owner. I do think we can make progress with our approach, but not quickly. I do take pleasure in shrewd signings, I don't see how any fan wouldn't. I would take pleasure in signing Bale for £85m as well like, if it was possible. Depends what you mean by spending - Arsenal and Spurs, particularly the former, have proved that you don't need anyone at all putting their hand in their pocket to compete for and attain Champions League qualification, you just need to be sensibly run (which we are not, despite utter nonsense spouted to the contrary) and appoint good managers. The two operate in very different ways but neither of them are anything like us.

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments. Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of. If that's the case then the transfer policy is clearly flawed surely? I thought Graham Carr was too good for that to ever happen? He needs dismissing if the club don't trust him enough to invest significantly in the players he recommends, no?

So we can't afford to pay up front or in installments? You've really swallowed the Ashley propaganda. And of course Carroll was sheer profit on the accounts. He was no more asset than any other Academy kid, young or old.

Why don't we pay in installments then? Like every other club on the planet?

I'd rather he bought a player, but I don't expect him to shoulder that debt interest free for ever. Reasonable debt repayments are part of any business model. I mean, if we didn't owe the money to Ashley we would presumably owe it to a bank at a much more expensive rate. Wullie wants us to spend next seasons money now, of course we just pluck that money out of the air until then, no interest or owt. Maybe if we pose as a Muslim club we'd get away with it. Did we not get any last year like? Where on Earth have you got this idea from that the club is skint?

They're assets based on what you paid over the length of the contract. A ten million pound player on a five year deal is on the books as £10m asset when you buy him, £8m a year later and so on. After the contract period, or if the player was free, he is not treated as an asset at all for the purposes of the accounts.

Err we didn't lose any asset when we lost Carroll. We got him for free. Fairly simple stuff this like.

Cool we've got -£58m to spend. I mean, I know we are due some money, but we also have a lot of ongoing debt. Yes, it's to Mike Ashley now but that's only because he cleared our unsustainable debt position when he arrived. We could not go on losing £30m a season with the credit situation tightening, I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. The only clubs that can are the ones where the owner has the ability and desire to shoulder infinite debt. (Obviously this is where the 'it's his own fault for buying us' argument fits in) So you're fine with him taking £10m or whatever back out of the club this season instead of buying a quality wide player with it?

If you buy a £50m player, your accounts will show exactly the same profit because they go onto the accounts as an asset, so I don't know why the fuck you're posting profits for or what that's meant to prove.

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different. Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other. This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy. Yep. It seems the Remy injury has tipped a few over the edge today, proper panic mode has set in...just pay whatever and buy whatever that's all that matters...spend spend spend. Like a bunch of women in a shoe shop. Oooh sparkly, two sizes too small but i've got to have them, now all i need is to buy everything else to match them. What the fuck are you on about man? We nearly got relegated and yet haven't bought a single player. How does it matter to you in the slightest whether a player costs £7m or £10m? Either is peanuts to a Premier League club in 2013. Are you not getting the part that we have a strict budget and won't go over it especially when the club owes Ashley £130m already thanks to the fat retard doing exactly what you want right now? Or do you want us to be more in debt to Ashley? Or blow budgets for the next few windows? Do you operate like that in your life? Just buy houses you can't afford, cars and insurance way above your pay? Nice living for about a year until reality kicks in. Transfers were moved forward in jan, we've spent a fair chunk of this windows money then and now we are looking to squeeze out the best deals and time is running out. That's why I care because come the next window and we need X player in X position we have fuck all money to do it with. Ashley isn't going to change, living within a budget is here to stay until he's gone, so blowing money is exactly the wrong thing to do under him as we will pay for it later. Even adding more debt to him lessens the chances we'll see him gone any time soon. Finally, the club hasn't done enough this season, but it could have all been sorted sacking the manager and bringing in a new face, most of our problems would have been solved right then rather than just buying more players for him to fuck up. Why would we be in more debt to Ashley? We've just been given a vast windfall by Sky and BT. Do I operate like that in my life? Spending absolutely nothing despite just being given a vast pay rise? No. That would be fucking stupid. We don't get it until the end of the season (this is what i've read btw) So? What difference does that make? That means we've just had last year's not-quite-as-huge-but-still-more-than-any-other-league-in-the-world windfall. Why aren't the other clubs keeping all their money in case, what, Sky don't pay up?

Just because you keep saying something doesn't make it true. The club generates massive amounts of money and certain people saying who keep saying we have a tight budget just look utterly preposterous.

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different. Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other. This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy. Yep. It seems the Remy injury has tipped a few over the edge today, proper panic mode has set in...just pay whatever and buy whatever that's all that matters...spend spend spend. Like a bunch of women in a shoe shop. Oooh sparkly, two sizes too small but i've got to have them, now all i need is to buy everything else to match them. What the fuck are you on about man? We nearly got relegated and yet haven't bought a single player. How does it matter to you in the slightest whether a player costs £7m or £10m? Either is peanuts to a Premier League club in 2013. Are you not getting the part that we have a strict budget and won't go over it especially when the club owes Ashley £130m already thanks to the fat retard doing exactly what you want right now? Or do you want us to be more in debt to Ashley? Or blow budgets for the next few windows? Do you operate like that in your life? Just buy houses you can't afford, cars and insurance way above your pay? Nice living for about a year until reality kicks in. Transfers were moved forward in jan, we've spent a fair chunk of this windows money then and now we are looking to squeeze out the best deals and time is running out. That's why I care because come the next window and we need X player in X position we have fuck all money to do it with. Ashley isn't going to change, living within a budget is here to stay until he's gone, so blowing money is exactly the wrong thing to do under him as we will pay for it later. Even adding more debt to him lessens the chances we'll see him gone any time soon. Finally, the club hasn't done enough this season, but it could have all been sorted sacking the manager and bringing in a new face, most of our problems would have been solved right then rather than just buying more players for him to fuck up. Why would we be in more debt to Ashley? We've just been given a vast windfall by Sky and BT. Do I operate like that in my life? Spending absolutely nothing despite just being given a vast pay rise? No. That would be fucking stupid.

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different. Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other. This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy. Does it beat spending money on good players? Again, why is Graham Carr still in employment if we don't trust his judgement on even an £8m striker, which by Premier League standards is below average? Course not, as I said if it was simple to always sign the right players and move up the league there would be no risk at all. I think we were prepared to pay £8m for Gomis, weren't we? The wrangling seems to be over shadowy agents fees etc. Why do we keep pissing our knickers over agent fees? It's part and parcel of football, you have to pay them, everyone else does it without publicising it or whinging about it. It's like moaning about an airline adding admin fees onto your flight. Moan all you like and don't bother out of principle if you wish but if you want to go on holiday, shut the fuck up and pay it.

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different. Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other. This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy. Yep. It seems the Remy injury has tipped a few over the edge today, proper panic mode has set in...just pay whatever and buy whatever that's all that matters...spend spend spend. Like a bunch of women in a shoe shop. Oooh sparkly, two sizes too small but i've got to have them, now all i need is to buy everything else to match them. What the fuck are you on about man? We nearly got relegated and yet haven't bought a single player. How does it matter to you in the slightest whether a player costs £7m or £10m? Either is peanuts to a Premier League club in 2013.

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different. Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other. This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy. Does it beat spending money on good players? Again, why is Graham Carr still in employment if we don't trust his judgement on even an £8m striker, which by Premier League standards is below average?

Liverpool do bring in more money but not to the proportions they spend more than us, not even close. They beat us 6-0 on our own patch with Downing and Henderson in the team, the latter scoring twice. Yet certain people on here think they're the mugs and we're the dead clever ones. Absolutely embarrassing.

If Liverpool committed such a cardinal financial sin, how come they haven't gone out of business? How come they're still spending and spending? The Premier League clubs are swimming in money, some people haven't quite grasped this. They can afford to spend big money with very little consequence. Ian, funny how you agreed with TT saying that spending doesn't bring success, yet also claim we can't compete with Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, because they've got more money than we have. It's one or the other, you can't have both. If we don't trust Graham Carr's choices enough to spend the asking price, why is he employed?

We nearly went down with similar much more recently.

How can we compete for 6th or 7th with the current options in the forward positions and this manager?