Rich

NE5: My reply was predictable - very rich coming from you! To answer your question though, I probably would have preferred the Woodgate money to be given to Robson to spend on team building, rather than to have Robson subsequently sacked because of the club becoming completely unstable that summer and the money then given to Souness to waste, aye. That's if Souness did actually buy Luque, like...

It's reported to be running at between 62-68% of turnover. Ideally you want it around 50%. That was last season in January, wasn't it? Nobody knows the figures now as the club isn't a PLC anymore. All we have to go off is that Mort said £10M was added to it this season... can anyone see our turnover having increased any? The latest figures in the press have been around 80%, but obviously that may be wide of the mark.

Gilberto's a left back isn't he? Can play either, apparently, much like Bale.

Spurs were in for him in January, but signed Gilberto instead, so I'm unsure as to whether they'd try for him again. Apparently it was them lot who turned his head again.

Doesn't his family live IN London though? I thought that was the issue more than anything else. Nowt to do with France.

You're probably right re: Keegan being the most expendible one, but I shudder at the thought of that day ever arriving. Let's hope the meeting on Friday has done nothing but tighten the ship and put some serious plans down for this summer. Like always, it's about that balance stuff again, people need to flexible. It's fair enough if Keegan has backed down a bit or if Ashley has offered some more cash or whatever, but it's imperative that they are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Northern Rock paid for Owen like, by giving NUFC the sponsorship money in one chunk rather than over a number of years, in exchange for him doing all their advertising campaigns and stuff, no doubt. That went well for them as well.

names ? Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club. Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him. Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation. Poor signing ? I don't think so. I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him. Ridiculous. Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings. As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again. Faced with a choice of spending 16m quid on a proven player who you know is top class, or 3 or 4 sub standard players who are decidely risky, its a complete no brainer. The quality player wins every single time, for me. Alan Shearer spring to mind ? Was he a "trophy" player then ? Owen was actually one of the few players around capable of stepping into his shoes, and not being fazed by it or anything. Its exactly the sort of player the club should have looked to replace Shearer with, which they did. Not really old enough to appreciate what Shearer truly meant at the time... but as far as his signing goes the record shows that we never reached the heights that we had done in the season before he arrived and then a year after he arrived the team had to be broken up because the club couldn't afford to sustain it any longer, quite possibly down to spunking £15M on one player, amongst other things. Maybe that £15M would have been better spent elsewhere, or maybe they should have just spent £5M or £10M, but we'll never know that will we? Just playing devil's advocate here.

They could probably get him for less than £5M. Hardly a big fee these days.

I don't follow this Johnny, or even remotedly agree with it. Its about assessing quality, and building a team of quality players. The higher the quality the better. If you can buy a player such as Rooney, then you know you have someone of the absolute top level and then look at other quality players for other positions. Whats the point of building a team of players who aren't good enough ? The point people are making is that these players were bought at the expense of other positions. The fact is that we could have bought Rooney and ONLY Rooney... would that really have gotten us anywhere? What happens if he'd got crocked and never played a game for us? It's all hyopthetical man. You have to admit that 2 years into the deal, Michael Owen at £16M looked like a massive mistake, as he played 14 games (didn't even complete all of them) and scored 7 goals out of what must have potentially been something like 90 matches, perhaps more. This doesn't even take into account the wages he will have accrued over that period, which must be somewhere up near the £10M mark, even after the compensation stuff. If we'd signed Rooney for an insane amount of money directly after selling Woodgate and the same had happened to him in his first two seasons, I dread to think what the reaction would have been from the fanbase. It would have been justified as well man.

names ? Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club. Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him. Owens goals, and Martins, have just saved us from relegation. Poor signing ? I don't think so. I don't think ManU would consider Rooney a "trophy" signing, and to be honest I find it absolutely incredible that any Newcastle United supporter would be unhappy to have him. Ridiculous. Just giving you the answer you were asking for, as I assume those two would be the players singled out as trophy signings/potential trophy signings. As for the bold bit, it's a very superficial argument, as someone could easily counter with "if that £16M had been better spent, we might not have been fighting relegation to begin with", which would be a fair enough comment. Then we'd end up in that brilliant never-ending cycle again.

He just wants away, man. As long as we get decent wedge for him (we'll be lucky to get more than £5m IMO, unfortunately) then I suppose it's for the best. Pointless keeping players who don't want to be here, no matter how much potential they've shown at times. I'll guess West Ham for his destination.

names ? Owen is the only player that genuinely springs to mind to me of players we have actually bought when people bandy this "trophy player" stuff about, because until recently he'd been a massive failure for this football club. Rooney is probably the best example of it, though, and we didn't even sign him.

Baggio: Agree with all of that. One thing I'll add about buying players for 5, 8, 10 years is that it's different here to Man Utd, in that we'd probably lose them 2 or 3 years into their contracts, like Spurs have done with Carrick in particular. If they are that good, then they'll most likely move on before they reach their real peak. Which won't be a problem, as long as we're making profits on them like Spurs have done as well. I'll make it clear here that none of us are saying that we should only buy young players, but if the emphasis is mainly focused on bringing up-and-comers like Modric, Veloso, etc. for the really big money, then that's fair play in my book. The recent Keegan first-team isn't exactly the youngest around, especially in the midfield, and so it's imperative that we do sign some players with time on their side. Of course they may not all work out or be brilliant, but you'd hope that this new scouting network and the new people in charge (Keegan included) will mean the chances of failure are narrowed as much as possible. That's an important point, actually, when comparing with what was done under Shepherd. Like you've said, we need a leader at the back and I think Dunne fits that bill perfectly, so would be quite happy to see him come in (he's only 28, an' all, so he's not exactly over the hill). Deco would be a big gamble, obviously, but could prove to be a masterstroke if he was used properly and still had the hunger there. I'd personally be more inclined to go out and get a "proper" striker at his peak, as well as a centre-half, and then go for the younger ones on top of that. Viduka is paggered and we'll be crying out for someone to come in and take his role up front, it would be a big ask for a youngster to do that for us, especially if they came from abroad. Like others have alluded to, the recent form under Keegan would have seen us right up the top end of the table had it transpired over a larger part of the season, so it's quite exciting to think what he could achieve with new players in for the current weak links like Geremi, Viduka and Taylor.

It leads to another avenue this, though, which may go some distance to explain all the stuff we've seen going on this week between Keegan and the board. If I was Keegan, I'd probably be pressing and pressing for money, I'd probably be wanting to sign Thierry Henry and players of proven quality like that, even if the wages were very high, because I'd know that I've got 3 years, maybe less, to make a real impact - to finally be the one to break the "curse". It must be a massive pressure on him and obviously he'll want as much support as possible. I don't think NE5 is far wrong when he's speculating about the potential problems between KK's philosophy and the philosophy of the owner/chairman, it's plausible at the very least. However, to counter-argument myself a bit, surely Keegan was made aware of all the plans when he signed on the dotted line? He must have had everything outlined to him by Mort and Ashley before he committed to the club again? You would assume that IF they do want to reduce the wage bill first and foremost, he would have known about it prior to now? But then you wonder, when he's saying he doesn't know what his budget is going to be for this summer... This is what I mean though, when I get narked about press speculation - they only ever give it from the side that suits them (usually the bad side), when there are so many other possibilities as to why things are said and why things happen. Nobody knows really, bar the men directly involved.

that's what i was thinking. no funds for the next two seasons, that doesn't make sense. Exactly, it's fucking tosh.

By the way, Baggio, is this why you're not exactly enamoured with us signing the likes of Campbell, Dunne, Riise, etc.? I can see the logic, if that's the case.

An example of a club that has had success with a Director of football is Spurs, 3 years ago Arnasen came into the club and completely altered the club from youth team up to their starting 11, he got rid of all the dead wood at the club even if it meant paying their contracts up, he then replaced with cheap young players who's transfer value could only rise (Carrick, Robinson etc) On top of that he scouted youth teams to get the best young talent signed up to Spurs, even if it meant loaning them back out they were still signed to Spurs before their value went up, Lennon, Huddlestone, Dawson etc. Even with shite like Davenport and Atouba they've managed to sell on for more than they paid for them. I'll address your point about the last decade, have Spurs been better than us over that period of time? No they haven't, however in the last 3 years since they employed a Director of football they've not only caught up with us but have sailed by, they have a far superior squad and have managed to do this while remaining debt free. We on the other hand have a poor squad with no depth, average players who we can't move on as nobody in their right mind will match the wages we pay them, a wage bill that is running too high and a debt of over £80 million. Such an overhaul by a DOF has made it possible for Spurs to bid £10 million for a top 17 year old without damaging their finances too much, at the same time we have to sniff around for players on loan because we haven't got a pot to piss in. Have Spurs been better than us over the past decade? No, however I have no doubt that we won't be better than then them over the next decade if Shepherd is still in charge. I posted that in February 2007 on toontastic. I think it's something a lot of people have been aware of, but not best pleased to post, simply because of the fact that it's them. There's also a lot of fans who won't stand for taking their approach, because it "lacks ambition", and of course the vast majority of us love to see the club spending big sums on well-known players. This club was rotten - and still is to a good extent - by all accounts, and it's going to take a lot longer than one season to sort it all out. I get as carried away as anyone at times, but if Ashley and Mort are genuinely saying the wage bill is too high, too obscene, and if it is up to anywhere near the rumoured 80% mark as far as the ratio with turnover goes, then surely we're best off taking a similar approach to that which you suggested all that time ago? I know it's not going to be an instant fix, but Keegan has already shown what he can achieve with this current set of players. Bomb out the overpaid and underachieving - Emre, Duff, Smith and Carr would probably top most people's lists as far as that goes - and replace them with the sort of players you mention, who are up and coming and will command less wages while still offering us more than those four mentioned have done all season, and surely we'll see further progress on the field? I know it's hardly a glamourous route to take, but it might be the most sensible/sustainable one. I think a lot of people are expecting Ashley to do an "Abramovich" simply because he has the money to do it... but it's a fucking massively risky strategy, especially now when a Chelsea already exist. It was different when they did it, they were the first and nobody could compete... but doesn't Abramovich even have an outline for getting them to be self-sustainable by 2010 or something? Football clubs cannot be bottomless pits of money, it would seem, even for billionaires.

So if we bought say three players for the same price as Modric over three years... would there be no funds for next season, in that case?

Viduka is the second-highest paid player at the club. I'd imagine he's on something like £70k a week. I'd be willing to bet that Given gets paid a fucking shedload, for a goalkeeper, as well.

After doing a bit of digging around, it would appear that it's a problem that all the top clubs in the Premiership are having to contend with... bar everyone's favourites... Spurs. As much as it pains me to say it, the way Spurs have been run since ENIC bought out Sugar looks to have been fairly immaculate. Granted, they missed the boat on qualifying for the Champions' League on the last day a few years back but if they keep up their current progression and they either expand their stadium or move somewhere else they could become a very, very big hitter. They haven't taken many big risks so far, it would appear, but it's a long-term strategy that could be realised if they can increase the size of their stadium. An extra 10 or 20 thousand fans in for every league match will be a massive boost to their coffers and money that can go straight into transfer budgets and wages - and they're already spending a fair whack as it is. Does anyone else get the feeling that the people here are using Spurs more than anyone as a model for how to run a football club? Probably not great for immediate appeasal of the fanbase as regards big signings and big wages, but potentially very sensible in the long-run?

Will still watch Euro 2008, then there's the Olympics and Wimbledon. Wouldn't be bad at all if England had qualified.

...would appear to be the major "problem" that NUFC currently has, financially, if reports and previous findings are to be believed. Apparently last summer we added £10M onto the annual expenditure on wages (Mort's words), which was already said to be fairly obscene when compared to the club's turnover. So far this summer we'll only be seeing Carr, Ramage and Troisi leaving for definite, which probably won't make much difference at all to things. Then on top of that you might expect to see Emre, Ameobi and N'Zogbia follow them out of the door. People might add Smith and Duff to that list, but I'd personally be surprised to see either of them go. Rozehnal and Cacapa are another two, Diatta as well... but then who comes in to replace them!? I personally can't see the wages doing anything other than increasing still if we want high quality players. Now there's murmurs about Owen needing to take a wage-cut in his new deal, Taylor not being offered the money he thinks he deserves, but we apparently still managed to offer Modric a higher basic wage than Tottenham could muster. Is it more media bollocks, or is the wage bill having a massive affect on recruitment plans and re-signing plans as pertains to the players already on our books? What about the players we are going to try and sign? Is this why we're after younger players? (Less wages?) Anybody have any thoughts or know any more than I do (not hard when it comes to this sort of stuff, admittedly)? It's an issue that has obviously been carried over from the previous regime, then apparently made worse last summer, but I suppose it's the nature of the beast when you aren't in Europe or challenging for honours, if you still want a squad that can be competitive in the Premiership (imagine where we'd be without the likes of Owen, Viduka and Martins on our wage bill this season alone). I know this could be quite an expansive topic, but it's an interesting one with a fair few layers to it. Would people rather see Ashley take on a crazy wage-bill in order to see us have a proper crack at things, or is he right if he's trying to get it cut down to a more acceptable level? Do we have any chance of success if we're reducing wages? Does anyone know the percentages involved for the likes of Chelsea? Do they pay out more than they bring in? Funny old game.

Not actually. The £18m was supposed to be paid up over three seasons, so that would £6m out of a £20m budget. That's right like. However, does that mean we've potentially got £70M to spend as far as entire transfer fees are concerned if we structure all the deals like that? "Nobody knows" is the only answer to that, though, it's all just speculation. EDIT: But if the Sun is right (ha) it does mean that we were either going to blow the entire budget on Modric or that we have got upwards of £60M to spend in total transfer fees? Does anyone really think either of those is true?

Summer's going to be the most interesting for a while like, which is hard to believe after the last one. Not every quality player has to cost a lot of money, obviously, but it would still be nice to see us bring in a couple of signings of the calibre/cost of Modric. If that happens, I don't mind at all if we see the likes of Richard Dunne coming in for far smaller fees. A good player is a good player, regardless of the cost.