Colos Short and Curlies

If the club is being run not to spend money outside of a rigid budget then any monies paid upfront for next season will not have been touched this summer, it would be too much of a contradiction. Imo the three year deal wasn't to get more cash upfront (aren't there periodic direct debti schemes set up which would support this) but simply to lock in and guarantee the income streams. The small reduction in price if you take the three year option is just a cheap tool to do this, like a clubcard is a very cheap and effective tool to lock customers into buying there and to give them all the marketin information they need.

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. It was just a throw away comment in an attempt to get a smiley out of someone without even reading the quoted post - which it did! I've had a look at your post and agree with some parts (specifically budgetting for Shola's sale and potentailly Smith's also. However as an 'insider' has leaked the £12m budget I think that it would be equally fair to say that the Milner sale was completely unplanned. I don't agree that we've spent nothing. We just recuped an equal amount. Did Spurs spend nothing this summer? Their situation was slightly different as they were pretty much guaranteed £25m+ for Berbatov which they could feasibly spend upfront. I doubt that they nad anticipated selling Keane though so maybe only the Pavluchenko signing was unplanned? I'd suggest that it was htought that we would sell Emre, Rozenhal, Shola and possibly Zoggy and therefore the bulk of any scouting work would have been centred around replacing these players and possibly buy a playmaker in addition. The Milner sale would not have been planned but when the offer of £12m came around it was stupid to turn it down. As for the making the request public. If I was to go to my boss to hand in my notice (which effectively is what Milner did) in the hope that I would get a payrise then I could have no complaints if my job was advertised even if I had asked for no-one to be informed. He played a joker and the club called his bluff. I (sincerely) hope he is happy at Villa and makes the move a success - he was going nowhere fast by staying here. wasn't this the same insider who said keegan knew exactly what his remit was and wanted henry.lampard etc. Dunno. Are A.N Insider and A Source the same people?

Its probably just a last attempt at clinging onto some hope, but I've good a funny feeling that Ashley is still contemplating trying to reconcile with Keegan - lets not forget it wasn't Ashley who forced him to resign, but Ashley does have the power to attempt a reconciliation and to help manipulate the structure to fit all of the players

I don't think the players would be the problem if Poyet was appointed. I'd assume that some of our players are mates with some of Spurs players through international or previous clubs. They would therefore here first hand over whether he is a good coach or simply being appointed through his links to Wise et al

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. It was just a throw away comment in an attempt to get a smiley out of someone without even reading the quoted post - which it did! I've had a look at your post and agree with some parts (specifically budgetting for Shola's sale and potentailly Smith's also. However as an 'insider' has leaked the £12m budget I think that it would be equally fair to say that the Milner sale was completely unplanned. I don't agree that we've spent nothing. We just recuped an equal amount. Did Spurs spend nothing this summer? Their situation was slightly different as they were pretty much guaranteed £25m+ for Berbatov which they could feasibly spend upfront. I doubt that they nad anticipated selling Keane though so maybe only the Pavluchenko signing was unplanned? I'd suggest that it was htought that we would sell Emre, Rozenhal, Shola and possibly Zoggy and therefore the bulk of any scouting work would have been centred around replacing these players and possibly buy a playmaker in addition. The Milner sale would not have been planned but when the offer of £12m came around it was stupid to turn it down. As for the making the request public. If I was to go to my boss to hand in my notice (which effectively is what Milner did) in the hope that I would get a payrise then I could have no complaints if my job was advertised even if I had asked for no-one to be informed. He played a joker and the club called his bluff. I (sincerely) hope he is happy at Villa and makes the move a success - he was going nowhere fast by staying here.

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 Proving, once again, that if you are prepared to pay some money you will get your man. Like Modric, for example. Who dares wins! We offered more than Spurs for Modric.

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. Our run of good form last season came when Milner was not in the team. Good move to try and replace him? Was Milner played on the RW at every opportunity this season when every other option was fit? Was Enrique left on the bench when his replacement was a left winger who can't defend? Good move to replace him? Arguably, depending on the replacement. Good move to try to replace him after he's been sold? No. Which is why I've said numerous times I can understand Keegan being pissed off if he was told that Schweinsteiger was being brought in if we sold Milner only for someone to fuck it up, and that it was foolish to confirm the Milner sale on this basis if the other deal was not 100% secure. I've also said that the failure to secure said player is another debate to the good/bad idea to try and sell.

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

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. Our run of good form last season came when Milner was not in the team. Good move to try and replace him?

Fair enough so you would want to sell Enrique to buy in a better replacement? Squad improvement right? If this is the case then so be it. Likewise if Keegan was told that selling Milner would allow Schweinstieger to be brought in its a good move year? Nope. Its being a selling club I'm afraid, sell to buy, not investing any real money. Apparently. The fact that we failed to rubber stamp the Schweinstieger deal is another debate btw. I'm sure that if Keegan had been told that Evra or Clichy was available but we would have to move Enrique on he would have been happy. If however Keegan had wanted to spend £6m on Warnock and keep Enrique then on this position I'm with the board, it would have been a stupid move.

That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too. The cunt. He's part of the master plan too

Has Enrique had his hamstring injury for five months? Had we sold Milner five months ago? At some point you have to say sorry but you have to use the squad to cover and give the youth team exposure. We have a £6m left back who is only 22 and shows good promise. Are you going to buy an older left back and push Enrique back to the reserves? And are you going to pay more than £6m for one? Even Man Utd don't have this sort of investment in a reserve Left Back. Or are you going to buy a 19 year old to cover? Isn't this what the club have been doing in buying up young talent to fill the academy and reserves? If Evra and the Brazillian twin Man U have get injured whilst Brown and O'Shea are suspended is it negligent of Ferguson not to have splashed £5m on another left back to cover exceptional circumstances?

We've needed a left back? We've got a young £6m left back who the majority of fans seem to rate and think will only improve with games. We have Zoggy who is capable of covering against the weaker teams or when we need a more attacking option (not ideal I grant you). We have Kadar in the reserves who by all accounts is showing promise a few have championed his case for exposure to the first team squad thi syear. Then we signed Bassong who can cover either left back or centre back. So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

So good you posted twice!

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 It is his money though like it or not. Once you pay for your ticket the money belongs to NUFC, Ashley owns NUFC outright therefore the money is his. Its the same principle as buying a can of coke. Its your money going to the Coca-Cola company but it belongs to them once you have bought the goods. Just because there is an emotional attachment to football doesn't mean the rules of the world change unfortunately

Because Ashley/the club do not receive any sort of money for the broadcasting of TV and radio commentaries? It is nigh on impossible to continue to support the club without lining the pockets of its owners. Support the 11 on the pitch (even Duff and Smith if we have to) and continue to got to the games. Even buy a replica shirt if you want (but get it from JJB or your local sports shop). The club already have the money from the shirts unless they are bought from the club shop. Boycotting these will have no impact on the money going to Ashley. Don't drink in the bars in the ground, don't shop in Sports Direct - this will hit the owners in the pocket without hurting what is important. Its often said that a club could reduce its ticket price by 50% on cup nights as they would recoup the lost revenue through additional food and drink sales. Use this to your advantage.

while you are right in that aspect it is also true that had the club been debt free the share price would probably have reflected this by being higher. No tsure on that one - some of the biggest valued companies on the FTSE100 are crawling in debt. Its all about structuring the finance of the company in the most efficient way. And the share price is more fundamentally determined by present and future profitability forecasts than the balance sheet structure

It's not a bad thing at all, but it's only a good thing if those savings in interest payments are reinvested into the club. Would that include ploughing money in the academy and in signing youth players? Not aiming this at anyone in particular, just moving a point along but to a lot on here reinvestment in the club ONLY seems to involve signing players for the first team now. I would suggest (as indeed many others also do) that we need investment into the here and now and also for the future. It would appear that the future has been the boards priority right now.

I must admit I'm struggling to think of another scenario where you would plan on having someone temporarily in charge for 3 weeks. Ashley still hopes to tempt Keegan back?

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape s*** when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in. but thats not what he said in the press conference. he said HE decided and HE has the final say on ALL comings and goings. But if he agreed to selling Milner in order to bring in Schweinsteiger then he would have had the final say on both the sale and purchase. i repeat,he said all comings and goings and how is it the final say ? ie why did he walk out if he had the final say ? Lets put it another way. IF we had signed Schweinstieger after the Milner deal had been completed would you agree that selling Milner has allowed the club to move forward - which is what Keegan had claimed. And IF Wise had put the proposition to Keegan that it was a good deal all round and Keegan agreed to the sale and purchase then he is having the final say on the two transfers? It was a cock up that Milner was sold before a replacement was secured (assuming the Schweinsteiger story is true), but that doesn't mean that players were sold behind his back. It is of course as likely (if not more) that Keegan agreed to the sale of Milner PROVIDED that Schweinsteiger was bought. As he obviously wasn't the walkout could have been over this and then the last minute purchases of Xisco and Gonzales who Keegan didn't think would replace Milner. do you think he would walk because the club tried but failed to get a replacemnet. my reading of the situation was that keegan left because the deals were being done (in and out) without his authority. It may have been the final straw, yes. (if as I said he had agreed to sell Milner providing a replacement was secured) The club are saying one thing, Keegan another. They both probably believe that what they are saying is correct as it is human nature to polarise views regarding your own situation. The truth is in the middle somewhere, we'll probably never know exactly where but its almost certain that significant blame can be attributed to both parties, which is why his leaving was such a protracted drama

1) When he bought the club, he bought the debt as well. Paying it was the most economical choice. 2) He's only brought in two players we know can lift the first team, one of them at a club record price for a defender. 3) Ameobi, Smith and Duff are still here; Carr and Ramage were out of contract. The "deadwood" would then be Rozenhal, Emre, Faye and Milner, two of them first team players -- one of which hasn't been replaced. That's pretty fucking progressive. 4) "Will lead us to be able to spend better in the future". And I'm sure they'll promise to do so, yet again. I'm willing to bet that they won't. 1) its about time someone put this shit argument to bed. whether it was the most economical choice or not, the club was in a fuck load of debt which is now gone (unless he's just moved the debt around, but i've seen no evidence for this, but would love someone to show me why these rumours are here). that is a good thing he has done for the club, and if he didn't know about the debt (a mistake, but undestandible one, considering hall apparently only gave him a limited time to look at the books) then it will have affected his spending plans. whether it was the most economical choice or not is irrevilent, it still saved the club and it still would have effected his spending plans. 2) wow, just wow. are you using the fact we've spent the club record for a defender as an argument AGAINST ashley? and you never KNOW how a transfer will turn out, but the 2 argies seem to be very astute signings so far. add to that what we've seen SO FAR of bassong and guthrie, they will both definately imrpove the squad if not the first team. so our recruitment team gets a vote of confidence from me. 3) Smith is only here because Keegan wanted him, Shola is only here because he failed a medical and Duff, i'm not sure, maybe we didn't want to sell, maybe we couldn't find any buyers, but with our squad it may be a good thing he's still here. 4) i dont know whether they plan to spend in the future or not, but i'm willing to bet they will spend if they can find the players to spend it on. I'll jump in here, debt is actually often the cheapest way to finance a business in the short term (I bet Man Utd pay out less in additional interest on their debt than they used to pay out in dividends), however as Ashley was presumably looking to maximise the available resources in the club it made sense to lose the interest. Whether it is in the form of an equity injection or a loan between himself and the club is irrelevant as we are owned by one body so to him the value of the club is the same, it is only now more efficient. I really can't see how anyone can say its a bad thing that the interest payments have been removed from the club

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape s*** when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in. but thats not what he said in the press conference. he said HE decided and HE has the final say on ALL comings and goings. But if he agreed to selling Milner in order to bring in Schweinsteiger then he would have had the final say on both the sale and purchase. i repeat,he said all comings and goings and how is it the final say ? ie why did he walk out if he had the final say ? Lets put it another way. IF we had signed Schweinstieger after the Milner deal had been completed would you agree that selling Milner has allowed the club to move forward - which is what Keegan had claimed. And IF Wise had put the proposition to Keegan that it was a good deal all round and Keegan agreed to the sale and purchase then he is having the final say on the two transfers? It was a cock up that Milner was sold before a replacement was secured (assuming the Schweinsteiger story is true), but that doesn't mean that players were sold behind his back. It is of course as likely (if not more) that Keegan agreed to the sale of Milner PROVIDED that Schweinsteiger was bought. As he obviously wasn't the walkout could have been over this and then the last minute purchases of Xisco and Gonzales who Keegan didn't think would replace Milner.

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape s*** when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in. but thats not what he said in the press conference. he said HE decided and HE has the final say on ALL comings and goings. But if he agreed to selling Milner in order to bring in Schweinsteiger then he would have had the final say on both the sale and purchase.

What is the facisination with 'grapevines'? two yoghurt pots and some string maybe, but I've never tried making a telephone type contraption with grapevines http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/heard-it-through-the-grapevine.html Shit a brick there is a website for everything!

needed defending after lying to us all that he had the final say after milner went. I put this somewhere else, but.... Wise 'Kev we're selling Milner' = no final say. Wise 'Kev, we can bring in Schweinsteiger (or another) but we think that may leave us overloaded with wingers. Villa have offered £12m for Milner, we reckon that its a good deal and the German is a cracking player'. Kev 'Well Ok, I'm not best pleased with losing Milner but if I can get a better player in (Schweinsteiger) then lets do it. = Kev gives the go ahead and has not lied in any one of his statements up to September 1st. Shame the replacement never came in. Scenario 2 is highly plausible, and would give weight to Keegan going Ape Shit when he was told that Owen or Barton could be sold but we had better replacements coming in.