Wullie

If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked? Utterly preposterous.

So our two first team wide player options consist of at least three players playing out of position? As opposed to Papiss Cisse playing in his own position alone or with another striker in Gouffran? Gee tough one. 4-3-3 Gouffran left, Cisse middle, Ben Arfa right. Jonas can feck off. I like Gouffran but if he is first choice in that position, we are completely fucked.

A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas? Well I don't think we need to play Jonas as it is. Obviously both players are needed, but I don't want to think of the consequences of relying on Shola. Cisse is our first choice striker. Who plays either side if we started tomorrow? I would play a 433 with Gouffran and Ben Arfa either side. Gouffran's quite clearly not comfortable in that position man. Out of those three first choice players, which is the weak link? That's the one you look to displace first. Remy fits the bill of course but we'll need far more than that. We need at least two top players who can play as a wide forward if we're going to carry on playing as we do.

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet. Do you or do you not accept that in today's top flight football, most if not all (other) clubs do not live within their means, and indeed many receive outside investment from their owners? If so, how do you expect us to compete with them long term? There's a balance to be struck here between financial awareness and controlled ambition, which is not only absolute, but also relative to our competitors, and we're nowhere near getting it right. If I was a shareholder of NUFC I would be delighted by Ashley's management, but I'm not. I'm a football fan, and I want to be entertained for the money and effort I put into the club, not support a balance sheet, but a team sheet. If Ashley does not understand the difference between a SD shop and NUFC he's even thicker than he looks. Do you thing living outside of your means is a viable long-term option? No. Is living within your means? Probably. OK, so we win there. And ofc, I will put the big assumption that we invest sufficiently and progress in lots of different areas. I'm a football fan too, but I'd rather support a well run club that operates within its means on money the club makes, which doesn't have to rely on some oil rich arab family whose fundamental purpose for ownership is to use the club as an advertising vehicle or on money made illegally from the fall of the Soviet Union. We'll be sitting handsomely in the lower leagues a few years down the line if we don't keep up with the competition, but hey ho, at least we'll have paid off our debt! We win indeed. As for that last sentence about not wanting an owner who uses the club as an advertising vehicle: are you for fucking real!? WUM. Him, not you. Time for bed.

A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas? Well I don't think we need to play Jonas as it is. Obviously both players are needed, but I don't want to think of the consequences of relying on Shola. Cisse is our first choice striker. Who plays either side if we started tomorrow?

So our two first team wide player options consist of at least three players playing out of position? As opposed to Papiss Cisse playing in his own position alone or with another striker in Gouffran? Gee tough one.

A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas?

We need wide players more than we need strikers. Do we? Cos I think we need both and if I had to rank the two in terms of importance then I guess I'd put a striker as our #1 priority. The club seem to agree. I mean, after Cisse it's the boy wonder and then we wonder... Wow Joe Kinnear agrees with you, you must be right. Of course we are absolutely fucking desperate for wide players otherwise it's Jonas and Sammy providing the service to these strikers.

We need wide players more than we need strikers.

Beyond me how people can still pour scorn on negative newspaper stories about NUFC. I made the same mistake for a long time when Keegan was here. I've since learned the hard way that it's nearly always true.

And bankrupt the club? Yeah great idea that Dave. I really shouldn't even bother here like but clearly finding an extra couple of million for Gomis isn't the issue, the issue is what we think he's worth. And if they want more than we think he's worth? What will we do then? I know, we'll either buy nobody or somebody we rate less. And people like you think this is a great idea because then you've got "value" - meanwhile plenty of other clubs have paid the going rate for the players they actually wanted.

And bankrupt the club? Yeah great idea that Dave.

Aye.

Be nice if we could try making some transfers that we actually need right now, rather than "contingency plans" in case X, Y and Z happen whilst the Moon is in Uranus.

Bent's not the issue. The club has descended into a pathetic shambles and is being run lock stock and barrel by an alcoholic lunatic with a heart condition with zero experience of the job he's employed to do.

What fucking bank loans are these like?

No wonder Ashley's wife told him to fuck off, he must be a fucking nightmare to go to Asda with. She's filling the trolley with chicken and fish, he's taking everything back out and ends up coming home with some nearly out of date sandwich filler and a dented tin of kidney beans.

We'll be even more "debt free" now that there's been a vast increase in tv money. What good is it doing us? At what point does the football team see the benefit of this visionary strategy?

Debt = fragility. What a load of fucking bollocks.

the problem here is your unhappy with Kinnear but he's the guy in charge of the recruitment policy now and he's made it a lot worse I'm sure he hasn't helped much, but weirdly there's no evidence for what you said there. the fact we've signed no one with the season 3 weeks away when we had one deal all but done before the half wit arrived and said nah haven't heard of him isn't evidence? Apparently not.

the problem here is your unhappy with Kinnear but he's the guy in charge of the recruitment policy now and he's made it a lot worse I'm sure he hasn't helped much, but weirdly there's no evidence for what you said there. He's off again. Nurse!

What was it Keegan said: "We'd agree to make a bid of X, then they'd go away and bid half that, then come back and say 'tough, couldn't get him'"?

Sovereign state tbh.

Listen to yourself man, Norwich fucking City?! Nearly every club in the Premier League has attempted to go mad with money this summer for one reason only: the massive television cash hike. Apart from... guess who?

Kinnear's utter buffoonery will have done us a favour if we miss out on this cunt.