AyeDubbleYoo

Still hate to see Carroll playing for someone else, it's shit.

I'm gay for Jonas.

Interesting if they're waiting for a man to come in who's probably never seen Erdinc play to decide whether to sell him. Guess he probably signs off all deals being sporting director.

Or do they...

What exactly were we looking forward to in 2007 when we were insolvent, had borrowed against every asset, our owners weren't going to put any money in and we had Allardyce as our manager? People do seem to judge the previous regime only based on the Champions League years.

Is that Glen Johnson? Jesus. Nobody in that picture looks like a human.

I came to this thread to make exactly this post!

With you on that one.

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary. Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused. I know we can't spend as much as Manchester City. I know we can spend more than Stoke City. Fair play, I think the same, as long as Stoke City are spending within their means.

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary. Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused.

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them? We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord. Totally agree with that. I don't think selling them for a profit is the strategy though, certainly not the primary one, it's just good to invest in assets that won't be worthless if you need to sell them.

I for one am not the least bit surprised that you think so. They can't even run a decent website or manage a box office, they're hardly going to be orchestrating an internet-wide influencing campaign. And if they are it's the worst one ever. Fess up Ian, how much is the club paying you. It certainly took a lot of effort on their part to fix me up with this whole "Korean Toon Fan" cover story when I'm actually some fat bastard from London who's on Mike Ashley's payroll. I do it for the love of Mike and Del. No idea how I ended up as an "Ashley sympathiser". I've hated a lot of the decisions he has made, but I just try to understand things based on the reality we're now operating under. I hated the Carroll sale but the fee was massive, I hated the Hughton sacking but Pardew is doing well. I was devastated by relegation but we did well to bounce back. Sometimes I think the positive stuff gets ignored because the mistakes have been such big ones (even though they haven't ended up costing us that much). Also, Ashley is bringing an approach that is common in business but unusual in football.

I for one am not the least bit surprised that you think so. They can't even run a decent website or manage a box office, they're hardly going to be orchestrating an internet-wide influencing campaign. And if they are it's the worst one ever.

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

I would still rather send him on loan then sell him this summer.

You're probably right. I just think the initial flurry of activity has got people excited, and this lull is making people overly negative. Hopefully it'll pick up again once the market starts moving.

What does everyone fancy for lunch? I'm jonesin' for a fishfinger sandwich now Rebellious mentioned it.

Basically agree with this. Obviously ideally we would use someone worse than Best as a makeweight in the deal, but I don't think clubs will be queuing up to take those players.

This, it just doesn't add up Have to agree with that like, except to say that we obviously don't know the details of the deals. I don't think you can avoid this sort of dealing totally in football, it's a fact of the game. But I do think Mike Ashley is someone who won't go ahead if he feels people are taking the piss.

I agree with Colocho! It's a pitiless beast like, if you've got a decent job and can get around it's awesome, but if not I would imagine it would be difficult. Much prefer living here than I ever did visiting.

Hmm, not sure about that. Their communication is a bit crap, I guess it's pretty difficult to communicate this sort of thing to the fans. TBF if I didn't come on this forum I would probably just be enjoying the signings we're making.

No doubt that's a big part of it. Though I think it's the loss made by NUFC that Ashley doesn't want to subsidise, rather than the loss to him personally. He will never get his money back except over the mega-long-term or if a sheik comes along.

Either one is a risk, Best might have been a half-season wonder and Long might not make it. If we did the deal I would be cautiously optimistic though, as I think Long has the potential to be a lot better than Best if he can make the step up.

Because the offer was amazing and it helps to improve our finances. I'm not saying we might not spend slightly more now we have extra money BTW, just that it's not such a direct link as people like to make out. ("Would we have spent nothing?", "We still have £30m in the bank" etc etc). I know Pards made the situation worse by saying it would all be reinvested, but you must know he was just reacting to a question and defending a shocking development. 'Slightly more'?! The entire reasoning behind taking that amazing offer was that it would be used to significantly improve the squad. The computer game experts on here assured us all that plenty of better strikers could be bought with the money we were getting for Carroll, for example. I'm reasonably happy with our transfers so far and as it stands I would say the squad is possibly a little better than it was last season, but that's making a number of assumptions about players fitting in straight away, hitting the ground running and offering at least the same production as those they have replaced. Not to mention the fact that there are supposedly a number of what I consider to be useful players up for sale. The sound of goalposts being moved grows louder every day. I don't really disagree with any of that Dave, except I don't agree that the reasoning for selling Carroll was to improve the squad. I think the reasoning behind selling Carroll was to improve our finances and because we got an offer that was too good to turn down. The improvement of the squad was something that was said to soften the blow for fans, and hopefully will actually happen in some way as a secondary effect. But it won't increase out spending to dramatic levels, it will just allow us to make a reasonable number of realistic signings. Which we're already doing. I guess my argument sometimes seems weird because the premise for it is that Carroll wasn't sold fundamentally to improve the squad and make more signings. You may or may not agree with that.