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

[UV]

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.

 

I don't think anyone's said it was an extra £40m have they? Of course you have to filter in the increased wages of the expensive new players your bringing in too. The table just shows that there is a lot more money floating about, but we seem to be decreasing the amount we spend in transfers and wages.

 

I like how you picked a promoted team - the only one to stay up - who finished only 4 points below us as an example of a team which spent money poorly. You could just as easily take the spending of Man City, Pompey, Everton or Spurs over the last few years to show what spending a bit of cash can do for you (almost immediately in City's case - did no-one tell them they've got to take 4-5 years?). I'll get a "LOL Spuds only finished 2 places above us!!!!" in before anyone else, but they'll be a lot more than 2 places above us next season if we go into the season with anything like the midfield & attack we have now, I'll put money on that.

 

It's not a case of spend big one season and hey presto instant success (although it can happen), but if you let the spending drop below other's over a number of seasons, unless you have a Wenger type figure finding new talent, your squad is inevitably going to drop further and further behind the other clubs in quality, and it's going to become harder and harder to compete no matter who the manager is. It seems to me like some are happy to believe that Wise & Veterre will be a match for Wenger, and that constitutes a great leap forward in how the club is being run. Maybe they will be, but personally I'd like us to continue to compete in the transfer market and hence hopefully on the pitch until the fruits of their labour are ready to prove themselves.

[Dave]

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.

 

I don't think anyone's said it was an extra £40m have they? Of course you have to filter in the increased wages of the expensive new players your bringing in too. The table just shows that there is a lot more money floating about, but we seem to be decreasing the amount we spend in transfers and wages.

 

I like how you picked a promoted team - the only one to stay up - who finished only 4 points below us as an example of a team which spent money poorly. You could just as easily take the spending of Man City, Pompey, Everton or Spurs over the last few years to show what spending a bit of cash can do for you (almost immediately in City's case - did no-one tell them they've got to take 4-5 years?). I'll get a "LOL Spuds only finished 2 places above us!!!!" in before anyone else, but they'll be a lot more than 2 places above us next season if we go into the season with anything like the midfield & attack we have now, I'll put money on that.

 

It's not a case of spend big one season and hey presto instant success (although it can happen), but if you let the spending drop below other's over a number of seasons, unless you have a Wenger type figure finding new talent, your squad is inevitably going to drop further and further behind the other clubs in quality, and it's going to become harder and harder to compete no matter who the manager is. It seems to me like some are happy to believe that Wise & Veterre will be a match for Wenger, and that constitutes a great leap forward in how the club is being run. Maybe they will be, but personally I'd like us to continue to compete in the transfer market and hence hopefully on the pitch until the fruits of their labour are ready to prove themselves.

 

Fair post. I've no idea what Wise and Veterre are up to tbh, we'll only know when the window closes. Just like we'll only know if what 'seems to be' happening is actually happening. If the club want this Coloccini then they'll have to pay the money Depor want and the going rate for the player's wages.

 

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

[UV]

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 s*** 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.

 

Not sure if you missed it, but we had one or two injuries that season. How anyone can pretend the unprecedented bad fortune we had that season didn't affect our league position is beyond me, yet of course we apparently improved on that last season even though we finished with the same points and a considerably worse goal difference.

[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

 

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.

 

seconded on all points; our views don't have to be mutually exclusive i guess...i just don't see how if everyone accepts players are overpriced these days we'll progress without meeting these prices!  as for everton & villa they're paying big fees when they need to as pointed out earlier but building slowly as well...when we're doing the two together i doubt you'll hear many detractors

 

forgot about your 8m bet spend under allardyce point and you're right i was happy enough too, that was before months of dirge, depression and the return of a good manager for the first time since robson - if we're not gonna give KK spends what was it all for?  that's what i don't get

[madras]

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 s*** 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 s*** 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

check soccer base

 

1997-98...net spend £5,700,000

1998-99...net spend £8,000,000

1999-00...net spend £9,600,000

2000-01...net spend -£4,100,000

2001-02...net spend £25,000,000

2002-03...net spend £15,000,000

2003-04...net spend £100,000

2004-05..net spend  £2,750,000

2005-06..net spend £18,800,000

2006-07 net spend £16,700,000

2007-08 net spend £1,850,000

 

 

the myth that we have a net spend yearly of £20mill plus is shot. it rarely happened.

 

what if between now and sept 1st we spend £10mill to put us basically in the middle of the previous boards spending...or if we spend £20mill !!!!!!!

[Dave]

seconded on all points; our views don't have to be mutually exclusive i guess...i just don't see how if everyone accepts players are overpriced these days we'll progress without meeting these prices!  as for everton & villa they're paying big fees when they need to as pointed out earlier but building slowly as well...when we're doing the two together i doubt you'll hear many detractors

 

forgot about your 8m bet spend under allardyce point and you're right i was happy enough too, that was before months of dirge, depression and the return of a good manager for the first time since robson - if we're not gonna give KK spends what was it all for?  that's what i don't get

 

I don't get it either. Why sack a man they didn't want, get their own and then NOT back him? Makes no sense, that's why I'm confident something will give; either they'll back him or he'll walk.

[mrmojorisin75]

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.

 

I don't think anyone's said it was an extra £40m have they? Of course you have to filter in the increased wages of the expensive new players your bringing in too. The table just shows that there is a lot more money floating about, but we seem to be decreasing the amount we spend in transfers and wages.

 

I like how you picked a promoted team - the only one to stay up - who finished only 4 points below us as an example of a team which spent money poorly. You could just as easily take the spending of Man City, Pompey, Everton or Spurs over the last few years to show what spending a bit of cash can do for you (almost immediately in City's case - did no-one tell them they've got to take 4-5 years?). I'll get a "LOL Spuds only finished 2 places above us!!!!" in before anyone else, but they'll be a lot more than 2 places above us next season if we go into the season with anything like the midfield & attack we have now, I'll put money on that.

 

It's not a case of spend big one season and hey presto instant success (although it can happen), but if you let the spending drop below other's over a number of seasons, unless you have a Wenger type figure finding new talent, your squad is inevitably going to drop further and further behind the other clubs in quality, and it's going to become harder and harder to compete no matter who the manager is. It seems to me like some are happy to believe that Wise & Veterre will be a match for Wenger, and that constitutes a great leap forward in how the club is being run. Maybe they will be, but personally I'd like us to continue to compete in the transfer market and hence hopefully on the pitch until the fruits of their labour are ready to prove themselves.

[mrmojorisin75]

seconded on all points; our views don't have to be mutually exclusive i guess...i just don't see how if everyone accepts players are overpriced these days we'll progress without meeting these prices!  as for everton & villa they're paying big fees when they need to as pointed out earlier but building slowly as well...when we're doing the two together i doubt you'll hear many detractors

 

forgot about your 8m bet spend under allardyce point and you're right i was happy enough too, that was before months of dirge, depression and the return of a good manager for the first time since robson - if we're not gonna give KK spends what was it all for?  that's what i don't get

 

I don't get it either. Why sack a man they didn't want, get their own and then NOT back him? Makes no sense, that's why I'm confident something will give; either they'll back him or he'll walk.

 

hope to fuck you're right (about the backing not the walking)

[UV]

the myth that we have a net spend yearly of £20mill plus is shot. it rarely happened.

 

what if between now and sept 1st we spend £10mill to put us basically in the middle of the previous boards spending...or if we spend £20mill !!!!!!!

 

Er what myth is this? Show me one person who has ever said that.

 

PLEASE don't tell me you're equating £10m 10 years ago to £10m in today's premiership.

[UV]

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

 

If Gutierrez is any good (I have no idea), then he will probably be a good value signing (we have no idea how much of a signing on bonus we're giving him, or the wages he's on so how can we really judge). Ditto Guthrie.

 

Two swallows though... We aren't the only club looking for good deals, and wont be the only club to pick up a couple of cheap players who turn out to be bargains (whisper it, but we've done it in the past too!). Other clubs will be doing that AS WELL AS spending transfer fees and wages on players with established and proven ability.

 

Honest question to you or anyone else - do you think Gutierrez and/or Guthrie were signed instead of Modric? I ask because we've gone from being willing to spend £18m on an attacking midfielder (so obviously we thought the position needed filling) to our most important positions now being 2 fullbacks (I would assume cover for Beye but maybe more experienced competition for Enrique).

[mrmojorisin75]

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

 

If Gutierrez is any good (I have no idea), then he will probably be a good value signing (we have no idea how much of a signing on bonus we're giving him, or the wages he's on so how can we really judge). Ditto Guthrie.

 

Two swallows though... We aren't the only club looking for good deals, and wont be the only club to pick up a couple of cheap players who turn out to be bargains (whisper it, but we've done it in the past too!). Other clubs will be doing that AS WELL AS spending transfer fees and wages on players with established and proven ability.

 

Honest question to you or anyone else - do you think Gutierrez and/or Guthrie were signed instead of Modric? I ask because we've gone from being willing to spend £18m on an attacking midfielder (so obviously we thought the position needed filling) to our most important positions now being 2 fullbacks (I would assume cover for Beye but maybe more experienced competition for Enrique).

 

UV i've asked that question a hundred different ways on here and there'll be answer - if the modric bid was real then as you say the position had to be a priority and one we were willing to pay top dollar for

 

what happened?

[relámpago blanco]

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

 

If Gutierrez is any good (I have no idea), then he will probably be a good value signing (we have no idea how much of a signing on bonus we're giving him, or the wages he's on so how can we really judge). Ditto Guthrie.

 

Two swallows though... We aren't the only club looking for good deals, and wont be the only club to pick up a couple of cheap players who turn out to be bargains (whisper it, but we've done it in the past too!). Other clubs will be doing that AS WELL AS spending transfer fees and wages on players with established and proven ability.

 

Honest question to you or anyone else - do you think Gutierrez and/or Guthrie were signed instead of Modric? I ask because we've gone from being willing to spend £18m on an attacking midfielder (so obviously we thought the position needed filling) to our most important positions now being 2 fullbacks (I would assume cover for Beye but maybe more experienced competition for Enrique).

 

UV i've asked that question a hundred different ways on here and there'll be answer - if the modric bid was real then as you say the position had to be a priority and one we were willing to pay top dollar for

 

what happened?

Maybe they saw him as a winger and Gutieriez was his back up.

[Parky]

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

 

If Gutierrez is any good (I have no idea), then he will probably be a good value signing (we have no idea how much of a signing on bonus we're giving him, or the wages he's on so how can we really judge). Ditto Guthrie.

 

Two swallows though... We aren't the only club looking for good deals, and wont be the only club to pick up a couple of cheap players who turn out to be bargains (whisper it, but we've done it in the past too!). Other clubs will be doing that AS WELL AS spending transfer fees and wages on players with established and proven ability.

 

Honest question to you or anyone else - do you think Gutierrez and/or Guthrie were signed instead of Modric? I ask because we've gone from being willing to spend £18m on an attacking midfielder (so obviously we thought the position needed filling) to our most important positions now being 2 fullbacks (I would assume cover for Beye but maybe more experienced competition for Enrique).

 

UV i've asked that question a hundred different ways on here and there'll be answer - if the modric bid was real then as you say the position had to be a priority and one we were willing to pay top dollar for

 

what happened?

Maybe they saw him as a winger and Gutieriez was his back up.

mackems.gif

 

 

[madras]

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

 

If Gutierrez is any good (I have no idea), then he will probably be a good value signing (we have no idea how much of a signing on bonus we're giving him, or the wages he's on so how can we really judge). Ditto Guthrie.

 

Two swallows though... We aren't the only club looking for good deals, and wont be the only club to pick up a couple of cheap players who turn out to be bargains (whisper it, but we've done it in the past too!). Other clubs will be doing that AS WELL AS spending transfer fees and wages on players with established and proven ability.

 

Honest question to you or anyone else - do you think Gutierrez and/or Guthrie were signed instead of Modric? I ask because we've gone from being willing to spend £18m on an attacking midfielder (so obviously we thought the position needed filling) to our most important positions now being 2 fullbacks (I would assume cover for Beye but maybe more experienced competition for Enrique).

 

UV i've asked that question a hundred different ways on here and there'll be answer - if the modric bid was real then as you say the position had to be a priority and one we were willing to pay top dollar for

 

what happened?

maybe they still want someone for that position ,just they haven't informed you about it yet ?

[Guest ObaStar]

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 s*** 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 s*** 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

check soccer base

 

1997-98...net spend £5,700,000  Finished 13th

1998-99...net spend £8,000,000  Finished 13th

1999-00...net spend £9,600,000 Finished 11th

2000-01...net spend -£4,100,000 Finished 11th

2001-02...net spend £25,000,000 Finished 4th

2002-03...net spend £15,000,000 Finished 3rd

2003-04...net spend £100,000 Finished 5th

2004-05..net spend  £2,750,000 Finished 14th

2005-06..net spend £18,800,000 Finished 7th

2006-07 net spend £16,700,000 Finished 13th

2007-08 net spend £1,850,000 Finished 12th

 

[Dave]

I've no idea what happened to the idea of getting a player in the style of Modric, certainly Guthrie doesn't fit the profile, nor do KK's comments about him. Do we have another iron in the fire? If there's truth in us wanting to lower ambitions and spend etc, why go for Modric in the first place?

[mrmojorisin75]

I have to refer back to Gutierrez though. He's a player that Portsmouth tried to get for £8m in January (source is Mallorca's president) and failed. We look like we've got him for relative peanuts, so should that count against the board because it shows as though we've spent less money? If the net spend this summer was £10m more because we'd bought him the usual way would people be complaining like this?

 

If Gutierrez is any good (I have no idea), then he will probably be a good value signing (we have no idea how much of a signing on bonus we're giving him, or the wages he's on so how can we really judge). Ditto Guthrie.

 

Two swallows though... We aren't the only club looking for good deals, and wont be the only club to pick up a couple of cheap players who turn out to be bargains (whisper it, but we've done it in the past too!). Other clubs will be doing that AS WELL AS spending transfer fees and wages on players with established and proven ability.

 

Honest question to you or anyone else - do you think Gutierrez and/or Guthrie were signed instead of Modric? I ask because we've gone from being willing to spend £18m on an attacking midfielder (so obviously we thought the position needed filling) to our most important positions now being 2 fullbacks (I would assume cover for Beye but maybe more experienced competition for Enrique).

 

UV i've asked that question a hundred different ways on here and there'll be answer - if the modric bid was real then as you say the position had to be a priority and one we were willing to pay top dollar for

 

what happened?

maybe they still want someone for that position ,just they haven't informed you about it yet ?

 

nah i'd have been the first to be told, what with an ego my size

[Guest ObaStar]

I've no idea what happened to the idea of getting a player in the style of Modric, certainly Guthrie doesn't fit the profile, nor do KK's comments about him. Do we have another iron in the fire? If there's truth in us wanting to lower ambitions and spend etc, why go for Modric in the first place?

'

 

No worries we will get Arshavin. He wont go to Spurs. Spurs suck

[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 s*** 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 s*** 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

check soccer base

 

1997-98...net spend £5,700,000  Finished 13th

1998-99...net spend £8,000,000  Finished 13th

1999-00...net spend £9,600,000 Finished 11th

2000-01...net spend -£4,100,000 Finished 11th

2001-02...net spend £25,000,000 Finished 4th

2002-03...net spend £15,000,000 Finished 3rd

2003-04...net spend £100,000 Finished 5th

2004-05..net spend  £2,750,000 Finished 14th

2005-06..net spend £18,800,000 Finished 7th

2006-07 net spend £16,700,000 Finished 13th

2007-08 net spend £1,850,000 Finished 12th

 

 

dude, i've never once claimed that spending = success nor will i, there are too many variables in football for that

 

one thing i will say is that since the dawn of the EPL only arsenal have come close to winning it (won it) without breaking transfer records and any club who has crept up the league by being prudent have always fallen back down eventually

[madras]

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 s*** 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 s*** 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

check soccer base

 

1997-98...net spend £5,700,000  Finished 13th

1998-99...net spend £8,000,000  Finished 13th

1999-00...net spend £9,600,000 Finished 11th

2000-01...net spend -£4,100,000 Finished 11th

2001-02...net spend £25,000,000 Finished 4th

2002-03...net spend £15,000,000 Finished 3rd

2003-04...net spend £100,000 Finished 5th

2004-05..net spend  £2,750,000 Finished 14th

2005-06..net spend £18,800,000 Finished 7th

2006-07 net spend £16,700,000 Finished 13th

2007-08 net spend £1,850,000 Finished 12th

 

 

dude, i've never once claimed that spending = success nor will i, there are too many variables in football for that

 

one thing i will say is that since the dawn of the EPL only arsenal have come close to winning it (won it) without breaking transfer records and any club who has crept up the league by being prudent have always fallen back down eventually

what i was getting at was the idea that the previous regime always backed their manager. sometimes they didn't and that was when they could have took the risk as the debt and wage levels weren't so high. particularly if you look at 2002 to 2005 when we should have been building on the back of champs lge money we didn't. no doubt ne5 will raise woodgate came in january. if you want to join him in with that summers signings then take £9mill off 2002-03 to even things out.

[Guest ObaStar]

the old board spent money they didn't have. all the sponsorship money was spent before we got it. Im sure all of the champions league money was also gone before we got it. We were in 80 million pounds of debt last summer. That is an absurd amount. If you add up all of the money we spent from 2001 through to 2007 it adds up to 75 million. that just proves that fat fred borrowed money we could not afford and spent it all away on stupid players

[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 s*** 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 s*** 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

check soccer base

 

1997-98...net spend £5,700,000  Finished 13th

1998-99...net spend £8,000,000  Finished 13th

1999-00...net spend £9,600,000 Finished 11th

2000-01...net spend -£4,100,000 Finished 11th

2001-02...net spend £25,000,000 Finished 4th

2002-03...net spend £15,000,000 Finished 3rd

2003-04...net spend £100,000 Finished 5th

2004-05..net spend  £2,750,000 Finished 14th

2005-06..net spend £18,800,000 Finished 7th

2006-07 net spend £16,700,000 Finished 13th

2007-08 net spend £1,850,000 Finished 12th

 

 

dude, i've never once claimed that spending = success nor will i, there are too many variables in football for that

 

one thing i will say is that since the dawn of the EPL only arsenal have come close to winning it (won it) without breaking transfer records and any club who has crept up the league by being prudent have always fallen back down eventually

what i was getting at was the idea that the previous regime always backed their manager. sometimes they didn't and that was when they could have took the risk as the debt and wage levels weren't so high. particularly if you look at 2002 to 2005 when we should have been building on the back of champs lge money we didn't. no doubt ne5 will raise woodgate came in january. if you want to join him in with that summers signings then take £9mill off 2002-03 to even things out.

 

ah no arguments from me on that front - that period will always stick in my mind as our biggest opportunity lost in my time supporting the club

 

it was all there for the taking then - under KK first time as good as it was i was never sure it was gonna last, under robson i thought we'd finally put the post-KK dogshit years behind us and would nail it down long term

 

we didn't

[UV]

the old board spent money they didn't have. all the sponsorship money was spent before we got it. Im sure all of the champions league money was also gone before we got it. We were in 80 million pounds of debt last summer. That is an absurd amount. If you add up all of the money we spent from 2001 through to 2007 it adds up to 75 million. that just proves that fat fred borrowed money we could not afford and spent it all away on stupid players

 

I'm not going to even bother correcting all the bollocks in that post, I'll just ask if you are so concerned about not spending money before you get it, will you be happier if Ashley collects 3 years advance season ticket money and doesn't spend it?

[Dave]

[Guest neesy111]

the old board spent money they didn't have. all the sponsorship money was spent before we got it. Im sure all of the champions league money was also gone before we got it. We were in 80 million pounds of debt last summer. That is an absurd amount. If you add up all of the money we spent from 2001 through to 2007 it adds up to 75 million. that just proves that fat fred borrowed money we could not afford and spent it all away on stupid players

 

we did have the money, but he stole £30 million + of it on his bonus's and dividends etc