AyeDubbleYoo

Honest answer to the first one is because they don't have an owner who wants to stop their debt increasing. Either because their debt is serviceable or because they're prepared to keep subsidising the club out of their own pocket. The second one, I'm not really sure. It could get us into the top 6 if we find more bargain players who end up being quality, the top 4 is much harder obviously. And it will happen much more slowly than if we spent a lot more. I'm not trying to deny that.

Maybe, who knows, the point is that just because we didn't plan for the Carroll money doesn't mean we should now spunk it up the wall as quickly as possible. Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. When running a football club, all that stuff has to be balanced with spending on the first XI, that's all I've ever argued. Ian - for the sake of your own sanity, I'd give up to be honest. You can only bang your head against a brick wall so many times.. I know, I managed to abstain over the weekend but I got sucked back in again. I should give up on the whole site TBH, but I like a good debate about football. I know I'm helping to make too many threads about the same argument though, so I'll stop. Maybe I just need to come back when the season starts and just talk about the stuff on the pitch.

it's not terrible ian, it's an ok idea, but football is a game founded on certain financial principles such as invest/spend or die because we have some (very manageable) debt this is taken as an excuse to explain away absolutely anything...in the same way as marquee signings were used to masque the deficiencies of the old regime we're a fucking huge club with huge income and support ian, shame we can't afford fuck all really...must be mint being bolton and that I know what you mean, I'm not qualified to say exactly how much spending is or isn't affordable, we're all just guessing. It depends how quickly we're trying to make the club sustainable and/or reduce the debt. And is with all transfer spending, it's an art form and a balance between speculation and restraint. I just know that Ashley won't be subsidising us like some owners do, and he won't want to let the debt he's owed continue to rise and rise. So that's the reality we're operating under.

who is suggesting this? surely you just have a wage bill and a % of profits generated reinvested into team affairs shall we call it? any money from sales can be split however you like into dividends (so called)/transfer fees/wages this is why i said i have no problem with the idea in principle, it's not bad, but the way MA is running with it it's a fucking pisstake ian...it's literally taking the piss out of 10's of 1,000's of people sorry but there's no clearer way to say it Everyone is implying it all the time. Almost every post contains something like "this much of the Carroll money has gone on the training ground" or "so many million out of the Carroll money has gone on Tiote's new contract". What I'm saying is exactly what you admit, that it isn't a separate stash of money and shouldn't be treated as different to any of our other income. Some people seem to be suggesting that it's criminal not to use the bulk of the money on transfer fees in this window. If you agree with me then no worries. The why did Billy Bullshit feel the need to reassure the fans it would all be spaffed on improving the team? Nay team, Squad. Nay Squad, Club. Nay transfers, Bore Holes and Training Bibs. Yeah, I totally agree that what he said about investing it all in the team was wrong. I never believed it at the time. But criticising him for saying something is different to blaming him for not being right.

No manager could have stopped Ashley selling Carroll for that fee (or at least no manager that Ashley would employ). Fair enough, he could have resigned in protest. We could do with strengthening more, and as you (Minhosa) say he will be held responsible for our results. I just don't think our relatively low level of spending is anything to do with him. As for bonuses for reducing the wage bill etc, I can't prove that isn't true but I'm very sceptical that Pardew (or most modern managers) have that level of input into players' contracts and the general financial management side of things.

Maybe, who knows, the point is that just because we didn't plan for the Carroll money doesn't mean we should now spunk it up the wall as quickly as possible. Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. When running a football club, all that stuff has to be balanced with spending on the first XI, that's all I've ever argued.

ok we had a plan, then we sold a player for 35m at what point does investing that 35m in fees and wages for new players not become sustainable? bearing in mind carroll himself and nolan have left the wages bill, as has sol.... so what was the plan without the 35m then, look at it that way? it can surely only have been sell players at a profit to sustain the club, there's no other logical conclusion unless you conclude that ashley is intent on raking as much of his money back as possible as fast as possible? I don't know why you find that funny, the answer is that we are making significant regular losses and have a mountain of debt.

who is suggesting this? surely you just have a wage bill and a % of profits generated reinvested into team affairs shall we call it? any money from sales can be split however you like into dividends (so called)/transfer fees/wages this is why i said i have no problem with the idea in principle, it's not bad, but the way MA is running with it it's a fucking pisstake ian...it's literally taking the piss out of 10's of 1,000's of people sorry but there's no clearer way to say it Everyone is implying it all the time. Almost every post contains something like "this much of the Carroll money has gone on the training ground" or "so many million out of the Carroll money has gone on Tiote's new contract". What I'm saying is exactly what you admit, that it isn't a separate stash of money and shouldn't be treated as different to any of our other income. Some people seem to be suggesting that it's criminal not to use the bulk of the money on transfer fees in this window. If you agree with me then no worries.

My point is Ian, I want someone with intergrity - not an obvious Ashley whelp. I want a manager who can genuinely fight his corner to protect the good of the team, to demand players in certain positions and to throw the dummy out of the pram when he has to. Pardew's too busy wiping Mikes jizz from his lips to worry about shit like that. The difference is I believe he is trying to convince Ashley to spend when he can. I believe that, you choose to believe something else, the truth is that nobody has a fucking clue. The feeling I get from Pardew is that he's quite a genuine guy, that's it really. I'm not saying he'll be able to make Ashley spend big, but nobody would be able to do that... and if they tried too hard they would have to resign. So, you don't think there's any truth in Golfmags post about the reasons he was appointed? Maybe, I can't remember what the specific claims were TBH. If you mean because he's mates with Llambias and/or Ashley, then I don't think that means he can't perform his job as well as anyone could under their ownership. For me Pardew's reign has been pretty well all positives so far. I still hate the way Hughton was treated but I can't hold that against his replacement.

My point is Ian, I want someone with intergrity - not an obvious Ashley whelp. I want a manager who can genuinely fight his corner to protect the good of the team, to demand players in certain positions and to throw the dummy out of the pram when he has to. Pardew's too busy wiping Mikes jizz from his lips to worry about shit like that. The difference is I believe he is trying to convince Ashley to spend when he can. I believe that, you choose to believe something else, the truth is that nobody has a fucking clue. The feeling I get from Pardew is that he's quite a genuine guy, that's it really. I'm not saying he'll be able to make Ashley spend big, but nobody would be able to do that... and if they tried too hard they would have to resign. I've never seen anyone defend these cunts as staunchly as you do. What do you owe them? That's not an argument, so I won't dignify it with a response.

But the point is, that cash is being put aside for salaries and therefore not being spent on new players. What is so hard to understand? Well if you just mean we're not spending money now because we know we'll need it later, then that seems a great idea to me. Do you not think so?

and here is the crux of the problem ian, the carroll 35m is something that cannot be budgetted for or predicted financially you're talking about the club not spending money because it might hurt us or something, this was 35m that didn't exist 7 months ago so it bears no relation to normal club income (i'm sure there's an accountancy term for it) if your business is selling art and you lucked it and scored a 35m painting sale out of nowhere you'd have 2 choices, invest some/all of that into new ventures or pocket it (ashley's terms claw back some debt) our business is football ian, in the history of the game non-investment hasn't taken many teams very far Aye, but if you owned an art gallery and suddenly scored a £35m sale, you also wouldn't just spend it all on volatile assets now if your art gallery was making a regular loss and couldn't support its own operations in future. You would spend a bit and use the rest to shore up the health of the business. I want investment as much as anyone, but it should be sustainable. As I've posted many many times, the aim of any football business should be to invest every penny it earns and never make a profit over the long-term.

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal? Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting. Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

Gosling is like two new signings with that bulk.

The irony of the misspelling.

More than likely.

My point is Ian, I want someone with intergrity - not an obvious Ashley whelp. I want a manager who can genuinely fight his corner to protect the good of the team, to demand players in certain positions and to throw the dummy out of the pram when he has to. Pardew's too busy wiping Mikes jizz from his lips to worry about shit like that. The difference is I believe he is trying to convince Ashley to spend when he can. I believe that, you choose to believe something else, the truth is that nobody has a fucking clue. The feeling I get from Pardew is that he's quite a genuine guy, that's it really. I'm not saying he'll be able to make Ashley spend big, but nobody would be able to do that... and if they tried too hard they would have to resign.

Ian man sometimes you take impartiality to extremes. Sorry, cockney mafia out, boycoutt etc etc.

All clubs have to budget for future expenditure, including wages. I've no idea where this ridiculous idea of "we're putting aside money now for three years of players contracts" came from, the suggestion is bollocks. You don't spend all your money now then realise tomorrow you need some of it, that's just basic money management. Why does everyone insist on making more of it than that?

How much do you want our manager to disagree with our owner? Too much and it leads to chaos and resignation. I'm convinced he's trying to convince Ashley to sanction as many signings as possible, beyond that I don't expect much else.

Except everyone will have forgotten about it within a week.

They had known for months they were going to sack him and Alan Pardew is the best they could come up with? Bollocks. His apppintment, and the reasons for it, are obvious. That wasn't the issue we were discussing though, we were talking about the stuff Pardew said about the job and meeting Llambias. I honestly don't want to debate peoples' mental conspiracy theories about how Pardew owes Ashley massive gambling debts, or he shagged his daughter, or he sold his soul to him in return for the ability to charm any woman. If the reason is that he gets on with Ashley and Llambias and they trust him, then I don't have a problem with that and it seems eminently sensible. We've seen how it works out when we have a manager who can't work with the owner.

He was hardly going to say "yes, I've been angling after Chris Hughton's job for weeks". Anyway, surely the club is wise to line up a replacement for Hughton if they know they're going to sack him - would be much worse to fire him and not have any idea who would be coming in.

Chelsea might not be so up for that.

Wonder if Cabaye is actually a French secret agent? Maybe that's why he was denied entry to the USA, and it would also explain his suit at his unveiling.