mrmojorisin75

scousers and weegies

does not compute

surely if its with his visa or passport its tiotes responsibility to sort it out, not the clubs? passport yes, visa no - i'm nobody working for companies abroad and they always sort visa out for you man

pwned, deal with it dude

should be in much, much better shape though

what was the fee 9.5m? too rich for little newcastle's taste i see

fyp

just re-read the OP

I like you but spurs are no better than Bilbao? honestly? Yes, but not by that much. Both teams will realistically aim for EL football this season, although you can legitimately challenge for CL, but imho you have to expect one of ManCity/Arsenal/Chelsea/ManU to fail spectacularly and Liverpool not improve too much. As for "history" Bilbao have won more silverware. pwned

barca light

awesome

Shearer: "Of course, you dont want to lose your top players and Andy Carroll and Kevin Nolan were probably Newcastles two best players." why are the two things contradictory? best (most effective) and most talented aren't necessarily the same thing, nolan was fucking disgraceful before shearer took over as manager and the same after he took over tbh anything for people to dig at shearer man, anything, he's better off out of football management if you ask me

it's not terrible ian, it's an ok idea, but football is a game founded on certain financial principles such as invest/spend or die because we have some (very manageable) debt this is taken as an excuse to explain away absolutely anything...in the same way as marquee signings were used to masque the deficiencies of the old regime we're a fucking huge club with huge income and support ian, shame we can't afford fuck all really...must be mint being bolton and that

It shouldn't be in our bank account though. Having severely weakened the team, it must be used to strengthen it again, and should be added to whatever was already going to be spent this summer (ho ho). precisely, especially the ho ho part

ok we had a plan, then we sold a player for 35m at what point does investing that 35m in fees and wages for new players not become sustainable? bearing in mind carroll himself and nolan have left the wages bill, as has sol.... so what was the plan without the 35m then, look at it that way? it can surely only have been sell players at a profit to sustain the club, there's no other logical conclusion unless you conclude that ashley is intent on raking as much of his money back as possible as fast as possible?

who is suggesting this? surely you just have a wage bill and a % of profits generated reinvested into team affairs shall we call it? any money from sales can be split however you like into dividends (so called)/transfer fees/wages this is why i said i have no problem with the idea in principle, it's not bad, but the way MA is running with it it's a fucking pisstake ian...it's literally taking the piss out of 10's of 1,000's of people sorry but there's no clearer way to say it

and here is the crux of the problem ian, the carroll 35m is something that cannot be budgetted for or predicted financially you're talking about the club not spending money because it might hurt us or something, this was 35m that didn't exist 7 months ago so it bears no relation to normal club income (i'm sure there's an accountancy term for it) if your business is selling art and you lucked it and scored a 35m painting sale out of nowhere you'd have 2 choices, invest some/all of that into new ventures or pocket it (ashley's terms claw back some debt) our business is football ian, in the history of the game non-investment hasn't taken many teams very far

see i don't think it's entirely a joke if done in the right way, combined with a moderate outlay of funds generate from club income on transfers and wages plus monies from sales being used for new players/contract extensions it could be very prudent in this day and age it's the way ashley is screwing the pooch with a potentially decent idea that's getting me finance-wise football is weird compared to other businesses, i see no reason why something in between couldn't/shouldn't be able to work not putting any outlay whatsoever on new players just makes no sense man You don't have a problem with the best part of £4 million of the Carroll money being 'spent' on two years of Tiote's new contract? It's a good concept if other money, say TV revenue is freed up to be spent on the new players our squad needs. We've already lost our second choice 'left-back' and a back-up central midfielder... and the season hasn't even started yet. yeah, i don't have a problem with the principal of the way ashley seems intent on going, i have a problem with his execution of it - what's so hard to understand?

Ian man sometimes you take impartiality to extremes.

jackflash posted some pardew carroll quotes the other day and they were horrifying man i'd love to see an analysis of his comments since he took over, he's reading fucking scripts imo

see i don't think it's entirely a joke if done in the right way, combined with a moderate outlay of funds generate from club income on transfers and wages plus monies from sales being used for new players/contract extensions it could be very prudent in this day and age it's the way ashley is screwing the pooch with a potentially decent idea that's getting me finance-wise football is weird compared to other businesses, i see no reason why something in between couldn't/shouldn't be able to work not putting any outlay whatsoever on new players just makes no sense man

Yes. The money has been allocated to wages and signing on/agent fees, which other clubs don't have to pay. aye, this was what i both expected and thought had just happened i still have no problem with the approach MA seems intent on taking, in the sense of making the club generate it's own income etc. but he's taking the fucking piss here now, 35m and we can't afford to spend more than 1m net on new players frankly, if this is how things end, it's an outrage always thought the gameiro & gervihno bids were jive (same as modric), 'cause if they weren't the money would still be there to spend surely? cunts the lot of them, pardew included

can someone recap this latest round of shit for me, something to do with pardew being interviewed and moving the goalposts again on spending money? from what i can piece together the club have more or less come out and said the spending is done, is that right? but we'll get a striker in or something.... this about right? we're expected to accept 2 free's and a buyout clause are we, seriously?

how do the two relate? he signed a 6 year contract and we're under no pressure to sell, if they do want him ashley will push them to the limit imo IMO we'll still be worse off because the limit will probably be something like £20m max. We'll end up bringing in a player who isn't as good so we'll be worse off on the pitch. What good is the money in that case? yeah i get that, but you said he wouldn't rape them financially - 20m is arguably a pretty fair raping for a player like tiote who doesn't have added english tax it'd be closer to 25m imo anyways, ashley's had a taste of roman wedge now, he'll want more