Taylor Swift

Obertan has potential. He doesn't have a lot of end product at the moment but he's got shit loads of potential. He has decent technique, is pacy, has two good feet and is a good dribbler. He hasn't had enough games at Man Utd. I think he would be a good signing for us.

Leicester are funded by dirty money. Like seriously dirty unlaundered money. Which is why the owners bought the club.

Ian is a very good poster but this summer has been very hard on him.

I wouldn't mind Insua. God knows we're not spending any money on a replacement so might as well get one in exchange. To be honest, I would take insua for Enrique straight up at this point because at least we'll have a starting LB on the team. If it's just cash for Enrique then ferguson will end up at starting at LB and he's currently not good enough.

Alex Morgan is so fucking hot.

This summer is going to kill Ian W

It's a tough one. Barton's a decent player and he was obviously key to us last year. But it's also true that it was his first good season in 4 and he has by no means earnt his contract. He's also combustible on and off the pitch which means we have to question whether its worth persevering with him. If the club were in any other situation, I would dump him instantly. But we're not. Transfers, for some reason, seem hard to come by. And we seem so fucking reluctant to actually spend money that good players - like Barton - become a commodity that I feel is too risky to lose. Precisely because we're so reluctant to spend any money. So as a fan, I hoped he stayed. I still do. But unfortunately it's looking extremely unlikely. And now what's worse is that I don't think we'll get a replacement unless we can get his wages off the wage bill. So one way or another, this shit has to be solved soon. He goes and we get a replacement or he stays and plays. Training alone, eating up wages and not allowing us to get a replacement is the worst fucking thing possible.

Insane

It's a shame that we've started four seasons in a row with bullshit. Firstly it was the actual takeover. Then it was the KK stuff. Then it was last year's fiasco, and now this season with Barton, Nolan and Enrique.

Fuck, Australia. We dont have a good record against any of the teams in our group. The middle east teams have always proved too much for us physically.

Where are you from?

No Japan, South Korea or Australia please. Iran, Jordan, Syria and us. Please. We have a shot if we get that group. But ironically if we get a good group, it's four years too early. We've got a lot of good kids but they need time and we need a stable coaching system and infrastructure. At least the local league is becoming more and more popular so the quality of the players is improving.

Bought your membership yet I have not, forgot about this membership bollocks. Might not bother then, 2pm kick-off would be pushing it I think. Not too fussed about going in the Leeds end but would much rather be with Toon fans if I'm gonna go. I would advise against that, Leeds fans are some of the biggest c***s to ever exist. Though your a very intelligent lad so I can't see yourself causing a riot. Been to Elland Road a fair bit like, worst I've seen it was a JPT match against Bradford a few years back, went with a few City supporting mates, no idea why. Riot police at the ground, got on the train back where opposing fans started kicking off. Was the night that Keegan left us IIRC. Doesn't surprise me at all. What does, oh wise man?

Name one.

Ronaldo's new word is emulated. I think last month it was 'rubbish'.

No. But I'm obviously spending too much time at work at the moment

We were paid nothing in the 2009 and 2010 accounts which probably doesn't cover the naming rights which happened in late 2009. During the period we paid to advertise SD our commercial income dropped by 8 million per season. I'm sure that's because our £5m a year deal with Northern Rock turned into a £2m a year deal. And let's also note that none of this hideous advertising was there in the first place, so we're not exactly 'losing' any money, or that he's decreased our revenue. We haven't replaced a sponsor with Sports Direct. There wasn't a sponsor for those things in the first place.

Yup.

If he paid himself £20m in salary next year from the club, would our transfer and wage budget change to accommodate this? Of course not.

You sell your house with furniture, you charge more for it. You sell it without, you charge less for it. In the end, what you get is the same. From Ashley's perspective, it's meaningless whether the club is making a profit or loss if it is doing so because of expenses or revenue that have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the club. If it's making a loss because we're spending too much on wages then it matters. If we're making a £100m profit because Sports Direct paid £100m for advertising, then it would be meaningless to him. And since he owns the club and therefore whenever we spend money, he is spending money, it's meaningless to the club as well.

I understand what you're saying, it just isn't relevant to our day to day running and how we could put potential advertising income to good use now. But there is no distinction between the club and Ashley. There is no 'we' the club. The club is, like it or not, Ashley's. Money into the club, money out of the club is money into Ashley's pocket, money out of Ashley's pocket. When we're sold, the new buyer will consider our future cash flow (included advertising which isn't being paid for), sum it, discount it, and pay. Our day to day running, at this moment of time, isn't affected in the least by any advertising we do for Ashley or Sports Direct. Last example: You own a company, and you own a car (that is in your name). If you start sticking advertising on your car for your company, does it matter whether your company pays you for the advertising? It doesn't, because it's moving money from one pocket to another. Leaving aside tax reasons, there would be no logic in doing it. The curious thing is that he only owns something like 70% of Sports Direct, so it actually makes more sense to shift money from there into the club, since it's shifting 70% of his money + 30% of other people's into something that is 100% of his. But SD's shares increase a lot more when they're profitable, and an increase in the share price is worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Ashley, so it makes business sense to shift money the other way around. Our accounts would look a lot healthier if Sports Direct were paying us a few million a year though. Funny, that. But it would be meaningless, wouldn't it? Since he owns 100% of the club. It's like leaving your wallet in your car. Yeah, if you're going to sell the car with the wallet inside then the value would be car + wallet. But if you take out your wallet then the value would only be the car. Same thing here.

The advertising stuff isn't nonsense while we're using incoming transfer fees to pay for upgrades to the training facilities and claiming we've spent 35 million on free transfers. Also, 100k is way short of what we'd get from a third party as SD get more advertising than anybody else apart from it not being on the shirt and NR and Puma pay millions. It's meaningless, man. He could charge SD £2m a year for that advertising space tomorrow and then the next day start charging 5% interest on the money that he has loaned to the club. Money from one pocket moving to another. It's just accounting stuff that's aimed at maximising the value of his assets. The shit about the incoming transfer fee paying for upgrading training facilities is a bunch of bs. The fundamental issue is how much the club can spend year in year out without him having to put in money, because that is what determines the value of the club. That includes counting all revenue which isn't collected and all expenses which are 'overexpensed'.

I agree. I'm just trying to explain his reason for doing things, which has a lot of logic behind it. It makes sense to him, and it's irrelevant to us (the fans). How is it rubbing salt into the wounds? Do you benefit if Ashley is richer or poorer? It would be rubbing salt into the wounds, and it would affect you - and us, the fans - directly if they raised ticket prices based on the fact that we don't have enough revenue. That would make this whole advertising thing matter. At the moment, it's meaningless. And the club went to such lengths because they knew what the reaction would be. Have they mentioned it since? No, because people don't care unless they're asked about it/the topic comes up.

I understand what you're saying, it just isn't relevant to our day to day running and how we could put potential advertising income to good use now. But there is no distinction between the club and Ashley. There is no 'we' the club. The club is, like it or not, Ashley's. Money into the club, money out of the club is money into Ashley's pocket, money out of Ashley's pocket. When we're sold, the new buyer will consider our future cash flow (included advertising which isn't being paid for), sum it, discount it, and pay. Our day to day running, at this moment of time, isn't affected in the least by any advertising we do for Ashley or Sports Direct. Last example: You own a company, and you own a car (that is in your name). If you start sticking advertising on your car for your company, does it matter whether your company pays you for the advertising? It doesn't, because it's moving money from one pocket to another. Leaving aside tax reasons, there would be no logic in doing it. The curious thing is that he only owns something like 70% of Sports Direct, so it actually makes more sense to shift money from there into the club, since it's shifting 70% of his money + 30% of other people's into something that is 100% of his. But SD's shares increase a lot more when they're profitable, and an increase in the share price is worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Ashley, so it makes business sense to shift money the other way around.

If it was worth it for Sports Direct (and thus worth it to Ashley), then he would do it. If it was worth the exposure for Sports Direct to spend £5m to get their name on a football team's shirt, then you would see it happen and you would see that it wouldn't be paid, because it makes business sense to make SD profitable (because it leads to a higher share price). Ashley's a tight git so I don't see him turning down £5m from another company. It's not his MO to spend lavishly on advertising and marketing. It makes no difference to the club's financial viability. It makes a difference financially to Ashley. The key is that the club, which means him since he owns 100% of it, is getting £5m a year from another company. This is no longer moving money from his left pocket to his right. This is money from someone else's pocket into his own, and a lot of money too. If it was something negligible like £100k then I have no doubt that we'd see SD in the advertising space.