quayside

Hence Ashley's fury about the whole saga.....

Looks more like: Carroll - - Ba Ranger - - Erdinc, Defoe or Crouch It doesn't sound from that article that he has a clue who the Left back would be tbh.

He was lush in his first spell though. Did an ok job for us at left back in the 05/06 season when we finished 7th after Roeder took over.

There has been cynicism around for a few years now, the previous owners were hardly whiter than white. But I agree, we are reaching new heights these days.

After that 6-1 at Orient I could only see us doing a Leeds. Many relegated sides have their best players bought and are left with all the underperformers on far too much cash, which is why you have to get straight back up or you're f****d. Hughton did great. Pardew I'll give time to but Hughton deserved better. (And he was an honourable man which I've yet to be convinced of with Pardew). We didn't need to - he had 2 years of his contract left. Both Given and Milner have said that it wouldn't have taken much to persuade them to stay but no-one bothered. And with Carroll we went through the flimsiest of pretences that we didn't want him to go. I'd have kept Nolan for another year 'til it was obvious that we no longer needed him, yes. Being an honourable man does not rank very high on the list of must haves for an effective football manager sadly. This is a shitty industry with millions of pounds slushing around in it and the concept of treating people decently went out the window some years ago. My understanding on the Nolan position was that he was trying to get a new contract so as to prevent the club doing exactly what you have described.

Yeah thanks . I can now see how you could read what he said as referring to Zog or Milner.

Some undisputable stuff in there and you make some good points. But are you saying Carroll was worth more than £35m? And the "reject from the 3rd division" has taken a Premiership side to the FA Cup Final (he lost the final but iirc he came very close to winning said cup). We've had a few managers in recent years including "the man who saved his (Ashley's) bacon" who haven't done that. I really liked Hughton and respected how he got stuck in to the job but has a manager in the Championship ever had a better squad? Finally can I ask if you would have been quite happpy to give Nolan a 5 year contract at around £50k a week? And consider that question in the light of what effect deals like that have done to Premiership clubs (us and West Ham included) in recent years.

Aren't Llambias and Pardew mates from Llambias' days running casinos? That has been a popular rumour but if there is any proof I haven't seen it. Llambias is a West Ham fan and probably knew of Pardew through that connection.

Parker had a perfectly good goal disallowed in the away leg iirc.

Doubt it. Even if that figure is correct, most of it will be tied up in what he owns in Sports Direct, his brands like Kangol and his ownership of the club. Money wise, he's hardly looking in the whoopsie ailse in ASDA, but cash would be a small part of his wealth His holding in Sports Direct is worth about £1.1 billion based on the current market capitalisation. Add in the fact that he has already lifted nearly £1 billion in cash when it floated (some of which is funding us) so you'd have to think he'd be worth something like £2 billion. As you say how much of that is still in cash is open to speculation. He bought back a chunk of SD shares didn't he? He did. He originally floated it at £3 a share selling 50% in the process. Needless to say it hasn't reached that price level since, and his investors aren't too impressed (he has called then whingers). Then when the price went down to about £1 he bought back a further 20 to 25%.

Doubt it. Even if that figure is correct, most of it will be tied up in what he owns in Sports Direct, his brands like Kangol and his ownership of the club. Money wise, he's hardly looking in the whoopsie ailse in ASDA, but cash would be a small part of his wealth His holding in Sports Direct is worth about £1.1 billion based on the current market capitalisation. Add in the fact that he has already lifted nearly £1 billion in cash when it floated (some of which is funding us) so you'd have to think he'd be worth something like £2 billion. As you say how much of that is still in cash is open to speculation.

What we have is an owner who's made lots of consecutive bad decisions that have cost him money and us good football. Now what i'm worried about is that his decisions will still cost us good football. If he can make money back, good for him, but as a fan, it's my entertainment i'm interested in. I don't think we're running at a loss anymore so i think having the club punch it's weight for a season or 2 would be appreciated given how he's f***ed up so royally from the day he arrived. He f*cked up royally with Keegan, Wise, Kinnear leading on to relgation etc etc and that cost him money. He did at least then have the sense to fund a very expensive squad in the Championship (I know some put that down to luck) so that we got back up. The key thing really is, as I said on another thread, what level of exposure is he prepared to accept on his investment in the club? I freely admit I haven't got a clue if he wants to reduce his loan from cash surpluses in the club or if he is ok with things as they are. I have to say I can't see anything to suggest he is prepared to increase that exposure.

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. You are reading it right. He isn't. What he said might be correct from an accountancy point of view, but it's not from a point of view of what most people mean (and I'm pretty sure what Ian meant) when they talk about a net profit/spend on transfers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically those numbers would not be affected by incoming transfers (the money paid for a player tops up the intangible assets total, so the accounts balance out - ie you pay £10m but you have a £10m asset so accounting wise you're no better or worse off for the purchase). That "profit on player sales" is basically the amount of money you got for selling any players minus their book value at the time (which is their original purchase price reduced by the amortisation applied to that player over their time at the club). This is why most clubs would show a profit on player sales most years, and the only reason they wouldn't would be if they bought a player and sold him within a couple of years for a lot less. Accountancy fun: We made a profit on the sale of Luque. He was sold for £2m in Ashley's first year and this was all "profit" because he was written off as an asset in the accounts for the previous year. Oh Christ....

What exactly were we looking forward to in 2007 when we were insolvent, had borrowed against every asset, our owners weren't going to put any money in and we had Allardyce as our manager?

We'd all like to have an owner who was happy to keep stuffing money in for the love of the club. But we haven't.

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary. Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused. I know we can't spend as much as Manchester City. I know we can spend more than Stoke City. We'd all like to think that's the case. But Stoke City are in an entirely different position. They aren't insolvent and their owner has not put in £150 million of debt.

Financially we are in a far better position and definitely more secure, although the debt owed is greater. But the improvement in the position is down to the debt being owed to the owner rather than a bank. It is way less risky. It sets up Ashley as a figure of hate because we are entirely in his hands and it is a matter for him to decide how much financial exposure he wants in the club. At the last count it was about £280 million and only he can decide whether he wants it reduced, kept static or is prepared to increase it. People can stamp their feet, complain and pontificate on the subject but at the end of the day it is Ashley's call what he does with his money and the club he owns. Whether our squad is better now is probably a subject for a thread on its own. I think we are getting there, we have got away from the high earning, under performing so called "mercenary" type of player that the 2007 squad was riddled with. And Ashley in his opening transfer window sanctioned Allardyce to bring in a few more of those types - but I don't think we'll be going down that path again....

It was live the previous evening. As Redknapp said, all the negotiating is done by Levy, Levy has already said Modric will not be sold this window at any price. There is nothing being said which would suggest Levy is having a change of heart. SSN also said Modric will be talking to Levy today in 'clear the air' talks. I would guess Modric will be shouting because he is currently still in Croatia. Returns to England tomorrow, starts training on Thursday (late start due to international duty). Berbatov tbh

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are s****. Yup - I'd imagine it's all about their WAGS and keeping them happy. Probably right - Newcastle is in a fantastic location and is one of the best cities in England but telling that to a braindead WAG may be a trip too far. It can sometimes gets a bit cold in winter mind...

I can remember also that their income is about £30 million a year more than our (Premiership) income. Stretch that out over a few years and it would make a huge difference.

Here Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright. but that chart says they have a net spend of 91mill over those 5 years ? Madras - I stuck an edit onto my post. I'll have a look tomorrow if I have time.

Here Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright. Edit: I can't check that net spend figure right now, but if I have time I'll have a look tomorrow. If you look at their accounts they are in very good shape overall though.

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. You are reading it right.

Can someone please tell me whether the " Luque on trial at Swansea" rumour is a wind up? Does Big Bert really have a chance making a (ahem) Premiership comeback?

It's more things he has said in the past and been completely proven wrong about. "I promise Carroll wont leave", "All the money will be reinvested back into the team" etc. If Nolan's "comments" are true about how unhappy he was with Pardew not fighting for him then that's worrying too, as he's said in the past he wanted to keep him. It is the way it works, so why should we be the only ones playing it straight? Look around at the crap other clubs come out with. Example: Read what Levy said about Berbatov (and other players) leaving, he knew Berbatov was gone, it was purely designed to talk the price up. Look at the false outrage expressed when players (and managers) are tapped up by clubs that do exactly the same thing themselves. You could also read what Levy and Redknapp have said about Modric leaving and let's see where that one ends up. This is a multi million pound industry and people spout all sorts of shyte to get selling prices jacked up, players to perform, players to join their club, keep fans onside etc etc etc. It is what happens, it is an industry with no integrity and we have gone beyond any justification for moral outrage. That's all true, but it wasn't so long ago our owner and chairman were judged to have deliberately and repeatedly misled us in the past so I'm inclined to think it's a bit more serious than the stuff you mention. It might not be, but I find it very hard to trust them/Pardew. It's a morally bankrupt industry. Ashley is about the only owner who has ever been taken to court and exposed. He certainly isn't the only owner who has done the things that came out in the KK tribunal. I think that he was incredibly naive when he bought us but has learned a bit along the way, however I don't expect him to turn into Snow White any time soon.