fredbob
-
Posts
3,812 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fredbob
-
-
as soon as someone brought luck into it it went downhill. especially on the basis of anything good was lucky, all bad was blame.
colo would only have moved if we subsidised his wages which we didn't seem willing to do.
but it's not luck either way that the majority of our squad stayed due to being on high enough wages to put everyone else off.
so surely the things that have gone against us must be unlucky then or does it only work one way ?
those that were offered it. th rest stayed as no-one wanted them or wouldn't meet their prices.Some of the ones on huge wages left anyway.
Exactly. In that way we were lucky, as I think if he had the choice Ashley would have sold off more players, and we may have struggled to get promoted. Forced ambition if you like.
This season we've only had an average injury list, and not all at the same time, so it hasn't impacted us so much. The players still with us who got relegated have done far better than most expected. Tiote was a good piece of scouting no doubt, but there's also luck that a player who was a sub in a Dutch team hit the ground running in the Prem, and we were especially lucky with the way Carroll developed, as going into the season our strikeforce looked terrible.
I'd expect a mixture of good and bad luck. This season aside from a few injuries, it's mostly been good luck on the playing front, and most of the players have hit good form.
When we got relegated there was a bit of bad luck, yes, especially with all our strikers and attacking midfielders playing poorly at the same time in the second half of the season, but we should never have been in the position where a bit of bad luck was enough to get us relegated. That took help from a lot of poor decisions from the management. For a club of our means, a season of bad luck should mean a bottom half finish at worst.
It wasn't luck that got us into that situation, no, it was down to Ashley's choice to give them those contracts. But once there I'd say it was fortunate (form our point of view as supporters) we were somewhat hamstrung in who we could easily dispose of, as given a free choice I think Ashley would have let more go.
Clubs might have preferred to buy Coloccini and Jonas ahead of Martins and Duff... Then where would be have been?
So we were lucky clubs wouldn't offer him an equivalent contract? Or we were lucky Ashley had enough money of his own that he didn't have to spend £60k subsidising to save £20k? Or Leeds were unlucky that they didn't have an investor rich enough to protect his investment?
Bloody stupid thread this has turned into...
The strange thing is that I don't think there is a single NUFC fan who thinks Ashley has done a great job, there is however a minority of fans who are able to accept that the harsh financial actions he's taken were a neccessary evil. As it stands we're effectively back to 2005/06 only in a much better financial situation and with a much better squad. (Nice way of putting it but obviously doesn't take into account the strides that other clubs have taken)
It doesn't gloss over all the shit he's brought to the club - Keegan+ DoF, Kinnear, Hughton the For Sale signs etc but I do have it in myself to look at the big picture. Even if he makes the club a more sellable asset it's a good thing for the club, it's symptomatic of his actions.
That's the big picture for me.
-
The question was of them not existing. Even after everything Leeds and Portsmouth went through, they still exist. It's often said that the situation at Leeds was so bad it could never happen again, and they still exist. I can remember reading about how they'd structured things and it was ludicrous. And yet - even though it's taken ten years of rebuilding - they're now competing for a place back in the Premier League. To me, the club is simply too big and too well supported to cease to exist and we're the same.
You're the financial expert, and not once did I say the finances were not in a poor state or that Ashley's cash injection didn't help massively. I just believe the finger pointing at Leeds (and latterly Portsmouth, a w*** club with a tiny stadium and no support) is tantamount to scaremongering.
There's no scaremongering ffs. We were f*cked. It might have involved administration or it might have involved someone with wings coming in to bale us out but tell me how you get out of the shyte we were in and you've got an audience.
I never said we weren't 'fucked', or that I could explain anything, aren't you even reading my posts? I disputed the notion that the club MAY NOT EXIST. Something that hasn't happened to any club anywhere near the top division, not even Leeds or Portsmouth.
Am I right in saying you are replying to a point made by neesy?
That's correct in this thread, but it has been cited by a number of people previously.
For what its worth theres no way the club would of 'ceased to exisit' but i'm willing to sacrifice a couple years of ambition as long as it leads to us being in a strong enough position financially to eventually become ambitioous again.
I've seen and heard enough to suggest that we will see decent investment sometime but i dont think it's anytime soon.
-
The question was of them not existing. Even after everything Leeds and Portsmouth went through, they still exist. It's often said that the situation at Leeds was so bad it could never happen again, and they still exist. I can remember reading about how they'd structured things and it was ludicrous. And yet - even though it's taken ten years of rebuilding - they're now competing for a place back in the Premier League. To me, the club is simply too big and too well supported to cease to exist and we're the same.
You're the financial expert, and not once did I say the finances were not in a poor state or that Ashley's cash injection didn't help massively. I just believe the finger pointing at Leeds (and latterly Portsmouth, a w*** club with a tiny stadium and no support) is tantamount to scaremongering.
There's no scaremongering ffs. We were f*cked. It might have involved administration or it might have involved someone with wings coming in to bale us out but tell me how you get out of the shyte we were in and you've got an audience.
I never said we weren't 'fucked', or that I could explain anything, aren't you even reading my posts? I disputed the notion that the club MAY NOT EXIST. Something that hasn't happened to any club anywhere near the top division, not even Leeds or Portsmouth.
Am I right in saying you are replying to a point made by neesy?
-
Ronaldo the footballer was a far better footballer than Shearer but Ronaldo the centre-forward or striker or whatever you want to call it certainly wasn't. For me Shearer was the ultimate in that role and was better than Ronaldo, although not by huge margins. I'd say Batistuta was a better centre-forward than Ronaldo too. People really underestimate Shearer. If you wanted the perfect centre-forward Shearer would tick all boxes or get a 10 out of 10 for each attribute other than dribbling or pace which in his pomp by the way he had a fair bit of. Ronaldo had a certain finesse and absolute amazing balance combined with pace and skill which he combined together to amazing effect hence the outrageous moments in his play or game. Shearer didn't have that but he had amazing technique, immense physical strength only bettered by his mental strength, had a really good footballing brain and amazing awareness and positional sense. Take a look through his goals, not just for Newcastle but England, Blackburn and Southampton. He could cross the ball better than anyone and there was no-one better at leading the line either with his back to goal or facing the opposition defence. He was also an inspirational figurehead for his team-mates. Take away the honours, World Cups etc. and Ronaldo wouldn't be rated as highly as he rightly is today and forever will be just like Giggs will never be rated as highly as in the game as he is rated in OUR game, the English game. He for me though is the best winger in the world of the last 20 years, easily. Shearer and Ronaldo are of course quite different players and if we are to judge them as simply footballers, Ronaldo is a level above Shearer but as a centre-forward or striker, Shearer was on another level not just to Ronaldo but any other striker or centre-forward if his hero. If Torres is worth all that money and Carroll you'd need to break the world transfer record and break into maybe the 100m mark for Shearer today, and indeed a Ronaldo.
That was a really stupid post tbh. Take way the honours from a footballer and you have nothing. It would be pointless to play for no honour.
Shearer was a top class forward and striker or whatever you call it.
But you ask a thousand people who'd they rather build a team around and it would be Ronaldo. He was an immense player with huge potential. And strikers are rated on the amount of goals and their threat. Ronaldo was the better goalscorer the better player and therefore the better striker.
It the end Ronaldo won more, scored more and above all at his prime he was unstoppable.
A true legend has stopped playing, but we have other players forming into true greats in Messi and dare I say Cristiano Ronaldo.
Shearer wasn't top-class, he was world-class. He was in the top bracket of strikers in the world game and for me, pound for pound, at the very top, better than all, in the art of centre-forward play.
The fact Ronaldo won more and scored more doesn't make him the better centre-forward. Andy Cole won far more than Shearer but was not the better striker.
In terms of all-round centre-forward play, Shearer was a better centre-forward than Ronaldo. From 93-96 Shearer was an unstoppable force in what was a fairly average Blackburn Rovers side. He elevated them to title winners. He was the difference between them winning the title and being a mid-table side. He was immense for them as he was for us, although as a different forward due to his injuries and due to playing in most part at Newcastle, in a poor side. He could do it all and do it all in an exceptionally high standard on a consistent basis regardless of team, opposition or level.
I'm not putting Ronaldo down here by the way, he was a few levels above Shearer and indeed anyone simply as a footballer, above Zidane who I rate as the best ever in my time watching the game, but if we are talking about centre-forwards and centre-forward play, then Shearer for me was the best of his generation, better than Ronaldo even.
Heading? Shearer
All-round shooting? Shearer
Link up play? Shearer
Crossing? Shearer
Striking technique? Shearer
Physical strength? Shearer
Positioning? Shearer
Awareness? Shearer
General leading of the line? Shearer
Skills? Ronaldo by a mile
Pace? Ronaldo by a mile
Dribbling? Ronaldo by a mile
Genuine football ability? Ronaldo
So as a footballer in terms of skill, flair and ability, Ronaldo by a mile, but as a centre-forward? Shearer, easily.
In my opinion anyway...
The only thing that Ronaldo didnt have in his armoury was heading. That's it. That is literally one of 2 things that i can think of that would give shearer the edge, the other being his hold up play, although in his pomp he rarely needed to hold up the ball becasue he didnt rely on service. Ronaldo was dangerous anywhere in the opponent's half, no exaggeration.
Ronaldo's done it in every league he's played and at every single level. The comparision is non existent in my opinion - Ronaldo was the best striker i've ever seen don't think it's even fair to say that Shearer was a close second.
-
The question was of them not existing. Even after everything Leeds and Portsmouth went through, they still exist. It's often said that the situation at Leeds was so bad it could never happen again, and they still exist. I can remember reading about how they'd structured things and it was ludicrous. And yet - even though it's taken ten years of rebuilding - they're now competing for a place back in the Premier League. To me, the club is simply too big and too well supported to cease to exist and we're the same.
You're the financial expert, and not once did I say the finances were not in a poor state or that Ashley's cash injection didn't help massively. I just believe the finger pointing at Leeds (and latterly Portsmouth, a w*** club with a tiny stadium and no support) is tantamount to scaremongering.
My guess is that without Ashley we would have gone into admin, lost a few players, got relegated and possibly came back up. The problem is that in reality we've done all of that anyway except that in admin we'd have had our debt written off.
I think you should probably reconsider the 'realities' of that post.
Are there any examples of clubs who've gone into admnistration and come straight back up?!
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.
Yeh, that was the reason why we want down.
For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.
P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.
What the hell's an internet warrior?
I judge the success of transfers on what they do on the field, not what price you get for them at the end of it. The reason we went down was because the players weren't good enough - that's the players that we bought, you know, from transfers? And we didn't benefit from the ones we didn't have, because, you know, we'd transferred them?
Fucking hell.
Fuck me - managing a club made easy by Wullie.
So in your world the squad that went down was at least the 18th worst in the premiership?!
I'm almost 100% certain that if Wenger left in the circumstances that Keegan did and Arsenal appointed Joe Kinnear then they'd go down too, in your world that would make there players not good enough either! Obviously this is all relatively moot as there's no way of knowing for sure but its laughable to suggest that the quality of the players was the reason we went down. The squad that went down was almost identical to the one that went up.
You laugh as if they didn't go down ffs.
Aye, Arsenal would have gone down, sensible comparison.
West Brom have been relegated and subsequently promoted with the same squad about five times, does that mean they were actually good enough each time they got relegated, just badly managed? I'm actually embarrassed for you.
Simple question was the squad the 18th worst in the premiership?! Yes or no will do.
http://i43.tinypic.com/9kujgl.jpg
Guess this little 'misunderstadning' boils down to each persons definition of "quality of squad" becasue by yours and Dave's definition Fulham had a better squad than Spurs and Man City...
-
-
Well that's why we were relegated, so er, yes.
Im not sure what to say to that - the squad had viduka, martins, owen, barton, beye, collo, saylor, enrique given, players all of european calibre, i jjust dont know how anyone can say they were worse players than the likes of the hull city squad, becasue thats essentially what you're saying.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.
Yeh, that was the reason why we want down.
For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.
P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.
What the hell's an internet warrior?
I judge the success of transfers on what they do on the field, not what price you get for them at the end of it. The reason we went down was because the players weren't good enough - that's the players that we bought, you know, from transfers? And we didn't benefit from the ones we didn't have, because, you know, we'd transferred them?
Fucking hell.
Fuck me - managing a club made easy by Wullie.
So in your world the squad that went down was at least the 18th worst in the premiership?!
I'm almost 100% certain that if Wenger left in the circumstances that Keegan did and Arsenal appointed Joe Kinnear then they'd go down too, in your world that would make there players not good enough either! Obviously this is all relatively moot as there's no way of knowing for sure but its laughable to suggest that the quality of the players was the reason we went down. The squad that went down was almost identical to the one that went up.
You laugh as if they didn't go down ffs.
Aye, Arsenal would have gone down, sensible comparison.
West Brom have been relegated and subsequently promoted with the same squad about five times, does that mean they were actually good enough each time they got relegated, just badly managed? I'm actually embarrassed for you.
Simple question was the squad the 18th worst in the premiership?! Yes or no will do.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.
We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.
We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.
The reason we went down was becasue we sold the shot stopping skills of Given? Yes, the consistent creativity and industry of N'Zogbia? Hmmm and the pin point crossing and penatrations of Milner? No
Like we'd have needed them to perform every week to get one more point.
Go and have a lie down.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.
We went down due to the utter managerial shambles post Keegan. The squad, although it contained plenty of over paid under performers, was still good enough to be in the Premiership.
We'd have stayed up if we'd not sold Given, N'Zogbia and/or Milner.
The reason we went down was becasue we sold the shot stopping skills of Given? Yes, the consistent creativity and industry of N'Zogbia? Hmmm and the pin point crossing and penatrations of Milner? No
I'll leave it here before I turn it into one of 'those' threads. For the record i stand by my transfer claims.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.
Yeh, that was the reason why we want down.
For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.
P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.
What the hell's an internet warrior?
I judge the success of transfers on what they do on the field, not what price you get for them at the end of it. The reason we went down was because the players weren't good enough - that's the players that we bought, you know, from transfers? And we didn't benefit from the ones we didn't have, because, you know, we'd transferred them?
Fucking hell.
Fuck me - managing a club made easy by Wullie.
So in your world the squad that went down was at least the 18th worst in the premiership?!
I'm almost 100% certain that if Wenger left in the circumstances that Keegan did and Arsenal appointed Joe Kinnear then they'd go down too, in your world that would make there players not good enough either! Obviously this is all relatively moot as there's no way of knowing for sure but its laughable to suggest that the quality of the players was the reason we went down. The squad that went down was almost identical to the one that went up.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
Aye, our transfers have been so spot on, we ended up going down. Jesus, man.
Yeh, that was the reason why we want down.
For the record I mean who've we signed and sold and the prices we've got for them etc.
P.S You've always striked me as a bit of an internet warrior.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
Don't sell the best players?
Agenda aside id genuinely be interested in someones opinion as to what exactly they'd do differently. In terms of transfers I think we;ve been close to spot on in recent years. Even Spurs had to sell the likes of berba and carrick before they got estabilished.
If the money is spent wisely then we're on the right way in my opinioon. Obviosuly the biggest if going.
-
If we're talking about the financial running of the club alone, there's no argument that Ashley is doing a much better job.
The problem is that we're still in the spending bubble that means success in the Premier League is virtually impossible without taking massive financial risks or an owner investing vast amounts without hope of a return - neither of which Ashley is prepared to do.
Depends on your definition of success but I don't think that's true at all. I think the club would like you to think it though.
Well yeah, by success I was thinking European qualification and then pushing up into the top 4.
If by success you mean getting promoted and potentially finishing in the top half, then pushing on from there... we're already doing that.
Do you think Spurs are taking massive financial risks? Or even the mackems, who will probably still either bottle it or simply be caught by Liverpool, but are still very much in contention for Europe? Do you think Arsenal are taking massive financial risks?
How would you have gone about running the club? Serious question.
Thats a question to anyone bytheway.
-
Was it Ashley that brought us financial stability, or was it relegation?
Serious question.
The accounts are obviously going to look a lot better this season (even if you ignore the Carroll deal) but up until now I think the only thing that was stable about the club's finances was that the debt was owed to the owner rather than a bank. Relegation wasn't necessary to get us where we are.
Not that i want to get into a whole "relegation was good" debate but without relegation would we of realisitcally moved on the high earning wasters that were embedded at the club?!
I say this because I can't see a scenario where any players who we'd have liked to of offloaded were offloaded and replaced without compromising on the quality of the squad allowing us to compete in the divisiopn anyway. Basically if we had cut our losses on the deadwood, i didnt envisage a situation where they'd of been replaced adequately enough to compete in the league anyway. The drop in quality of football allowed us to not strengthen as much, cut the wasters and still keep enough quality to get us back in in a much better situation.
-
Can't help but think that Vela won't make it at Arsenal becasue i dont think he fits into the formation they like to play (a formation i'd like to see us play). Would also have a look at Sturridge, Weiss, N'Zogbia and Bassong.
I know, I know.
-
Carlton Cole and Ben Arfa would molest this league.
98% of all football watchers would disagree with you on Cole
Any half decent link up striker would boss this league with Ireland, Ben Arfa and another midfield-cum-forward playing behind him.
-
If we had an owner who you could guarantee expenditure with the Carroll money would people be as bothered?!
I acknolwedge that he's been nothing short of excellent since his debut in the Premiership but I'm genuinely finding it hard to justify a +£35m price tag.
For me it all boils down to where the money goes - if its back it the squad then Andy, who? As far as I'm concerend. Our goalkeepers decent, our defence its good, our midfield is shaping up very nicely our forward line is utter tosh, £35m spent porperly can get you a Hernandez, Van der Vaart, Hatem ben arfa - the players are out there.
Carroll is a unique player but no way in a million years is he irreplaceable.
-
1 Cristiano Ronaldo Manchester United Real Madrid £80 €93.5[4] 2009 £80m
2 Zlatan Ibrahimović[5] Internazionale Barcelona £56.5 €66[6][7] 2009 £57m
3 Kaká Milan Real Madrid £56 €64 2009 £56m
4 Fernando Torres Liverpool Chelsea £50[8] €58 2011 £50m
5 Zinedine Zidane Juventus Real Madrid £45 €75[9][10] 2001 £55m
6 Luís Figo Barcelona Real Madrid £37[11] €58.5 2000 £46m
7 Hernán Crespo[12] Parma Lazio £35.5[13] €55 2000 £45m
8 Andy Carroll Newcastle United Liverpool £35[14] €40 2011 £35m
9 David Villa Valencia Barcelona £34.2[15] €40 2010 £34m
10 Gianluigi Buffon[16] Parma Juventus £32.6[17] €49.2 2001 £40m
11 Robinho Real Madrid Manchester City £32.5[18] €49 2008 £32m
12 Christian Vieri Lazio Internazionale £32[19] €48.3 1999 £41m
13 Andriy Shevchenko Milan Chelsea £30.8 €46.4 2006 £33m
14 Dimitar Berbatov Tottenham Hotspur Manchester United £30.75 €46.4 2008 £31m
Just a bit of perspective in case anyones missed it.
-
It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll.
He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here.
Fucking sick to death of people saying things like this like.
He was earning a very good wage, and would have earned at least that for the next 5 1/2 years, playing for his boyhood club, wearing the 'famous' number 9 shirt that he dreamt about wearing, playing in front of 50,000 adoring fans every home game.
For a geordie lad, that surely has to be worth more than a bigger pay packet somewhere else. He wasn't earning a fucking pittance here for christ sake.
Whether it was him, his agent or Ashley and Llambias it was all done out of fucking greed, not for footballing reasons.
If £40k is a very good wage to make him stay then surely £40k more is a very good wage to make him want to leave?!
(Assuming the figures quoted are correct)
To make him stay at his boyhood club, his hometown city, yes.
To make him leave for a club arguably as fucked up as we are, no.
£40k a week he was earning? At the club of his dreams. FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS A WEEK. Short career or not, that's a fucking gigantic sum of money, and surely he was doing his absolute dream job too?
If his motivation to leave us was for more money at Liverpool rather than 10 years wearing the #9 for us, well fuck him.
What if his motivation was to move to a club in a better position to win silverware?!
-
Remember reading in SBR's book that it was standard procedure to "adjust" a players wages if a bid is rejected from another club to compensate for what the player might have earned at the new club - looks like another case of Ashley and co not understanding football!
Having said that if you look at the names that Carroll is alongside in the highest transfers fees list you can empathise with the club a little bit; +£35m is a huge number, if only the equation was as simple as this, i'd rather have £35m invested in the squad with no Carroll than having the current squad with Carroll.
Interesting that is. According to a few on here thats completely ridiculous
Carrol is allowed to ask for more.
MA is allowed to say no.
Two things - the first thing is that I read it as a case of ettiqutte rather than any written law to adjust the wages, and the second thing is that Carroll is well within his rights to seek a higher wage at another club.
-
Remember reading in SBR's book that it was standard procedure to "adjust" a players wages if a bid is rejected from another club to compensate for what the player might have earned at the new club.
Standard procedure under a regime that had no control over its spending.
As I said before, it's fair enough for Carroll to use this rival offer to attempt to get a pay rise from NUFC (I've done that myself at work). But Ashley is well within his rights to tell him to bugger off.
Sooo both parties were right to act the way they did?!
As far as I'm concerned, the ettquette of wanting to be compensated slightly for potential loss of earnings wasn't exclusive to Newcastle United c/o Shepherd, to suggest otherwise is madness.
-
It's clear Ashley wanted: the money from the transfer > Andy Carroll.
He just could have offered Andy Carroll an improved contract and he still would have been here.
Fucking sick to death of people saying things like this like.
He was earning a very good wage, and would have earned at least that for the next 5 1/2 years, playing for his boyhood club, wearing the 'famous' number 9 shirt that he dreamt about wearing, playing in front of 50,000 adoring fans every home game.
For a geordie lad, that surely has to be worth more than a bigger pay packet somewhere else. He wasn't earning a fucking pittance here for christ sake.
Whether it was him, his agent or Ashley and Llambias it was all done out of fucking greed, not for footballing reasons.
If £40k is a very good wage to make him stay then surely £40k more is a very good wage to make him want to leave?!
(Assuming the figures quoted are correct)
The looking-on-the-bright-side thread.
in Football
Posted
The sale of Carroll also has the potential to make this club. This summer is going to be a big one.