Taylor Swift

This isn't rocket science either, fans pay money into a football club expecting it to be spent on the football club. Llambias keeps banging on about the money Ashley has invested in the club, he wouldn't have had to invest as much if we'd been paid the going rate for the advertising that we've paid for. And whatever you are paying is being spent on the football club. Well, as much as the tight-fisted bastard is willing to spend, anyway. But this advertising stuff is nonsense. It has nothing to do with the sustainability of the club. It has nothing to do with whether we're able to afford players. If we would normally get £100k from that advertising space then in the long run, the club will benefit because it is revenue and cash flow that haven't been utilised and spent. But since he owns 100% of the club at this moment of time, the club's books - beyond the fundamentals to do with the running of the club, like the wage bill and tv money - are meaningless. If he were to give himself a consulting fee of £100m next year, would that have any effect on what happens with the football side of things? Do you think we would spend less on transfers or wages? Like I said, it's moving money from his left pocket to his right. It has nothing to do with whether we're able to fork out £10m for N'Zogbia. Another example: next year the club gets £100m for the advertising from SD. Do you think we would spend £50m on players? Of course not. It's his money, his club, his company. Say you have two houses with £50k of cash in each. Now you move £50k from house A to house B. Would you suddenly say 'oh shit, house B has so much spare cash now, I might want to get myself a new flat screen tv'. Of course not. The value of your total assets is still the same, only the individual pieces have different values. It's like the club and SD. Move £100m from SD to the club. Does it make Ashley richer, and thus able to fund £50m on transfers for the club? No, because in the end it is he who has to spend the money, not the club.

What has that got to do with us buying advertising from SD? That was a horrible example I've edited it so it makes more sense but I'm not sure if it makes perfect sense. It's an example to show that the debt thing is meaningless. Whoever buys the club will actually have to pay £xm. Whether that x is straight cash to Ashley or 50% cash and the rest as debt owed to Ashley that the club (and therefore the new owner) assumes when they buy the club.

Aye. You're not paying anything. This isn't rocket science, man. He's paying himself money to advertise his own shit. Money from left pocket moving to right pocket. There is no 'us', no 'we'. He owns the club; 100% of it. Whatever he pays to himself (or doesn't pay) is irrelevant to the sustainability of the club. And there is no 'our'. He owns the stadium as well.

But money into the club is his money. There is no difference between his money and the club's money. They're the same. He owns the club. If I take money out of my bank account and leave it in my car, am I less wealthy? No, because I own the car. But now if someone were to buy the car with the cash inside, I'd sell it for the value of the car + the cash. It's the same with this advertising thing, and it's the exact same thing with this debt. If I have a house that has £100k of your money inside and someone wants to buy it, I'd have to sell it for whatever it is worth - £100k (to pay you back), but if the money wasn't inside then I'd sell the house for whatever it is worth. In the end, I receive the same amount (value of house - £100k), and the guy who's buying it is paying the same (value of the house). In the first scenario, he pays £100k less but now owes you £100k. In the second scenario he just pays the value of the house.

It looks shite. What, exactly, looks shite? The advertising? If that's what you're suggesting then doesn't really answer the fucking question, does it?

This statement is meaningless. The club doesn't owe Ashley anything. The debt is on paper. It's simply a number on an account. He could wipe it the next minute and bring it back 5 minutes later. It's non-existent. If he doesn't wipe the debt when the club is sold, then whoever buys it from him will pay the value of the club minus the debt that is there on paper because the debt will have to be repaid (x = value of the club - debt). If he wipes it, then whoever buys it will pay the value of the club (x = value of the club). In the end, whoever buys it will pay the same amount, and Ashley will also receive the same amount.

I don't see what the big deal is. It's moving money from one pocket to another. Tell me why it matters whether he pays for the advertising given that he owns 100% of the club. Would people feel better if he parked some of his personal cash in the club and at the end of the year our books shows '£50m cash'? It'd mean fuck all though, given that he could just withdraw it at any moment. And it's the same with this advertising. He owns Sports Direct so they benefit from the advertising, and since SD is valued much more than NUFC, it makes business sense to try to increase the share price of SD. NUFC isn't traded on the stock market so its books mean fuck all. He could easily shift more money into the club but what would be the sense in that if he isn't planning on spending it on transfers/wages? At the same time, he could easily shift money out of the club but again, there's no sense in that other than tax reasons, which is perfectly legal.

On the ropes according to who? The fans? None of us will actually make the decision. Remember the goal is to just finish in the top 10. We'll do that pretty easily.

That's ridiculous. There's no way one defeat - to whoever it is - will put him on the ropes. You think if we beat Arsenal 2-1 then lose to Sunderland 3-0 that Pardew will be on the ropes? Ridiculous. Beating Sunderland is better than beating any other team but you still get only 3 points at the end of the day, so a loss isn't the end of the world.

Goodbye Baggio.

Yeah, he's going to throw away £100m because his employee was verbally abused. Nonsense.

I agree that we need more numbers in defence, but the quality of the starting players is fine for now. It's as good as Liverpool's and a touch behind Spurs', and those are the two teams who I think we should be looking to catch in the next couple of years. Colo and Enrique would start for both those teams, but obviously Taylor wouldn't get near either of them. In general, when a defence isn't under constant pressure, it's fine. Taylor's the only one who's liable to mental lapses, so Williamson might regain the starting position during the season because he's more composed. But the key is obviously to make sure the defence isn't under pressure, which is the duty of the midfielders to not lose the ball in dangerous positions and to be able to keep the ball for long periods, which would force teams to drop more men back to defend, leaving one or two players available for the counter, and thus meaning less pressure for our defence. It's all about the midfield, and our midfield is shaping up to be an excellent one, imo.

Those triangles will be played much better when it's Marveaux, Ben Arfa and Cabaye playing them.

There was that Nathaniel Clyne (Palace RB) link a couple of weeks back, which is the sort of signing I would hope we're looking at for LB/CB as well. If there's one thing we have got quite adept at in the market it's keeping things quiet, although this summer hasn't been as sneaky as the previous was. It seems the guys that have been fed stuff have been the local media guys, which I'm not sure is a bad thing. Marveaux and Cabaye was done on the quiet, but it was obvious that Ba's agent was hawking him around all over the place so there was no way that was going to happen on the quiet.

For what it's worth, if we sign Erdinc and no one else, I see us finishing in the top 10. If we can sign another midfielder/winger and keep everyone, I see us easily challenging for the top 8, flirting with the top 6 and giving teams like Liverpool and Spurs a scare. I reckon that we're very likely to be a better team than we were last year; based on criteria like our points total, our finishing position, our goals difference. I think we'll be better in cup competitions as well. [tin hat][summer optimism] Come next summer, the criticism of Ashley and Llambias will be quite muted because there'll be no doubt that we're in a far better position than when they took over and with players like Smith no longer on the books, we'll have far more room in our wage budget to sign next year's version of players like Sturridge. [/tin hat][/summer optimism]

I agree with this. In theory, what we're doing is very sensible. I'm sure every team would like to pass the ball on the deck because it's the surest way of dominating matches and being a good team, but it's obviously very hard to do, which is why many teams opt for the easier tactics of long-ball and counter-attacking. But we've bought some very good players - at least according to their reputations - who would seem to fit into a pass and move style of football, so there's some coherence and logic to what we're doing. I major doubt is whether Pardew has the management skills to implement this, but I'm sure that I've read that he's only taking care of the defence and leaving the attacking side to Carver, and based on Carver's history with SBR, I'm pretty confident that we'll be a better team next year.

Keeping the ball is the best way not to lose a goal. If we can have more possession against teams like Stoke and Blackburn then they won't have as many opportunities to lump the ball up and cause us trouble. They'll also have to keep more men behind the ball, which means their long-ball tactics will not be as effective as it usually is, and of course the fact that they won't have a lot of men in our half means we're less likely to concede throw-ins and free-kicks in dangerous areas.

The Turkish thing, probably.

If he plays well, other clubs will be willing to give him the years and basic wage that he wants, so he'll leave. If he's shit, we wouldn't want him back and I think he'd have to settle for a West Ham-type club - a newly promoted team, or a recently relegated team - who would be willing to give him the years but maybe not the basic wage. In the end, he's gone either way. The only chance he stays if he has a change of heart in the next few months and just signs whatever contract the club offers to him (this nonsense about the club not offering him a contract is just that: nonsense. If he wants to sign a reasonable contract, there'll be one for him to sign.). And I find it funny that he's talking as if the club are to blame for him likely leaving the club at the end of the season, like it's their fault that he's going to be unemployed. Err, wasn't it him who delayed signing a contract in January? Wasn't it him who overplayed his hand after Carroll left?

They just signed Elmander on a free and they have Baros. I'm not sure whether their interest is serious. They also just signed Ujfalusi and Muslera for a total of close to 15m euros (source is wiki), so maybe they won't have enough money to spend.

Pardew had always mentioned us going for a striker then a midfielder/winger. I don't see why our plans have or should change. We're still going to target a midfielder after the erdinc deal is done. We won't get a cb because no one has mentioned getting a cb and maybe we'll get a backup LB but I doubt it because we were obviously not planning on paying much, hence the bid for Taylor. For what its worth, I think we'll get Taylor next year when Swansea are relegated because he'll have a relegation release clause in his new contract.

What's interesting is that Whelan also said that the transfer depends on who's willing to pay the most up front. I think our MO in the transfer market is that we pay all our transfers up front, which would still leave us in with a shot. Maybe Baggio is right after all.

If we complete the Erdinc transfer, the only other mooted transfer is one for a winger, right? I reckon that would be leave us with a pretty decent transfer window, assuming no major outgoings.

Jose would probably make a good linebacker. Has the speed and height, but obviously needs more muscle.

Fabregas is fucking class. His injuries have actually made him quite underrated because when he's fit, he is - like Shak said - the third best central midfielder in the world. There's no doubt that he's the best midfielder in the Premiership - when fit, again - and he's constantly proved it. Although hearing Wenger talking about his hamstring has to be worrying, since this injury is 2+ years now iirc, I'm sure a part of it is to actually scare Barca away.