AyeDubbleYoo

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.

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.

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.

The fact is our first 2 choice strikers have turned us down, we can't do anything if our first choices did not want to sign. I know and I agree, that's why I'm positive about our work so far.

I agree we need players, I hope we get them and think we are trying. We've already done some good deals IMO.

Because we seemingly are using the money of his sale to pay off other players wages. Simple. Not really what I was going at though. This on the other hand: "And yet here we are, with people happy to 'hope it allows us the ability to react to opportunities, if there are any'. But didn't the Carroll money just go onto our bottom line, and some money comes off our bottom line when we spend anything? I just don't see this logical link that because the Carroll sale happen it was needed to sanction the signing we've made. Every incoming and outgoing is just part of one balance sheet.

I don't know, we'll see if it happens. You seem to be reacting like this happens all the time, when Carroll is the only real example. my reaction is a continuation of the one i had when hughton was sacked for nothing and pardew brought in so ashley could sell/bring in whoever he wanted with no argument , IMO, it's all part of the same thing Hughton was widely criticised as a yes man when he was given the job originally, this thing about Pardew being a walkover is a non-starter IMO. Any manager sometimes has to acquiesce to the board, they would be resigning all the time if they didn't. Ian, you're a good lad and I enjoy our debates, but this just seems so naive to me. I'm aware I brought up Hughton but i reckon it's probs best for everyone if we dont go down this route again Same, I loved Hughton even though I was unsure when he was appointed. I do like Pardew as well though, seems he's working away quite well to improve our squad and style of play. For me it's more naive to think that a manager won't have to do what the board says quite often. For example, I don't believe for a second that Pardew "wanted" to sell Carroll, but I also don't believe it was his job, or within his power, to stop it. Anyway, I was encouraged with what he said on Total Sport (to get back on topic!) and I'll wait and see what we come up with before the end of the window.

I don't know, we'll see if it happens. You seem to be reacting like this happens all the time, when Carroll is the only real example. my reaction is a continuation of the one i had when hughton was sacked for nothing and pardew brought in so ashley could sell/bring in whoever he wanted with no argument , IMO, it's all part of the same thing Hughton was widely criticised as a yes man when he was given the job originally, this thing about Pardew being a walkover is a non-starter IMO. Any manager sometimes has to acquiesce to the board, they would be resigning all the time if they didn't.

taxfree, why do agree so much that we "needed" to sell Carroll to buy the players we've bought? That doesn't seem to be a conclusion you can draw from anything we've done.

I don't know, we'll see if it happens. You seem to be reacting like this happens all the time, when Carroll is the only real example.

Scouting is a much of a muchness really. Most clubs are aware of most players. Our history of buying players doesn't really reflect that.