quayside

No way will JB let this massive opportunity for attention go by. He'll either run the show or pull out some f*cking stupid stunt and get sent off or grab a retrospective ban. In fact he could do all of those things. The post match twitter will no doubt be worth a look....

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me. I was talking about Llambias. Though tbh I'd not be surprised in the slightest if Pardew's wages weren't also supplemented by bonuses based on the profitability of the business. There are plenty of Sports Direct store managers who were just doing the same job they always do and were not directly responsible for the company making the size of profit it did who got bonuses this year. The hanging on to a player until we had a replacement logic wasn't used for Carroll, Routledge or Enrique, I'm not sure why it would be for the 3rd to 5th choice strikers. I've seen a few references on here and in the media to Pardew's pay being linked to performance but nothing much about Lambias. You obviously have some inside knowledge of how Llambias is paid. The published accounts tell us that he's pulling about £150k to £160k a year. It's believable that he's on an incentive scheme but tell us more please... Your point about replacements is fair enough. although you could also argue that the Carroll offer was too much too late, a Routledge replacement was regarded (like the player) as not essential and Enrique was replaced in the same window. I'm not endorsing the way the club has played any of this out (especially the failure to sign another striker) just trying to point out that it's a futile exercise trying to pigeon hole every decision. I quite obviously don't have any inside knowledge, but it's more than just believable that Llambias is on a profit based incentive scheme, it would be almost unbelievable if he wasn't. Not only is it standard business practice anyway, it's something Ashley is extra keen on. IMO it incentivises short term thinking and profits over strategies which grow the business in the long term, but it's obviously worked for Ashley in his shops. I would agree that it is far more likely that Llambias is on some sort of incentive based on financial performance than Pardew. The proof will be in the next accounts when, unless something very strange happened, the club will have recorded a very decent profit. If his incentive is based purely on bottom line profit then yes it's relevance to a football club is highly questionable. I remember that Pardew quote about Obertan. On thinking back to January my recollection is that everyone thought we had signed Sebastian Larsson and Routledge was shoved out on loan in the expectation of Larsson coming here. Something obviously went wrong with the Larsson deal and we carried on with Barton playing wide right. Btw I am not disputing that one in one out seems to be the policy, I am just not as convinced as you that we weren't trying to sign a striker in the summer.

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me. I was talking about Llambias. Though tbh I'd not be surprised in the slightest if Pardew's wages weren't also supplemented by bonuses based on the profitability of the business. There are plenty of Sports Direct store managers who were just doing the same job they always do and were not directly responsible for the company making the size of profit it did who got bonuses this year. The hanging on to a player until we had a replacement logic wasn't used for Carroll, Routledge or Enrique, I'm not sure why it would be for the 3rd to 5th choice strikers. I've seen a few references on here and in the media to Pardew's pay being linked to performance but nothing much about Lambias. You obviously have some inside knowledge of how Llambias is paid. The published accounts tell us that he's pulling about £150k to £160k a year. It's believable that he's on an incentive scheme but tell us more please... Your point about replacements is fair enough. although you could also argue that the Carroll offer was too much too late, a Routledge replacement was regarded (like the player) as not essential and Enrique was replaced in the same window. I'm not endorsing the way the club has played any of this out (especially the failure to sign another striker) just trying to point out that it's a futile exercise trying to pigeon hole every decision.

Or you could turn that round another way and conclude that Ranger, Best and/or Lovenkrands were retained because the striker negotiations were going badly and there was a real risk of no one coming in. But moving on do you really think Ashley is going to let Pardew have control of transfer and wage budgets? I doubt many other managers in the league have that control so why would Ashley, of all people, delegate the guts of the financial decision making to a man untrained in business or finance? He may be a prize c*nt (and naive) in many ways but he hasn't made his money entirely by accident. Golfmag's prophecy was without doubt founded on fact but that part of it doesn't work for me.

You think? No one wanted him on a free transfer, why do you think he's going to go to a better club when he's a year older and you've got to pay a transfer fee if you want him?

I would think Wright Phillips has been signed to play wide right, so Barton looks destined for a central midfield role.

I agree our attempts were rubbish, but even more worryingly I think we were serious. It seems pretty obvious that the transfer market is a difficult place to do business. There are differering agendas from players, their agents and the clubs themselves and they all have to be dealt with. We seem to be ok at identifying and closing in on release clauses and free transfers. We can also pick out a bargain. But to me we have demonstrated that there is a lack of the right sort of negotiating expertise in our structure. There are times when a bit of flexibility is required. One of the journos (Edwards?) said we are always looking for the perfect deal when, at times, you have to bite the bullet and pay a full price for a player you really need - and I think that view is right.

The whole communication issue is a circular argument, and it's no great surprise that the board don't say much. Even looking at those questions the first part of question 5 goes a long way towards answering question 2. The club let Pards do most of the communicating these days - poor f*cker.

He'd have to take a substantial wage cut then, no way will we pay him £80k a week.

Even if we have it's not like we've committed £millions and put our whole future in his hands. Fwiw my best mate is a life long Evertonian and he reckons they screwed up badly when they they let Gosling go. He has to be worth more than we paid for him

If a disappointing transfer window and failure to sign another striker was something a manager would resign over then about 3/4 of Premiership managers and most in the Football League will be handing in their notice. .com and especially True Faith are becoming boringly repetitive with articles that sound like they've been written by moody or hysterical schoolgirls. The club has not crossed the line as far as a striker is concerned, but AP has definetely crossed The Line - he has lied 3 times in a row re. major themes [AC, reinvestment, striker] - he has to take responsibility. If he is dignified enough, he has to resign. No matter if JFK is waiting on the wings [defo hope not], but AP exposed himself - we can't trust him anymore. And this is an essential part of the manager's job - to have a certain rapport with the club's fans. F*ck me.

What a gay thread....

It also emphasises that Pardew should have no say in player transfers if his list of wanted players is true. I reckon it is as true as the list we saw come out after Keegan had to leave Very different situation though, the Keegan list was clearly aimed at denting the reputation of an ex manager who had walked out. Pardew is still here.

I think you are right. I don't know why they bother though because their "PR exercises" are so transparent these days that they are no longer fooling anyone. If that article is a PR exercise by the club then it's badly misdirected. It emphasises the fact that those who do the final negotiations to bring players in (.i.e. Llambias) are totally incompetent.

Smith was made availbale for free transfer to anyone that wanted him this summer but nobody did take us up on that. Wonder why that was. £50k a week wages is my guess. Smith was made availbale for free transfer to anyone that wanted him this summer but nobody did take us up on that. Wonder why that was. I know he's s***, I just mean if he was on the books of a lot of clubs like he is on ours, he would be in the squad. And which f***er gave the terms and conditions for this t*** to be here leeching the club when he was clearly a busted flush at Man U. Ashley was the owner, Fat Sam was the manager. Don't ever bet on anything like the Smith deal happening again.

Smith was made availbale for free transfer to anyone that wanted him this summer but nobody did take us up on that. Wonder why that was. He's got an aura about him that makes it intimidating for other players in the same squad as him. They know they simply aren't at his level. He's also on a ridiculous wage which no-one else would want to pay. I prefer my theory

Smith was made availbale for free transfer to anyone that wanted him this summer but nobody did take us up on that. Wonder why that was. He's got an aura about him that makes it intimidating for other players in the same squad as him. They know they simply aren't at his level.

Read the first sentence of the second paragraph of your post again and explain how Ashley buying us was a leveraged buyout.

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. I've had a look at the accounts and although, during the years concerned, there are fluctuations in the balance on Ashley's loan, the overall trend is upwards year on year. In 2010 St James Holdings ceased to be the ultimate parent company as Ashley has set up a company called MASH Holdings and that has all his business interests in it, including his shares in Sports Direct. Anyway I think we can now forget any notion that Ashley borrowed the money to buy the club. I never said that was the case, I was asking why the debt held by SJH Ltd had been reduced by £6m and whether that £6m came from the club's income. If it did, it would mean Ashely was paying himself back out of the club's finances rather than using all available income to drive the club forward. I was responding to the tread title about a leveraged buyout, and Ashley's buyout was not leveraged. I thought I had answered the question about Ashley's loan, it's fluctuated but year on year it's increased so there had been no net repayment up to June 2010. And like I say I don't see a reduction of £6 million.

Obviously I can't prove what the club were about but I actually think funds were there for a striker and they really tried to buy a striker several times, and Llambias f*cked up. Bringing any one of these strikers in involved negotiations, they weren't available for free or wanting to apply release clauses or handed to us on a plate. And DL is just not up to it when it's not straightforward.

I remember that, following mass outrage from the fan base, Shepherd stuck out a statement defending the club's efforts in the market one year. I think it was the Duff, Sibierski, Rossi on loan window.

I think that comment should be directed at Derek Llambias not Pardew.

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. I've had a look at the accounts and although, during the years concerned, there are fluctuations in the balance on Ashley's loan, the overall trend is upwards year on year. In 2010 St James Holdings ceased to be the ultimate parent company as Ashley has set up a company called MASH Holdings and that has all his business interests in it, including his shares in Sports Direct. Anyway I think we can now forget any notion that Ashley borrowed the money to buy the club.

I think he would easily pass the test. You try and convince an outsider that financial prudence, a manageable wage bill and buying young players with a future isn't in the club's best interest. And the f*cking up of transfer negotiations wouldn't come into it at all. Not that the fit and proper test goes that deep anway. He is destroying the club something has to give, Liverpool managed to drive their s*** owners now look at them why cant we do the same. Saying that if Pompey's previous owners managed to pass the test anyone could The Liverpool situation was entirely different. They borrowed all the money to buy the club. It was, to use a phrase from another thread title, a "leveraged buyout". Ashley bought us with his own money, money that he made from a company that he founded from nothing. He floated that company on the London Stock market and he still owns 70% of it. And that pretty much ticks all the boxes of a fit and proper test.

I think he would easily pass the test. You try and convince an outsider that financial prudence, a manageable wage bill and buying young players with a future isn't in the club's best interest. And the f*cking up of transfer negotiations wouldn't come into it at all. Not that the fit and proper test goes that deep anway.