AyeDubbleYoo

Good that we're still talking though, at least it isn't totally dead.

You could do this with any player, chairman, manager, pundit or journalist in football though. It's bullshit to criticise Hughton for what he's been saying. He's in a no-win situation.

But this rumoured loan deal has the final fee agreed at the start of the loan. So the final would would be at his current market value no matter what. Yes, I fucked up, you're right! (As long as the fee was set now).

Oops! I see what you asked now. In terms of risk there isn't really a difference, see what you mean. As long as the purchase price is set now. I was still thinking about the disadvantages of a loan with compulsory purchase vs normal loan with option to buy. It seemed to make sense at the time

I think I've explained it TBH, basically we might survive and still not want to buy him (because he's disruptive and/or useless, for example). With a permanent transfer now, we'd be getting him at his current market value, meaning if he played really well this season only we would benefit from his price going up.

Not necessarily. I would like a permanent signing or a loan with an option to buy. But loan with compulsory purchase isn't how these deals usually work, it seems like too much in favour of the selling club. He could play terribly, ruin the team spirit or whatever, and we would still have to buy him. With the loan with the option to buy, both parties share the risk. If he does well, he'll cost a buyer more at the end, if he does shit we don't have to buy him but we've taken him off their wage bill for a season. Out of not signing him at all and signing him in that way, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. But we should definitely try to avoid it if possible. But what is actually the difference between signing him permanently now or signing him on a loan with agreed transfer next summer? The risk is the same, no? Well if we sign him permanently now his value can increase or decrease depending on how he plays for us. We could get him cheap now and make a profit, for example. With a loan and optional purchase, we have a season to assess him and the club's situation and make another decision later. In that case Marseille might benefit because he performs well and they can charge us more, or they might lose out in the opposite situation. So risk shared. In the case of loan with compulsory purchase, we have to buy him for his current value even if his stock goes down... risk all on us.

Not necessarily. I would like a permanent signing or a loan with an option to buy. But loan with compulsory purchase isn't how these deals usually work, it seems like too much in favour of the selling club. He could play terribly, ruin the team spirit or whatever, and we would still have to buy him. With the loan with the option to buy, both parties share the risk. If he does well, he'll cost a buyer more at the end, if he does shit we don't have to buy him but we've taken him off their wage bill for a season. Out of not signing him at all and signing him in that way, I'm not sure which I'd prefer. But we should definitely try to avoid it if possible.

Not really, Carew isn't all that.

Barring a Premier League team, Celtic is about the highest level he could hope to go to on loan TBH, a good move for him if it happens. Definitely don't want to lose him though, Harper will be ready for the exit door at the end of this season.

Would they though? I would personally never jeer a team for getting relegated, it's too serious a thing to take the piss about.

That's where I would use him. I would use him behind a forward too, probably. But I'd definitely drop Nolan, the man's a joke.

Our defence is good enough for the Premiership, with the possible exception of RB. With S Taylor back we would be more than equipped. Enrique is a top 6 quality player. The problem is that they are constantly exposed and under pressure because our midfield is totally sluggish and immobile. If we could bring in Ben Arfa and a mobile CM then we would stay up comfortably IMO, this is more important than buying a striker even. Not saying it will happen obv.

Word up.

ATB, think you make an interesting point there. I doubt Ashley thinks we have a great team, he's just balancing the risk and probability of relegation against the level of investment required for success. Some people might call that gambling, it's certainly not what we usually see from NUFC, historically.

FFS man, nothing has actually changed! Were we expecting a load of quality signings? Of course not.

Can I just draw your attention to the bit in bold?

I wouldn't want the club to sign a deal that meant we had to buy him anyway, wouldn't be sensible management.

I don't have any feelings about Villa really, they're bound to decline now the O'Neill project is over and Milner has been sold. Hoping for a decent performance and would be happy with a point. Pleased to be going, haven't been to the first home game of the season for years.

technically? probably not. more important/more impact? definitely. Agree, if I had the choice of either I would definitely go for Benayoun at the moment. Not sure Chelsea really need him mind.

Nice posting mon ami.

TBF, Keefaz has as much information as published journalists at the moment.

what an utter load of bollocks that article is Does he not have a point though? Why should Cardiff's opponents be facing a brilliant player who is being paid for by Manchester City?

Surely you can grasp that it's not about accepting his patter or trusting the bloke, the fact is what he has said has for the most part been echoed in the accounts. If the accounts show that we are now raking it in as opposed to losing money year on year, then I'll happily hammer the bloke for not investing that money in the team, but as it stands I'd doubt it. If we were making money he'd surely do what most chairman do and start charging interest on his loans for a start. it's his fault the club has been losing money, he's been in charge 3 years now. If an owner of a business cannot change things in matters relating to finances even in 1 year let alone 3, then really he shouldn't be owning a business But he can only 'change things' by making changes to how the business is run... in Ashley's case that is by restricting spending and reducing the wage bill.

Now that's a post I can believe in. Yes we can!

Best thing you can do with football coverage is probably switch it on 2 minutes before the game, and off 2 minutes after.