James

It is simple. Marveaux decides to go to Liverpool. We go for N'Zogbia instead. Marveaux changes his mind, we sign Marveaux, end our interest in N'Zogbia.

I was wondering whether because of the timing of the Carroll sale and the new financial rules whether we are actually allowed to spend the money?

We go for Marveaux. Marveaux chooses to sign for Liverpool. We go for N'Zogbia, wait a bit because the price is exorbitant (£3m extra for not being in Europe). Marveaux decides he wants to sign for us instead. We sign Marveaux. No more interest in N'Zogbia.

We can afford to spend money, but do we need to? We remain committed to signing another striker. Once we've got him, that is it, we have signed all the players that we can probably afford to sustain over five years, plus the PL won't let us play any more than that. This is why so many players have been told they can leave, or Pardew is willing to sell Nolan, selling improves our buying opportunities. I expect a good player to come in should we offload Smith, but no-one will match his wages.

I think we can better than him.

Top bloke

Just belatedly turned away from him on the calendar (June Guthrie, July Routledge) He has a massive cock.

We did. Then sold him to Aston Villa.

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees, and these are often the worst, so in reality we have probably already paid at least £8m for Ba and Marveaux. Cabaye too would have probably gained a good agent fee given that we found his release clause. Similarly we could end up paying at least double what Swansea actually receive if and when we sign Neil Taylor. But even with that calculation we still should have net 20+ million in the transfer pot, minus the training ground improvements (maybe 1M+). You aren't really counting everything though, we have the signing on fees for five players if you include HBA. £10m transfers if you include HBA. Agent fees for the five players. Loyalty payments to agents for players that are still here come 1st Sept. Loyalty bonuses bonuses for players that are still here come 1st Sept. Pro-rata loyalty bonuses for players we sell this summer that haven't handed in a transfer request. An increase in annual wage budget of over £5m. Training Improvements probably cost £3-5m. Money on the development side of things which Shepherd hardly spent a penny on. Installments for earlier signings.

Or go back to Canada with an MLS team? The above three options are better and I am confident that one will happen.

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees, and these are often the worst, so in reality we have probably already paid at least £8m for Ba and Marveaux. Cabaye too would have probably gained a good agent fee given that we found his release clause. Similarly we could end up paying at least double what Swansea actually receive if and when we sign Neil Taylor.

John Carver is nailing the chairs down as we speak.

Someone I hugely respect and I sympthasise with his predicament. I'm sure he'd take a pay as you play but the problem is with the new rules about player limits is that clubs won't have him taking a slot if they can't be sure that he'll be fit. He has three choices in my opinion, go to the Bundesliga, wait until deadline day and see if a club with less than 25 players will give him a go, drop down to the Championship. We all know Hughton likes a freebie, but also there is West Ham, Leicester with Sven, and Forest with McClaren. One of those will take him if he is prepared to accept decent terms.

I will still wait to see how much we actually spend come the summer. If we make out we have more to spend, prices will go up.

He's under 21

The article was probably written ages ago. Mike Ashley just has one of those Wallace and Gromit machines that pop out his toast, slide on his slippers while simultaneously pressing enter on a keyboard. More French Cheese Derek.

Sorry Dave

I thought he was a wide player but cuts inside in the final third rather than getting to the byline and crossing. Can be ineffectual as has no right foot.

Really hoping we miss out on this guy, the frenchies say he is shite, and there are photos of him brandishing handguns. Usual story of people overrating foreign players.

We made a mistake bringing him in in January, but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a bad mistake now as was all fitness related last season.

Look at the articles and the fact that Mark Douglas is on holiday. All the Douglas articles look like they could have been written last week, have some sort of basis and held back for today. The other speculative transfer article was written by someone else and looks to have no basis whatsoever.

But we were well above our quota.

Has to include three keepers. Ranger doesn't count as he's under 21. Really do you bother to read up on things before spouting off? It doesn't. Villa only had Friedel & Guzan registered. I thought that was why we had Forster registered even though he was on loan and couldn't be recalled. Maybe we misunderstood the rules.

1. A club is not obligated to permit a player to speak to another club whilst under contract. 2. An "interest" clause would serve as an automatic trigger to allow such talks, if say the amount stated in the clause were offered (the proposed buying club would not have to pay the sum just to speak to the player, rather make an offer in that amount. 3. The selling club can then attempt to negotiate a higher fee without being obligated to sell, thereby taking the power away from the player (which differs from the position under a "buy-out" clause. 4. If the buying club offers more, the selling club is quids in. If not, tough luck. It's a fairly sensible idea if you ask me, but I would imagine that the FA and the PFA would rule in favour of the player, as contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on nowadays, seeing as every player has a Brabners lawyer and a Del Boy agent behind them. Still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, this bit. I know you don't agree, but to me it makes perfect sense, as it's a negotiating tool. It's a stark contrast to a "buy-out" clause, which essentially forces a club to sell to whoever meets the asking price (subject to the player's consent), which leaves the selling club largely impotent. But what is the point of having a fee and allowing us to agree personal terms, only to then enter a new negotiation over the transfer fee rendering any personal terms utterly pointless? It just seems utterly functionless tbh, not a bargaining tool in the slightest. Makes sense to me. Perhaps change the phrasing. You are allowed to talk to anyone who submits a £1m offer or greater. However we are under no obligation to accept the bid.

It isn't Harry-Norway is it?