UV

So in real terms (discounting the reduction in the valuation of the company due to the estimated value of the players) the club lost £5m? If so, that's not bad considering the one-off costs of a takeover. All other things being equal, if we'd not been taken over we'd probably have made a profit.

Would not any money spent/received on player transfers be included in the operating expenses (whether it be for transfers in the current year or for delayed payments for transfers in previous years) ? No - money spent on players isn't charged against profit in operating expenses in the year it is incurred. That money physically (okay, electronically) moves from one place to another in a particular year though doesn't it. Surely it must be accounted for somehow in that financial year?

Would not any money spent/received on player transfers be included in the operating expenses (whether it be for transfers in the current year or for delayed payments for transfers in previous years) ?

Now come on, that would just be far too sensible for us to do! We've got a very limited (if any) transfer budget and you want us to spend some of it on a player to be loaned out?

That's an excellently constructed letter and argument tbh. Non-judgemental and constructive. I've stuck up for NUSC before, but they'd have a lot more chance of a response from the club if they had the writer of that onboard. Having said that, the club will ignore it.

Liverpool are self-sustaining even with the debt. Chelsea are dependent on the whims and fortune of a single man. Liverpool would lose money annually if they weren't in the CL, but Chelsea lose money annually even when they are in the CL and without debt repayments (I think). Not sure how you can say Chelsea's future is much more stable than Liverpool's. As for us, despite what the doom mongers will have you believe we were self sufficient pre-Ashley and were not about to go into financial meltdown. The debts have fluctuated over the years, and due to a period of relatively poor on field results and a need to replace the likes of Shearer they had increased in the latter years, this is true. It is also true for every other club in the league. To put it in perspective though, the debt was only a few million more in 2007 than it was back in 2001. The turnover in 2007 was £87m, the turnover in 2001 was £56m. We didn't go into receivership in 2001 and we weren't about to in 2007. If you believe the figures Ashley comes out with ("I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it" 14/09/08) the club has managed to lose £40m+ in his first year or so of ownership (the net debt at 31/06/07 was £70m in the 06-07 accounts). I'm really not sure how the club managed to lose that much when net transfer spend was at most £10m over his entire tenure and TV revenues increased by £20m per year. I guess running the club "responsibly" is expensive work, but if we're losing that much per year now under Ashley I'm not sure why you think we're more stable now than we were previously.

They'd get fined a couple of week's wages wouldn't they. Maybe it's the same for Kinnear. If so it's no wonder Ashley wants to give him a longer contract, not only will we have the cheapest manager in the league, but he'll end up having to pay half of it back.

Ashley's post Jan statement: "We are revising our long term plan. The Arsenal model was a failure as can be seen from Arsenal's current decline, we are now following the Wigan model a team on the way up." Actually, forget that Wigan spent about £7m in the Summer. Okay a less ambitious Wigan model then.

I liked the Scolari out & Ramos in @ Chelsea story on his site.

I know what you mean, but Allardyce wouldn't have gone along with having his transfers decided for him either though.

It keeps some off their backs. TBF one thing it has done is give the press something to write about and divert attention away from the players who are wanting away, which was all they had to write about before. That may have may have been his intention in coming out with all this stuff this week. If so, even if everything he has said is just made up, fair play to him as it makes us look like a buying club rather than a selling club which is not what you want when trying to get players to join. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but it's another angle on it. If he has been doing that I'm sure he'll tell us how clever he's been after the window's shut.

It was on SSN a while back. In that case, I'm sure the person you heard it off hasn't a clue what they're talking about.

Xisco & Nacho Gonzalez' loan fee? Yeah, because Gonzalez loan fee was £6,2 million is this an FM type thing where transfer money can only be used on other transfers ? how much did we spend against how much we brought in ? how much will gutierrez actually cost assuming the case is still going on ? I heard Jonas could cost us anything up to 15M I think the case is Feb 1st. I think the person you heard that off hasn't a clue what he's talking about. It's up to Gutierrez to pay any compensation for one thing, not the club. It has nothing to do with us unless they can prove we were in contact with him before he terminated his contract and induced him to leave. If that were the case, he'd be banned for playing for 4 months and we'd be banned from making any transfers for 2 windows. pretty sure the fifa law is quite draconian to the extent that a club has to prove it had no contact otherwise it will be assumed that there was contact. It does say that - presumed guilty until proven innocent - but I'm not sure how you can PROVE you had no contact with someone.

Xisco & Nacho Gonzalez' loan fee? Yeah, because Gonzalez loan fee was £6,2 million is this an FM type thing where transfer money can only be used on other transfers ? how much did we spend against how much we brought in ? how much will gutierrez actually cost assuming the case is still going on ? I heard Jonas could cost us anything up to 15M I think the case is Feb 1st. I think the person you heard that off hasn't a clue what he's talking about. It's up to Gutierrez to pay any compensation for one thing, not the club. It has nothing to do with us unless they can prove we were in contact with him before he terminated his contract and induced him to leave. If that were the case, he'd be banned for playing for 4 months and we'd be banned from making any transfers for 2 windows.

Lets clarify the issue of what happened to the Milner money. He was sold to Villa for £12m yes? The usual method of buying players is the buying club pays half the fee up front and the balance over a period of time, possibly over the next 12 months, but I am not clear on this aspect. That means we received £6m and the dwarf went out and bought Xisco for £5.7m and brought in Gonzales on loan, so presumably the loan cost us £300,000. In my book that means we spent all of the Milner money actually received, it did not go into Ashley's back pocket period! Also, we should bear in mind that Leeds had insisted on a sell on clause when we bought Milner, so it seems to me that we are actually out of pocket having handed over whatever percentage Leeds were due. We did try to buy out the sell on clause for something like £2m prior to selling Milner but Bates refused. So it seem to me that out of the £12m fee at least £3m has gone to Leeds, £6m has gone on Xisco and Gonzales and the remaining £3m will be paid to us over a period as yet unknown. I think it is clear that the Milner money has to any appreciable extent been well and truly spent already, and is not nestling in what ever casino Ashley frequents. So we're being paid for Milner in instalments, but we paid for Xisco up front? Historically it's actually far more likely that a transaction with a European club will be done in instalments (over the period of the players contract) than with a club in the PL (it used to be a rule that all the money had to be paid within a certain time, 1 year I think, but I'm not sure if that's still the case). However, the fact that players are not paid for up front these days makes it even more frustrating how little we have spent.

I'd be surprised if it wasn't cash up-front. Very surprised. Aye, I'd be surprised if City have anywhere near the assets to secure the amount of spending they will be doing. chelsea didn't have the assets but if someone will act as a guarantor as abramovic does then it is doable. Not sure how applicable it is these days but the land Stamford Bridge is on will be pretty valuable. Eastlands is in a fucking dump. City don't own COMS or the land, Manchester city council do. As madras says though it's irrelevant what their assets are. I'm pretty sure any money put in will go down on the books as a loan though.

A 1 in 2 striker is a luxury we can't afford, but an attacking midfielder who hasn't scored in over 50 games is an indispensable hero. Owen is a luxury we desperately need more like. Even if we stay up, I dread to think what we'll be like next season when Shola is our attacking spearhead.

To be fair to Mike, with the very long odds he'd get from the bookies on us finishing in the top six, it's probably worth him betting £1m on us doing it. He'd recover all his credit crunch losses in one go if we managed it. It would seem our future is relegation this season or fighting relegation next season. It won't change until we are sold which isn't likely for at least two years the way the credit crunch is going. 25-1. Not that good. However, you've make me think it may all be a cunning plan by Mike and the boys. Step 1) Make everyone think you're completely incompetent and unwilling to spend any money on the team Step 2) Make sure the squad is threadbare, fall out with manager and appoint someone you'd laugh at Stoke for appointing, thus ensuring the team will be near the relegation places in January. Step 3) Pretend the club is up for sale cementing the opinion you're not going to spend any money on new players. Step 4) Put £20m bet on getting into the top 6 Step 5) Buy Beckham, Lampard, Henry & Ronaldiniho (someone leaked the plan) the last week in January and bring back Keegan as manager (he was in on the plan all along). Step 6) Easily claim 5th spot Step 7) Collect £500m winnings paying for the purchaces in Step 5 with a little profit on top. The man's a genius, can't wait for it all to unfold.

Didn't we loan Ameobi to Stoke for 2 months for £500k?

By saying the squad is good enough if we can just get over the current injury crisis (most of which are due back by the end of Jan according to phisioroom)? Good plan.

If Ronaldo's agent had been quoted in the press saying Real had been ringing him up, then that would be pretty decent proof.

It's up to us if we accept any bid. Of course it is.

Unless he and his agent are lying, then the fact other clubs are talking to him means we have given him permission to look for another club, so why would he need to hand in a transfer request? Rubbish. Things haven't worked like that for the last 10 years. If ever. Then I guess we can look forward to the club reporting N'Zogbia's agent, Villa, Spurs and Lyon to the PL/UEFA, as it's a clear case of tapping up and we have the evidence in the form of direct quotes in print. You seem to be making something out of nothing tbh. Clubs ask agents about their players all the time, look at the comments from Geremi's agent yesterday. “I’ve had phone calls from Turkey and that’s as far as it’s gone,” Silkman told setanta.com. “I’ve had several calls, but as of yet nothing has been followed up. At this moment it’s a bit of a moot point because there’s no offer as such. “All we’ve had is ‘would he be interested?’ or ‘what’s his salary?’ and ‘what would be his transfer fee?’ Obviously this thing probably goes on regardless of the club giving permission, but it's tapping up unless the club has given permission first. End of. No agent with an ounce of intelligence would blatantly admit it to the press unless they were on safe ground and the club had given it's permission. Obviously Geremi has been told he can look for a new club too. People are slagging off N'Zogbia for looking for a transfer, and elbee was saying he should put in a transfer request. I'm just pointing out that unless his agent is completely stupid and is happy to openly flaunt the laws of the of the game, he has already been given permission to look for a new club.

Unless he and his agent are lying, then the fact other clubs are talking to him means we have given him permission to look for another club, so why would he need to hand in a transfer request? Rubbish. Things haven't worked like that for the last 10 years. If ever. Then I guess we can look forward to the club reporting N'Zogbia's agent, Villa, Spurs and Lyon to the PL/UEFA, as it's a clear case of tapping up and we have the evidence in the form of direct quotes in print.