Ashley's recruitment men Wise, Jimenez, Vetere to blame for lack of signings?

[Guest stjamestoon]

Its just getting really close to start of season, and i can see us getting c u nted by manu!

[Syrette]

Ashley buys the club for 133m with 80m debt-he knew about the debt. He pays of the debt so now he has a club worth 133+80m-that is what he will sell it for, he doesnt lose any money at all.

 

2) I will be extremely pissed off if we get outspent by Sunderland, but i dont expect superstars because we cant attract them even if we had 100m to spend, what we need is a modest investment of 20m net, i dont think that is too much too ask for from an owner worth 700m in cash.

 

Ashley stated that he just wanted to turn up and watch the football-well why not just buy a season ticket?, he clearly bought the club to make some money when he sells it-no problem with that but why pretend otherwise.

 

I think his move to cut the wages was long overdue and the focus on the youth set-up is also long overdue but we all knew that.

 

What is the point of an owner without any money or an owner with money who wont spend any of it.

 

Didnt Keegan say after the Chelsea game, we cant challenge the top 4, the owner thinks we can but we cant.

 

First underlined point - I couldn't care less if Sunderland outspent us really. Spending vast amounts of money doesn't mean they'll be bringing in better players. I'd rather see them overspend and us pick up a few bargains and get a few good deals on better players.

 

Second underlined point - I think there's more to it than just going to the match. He wanted to own a club and get involved with it.

 

Third underlined point - several weeks left in the window for him to spend money. Either way I don't want to spend money just for the sake of money, but that's obvious or so I'd think.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Its just getting really close to start of season, and i can see us getting c u nted by manu!

 

Aye, but it would have taken a hell of a lot of signings to stop that.

[Teasy]

Ashley buys the club for 133m with 80m debt-he knew about the debt. He pays of the debt so now he has a club worth 133+80m-that is what he will sell it for, he doesnt lose any money at all.

 

2) I will be extremely pissed off if we get outspent by Sunderland, but i dont expect superstars because we cant attract them even if we had 100m to spend, what we need is a modest investment of 20m net, i dont think that is too much too ask for from an owner worth 700m in cash.

 

Ashley stated that he just wanted to turn up and watch the football-well why not just buy a season ticket?, he clearly bought the club to make some money when he sells it-no problem with that but why pretend otherwise.

 

I think his move to cut the wages was long overdue and the focus on the youth set-up is also long overdue but we all knew that.

 

What is the point of an owner without any money or an owner with money who wont spend any of it.

 

Didnt Keegan say after the Chelsea game, we cant challenge the top 4, the owner thinks we can but we cant.

 

What makes you think Ashley is holding back funds?  Is it the signing of Guthrie and Jonas?  Or maybe the combined £40 million bids (that we know of) for the likes of Modric, Woodgate, Aimar and Coloccini?  If we don't spend money today then that means Ashley didn't make any available today?, is that it?  You only have to think about it for a short while to realise it doesn't work like that..

 

BTW the club was worth only £100 million when Ashley paid over the odds for it.

[mrmojorisin75]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

[womblemaster]

HAs anyone considered that the credit crunch may be a factor here?

 

The banks may no longer be willing to lend money agiansy a clubs future earnings.

 

Just because ashley paid off 80m debt, doesnt mean that the club arent stillmaking an operatingloss every year; i suspect we are making a loss of 10-20m per yearatmo.

Has to  be factored into the sums.

[mrmojorisin75]

HAs anyone considered that the credit crunch may be a factor here?

 

The banks may no longer be willing to lend money agiansy a clubs future earnings.

 

Just because ashley paid off 80m debt, doesnt mean that the club arent stillmaking an operatingloss every year; i suspect we are making a loss of 10-20m per yearatmo.

Has to  be factored into the sums.

 

so which is it then 'cause i'm confused now:

 

there is money but deals are hard & players are overpriced or there is no money?

[Ronaldo]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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 f***

 

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 f***ed

 

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 f***ing joke and you know it is

 

 

 

 

 

 

not quite a joke but it's certainly a question that needs answering

[mrmojorisin75]

nothing, i repeat nothing, would give me greater pleasure than to see us sign collocini, then follow that up with another three quality players so i could shut the fuck up

 

Aye, boring every fucker to death with relentless moaning will definitely help us to get the players we need.

 

nothing of worth to contribute to a discussion on discussion forum i see...

 

what's your other favourite passtime, going to a brothel with chronic impotence?

[Dave]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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.

[UV]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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 f***

 

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 f***ed

 

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 f***ing 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 t*** Allardyce any more money than they did.

 

If only we'd bought Gutierrez the normal way.

 

A lot of clubs did spend significantly more in the last year or two, and has been pointed out before have already broken their transfer records this season.

 

http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingcomparison.jpg

 

PS Dave, there's a poster a couple of posts back who's adding the alleged amounts we bid fo Aimar and Coloccini to the amount Ashley's willing to spend. Hadn't you better stomp on him for believing what suits him from the press.

[mrmojorisin75]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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?

[Dave]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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 f***

 

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 f***ed

 

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 f***ing 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 t*** Allardyce any more money than they did.

 

If only we'd bought Gutierrez the normal way.

 

A lot of clubs did spend significantly more last year, and has been pointed out before have already broken their transfer records this season.

 

http://www.purelymancity.com/wp-content/5yearspendingcomparison.jpg

 

PS Dave, there's a poster a couple of posts back who's adding the alleged amounts we bid fo Aimar and Coloccini to the amount Ashley's willing to spend. Hadn't you better stomp on him for believing what suits him from the press.

 

So according to that table hardly anyone has been spending this apparently free £40m.

 

Looks to me like we cut our cloth accordingly given the previous two years of underacheivement versus money spent. In fact the figures from last year tell quite a lot about the significance of purely money spent as a barometer, considering some of the teams who spent more last year. Look at Sunderland ffs.

 

PS - you're right btw, nobody should be using Aimar and Coloccini in arguments right now IMO.

[nobby_solano]

it is a bit unnerving though, our rivals strengthening their squads, whilst we haven't (up to now) it doesn't fill you with optimism for the season to say how much of a struggle last season was, hopefully the next couple of weeks will see that change though

[simmsy10]

I'm not too worried, yet! We have 3 weeks until the first game, if we get Bassong and Colloccini in (hopefully this week) then were halfway there! I'd gladly take a midfielder before we kick off at Old Trafford, which i think we will. Then who knows, sneek one more in on the 31st August! It's not time to panic yet folks!

[Dave]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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.

[simmsy10]

I love how everyone keeps bringing up the extra money from Sky.

 

Er, everyone's got it. So it's even more telling that hardly any other club has done major business, and it doesn't help Liverpool buy Barry one jot anyway.

 

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!

[mrmojorisin75]

interesting how you read that table dave 'cause i see man city, pompey, spurs, liverpool, manu, everton as all having invested more in their squads last year and they all have better teams and higher league finishes (of course you can't judge everything on one seasons spend but it's not coincidental)

 

villa are the exceptions there spend wise but then i'm not sure what they're doing these days, and blackburn of course built their team over time but i expect them to go to shit this season

 

all of the aforementioned clubs (not villa/blackburn) presently look like outspending us and started with better & bigger squads

 

seeing it yet?

[Guest neesy111]

interesting how you read that table dave 'cause i see man city, pompey, spurs, liverpool, manu, everton as all having invested more in their squads last year and they all have better teams and higher league finishes (of course you can't judge everything on one seasons spend but it's not coincidental)

 

villa are the exceptions there spend wise but then i'm not sure what they're doing these days, and blackburn of course built their team over time but i expect them to go to shit this season

 

all of the aforementioned clubs (not villa/blackburn) presently look like outspending us and started with better & bigger squads

 

seeing it yet?

 

but we have went out to spend big, and look where that got us, a player injured for 2 seasons and another that didn't play

[Dave]

interesting how you read that table dave 'cause i see man city, pompey, spurs, liverpool, manu, everton as all having invested more in their squads last year and they all have better teams and higher league finishes (of course you can't judge everything on one seasons spend but it's not coincidental)

 

villa are the exceptions there spend wise but then i'm not sure what they're doing these days, and blackburn of course built their team over time but i expect them to go to shit this season

 

all of the aforementioned clubs (not villa/blackburn) presently look like outspending us and started with better & bigger squads

 

seeing it yet?

 

In 06-07 only two clubs spent more than us and we finished 13th. It's good this game.

[mrmojorisin75]

interesting how you read that table dave 'cause i see man city, pompey, spurs, liverpool, manu, everton as all having invested more in their squads last year and they all have better teams and higher league finishes (of course you can't judge everything on one seasons spend but it's not coincidental)

 

villa are the exceptions there spend wise but then i'm not sure what they're doing these days, and blackburn of course built their team over time but i expect them to go to shit this season

 

all of the aforementioned clubs (not villa/blackburn) presently look like outspending us and started with better & bigger squads

 

seeing it yet?

 

but we have went out to spend big, and look where that got us, a player injured for 2 seasons and another that didn't play

 

fuck me

fuck me

fuck me

fuck me

fuck me

fuck meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

READ posts please - we're just talking about the club spending an amount that is in line with a one of our size & stature and an amount that will see us at least attempt to significantly improve a depleted, talent starved squad

 

i don't get why it's all or nothing with you guys, i just don't...i'm criticising ashleys investment to date therefore i must be demanding we sign another cripple for 17m?  not at all, i applaud the spiderman deal and have said in the past if we could secure 4 more of them then i'd be delighted but that's a virtual impossibility isn't it?  so if we want more players to IMPROVE the team we're gonna have to pay for them, like the clubs named in the table from UV are doing

[Slugsy]

While I absolutely agree with the policy of only spending to improve the squad and also acknowledging there is still time to go, I am nervous on two fronts:

 

1. Our squad is weaker than some of our so called rivals to start with

2. Some of these so called rivals have started to spend and improve their squads further.

 

Its all very well saying its okay because Everton and Villa haven't spent anything - well last time I looked they had better squads than us to start with so are we not playing catch up to begin with?  Additionally, we have actually reduced our playing numbers with the departure of people like Emre. 

 

Completely agree that we should not be buying people for the sake of it but when I hear Keegan prattle on about defenders being the priority and over the last few months, the number of players he supposedly needs gets smaller and smaller, I start to get anxious, particulalry about the midfield and upfront given Viduka's horrendous injury record and our absence of creative midfielders.

[mrmojorisin75]

interesting how you read that table dave 'cause i see man city, pompey, spurs, liverpool, manu, everton as all having invested more in their squads last year and they all have better teams and higher league finishes (of course you can't judge everything on one seasons spend but it's not coincidental)

 

villa are the exceptions there spend wise but then i'm not sure what they're doing these days, and blackburn of course built their team over time but i expect them to go to shit this season

 

all of the aforementioned clubs (not villa/blackburn) presently look like outspending us and started with better & bigger squads

 

seeing it yet?

 

In 06-07 only two clubs spent more than us and we finished 13th. It's good this game.

 

see my next post dave and try to take it in - it's not about whether we spend MORE than these clubs, it's about whether we spend what we need to spend to at least keep up with them, in fact lets change that to CATCH them first then we'll have to start thinking about keeping up with them

 

the period you refer to is universally accepted as one of turmoil and shit managers so the point is moot in my eyes anyway

 

if you think, what, 12m net spend so far under ashley is OK then so be it

[mrmojorisin75]

While I absolutely agree with the policy of only spending to improve the squad and also acknowledging there is still time to go, I am nervous on two fronts:

 

1. Our squad is weaker than some of our so called rivals to start with

2. Some of these so called rivals have started to spend and improve their squads further.

 

Its all very well saying its okay because Everton and Villa haven't spent anything - well last time I looked they had better squads than us to start with so are we not playing catch up to begin with?  Additionally, we have actually reduced our playing numbers with the departure of people like Emre. 

 

Completely agree that we should not be buying people for the sake of it but when I hear Keegan prattle on about defenders being the priority and over the last few months, the number of players he supposedly needs gets smaller and smaller, I start to get anxious, particulalry about the midfield and upfront given Viduka's horrendous injury record and our absence of creative midfielders.

 

B-I-N-G-O slugsy

[Dave]

interesting how you read that table dave 'cause i see man city, pompey, spurs, liverpool, manu, everton as all having invested more in their squads last year and they all have better teams and higher league finishes (of course you can't judge everything on one seasons spend but it's not coincidental)

 

villa are the exceptions there spend wise but then i'm not sure what they're doing these days, and blackburn of course built their team over time but i expect them to go to shit this season

 

all of the aforementioned clubs (not villa/blackburn) presently look like outspending us and started with better & bigger squads

 

seeing it yet?

 

In 06-07 only two clubs spent more than us and we finished 13th. It's good this game.

 

see my next post dave and try to take it in - it's not about whether we spend MORE than these clubs, it's about whether we spend what we need to spend to at least keep up with them, in fact lets change that to CATCH them first then we'll have to start thinking about keeping up with them

 

the period you refer to is universally accepted as one of turmoil and shit managers so the point is moot in my eyes anyway

 

if you think, what, 12m net spend so far under ashley is OK then so be it

 

I honestly don't care what we spend as long as we get the players we require. Simple as that. So the facts and figures don't really bother me. Sure the elite players cost megabucks but right now we just can't attract them anyway. We need to show that we're going in the right direction to do that, and after the latter years you refer to I'm afraid we simply don't.

 

I'm sounding like a broken record here but last year no-one gave a shite that the net spend was only £8m. They were pretty much universally pleased that the positions we needed covering were, with generally good players. I also still think a manager better than Allardyce (ie Keegan) would have had us top half relatively comfortably with that spend and that squad.

 

The likes of Villa, Everton and Blackburn have got above us through diligent building of their club and squad over time rather than just firing money here there and everywhere. I admire them for it.