AyeDubbleYoo

Ultimately we've had six months to decide what to do with at least £30m of allegedly unexpected income, with the benefit of what some seem to say is the world's best scout and a manager who apparently has the full backing of his manager and the club owner. And yet here we are, with people happy to 'hope it allows us the ability to react to opportunities, if there are any'. If we're so hard up that we needed to sell our best striker and most promising talent for big money just to pay wages and to afford to bring in couple of free transfers, it makes you wonder if they'd fully intended on flogging Carroll all along. And if that is the case, who's next out of the door? All valid questions, but none of the answers get the club out of the financial reality it's in. It's clear that Ashley wants to bring an unusual approach to running a football club, he's not going to sanction ever-increasing debt or subsidise any spending from his own pocket. Fair enough the Carroll money was unexpected (if we believe it was), but that still doesn't mean it all has to go on transfer spending. I know I'm always defending the regime, but I really think we may as well accept the Ashley spending/contracts/wages strategy and judge decisions based on that. I'm not suggesting we "needed" to sell Carroll to buy the players we've bought, the logic doesn't work in reverse like that. What I'm saying is that just because we had some extra income it doesn't mean it all goes straight on transfer fees. For Pardew to say it would was probably inadvisable, but he was reacting to a pretty shocking situation.

This obsession with the £35m from Carroll is bordering on the mental for me. The Carroll sale was a massive blow to the team and is still hard to accept, we did it because the deal was too good to turn down and the player fancied a shot at a bigger club. It's pointless to latch onto that one quote where Pardew said it would all be invested into the team. He was just responding to a question the best way he could in difficult circumstances, and he probably had no idea how much he would end up spending. To judge our transfers solely on whether we spend the magic figure of £35m is pointless IMO. As far as I can see we've made some good moves in the market so far, and are looking to make more. There might be a big departure (Enrqiue) but circumstances make that inevitable anyway. The club is running a regular loss, and there isn't a ring-fenced pot for transfer money. The club will spend what it thinks it can afford and when it can get the right deals. Let's judge that on it's own and stop bleating on about this magical £35m.

Not saying I disagree, but what attitude should our top striker have?

Agree Dave, I also can't see Arsenal selling Bendtner if he's back to fitness and Nasri/Cesc are leaving. They already only have one striker. Chamakh and Van Persie? Well I meant one striker apart from Bendtner (meaning Van Persie), forgot about Chamakh. Still think they are light up front, especially when RvP gets injured again.

Agree Dave, I also can't see Arsenal selling Bendtner if he's back to fitness and Nasri/Cesc are leaving. They already only have one striker.

I really don't like when people use the Giggs, but...

I don't really know how bad Bentner's finishing even is. He missed the winner against Barcelona and that was high profile, but I've seen him strike the ball beautifully at times.

Never heard of him, but now I do he looks pretty good. He's big and his goal record with PSG is more than decent. Still think we're more likely to buy a nippy striker than another target man.

I'm not bothered specifically about Erdinc, but I'm interested to see who our other targets will be if he's off the table.

I wouldn't worry too much about classifying him as a LB or LW at this point, he will develop and grow into whatever role suits him best. Hopefully he'll still get plenty of chances from the bench and in cup games next season.

The quote is bad, what he said was that if fans were trying to estimate how much money had been spent, they would be way off.

Agree with you, don't know where the negative feeling has come from. Maybe the order of things, I'm guessing if Nolan had left before Cabaye, Ba and Marveaux arrived the feeling would be a lot more positive. For me we've done well so far this summer, but then I was never going to base it on whether we make a net loss of £35m on transfers.

Me too. Give him center stage and he will deliver Fk that he is an utter dick and thinks he is way better than he is. True, but he thinks he's the best player in the world, so a bit below that isn't too bad.

Agree with you, he offers another dimension if Barton is going to play RM. I wouldn't be desperate to move him on at all.

Chill out, there's plenty of time to go in the transfer window. If we want the club to go for a quality striker, that increases the chances we'll be knocked back. It's all part of the process.

Don't think you can put those three on the same level at all. Cole shite, Bendtner good, Long potentially good but unproven.

Never seen such a wilfully negative spin put on what someone said. To be fair it might be the fault of the headline writer rather than the journo.

I would be incredibly surprised if Gyan ends up leaving Sunderland this summer, agent quotes like that mean basically nothing.

Yep, it's a blow but they can easily recover from it.

It's like one of those fairground mirrors where everything's a weird shape.

The answer to your question is maybe there is, but still the club is running at a regular loss and Ashley has decided (rightly or wrongly) that this won't continue (even though it does at almost every other club).

Agree with myself. Kept his cards very close to his chest as expected, but that's probably because he knows very little about the important issues we want to know about. Well you were right, but the reason behind it is still pure assumption. I think there are enough reasons to believe he's in the dark about some important things. One caller accusing him of "management speak" or something in relation to the Carroll money© was a fairly astute comment. Yeah, but there are all sorts of reasons why a manager can't reveal what is happening behind the scenes, and has to fudge it. Either things are still being worked out, we don't want to reveal our dealings, or maybe nobody knows at this stage. It doesn't mean he knows less than any other manager.

Agree with myself. Kept his cards very close to his chest as expected, but that's probably because he knows very little about the important issues we want to know about. Well you were right, but the reason behind it is still pure assumption.

2341 for me, you're underrating 3, she would be smoking hot in the flesh.

I don't doubt he's on a low basic wage with bonuses for results, but that's not what you said.