AyeDubbleYoo

The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. So we could have kept him and still signed Ba, Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid. That was my point - we had a choice and decided to take the cash and not invest any of it back into the playing staff. Yes, probably, I've never denied we made that choice. All I'm saying is that choice isn't entirely wrong... or at least not necessarily. good old ian

The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down. So we could have kept him and still signed Ba, Cabaye, Marveaux and Abeid. That was my point - we had a choice and decided to take the cash and not invest any of it back into the playing staff. Yes, probably, I've never denied we made that choice. All I'm saying is that choice isn't entirely wrong... or at least not necessarily.

Losing Carroll is a significant blow, no doubt about it. But does anyone dispute that?

I like Defoe, but there's no way we'll be buying him or Crouch.

Give over man. Are you just going to ignore the players who have come in? People are arguing why we didn't sign Zog and I don't see if we can make all these signings what was stopping Villa? Haven't they sold a shit load of players for big money? If you looked at our forums and what people were saying recently, and still are in some cases, "look at Newcastle, they've got players in, we're doing nothing but get rid of them" was one of the most frequently heard things. Transfer window open = paranoia, delusion, misunderstanding and anger. Yeah, I can report that most fans of other clubs think we have made some great signings. And they also think that West Ham were mental to give that deal to Nolan.

The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true. So you're suggesting we had to say 'yes' to keep the club going? He probably didn't literally "have" to say yes, we obviously wouldn't have gone bust without the Carroll sale (but you know that). What I'm saying is that if you have a club that is making regular losses, the owner is subsidising it with big loans, and there is a chance to bring in massive money for an overvalued asset, then you might well think it's a good idea. I'm not saying anyone "had" to sell Carroll, I'm saying I understand why it was too good a deal to turn down.

Well in a way that remains to be seen, Marveaux might have a really good season. I know what you're saying though, but the problem is that Marveaux was cheap and Zoggy costs money. Thus if you're worried about expenditure he's a less attractive option. FWIW I would rather have had Zog because he is proven.

The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it. Only if you're prepared to spend it. Which is the crux of the matter and the reason for the discontent atm. What I mean is, when you get an offer for an asset that is that crazy you pretty much have to sell. If the club was financially healthy and/or Ashley was prepared to continue to pump money in, we could have said no. But neither of those things is true.

Where does it say he has signed? I would be in favour of hijacking that like, £5m for Long is a decent price.

Honestly never thought he would go to Villa, guess he's never going to have a chance to test himself in top top team.

The reason for the Carroll deal was that the amount of money was too good to turn down. That's it.

I also don't think that Pardew's job has anything to do with reducing the wage bill. Why would it? Ashley and Llambias can do that themselves. He might be told how much we can afford on wages, and that the bill has to come down before more signings can be made, but I'd be incredibly surprised if his own bonuses had anything to do with that.

:-[

Wow. Villa really showing us up here. Because they've signed a player?

Maybe it's the best offer he has.

No, I quite like him, I just don't think we'll sign him.

He's a couple of rungs below IMO. He could play for anyone in the league.

Same, but I don't think it rings true. Similar with the Bridge/Shorey links, it just seems like lazy linking to me. Can't see Ashley sanctioning the signing of any of those players.

That's not the two options though. Clubs should pay players a fortune if they can afford it. The problem is that players have been getting more than clubs can afford for years.

God this is tiring.

Shocking Tiote sent off.. Jose has scored twice but both own goals, his 2nd was a 25 yard screamer. If this happens it'll be spooky.

There's a piece about this in The Blizzard this issue. Can't remember the exact point, but it sounds dubious to me.

100% agree with this. I agree as well basically, we're living in times when even footballers might have to start facing reality. The reason most clubs are in such financial shit is the way they've allowed wages to get out of control.

I agree with you, but I can see why he would prefer to train for another season with our reserves, pick up massive wages, then join Orlando after that. It would be a very difficult thing to say no to.