TRon

How many businesses do you know where the customers can set their own prices? The gist of those against the 'Master Plan' seems to be let Keegan sign who he wants for however much it takes. Does M&S operate like that cos I think 50p is more than enough for a sandwich, the bastards are surely ripping us off?

I'm not that convinced by Deschamps for some reason. Other than the fact he's French, what makes him the outstanding candidate? Hardly like he's had a long, successful career, he's fairly green just like the other two. How long was his spell in English football? He has managed two top clubs in Monaco and Juventus tbf. Champions league final too. Not a whole lot to go on, but it's still more experience than Poyet and Ince. The man hasnt failed anywhere he's been - You dont get to the CL Final with a tiny outfit like Monaco by fluke. Can anyone imagine Poyet or Ince doing the same? Fair enough. oh and dover, if you think there's any chance of Shearer coming after the furore which has been stoked up by Fans reps like True Faith, you must be joking. Ashley might have fancied it but since Shearer's comments and the negative reaction to fans favourite KK walking out, he won't touch Shearer with a barge pole.

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run. An offer came in for him which we turned down. As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise. We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract. Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it. To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO. There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion. Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner i didn't say they budgeted £12m for Milner, in fact if you read my post i mention the figure keegan allegedly slated which might be closer to what the club budgeted. before we sold milner the club may have budgeted in for moving on smith and ameobi but those didn't happen and they might have looked at an alternative way of raising funds. and in my OP im talking about how things actually turned out. you can theorise all you want but it's a fact that we spent nothing. once again people take a little detail from a big post and ignore the general argument. That's quite ironic considering the original post on this topic was asking to consider whether it's fair to say we are buying cheap imports and looking to survive only, when the Coloccini signing contradicts that theory quite comprehensively. In response to you asking how the colo transfer fits in with the wider context of the structure at the club, i tried to survey the wider context of the structure at the club. don't start threads if you don't want the subject you raise to be discussed. I don't mind the wider context being discussed but you seem to have glossed over the Coloccini factor altogether, which is really about the type of player we are looking to bring in. Other than that, I accept your view that for the third window in succession we haven't spent loads, but even that needs qualifying. First window, Allardyce wasted big money on Smith and Barton which led to Ashley thinking he'd got his fingers burned imo. Second window, change of manager making things a lot harder. Third window, should have done better...even then I feel the two different directions KK and the club were looking has hampered us, so it's not black and white like some would believe.

Having Geremi back could be massive. It means at least we can put out a semi-balanced side. Think we'll win now, 2-1 for me as well.

I'm not that convinced by Deschamps for some reason. Other than the fact he's French, what makes him the outstanding candidate? Hardly like he's had a long, successful career, he's fairly green just like the other two. How long was his spell in English football?

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run. An offer came in for him which we turned down. As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise. We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract. Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it. To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO. There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion. Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner i didn't say they budgeted £12m for Milner, in fact if you read my post i mention the figure keegan allegedly slated which might be closer to what the club budgeted. before we sold milner the club may have budgeted in for moving on smith and ameobi but those didn't happen and they might have looked at an alternative way of raising funds. and in my OP im talking about how things actually turned out. you can theorise all you want but it's a fact that we spent nothing. once again people take a little detail from a big post and ignore the general argument. That's quite ironic considering the original post on this topic was asking to consider whether it's fair to say we are buying cheap imports and looking to survive only, when the Coloccini signing contradicts that theory quite comprehensively.

I'd be happy with that tbh. He'd fit in well, has a good understanding of English football, and will be able to provide a good bridge for the English players and the South Americans. Oliver seems to think there's no chance of him leaving Spurs though.

Good point. What kind of idea is it to buy out a manager's contract after only three matches? Probably a good point to stop and reflect that this rumour was started by Alan Oliver after extensive wikipedia research.

Uruguayans are a bunch of dirty bastards traditionally. He should be used to it.

I'm surprised we haven't made him an offer if that's the case. If he's reluctant to commit in case he gets the French job, we should probably move on. He might get it, he might not assuming it even becomes available in the next month or so. Too mayne if's and buts if you ask me. Maybe we have and we are just waiting to get the weekend, with all the abuse and protests out the way. Wouldnt have been an ideal game for a new manager yeah its possible we could have given him until monday to decide imo Would be nice to think so, but the suggestion that Hughton has been told he might be in charge for 3 weeks doesn't really tie in with that.

I'm surprised we haven't made him an offer if that's the case. If he's reluctant to commit in case he gets the French job, we should probably move on. He might get it, he might not assuming it even becomes available in the next month or so. Too many if's and buts if you ask me.

The team might well look like that, but Guthrie will probably play wide right with Gonzalez in the middle.

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that. That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too. The c***. What happens at Arsenal when the player becomes a first team regular? Does he: a) Sell him b) Give him a good salary to keep him happy Hint: Arsenal have the 3rd highest wage bill in the League. In the 06-07 season it was 40% higher than ours. Arsenal's relative success is not sustained quite as cheaply as is made out. Are we really trying to follow the Arsenal model (with Wise as a young Wenger) when our best young players are complaining about contracts throughout the season and handing in transfer requests? Haven't Arsenal been in the Champions league for the last decade or so? Doesn't that mean they have far, far greater cash resources to spend on wages and players? And haven't they consistently sold their best players when the price was right, like Henry, Viera and Petite? Hint: Yes.

I think Keegan walked because the likes of Nacho were signed even though he didn't want him, and players he did want didn't arrive. That's why I said it will be interesting to watch this guy and see if keegan was right.

Who says he did?, we got a striker. we didn't at the time the left back thing came to light. unless of course he knew we were getting a striker,who it was and was happy with it ? Obviously he wanted players in a few positions and was told that certain positions would be filled, left back being one of them. it's just the way the article puts it,almost as if keegan walked because we didn't get a left back. seems bizzarre that left back was almost exclusivly the position keegan talked of when it was possibly the last position most would have been thinking of. Did you read the full article? I highlighted that part but if you read it all it's fairly well balanced. Luke Edwards isn't a bad journo compared to some of our local hacks IMO.

Seems like Keegan wasn't happy with signing this fella. Will be interesting to see if he was right. the fact that it is still trotting the left back thing makes me doubt it. i can't believe keegan would actually view a back up left back as a higher priority than a striker given the present squad. I think it's fairly common knowledge that Keegan was pushing hard for a left back, something a lot of us debated about in the various Enrique threads.

basically correct, yeah...ashley isn't spending enough of the clubs money, but i'm yet to be convinced he won't spend EVER unlike some people using the milner sale to justify the maximise profits stuff is truly incredible - i can't think of a better financial deal for a player we've ever had given his level of ability and end product on the pitch, they'd have been mental to turn it down...keegan obviously agreed with that as well given he sanctioned the sale lets see who they bring in and lets see what happens in january - you have to assume they'll ensure the new guys sings from the same sheet player-wise (pardon the pun) therefore if they don't spend in january it's really time to wonder, although it'll likely be explained by lack of time or some s*** for me the allardyce window and last can be "conveniently" explained away by a number of factors - if they get a new guy now i can see no excuses anymore... The Milner deal was too good to turn down, but the benefit of it was simply that it helped balance the books on our transfer activity for the summer and left Ashley having invested no new money in the squad. I could well believe that the issue of the Milner money was the last straw for Keegan. I can't see that there were any excuses for lack of investment this time tbh. what i mean is that they could, if they wanted to, point to the low spend(s) in the following ways: allardyce summer = not our man, martial backing jan 2008 = change of manager & setting up transfer team summer 2008 = some targets secured but large scale disagreement between transfer team & manager prohibited efforts in the market assuming they appoint a new guy by october none of those things can be considered relevant come jan 2009 if there's no money spent...however the vast majority of this argument goes out the window given they've let slip that the budget was only 12m iirc! looked at the possible team we can put out tomorrow and it's terrifying for the season ahead really...assuming wise is advising ashley he must be a fucken idiot if he's telling him there's enough depth in the squad to take us a season...however assuming the budget was always 12m then they did a fairly decent job of trying to add players imo and maybe ashley just doesn't care if we have the depth, as some people believe.... Good post in general, but even this idea that the squad is threadbare isn't 100% accurate. We have a situation where we have a really high injury count at the moment, where not only the first team players are missing, some of their replacements have also been struck down. Martins and Viduka from the strikers, Geremi, Barton, Duff and Jonas from the midfield, our two first choice full backs from the defenders. That would be difficult for most teams to cover to be fair.

That Ashley's priorities aren't the same as the fans is pretty obvious.Why would they be when it's going to be HIS money that is bakrolling the club? Even so, the fact we paid £10m for an international defender sort of disproves the theory that the club is actively buying cheap imports to sell at a higher price. It points to a strategy of not buying players who are over the hill and over-valued, while paying decent money for the right player. this was done to death over the summer Tron but it's not his money really is it? i mean it is in the sense that the fans are giving him it, and sky is giving him it therefore it's his in a sense...but it's not HIS if you see what i mean, i.e. to fund players he doesn't HAVE to dig into his personal account does he? there's been enough Sky money and enough ST money through the club in 2 summers for there to have been a lot more investment in players for the first team, and that's the start and end of it as ever people are taking the extremes with the "player value" comment and assuming we're now in the business of selling only for profit based on the milner deal (deal of a lifetime by the way) - i'm inclined to agree with your asessment personally What I meant was, for there to be major investment like say £50m, either we'd have to go into debt or he would have to spend his own money like the City Sheikhs are doing (I presume).

Seems like Keegan wasn't happy with signing this fella. Will be interesting to see if he was right.

That Ashley's priorities aren't the same as the fans is pretty obvious.Why would they be when it's going to be HIS money that is bakrolling the club? Even so, the fact we paid £10m for an international defender sort of disproves the theory that the club is actively buying cheap imports to sell at a higher price. It points to a strategy of not buying players who are over the hill and over-valued, while paying decent money for the right player.

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means. Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh. As you say...but why Coloccini? Don't think he's a big drinker. Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated. I'm sorry I know nothing of the 'Evil Masterplan'. :-[ Probably a good idea to quit making pointless comments on 'it' then.

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means. Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh. As you say...but why Coloccini? Don't think he's a big drinker. Do you have an opinion with regard to the original post? I know this is all one big larf to some, but since there is such a militant mood at the moment serious replies would be appreciated.

Why do we have to be run like a business or be run like the previous regime. What is wrong with spending some of the £40m Sky give us every season like a normal football club? We'd still be living well within our means. Ashley drinks the sky money for a laugh. As you say...but why Coloccini?

You see Newcastle as a step down from Blackburn?

Parky, I'm sure you have your own views, I'd much rather see them than hear about Godzilla 2nd hand, look at Peasepud's photoshop expertise from TT, and look at a bunch of selective quotes probably pinched from someone else as well.