AyeDubbleYoo

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.

Why are we being told that his fee is being used to fund the wages of new signings then? I'm not unhappy about the work we've done in the transfer market so far but this is starting to rankle. Don't we have other means of paying our players except through selling assets? What about gate money and tv revenue? and what about the money we are no longer paying the players who have left? Every bit of income is used for the wages of new signings. And training facilities, and to pay the kitman, and to stock the kitchen cupboards. What I'm saying is that it's pointless to compare what we have/haven't spent on transfers to the amount we brought in for Carroll. That money might give us slightly bigger spending power, but it's all part of the overall financial picture.

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.

Don't know why everyone assumes the Carroll fee is so directly related to spending. It all goes off the bottom line, we were capable of signing players before we sold Carroll... and since we've sold him we aren't going to suddenly go mental with the cheque book. People need to stop obsessing over the Carroll money.

Seems like they're a club in decline with the players they're selling, would he want to go there?

the no9 should just go to the clubs main striker. theres been as many ray clarkes wore it as alan shearers. I think this as well basically, just give it to Ba if we don't sign anyone better.

Same, I rate him but £10m is a bit steep.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZgl55Up5I/AAAAAAAAClA/Rbu29VBM6lo/s400/2%2BSpurs%2BProfit.jpg Doesn't this chart state a profit from player sales every year? I don't know what the facts are, I don't care TBH, but it does say that doesn't it?

They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them. According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

Same, feel very sorry for him and anyone who has a career ended by injury. The consolation is that he should already have made enough money to set himself up for life.

Think so, but I guess individual players might have their own return dates as well for whatever reason.

Yeah, I agree, all our moves have suggested a complimentary/alternative player rather than another centre forward.

I obviously didn't mean that. I'm not positive about the results, but I'm positive that we're trying for some decent players. We can't make NUFC any more successful and appealing than it is, and we won't pay over the odds in wages. Therefore if we go for top players they are quite likely to reject us. It's all part of the process. No wonder you're happy with the running of the club if you really believe that. Come on, that's obviously not what I meant either. I mean we can't make NUFC a Champions League club right now in order to appeal to those players who want that, so we have to accept some might turn us down. Clearly in the future we can make the club more successful and appealing, didn't think I would need to explain that TBH. So now top players only go to Champions League clubs? Did Andy Carroll? Did Luis Suarez? Did Luka Modric? Did Darren Bent? This defeatist attitude is embarrassing. If you pay good money, good players will come, and that's how you improve. Simple as that. You're a good bloke Ian but you talk in contradictions. You claim we can't compete with the clubs at the top because they spend loads of money but you say we shouldn't spend money because that's not the way to improve the team. Surely even you can see that the current management of the club is not going to get us back into the top six? I don't claim that at all, I'm saying that because we won't pay massive wages sometimes players will choose to turn us down. Whether you agree or disagree with that policy is another question. I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money, I've never said that, I just realise that we are going to spend restrained amounts compared to the past. In the past we could attract players purely based on the massive wages and contracts we handed out. We don't do that any more. FWIW, obviously I agree we could potentially improve the team more quickly if we spent more. I would have thought that was obvious. What I'm arguing is all based on the fact that we've decided to restrict our wage/contract spending. I don't know whether we'll get back into the top six or when, but I wouldn't be surprised if we end up between 10th and 7th. We've already recovered successfully from a relegation and posted a decent finish. Hopefully as we make steady progress we will build a squad that might just achieve European football, then attract better players and higher income to move on from there. But unless we get a Man City style owner we have to live in the real world with regards to spending. IMO we're progressing alright over the last year or two, and this summer is encouraging. Obviously as fans we'd always like more.

I obviously didn't mean that. I'm not positive about the results, but I'm positive that we're trying for some decent players. We can't make NUFC any more successful and appealing than it is, and we won't pay over the odds in wages. Therefore if we go for top players they are quite likely to reject us. It's all part of the process. No wonder you're happy with the running of the club if you really believe that. Come on, that's obviously not what I meant either. I mean we can't make NUFC a Champions League club right now in order to appeal to those players who want that, so we have to accept some might turn us down. Clearly in the future we can make the club more successful and appealing, didn't think I would need to explain that TBH.

I'm tempted to agree, from what I've seen Long would work the channels and run onto through balls better, but Bendtner would provide an alternative/competition to Ba. That is what Best should be. What's the point in selling Best for £4m, and bringing Bendtner in for £8-10m on £50k a week. I'm not saying there is a point, maybe there isn't, except Bendtner is better than Best. FWIW I think we're looking at a Long/Bellamy type forward, not another centre forward.