Rich

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.

Alright, not saying everything they say should be treated as gospel, just saying the only words I'd pay any genuine attention to are those from within the club. You're right to say they'll not always tell it straight but I'd trust the words of Mort etc over the speculation of some Sun journo any day of the week. That's probably fair enough. But some of the really cynical types might say that's a more dangerous philosophy (if you get what I mean). It's mine as well, by the way, but I understand the potential pitfalls it brings. Yeah. I'm a student journalist and the power of the quote has been underlined many a time to us, but I guess even then it might not the absolute solid truth. Easy to say one thing and mean another, if thats what you're getting at. Aye, sort of. If we all believed everything that the chairman (past and present) told us, then I think it's fairly safe to say we'd all be up shit creek without a paddle amongst us. It's about finding that balance, I suppose, because we're never going to know what really gets said and done behind closed doors. I've just more or less given up posting/thinking either way, as some may have noticed, it's always somewhere in the middle for me. Pointless worrying about stuff you can't control, I say. NUFC no longer keeps me awake at night.

For what it's worth, I do agree that there is definitely some serious substance to this meeting, the only problem I have is people potentially believing absolute falsities about what it entailed and starting to string-up some of those involved with what a very likely to be lies. I'm very sceptical about the Sun's version of events, but I think you're right when you say this wasn't just a "transfer target" affair. That point about the Mail is right, too, they do occasionally get something on the money. I knew there'd been a time recently where they'd broken a story before anyone else, but couldn't remember which it was. Sums it up though, doesn't it? They get one thing right in a hundred and people still look upon them as a very creditable source. What's that website with all the press lies/falsities/wrongs on it again? They're wrong far more often than they're right.

Alright, not saying everything they say should be treated as gospel, just saying the only words I'd pay any genuine attention to are those from within the club. You're right to say they'll not always tell it straight but I'd trust the words of Mort etc over the speculation of some Sun journo any day of the week. That's probably fair enough. But some of the really cynical types might say that's a more dangerous philosophy (if you get what I mean). It's mine as well, by the way, but I understand the potential pitfalls it brings.

Excellent point as well. So then, who can tell us the truth? Everyone posting in this thread is clearly interested in knowing what was really said at today's meeting and what will come from it all in the weeks and months ahead. But if we can't believe the press, we can't believe the ITKs and we can't even believe the club...then...erm... ...I guess we just have to make it up ourselves then? No, of course not. We just have to let the people who run the show get on with it. Why should we be told, really? We're just the fans at the end of the day, we can't possibly ever hope to know every little thing that goes on, even in this information-hungry age. It probably wouldn't be beneficial to the club if everything they did was made public. This quest for knowledge we all have (and I assume it's the same everywhere these days) probably does football no good at all, when it comes to stability and all that. (add:) It must be a fucking nightmare for those at the top, because do they comment on speculation? Do they ignore speculation? Being a chairman/manager has never been more difficult.

As for this, I think it's fairly safe to say that the likes of the Sun would do that, most definitely.

Also, I certainly wouldn't advocate believing everything that comes from the club, Mel, as you mentioned you might do earlier. Mort's a lawyer (speaks for itself) for starters... and Keegan, while appearing to be totally trustworthy and honest, still probably doesn't give it straight 100% of the time - only when he has to.

That's not exactly the same as knowing exactly what went on in that meeting though, is it? Let's get some perspective here man. We're talking about a Sun article which details yesterday's meeting, not what was said before it.

That's right as well like and I have been guilty of taking that approach myself on the odd occasion. The fact is everyone takes it in their own way and on the merits of the article. A lot of it will come out in the wash, eventually, it always does. It's what I've already said, you can't always be at one end of the see-saw, there has to be some balance. Dismissing every story you don't like the look of as being "false" is a bad way of going about things, it's almost as bad as the exact opposite of it.

As for irony, GM, the fact that you'll accept the Sun's account on the fact that it's "plausible" and then go on to say "even if it's entirely speculative" when people were debating the accuracy and factuality of the article is surely ironic, is it not? Have I misunderstood the meaning of the word?

That's a good point as well, Melanie. If we only have £20M to spend, as the Daily Mail claims, was that all going on Modric? The Daily Mail has written some absolute poison about NUFC over the past few months, I'm staggered that some can still take it so seriously when there's nothing to back it up.

The irony. Of course people on here don't know either way and probably never will, but it's just amazing how the Sun has a full article about what the meeting entailed when there were only the six prominent figures present at the meeting. Who else do those people have to answer to? Who else do they have to tell what went on? I understand bits and pieces will get out to various people, but to know the exact content of the meeting literally hours after it occured seems a bit far-fetched to me. Especially when half of those (perhaps more) present were immediately back up here together for the Bobby Robson thing as well. I think it's fair to say that usually when a paper uses "an insider" or "a source" they have license to write whatever they like because it can't be proven that it was never said. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book. The papers know that it's been left on a knife-edge and the club has given them absolutely fuck all today in terms of telling them what went on, so they have to follow it up with speculation that the regular fan can buy into. The people who write the stories aren't idiots, by and large, these are educated blokes who are good at their jobs and who sell papers with their stories. That's why they write for the nationals. Obviously not every story they print is false, but I'd wager a lot of money that the vast, vast majority of them are based on no more than hearsay and half-truths. They HAVE to write stories, that's the bottom line, these writers will have been told by their editors that we're once again the hot topic this week, we'll sell the papers, so they HAVE to come up with a whole article to fill the back pages. Alan Oliver has admitted to as much himself on the icnewcastle website, in a video, whether there is news or not, they have to fill the column inches to sell the paper. What sells papers better than massive shock headlines and drama. They can't just fucking say "well, Mort said it all went well", can they? Who's going to buy that? The broadsheets have used those quotes and then speculated around them, the Sun has claimed to know (as always) that they know exactly what went on in the meeting. Howay man. It's obviously not all black or white, no pun intended (on two counts), but people should be seeing through this stuff a bit more by now. We love the drama though.