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

[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

 

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?

 

Bollocks? really? because most of the information in that post is from Christ Mort. The numbers i got from adding the numbers from the above post

[midds]

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?

 

Bollocks? really? because most of the information in that post is from Christ Mort. The numbers i got from adding the numbers from the above post

 

Hallelujah, he has risen!! 

[Syrette]

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?

 

Bollocks? really? because most of the information in that post is from Christ Mort. The numbers i got from adding the numbers from the above post

 

I know he bought a few fans a pint and joined in a few singalongs, but I wouldn't go that far.

[Guest elbee909]

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?

 

Bollocks? really? because most of the information in that post is from Christ Mort. The numbers i got from adding the numbers from the above post

 

I know he bought a few fans a pint and joined in a few singalongs, but I wouldn't go that far.

 

I heard he quenched the thirst of thousands, with nary but a thimbleful of the hallowed "Newcy Brown"?  Praise him!

[Parky]

They've been piss poor so far, I really hope they pull something out of the bag.

[James]

For those who still believe that we are behind other teams interms of squad development, allow myself to introduce you to Exhibit A:

 

Aston Villa defenders available for selection.

 

Zat Knight

Curtis Davies

Martin Laursen

[Parky]

For those who still believe that we are behind other teams interms of squad development, allow myself to introduce you to Exhibit A:

 

Aston Villa defenders available for selection.

 

Zat Knight

Curtis Davies

Martin Laursen

 

O'Neill is slow in the market.

[KaKa]

They've been piss poor so far, I really hope they pull something out of the bag.

 

Are you drunk?

 

We have signed the new Rob Lee for £2 million and signed an Argentine web slinging international midfielder for around the same amount also.

 

They've been quality.

 

[Unbelievable]

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?

 

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

[ChezGiven]

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?

 

Bollocks? really? because most of the information in that post is from Christ Mort. The numbers i got from adding the numbers from the above post

 

Properly financed debt is nothing to worry about given the levels we had and the revenue stream of the club.

 

Yet to see a link to the documented proof of the level of debt outside the stadium debt. I may have missed it but never seen it.

[Guest ObaStar]

If these 4 signings  (Guthrie, Gutierrez, Bassong, Colocinni) we have or are about to make turn out to all be good, Then we have conducted transfers in a excellent matter. Think of Wenger's signings, he operates at a profit in the transfer market, buys unknown players for a million here, a million there. and in 2 years they are among the best in their position in the premier league. I dont see how you can judge a scouting team when none of the players they have selected have had a chance to prove themselves. People on here just freak out because we aren't spending 20 million on one player and there are no stories in the sun linking us to berbatov. Bottom line is if these 4 players improve our squad then the scouting team has done a good job. From what I hear about Guthrie, he could be a great signing. Keegan is always hailing Gutierrez and Bassong was our best player vs Doncaster. I definitely prefer this window to the Freddy Shepherd/ Souness: Boumsong, Luque, Emre, Owen window.

[Unbelievable]

The mind boggles..

[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?

 

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

 

If you're suggesting we were tapping them up before they handed their notice in I hope you're wrong. There are pretty serious consequences for that kind of thing in this situation, and I'm not talking about a couple of million quid donation to a charity. I wouldn't want us to be the ones to test the water.

 

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be that stupid.

 

Agree with the rest of it. If there's money left over because we've bought some bargains, then there's no reason why we have to wait a season to see if these bargains come good when we could additionally bring in a new quality striker for example and hopefully speed up the process of getting back up the table. Within reason of course, I'm not a fan of making too many changes to a squad at a time, and they'd have to be a player Keegan wants too, I'm not at all suggesting buying for buying's sake.

[Dave]

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?

 

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

 

I don't think Keegan would accept being told who he could or couldn't sign. Alright we might have picked out this guy because of the situation in which we could get him, but Keegan still would have the final say. Everything he and the club have said points to this being the case - he is verifying the deals.

 

I still think if we'd signed him for his 'real' worth lots of people would be quieter. Sorry.

[Dave]

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?

 

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

 

If you're suggesting we were tapping them up before they handed their notice in I hope you're wrong. There are pretty serious consequences for that kind of thing in this situation, and I'm not talking about a couple of million quid donation to a charity. I wouldn't want us to be the ones to test the water.

 

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be that stupid.

 

Agree with the rest of it. If there's money left over because we've bought some bargains, then there's no reason why we have to wait a season to see if these bargains come good when we could additionally bring in a new quality striker for example and hopefully speed up the process of getting back up the table. Within reason of course, I'm not a fan of making too many changes to a squad at a time, and they'd have to be a player Keegan wants too, I'm not at all suggesting buying for buying's sake.

 

Again, fair comments.

[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?

 

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

 

I don't think Keegan would accept being told who he could or couldn't sign.

 

Yes Kev, of course we tried REEEEALY hard to sign Modric. Pulled out all the stops. You know what Chrisy said.

Spurs

 

Now... about this Gutierrez lad... Me & Jimmy think he's brill. We can just get him in for cover, then we're defo going for that Aimar geezer you want.

 

[Unbelievable]

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?

 

Serious question and don't get me wrong, this is not at all to say I would have been happier if we would have paid 8 or 10 million for Gutierrez, but have you considered we may have targeted Jonas BECAUSE we could attract him on a bargain, rather than despite this fact? Personally I can imagine the club looking at the Webster ruling and sounding out potential targets who were eligible to move due to this new regulation, which is good business sense of course if (and only if) the player is of the required quality and deserves to be applauded if (and only if) it means the money available for transfers goes towards other (squad and first team) signings we desperately need. Ultimately it is about making the money available go as far as you can, and to that effect there is nothing wrong with a bargain or two, but the real question here is whether enough money has been/is being made available to strengthen the squad to the level required to realise the club's ambitions.

 

If you're suggesting we were tapping them up before they handed their notice in I hope you're wrong. There are pretty serious consequences for that kind of thing in this situation, and I'm not talking about a couple of million quid donation to a charity. I wouldn't want us to be the ones to test the water.

 

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be that stupid.

 

Agree with the rest of it. If there's money left over because we've bought some bargains, then there's no reason why we have to wait a season to see if these bargains come good when we could additionally bring in a new quality striker for example and hopefully speed up the process of getting back up the table. Within reason of course, I'm not a fan of making too many changes to a squad at a time, and they'd have to be a player Keegan wants too, I'm not at all suggesting buying for buying's sake.

 

I would be very, very amazed if we hadn't talked to the player before he handed in his contract. I seem to remember reading somewhere we had this one covered for months. Also, I would be interested in knowing why you think there would be any such severe consequences if we had indeed acted like I claim?

[Dave]

Btw Hughton was on Five Live earlier repeating the 'we need three or four players in' line. He mentioned the full back/defensive positions again, and simply said 'and the midfield'.

 

They're hoping Viduka will be back for Man Utd too.

[Pilko]

Btw Hughton was on Five Live earlier repeating the 'we need three or four players in' line. He mentioned the full back/defensive positions again, and simply said 'and the midfield'.

 

They're hoping Viduka will be back for Man Utd too.

 

The home game in March? 

[UV]

I would be very, very amazed if we hadn't talked to the player before he handed in his contract. I seem to remember reading somewhere we had this one covered for months. Also, I would be interested in knowing why you think there would be any such severe consequences if we had indeed acted like I claim?

 

Some light reading:

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/117623_43278.pdf

 

It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods.

[Dave]

One would assume something must have been said beforehand, but nobody will ever admit it.

[afar]

I would be very, very amazed if we hadn't talked to the player before he handed in his contract. I seem to remember reading somewhere we had this one covered for months. Also, I would be interested in knowing why you think there would be any such severe consequences if we had indeed acted like I claim?

 

Some light reading:

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/117623_43278.pdf

 

It shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach. The club shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods.

 

I'm not saying that's wrong, it's obviously in there since you posted the link to FIFA. But how can this be legally correct ? Surely it goes against the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. The burden of proof surely needs to lie with those prosecuting not the defendant ? It's probably never come up yet but I doubt FIFA would win if they tried to enforce this and someone challenged them.

[Unbelievable]

Also, what does "without just cause" mean in this context? Looks like completely unenforcable, and I would imagine a lawyer like Chris Mort would love nothing more than to test the waters on something as fishy as this..

[UV]

As I understand it - and I don't pretend to be an expert - "without just cause" is doing what Webster & Gutierrez did, and just say they want to cancel their contract without any reason.

 

I'd rather we weren't the guinea pigs and possibly have our transfer dealings halted while the case was tried tbh.

 

If there was any evidence whatsoever that we did contact Gutierrez before he terminated his contract, then Mallorca could either try to have us punished under the rules of FIFA, or do what the moral guardians of us all Spurs do and blackmail us for money instead of giving the evidence to FIFA.

[NE5]

The old KK would of quit at least twice by now but he needs a few quid after the outlay & failure of Soccer Circus. Well he needs the cash to live the life he has become accustomed to.

 

you're probably right.