Jack Flash

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money. I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale. you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it. How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you. the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that? I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place. What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are. They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money. Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book. Are you joking? Please tell me you are... We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought". Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent. And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money. I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale. you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it. How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you. the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that? I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place. What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are. They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money. Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book. Are you joking? Please tell me you are... We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money. I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale. you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it. How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you. the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that? I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place. What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are. They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money. Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

I guess you missed the word "bollocks" in the thread title. There is "bollocks" and then there is "trolling". Compute? Oh wind your f***ing neck in. Somebody angrily defending cwarr A new low for the thread. Where exactly have I done that? Idiot. You advocated his nonsense drivel and I'm the idiot. More flawless logic from Ned. Jesus wept, you're not too sharp on the uptake are you kidda. I've not advocated any of his nonsense which anyone with half abrain can see.

I guess you missed the word "bollocks" in the thread title. There is "bollocks" and then there is "trolling". Compute? Oh wind your f***ing neck in. Somebody angrily defending cwarr A new low for the thread. Where exactly have I done that? Idiot. You advocated his nonsense drivel and I'm the idiot. More flawless logic from Ned.

I guess you missed the word "bollocks" in the thread title. There is "bollocks" and then there is "trolling". Compute? Oh wind your f***ing neck in. Somebody angrily defending cwarr A new low for the thread.

I guess you missed the word "bollocks" in the thread title. There is "bollocks" and then there is "trolling". Compute?

I capitalised "might" for that reason.

It's pretty f***ing obvious what is going to be in this thread ffs! The thread is for things that MIGHT be true. Reading pages and pages of cwarr trolling people is ruining a potentially interesting thread.

"No need to read the post you've already read most of before you notice cwarr gets mentioned as the source" Excellent logic on a forum.

This cwarr stuff got boring at least a month ago. No need at all to post and analyse his every utterance.

It's unforgivable if we don't even try for him. He'd improve us in so many ways.

that's him well busted good and proper now the cock. That photo was taken on the 8th March 2011. And from a few angles... http://i52.tinypic.com/2cyhqe.jpg

If we spent some serious money (on transfer fees) I think we'd get some fantastic players in. We're (now) not ones to waste a penny with transfers and can clearly negotiate very well so It'd be interesting to see who we could attract.

Receding hairline in that picture!! /rtg

Man City will only see £6-£8m of that though. Which would cover the wages of about 3 players for a month or two. Waste of time.

We often get good/very good prices for people both incoming and outgoing. Can't complain about that area of the club.

With Ameobi and Lovenkrands going into the last year of their contracts it'll be a great indicator of our ambition as to whether they're offered new contracts or not. Sadly, I think they'll both be too amiable and accept whatever new contracts they're offered.

seriously ian, seriously? taking devils advocate to the extreme here like I'm not saying we shouldn't spend anything, but wouldn't using some of the money to shore up other aspects of our finances be a good idea? No. There are other substantial incomes to cover all that, especially as the wage bill is dropping by the year.

Is anyone else taking guilty pleasure from the "no offers for Enrique" line? The way he has been rather disrespectful to us and the club makes me want him to have a huge let down like this. I still expect him to leave but HA!

I've said plenty of times that I think we've done good business so far, but if Ameobi or Lovenkrands start a league match for us before January then we've had a very bad window.

To be honest, when you look at the prices that players are going for these days, £7m isn't a bad price for an English-based 24 year-old with 23 goals (even in second tier football) in his previous season. Danny Graham went for £3.5 million and has scored loads in the last 5 years. He sounds like a far better bet than Long. We shouldn't be paying over the odds for a striker who has had 1 good season in the championship. We've had significant time and money to get the 2 strikers we need to progress and this is who we're going for?

That's one of the funniest things I've ever seen

http://twitter.com/#!/NUFC_News #nufc Rumours building up that #Arsenal are preparing a straight swap, Enrique for Chamakh.

http://twitter.com/#!/The_Bort sounds eminently reliable.