dave do you really need this explaining?
a club our size has much bigger income from ST sales, shirt sales, corporates & sponsorships etc... than the fulhams of this world therefore the 30-50m they receive needs to be used to mask the defecit, with us it does not - we've got the 5th biggest turnover in the league haven't we? are we 5th biggest spenders in the last year? are we fuck
as other people say the club doesn't need to be 100% debt free, it just doesn't have to be riddled with it to the point of being totally fucked
again i'll ask for a straight answer from you or anyone else; lets say TV money is 40m a season - that means "ashley" will get 80m for last season and this one coming regardless of when it's paid...
why are you accepting this money not being reinvested in the playing squad? or if not that money then the ST money, or sponsorship money? or any money?
are you saying to me the club has to be self sufficient from the moment ashley bought it? why?
why couldn't he invest some of the money based on future guaranteed income (the TV deal is over a fixed period so they know what they're getting and for how long)?
we're not talking 100m here dave but what's been invested in the last year is a fucking joke and you know it is
I've no idea why that money isn't going straight back into transfers. Perhaps it's gone directly towards our monstrously huge wage bill (which WAS fifth highest in the league from what I remember the last reports saying).
It's a fair question, but if it's that simple, why hasn't every other Premier League club spent £80m on transfers in that last two years? What are they doing with it? There must be a reason why hardly anyone has used this amazing new 'free' revenue directly on transfers.
As I keep pointing out though, NOBODY was complaining at the net spend on September 1st 2007. Nobody. Personally I'm glad they didn't give that useless twat Allardyce any more money than they did.
If only we'd bought Gutierrez the normal way.
as i said dave, presumably clubs like fulham or middlesbrough (examples only) have to pay high wages as well but they don't have anything like the external or internal income we have to back this up
think about it: liverpool HAVE spent a fortune, so have man u, forget chelski, arsenal have still spent while having their stadium debt to deal with
NE5's point stands - these are the clubs you need to be comparing us with in a sense, but lets drop down a tier and compare our signings with those of man city, pompey, everton, spurs...they're all spending to the level i'm talking about here dave (11m on crouch, 9m defoe, 11m yakubu, 16m moutinho?, and you know all about spurs)
it doesn't add up unless you're suggesting we're smaller than these clubs and should be down with the likes of the mackems (who look like they're gonna outspend) and hull or whoever
as for your spiderman point why can it only be one way? noones saying that's not a good deal but if it turns out to be the ONLY deal of any significance then it's not good enough is it?
I think all three of those players were overpriced actually, and Moutinho hasn't gone anywhere yet so could be compared to our club-record bid for Modric could it not?
Look, I'm hoping we spend some money this summer to get the players in we require for a good season. I'm willing to wait and see what they do. I've no idea why not whinging now suggests I'm happy to accept we sign nobody. As it stands we've signed two players (more than a few clubs at this point), one who looks like he's rated in the £8m+ bracket according to Portsmouth's January bid for him and a young player who's started his career here well.
Sorry to quote HarryNorway when i say.....
But this is basically how i feel too! Still plenty of time left and its good that we're being so heavily linked to a great defender!
