No signings = relegation?

[Dokko]

You're the one saying he'd transform our results tbf.

 

Did I?

 

 

 

Touché.

 

Why else are you arguing about him then?

 

I'm not arguing about anything. Just putting peoples stupid ideas about him in to touch.

 

Knocking a young lad for scoring only one goal in the league, when £60m+ worth of Manu talent can't do any better is fuking thick imo.

 

Barnes getting NUFC grief and he hasn't even become a toon player, its just amazing, it really is.

 

People aren't knocking him for being a young lad, they're knocking him because he's been brought up in this thread as someone we should have signed.

 

i think he was actually brought up as one of the two players we know we bid for, therefore it's safe to assume we wanted to sign him

 

there are obviously better midfielders throughout europe and the world, he's just the one we know keegan asked for

 

 

Which is a fair point.

 

KK thought he saw something in him, but for some reason we offered daft money, and guess what, its was greeted with a big KO.

 

Some defended the club by saying we were going for him on the cheap and would go back, but we didn't. I just do not get what's going on with that one, which makes the Barnes situation even more bitter for myself. He should have and could have been ours for relatively cheap money. It cost twice as much to sack SA FFS.

[mrmojorisin75]

...because we signed no one were in a relegation fight.

 

As I said earlier, it's far too simplistic imo to say that. We probably wouldn't be in this scrap had Keegan been in charge for the two Derby games, for example.

 

You could be right, but in times of dire need of help, we got no one in. Only a man who'd been out of the game for far too long to make any judgement on players.

 

That's having an effect, if we had signed 2 or 3 players we'd be lifted, morale of the players, the fans, the management, and we'd have more points. All imo of course, but sometimes it is just that simple, bringing in players would have turned this season around, not in dramatic style, but enough to put decent daylight between us and relegation.

 

this is precisely what i think...forget barnes, but if we'd signed ONLY midfielders in the mould of pompey's (diarra, muntari, diop etc...) we'd be a different team, a couple of athletic, strong, fit players who can compete and take the load off everyone else

 

we've had worse defences and attacks than this in the PL, we've just never been so poor in the middle

 

it really wouldn't have been that hard to do would it?

[James]

I can't say I particularly recall any concrete links to Barnes this window - certainly no inclination that Derby wanted to sell, or that we were keen to buy him as an immediate first team player.

 

According to semi reliable ITKs, we were a lot closer to signing him on 31st January 2007, when having spent the day at Newcastle, Barnes was sent home by Freddy Shepherd.

[mrmojorisin75]

You're the one saying he'd transform our results tbf.

 

Did I?

 

 

 

Touché.

 

Why else are you arguing about him then?

 

I'm not arguing about anything. Just putting peoples stupid ideas about him in to touch.

 

Knocking a young lad for scoring only one goal in the league, when £60m+ worth of Manu talent can't do any better is fuking thick imo.

 

Barnes getting NUFC grief and he hasn't even become a toon player, its just amazing, it really is.

 

People aren't knocking him for being a young lad, they're knocking him because he's been brought up in this thread as someone we should have signed.

 

i think he was actually brought up as one of the two players we know we bid for, therefore it's safe to assume we wanted to sign him

 

there are obviously better midfielders throughout europe and the world, he's just the one we know keegan asked for

 

 

Which is a fair point.

 

KK thought he saw something in him, but for some reason we offered daft money, and guess what, its was greeted with a big KO.

 

Some defended the club by saying we were going for him on the cheap and would go back, but we didn't. I just do not get what's going on with that one, which makes the Barnes situation even more bitter for myself. He should have and could have been ours for relatively cheap money. It cost twice as much to sack SA FFS.

 

i've not seen that much of barnes but the parrells with dyer work on almost every level...when we paid 6m for dyer all those years ago he'd only played in the first division but excelled there, same as barnes, and there's nothing to suggest he'd not have struggled with ipswich when they were promoted a la barnes

 

we thought 6m on a fast, young player with potential was worth it then, why not now?

[Dokko]

I can't say I particularly recall any concrete links to Barnes this window - certainly no inclination that Derby wanted to sell, or that we were keen to buy him as an immediate first team player.

 

According to semi reliable ITKs, we were a lot closer to signing him on 31st January 2007, when having spent the day at Newcastle, Barnes was sent home by Freddy Shepherd.

 

Derby rejected a bid.

 

"They (Newcastle) did come up with an offer yesterday, a verbal offer, but it was nowhere near our valuation," Jewell said.

 

What more proof to you want, should i get Skirge to do a question time for you?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/29/ufnbarnes129.xml

[Happy Face]

in reality because we signed no one were in a relegation fight.

 

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

 

Just about get what you are saying, surprisingly, and even more surprisingly i agree.

 

He couldn't prevent what happened, he wasn't here, but he could have fixed it, still can, but the job would have been made easier with new bodies surely?

 

 

What it means is just because we're in a relegation fight after buying no-one, doesn't mean we're in a relegation fight for buying no-one.

 

I'm sure we could have brought people in, but they wouldn't have necessarily improved the squad.  We made moves on players Keegan thought would improve us, but none of them wanted to  come (obviously saw our performances under Allardyce).  I 100% back the manager in not throwing money at bad players for the sake of bringing anyone whatsoever in.

[Dokko]

You're the one saying he'd transform our results tbf.

 

Did I?

 

 

 

Touché.

 

Why else are you arguing about him then?

 

I'm not arguing about anything. Just putting peoples stupid ideas about him in to touch.

 

Knocking a young lad for scoring only one goal in the league, when £60m+ worth of Manu talent can't do any better is fuking thick imo.

 

Barnes getting NUFC grief and he hasn't even become a toon player, its just amazing, it really is.

 

People aren't knocking him for being a young lad, they're knocking him because he's been brought up in this thread as someone we should have signed.

 

i think he was actually brought up as one of the two players we know we bid for, therefore it's safe to assume we wanted to sign him

 

there are obviously better midfielders throughout europe and the world, he's just the one we know keegan asked for

 

 

Which is a fair point.

 

KK thought he saw something in him, but for some reason we offered daft money, and guess what, its was greeted with a big KO.

 

Some defended the club by saying we were going for him on the cheap and would go back, but we didn't. I just do not get what's going on with that one, which makes the Barnes situation even more bitter for myself. He should have and could have been ours for relatively cheap money. It cost twice as much to sack SA FFS.

 

i've not seen that much of barnes but the parrells with dyer work on almost every level...when we paid 6m for dyer all those years ago he'd only played in the first division but excelled there, same as barnes, and there's nothing to suggest he'd not have struggled with ipswich when they were promoted a la barnes

 

we thought 6m on a fast, young player with potential was worth it then, why not now?

 

They only wanted £4m IIRC. We bid £2m

 

He's worth £4m anyday, its not a risk, he's 19 and would easily full fill £4m worth of potential.

 

I still cannot get my head around it. Billionaire owner being a cheap cunt in times of desperation. Crazy.

[James]

I can't say I particularly recall any concrete links to Barnes this window - certainly no inclination that Derby wanted to sell, or that we were keen to buy him as an immediate first team player.

 

According to semi reliable ITKs, we were a lot closer to signing him on 31st January 2007, when having spent the day at Newcastle, Barnes was sent home by Freddy Shepherd.

 

Derby rejected a bid.

 

"They (Newcastle) did come up with an offer yesterday, a verbal offer, but it was nowhere near our valuation," Jewell said.

 

What more proof to you want, should i get Skirge to do a question time for you?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/29/ufnbarnes129.xml

 

Still, there is no indication that Derby wanted to sell, or that we intended to buy him as an immediate first teamer. He could have fallen under Wise's jurisdiction rather than Keegan's as far as we know.

 

At the end of the day, ten days was not nearly long enough to make any arrangements.

 

If Barnes is that good, it would be worse if semi reliable ITK rumours are true and Shepherd backed out of matching a £2m valuation at the last minute back in 2007.

[mrmojorisin75]

You're the one saying he'd transform our results tbf.

 

Did I?

 

 

 

Touché.

 

Why else are you arguing about him then?

 

I'm not arguing about anything. Just putting peoples stupid ideas about him in to touch.

 

Knocking a young lad for scoring only one goal in the league, when £60m+ worth of Manu talent can't do any better is fuking thick imo.

 

Barnes getting NUFC grief and he hasn't even become a toon player, its just amazing, it really is.

 

People aren't knocking him for being a young lad, they're knocking him because he's been brought up in this thread as someone we should have signed.

 

i think he was actually brought up as one of the two players we know we bid for, therefore it's safe to assume we wanted to sign him

 

there are obviously better midfielders throughout europe and the world, he's just the one we know keegan asked for

 

 

Which is a fair point.

 

KK thought he saw something in him, but for some reason we offered daft money, and guess what, its was greeted with a big KO.

 

Some defended the club by saying we were going for him on the cheap and would go back, but we didn't. I just do not get what's going on with that one, which makes the Barnes situation even more bitter for myself. He should have and could have been ours for relatively cheap money. It cost twice as much to sack SA FFS.

 

i've not seen that much of barnes but the parrells with dyer work on almost every level...when we paid 6m for dyer all those years ago he'd only played in the first division but excelled there, same as barnes, and there's nothing to suggest he'd not have struggled with ipswich when they were promoted a la barnes

 

we thought 6m on a fast, young player with potential was worth it then, why not now?

 

They only wanted £4m IIRC. We bid £2m

 

He's worth £4m anyday, its not a risk, he's 19 and would easily full fill £4m worth of potential.

 

I still cannot get my head around it. Billionaire owner being a cheap c*** in times of desperation. Crazy.

 

amazes me that in the time of the PL being the richest it's EVER been, us being taken over by a billionaire who fancies a laugh that we've spent less (NET) than when we were a limited sodding company

 

we spent net 10m in the summer, if we'd matched man city this season we'd have another 40m to add to that...we'd be talking about two very different seasons in my opinion

 

i'm hoping it's a calculated gamble by ashley, get to this summer having spent little but got the internal stuff all set up then go for it this summer...the other side to that doesn't bear thinking about

[Baggio]

Nobody is knocking Barnes for being a young lad, people are pointing out that he's failed to live up to the hype that surrounded him last season and has looked pretty average for Derby this year, he's clearly a lad with some potential but I don't think he'd have made much of a difference to us this season judging from the average performances he's been putting in.

[Happy Face]

amazes me that in the time of the PL being the richest it's EVER been, us being taken over by a billionaire who fancies a laugh that we've spent less (NET) than when we were a limited sodding company

 

we spent net 10m in the summer, if we'd matched man city this season we'd have another 40m to add to that...we'd be talking about two very different seasons in my opinion

 

i'm hoping it's a calculated gamble by ashley, get to this summer having spent little but got the internal stuff all set up then go for it this summer...the other side to that doesn't bear thinking about

 

He is a bit tight like, to only spend £200M on sorting out the clubs finances when there's players he could have thrown that money at.

 

Did he learn nothing from his chats with the previous lot?  Cook the books, beg, borrow and steal, but placate the fans with a big money signing at all costs.

 

Anyone would think Shepherd had ran things badly at the club.

[Baggio]

And Dyer was a far better player back then than Barnes is now, miles apart in terms of talent and ability.

[ChezGiven]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

 

 

[Dokko]

amazes me that in the time of the PL being the richest it's EVER been, us being taken over by a billionaire who fancies a laugh that we've spent less (NET) than when we were a limited sodding company

 

we spent net 10m in the summer, if we'd matched man city this season we'd have another 40m to add to that...we'd be talking about two very different seasons in my opinion

 

i'm hoping it's a calculated gamble by ashley, get to this summer having spent little but got the internal stuff all set up then go for it this summer...the other side to that doesn't bear thinking about

 

He is a bit tight like, to only spend £200M on sorting out the clubs finances when there's players he could have thrown that money at.

 

Did he learn nothing from his chats with the previous lot?  Cook the books, beg, borrow and steal, but placate the fans with a big money signing at all costs.

 

Anyone would think Shepherd had ran things badly at the club.

 

It will cost him a lot more if the club goes down.

 

 

 

[Mowen]

I can't say I particularly recall any concrete links to Barnes this window - certainly no inclination that Derby wanted to sell, or that we were keen to buy him as an immediate first team player.

 

According to semi reliable ITKs, we were a lot closer to signing him on 31st January 2007, when having spent the day at Newcastle, Barnes was sent home by Freddy Shepherd.

 

Derby rejected a bid.

 

"They (Newcastle) did come up with an offer yesterday, a verbal offer, but it was nowhere near our valuation," Jewell said.

 

What more proof to you want, should i get Skirge to do a question time for you?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/01/29/ufnbarnes129.xml

 

Still, there is no indication that Derby wanted to sell, or that we intended to buy him as an immediate first teamer. He could have fallen under Wise's jurisdiction rather than Keegan's as far as we know.

 

At the end of the day, ten days was not nearly long enough to make any arrangements.

 

If Barnes is that good, it would be worse if semi reliable ITK rumours are true and Shepherd backed out of matching a £2m valuation at the last minute back in 2007.

 

We made a bid, and the reason they didn't sell was because it didn't match their valuation - showing that they would have sold for a fair price.

 

How more concrete could a link be?

[Happy Face]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

Aye, he's put the money where it makes business sense.

[Dokko]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

Aye, he's put the money where it makes business sense.

 

So it doesn't make business sense to spend money on football players at a football club, especially one that is struggling?

[Happy Face]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

Aye, he's put the money where it makes business sense.

 

So it doesn't make business sense to spend money on football players at a football club, especially one that is struggling?

 

Ask a Leeds fan.

[Dokko]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

Aye, he's put the money where it makes business sense.

 

So it doesn't make business sense to spend money on football players at a football club, especially one that is struggling?

 

Ask a Leeds fan.

 

Why is everything to the extreme?

 

Why not ask a Pompy fan eh? (which is much more our situation than Leeds)

 

 

[Baggio]

But money was there, Keegan confirmed that and said it was his decision not to sign anyone, unless you're talking about under Allardyce where Ashley could point to £20+ million on Smith, Barton, Enrique and Rozehnal for being justified in not giving him any more.

[Happy Face]

What did Pompey Spend in 05/06 like?

 

They spent £4M....and sold players for £8M

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2049

 

Hardly throwing money at the problem.

 

They spent big AFTER securing their safety.

 

...if you think £13M in 06/07 can be considered a huge amount, given we spend that year in year out.

[Dokko]

What did Pompey Spend in 05/06 like?

 

They spent £4M....and sold players for £8M

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2049

 

Hardly throwing money at the problem.

 

They spent big AFTER securing their safety.

 

...if you think £13M in 06/07 can be considered a huge amount, given we spend that year in year out.

 

He brought in 3 loans and signed 5 players.

 

You only added the players they've got actual prices for, care to add how much the Tottenham trio cost and Dean Kiely? I'm sure the Spuds players cost £10m, and the money they got back was at the stasrt of the season not in the Jan window.

 

They were going down, they were in trouble, those players turned it around. They were signed to help, not after they survived.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

Aye, he's put the money where it makes business sense.

 

Drastic missing of point.

 

If we go down, he wasted all of that money as the value of the club will drop enormously.

[Dokko]

He spent 200m and he has an asset worth at least 200m. Not exactly the Rowntree foundation.

 

 

Aye, he's put the money where it makes business sense.

 

Drastic missing of point.

 

If we go down, he wasted all of that money as the value of the club will drop enormously.

 

 

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin one...

[Happy Face]

A club that was in the relegation places all season changed the squad to fight for survival, but didn't jeopardise financial stability, by doing so on the cheap....they remained in net credit.

 

Newcastle have spent half the season in the top half, but started to slide when the expensive set of international players they already have lost faith in the (then) manager.

 

Completely different scenarios.