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

[johnnypd]

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.

 

you're allowed to cancel your contract if you're of a certain age, have fulfilled part of your contract, and hand your notice in within 15 days of the end of the season, which is what Jonas did.

[NE5]

So do people think Keegan's more here for the payday than to do the job that needs doing?  And if so why do people continue to have faith in him?

 

I don't personally believe that he's here for that reason, but it's interesting to me that people tend towards not saying a word against Keegan while in another breath people say that he's basically here for the money.

 

http://googlesucksblog.com/wp-content/asian-girl-gagged-with-us-dollars.jpg

[NE5]

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

 

absolutely right. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but as sure as hell if you don;'t do it you won't get success.

 

Does this really need to be stated ? Incredible.

 

 

[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

 

absolutely right. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but as sure as hell if you don;'t do it you won't get success.

 

Does this really need to be stated ? Incredible.

 

 

the point i was making that evryone seemed to grasp was that at times we hadn't spent in the way some make out and the previous lot made a hash of it when in a position of strength..

 

spending doesn't guarantee you success,but as sure as hell if you have a poor manager,you can spend as much as you want,you still wont get success

 

 

does this really need to be stated ? incredible

[NE5]

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

 

absolutely right. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but as sure as hell if you don;'t do it you won't get success.

 

Does this really need to be stated ? Incredible.

 

 

the point i was making that evryone seemed to grasp was that at times we hadn't spent in the way some make out and the previous lot made a hash of it when in a position of strength..

 

spending doesn't guarantee you success,but as sure as hell if you have a poor manager,you can spend as much as you want,you still wont get success

 

 

does this really need to be stated ? incredible

 

Poor managers have won trophies, plenty of them in fact.

 

Good managers move on from clubs that don't back them to clubs that do, when they know they won't get the chance to fulfill their potential. 

 

Does this need to be stated ? Incredible.

 

 

[madras]

poor managers have won knock out cups. (and you know my opinion there),i struggle to remember the last poor manager to win the league ?

 

 

i've already shown you often when that board didn't quite back the manager in the way you seem to remember.

 

 

if,say for example, nufc spend 30mill between now and sept 1st would that satisfy you ? would you say "they finally realised"? or would you think they just may have been doing something all along ?

[NE5]

What does excuse Ashley spending the £50m we and Fulham apparantly have is we have a wage bill which is probably four times the size of theirs. Likewise as people have said, we were heavily in debt which Ashley paid off, so it's only fair if he chooses so to take some of that money to replace the money he 'lost' paying off our debts.

 

He's under no obligation to splash money aimlessly, already we have a squad which is competitive to the upper etchelons of the league, yes we need the odd player but how else are our youth players ever going to get the chance to come through if we go out and sign 3-4 average squad players to stand in their way?

 

I'd rather have one or two years of relative averageness whilst the team is rebuilt rather than spending loads, having one have decent season then going into a relative freefall when we realise we're pretty much broke and all our players have got the 30+ stage. Just so a little bit of bloody patience - if you don't like it, don't go to matches and stop supporting the club - but if you've been through the Shepherd and Souness era then you'd be mental to quit now just when we have the opportunity to turn this club around. 

 

I'm only going to respond to one point of this typical Ashleyite garbage as I really can't be arsed repeating what I and a number of people who have managed to remove theitr heads from the sand have said thousands of times before.

 

But this one is just not sinking in is it ?

 

FFS he didn't "Loose" any money paying off "our" debts. It's his debts, debts he should have been aware of when he purchased the club if he'd done his due dilligence. If he hasn't budgeted enough money to pay for a club who were in debt, that's his stupid fault but I don't think he's that stupid.

 

All the evidence points to trying to make a quick profit on the club, a little investment in the first team would change that perception, with only 20 days to go till the start of the season, we are still waiting.

 

I would agree with that and also comment on the phrase "he's under no obligation to splash money".

 

Yes, he isn't. As the owner of the club, he has every right not to show ambition or run the club in keeping with its stature, and turnover.

 

 

[NE5]

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.

 

I'm not sure you are getting the point here Dave. The guys saying this are suggesting that the extra money is not being invested in the playing squad and we should really at minimum expect this. TBH the facts back them up 100%, our net spend on trasnfers has been pretty has been paultry. I really don't see the relevance in you pointing out that Wigan Athletic got the same amount of money as us ??

 

And yes there has been plenty of business so far, from teams who need a hell of a lot more work than us.

 

Inflation of player prices.  That's the relevance.  Increase the supply of money and the prices go up.  Unfortunately the quality of the footballers isn't intrinsically linked to their transfer value.

 

That still does not explain the relevance that Fulham have been given 50m and we have been given 50m, so that excuses Ashley from spending the money this money accrued by the club through TV deals ??

 

That argument leapfrogs over a lot of stuff, doesn't it?

 

Have all the clubs been given 50m for TV rights up front?  How much do you want to bet that it's conditional on them staying in the Premier League?

 

While there'll be a general trend in prices increasing due to the injection of money from TV rights I don't expect any single club to blow it all on a player or two that wasn't going to be funded elsewhere anyway.

 

 

I have no idea if it's 50m tbh, I just used that figure as an example, but I can bet you all you want that we have indead been given a bundle of cash up front and it's not conditional on whether we get relegated at the end of the season.

 

Still people will not answer the question of, why the TV money is not being invested. It appears to be going towards paying of Ashleys costs in purchasing the club rather than spending on the playing staff. Call me selfish but I would rather we had success on the pitch than an owner who is in line to make a huge profit on ihis investment, if he can find a buyer. And that's the thing, if this is Ashley's intention, then he's got to move fast because his asset will soon deminish in value if we continue to neglect the first team.

 

 

 

It's OK though, because its Ashley, and he's not awarding himself dividends he doesn't deserve. Maybe this is the money he's using to buy people pints in town ?

 

 

 

 

[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

 

absolutely right. Spending doesn't guarantee success, but as sure as hell if you don;'t do it you won't get success.

 

Does this really need to be stated ? Incredible.

 

 

interesting that you cut the thread pyramid off before mrmojorisin75 said

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

 

wouldn't you agree ?

[Syrette]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/deadreflection/not_this_shit_again.jpg

[madras]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/deadreflection/not_this_shit_again.jpg

i'm keeping him away from other threads...it's a bloody public service what i'm doing

[NE5]

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.

 

Well I certainly said that we bought too many squad standard defensive players, when we needed quality front players.....

 

 

[NE5]

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?

 

i have to 2nd that, as I have also commented on the fact that all we have done is end up with cheaper replacments, and got flak for it from some of those who usually agree with Dave [or disagree with me]. Where are they ?  Mentioning no names like.

 

 

[NE5]

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 ?

 

well, if thats the case, whats the point of buying him in the first place ?

 

 

[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 ?

 

well, if thats the case, whats the point of buying him in the first place ?

 

 

eh ? we didn't buy modric so we may still want someone for that position...just they haven't informed uv as to who or if....you been on the sauce tonight ne5  ?

[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?

 

i have to 2nd that, as I have also commented on the fact that all we have done is end up with cheaper replacments, and got flak for it from some of those who usually agree with Dave [or disagree with me]. Where are they ?  Mentioning no names like.

 

 

i see...so because we fail to get a specific player for a position we have to get another straight away ?

[Jamie]

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

 

If only eh 

[Teasy]

Still people will not answer the question of, why the TV money is not being invested. It appears to be going towards paying of Ashleys costs in purchasing the club rather than spending on the playing staff. Call me selfish but I would rather we had success on the pitch than an owner who is in line to make a huge profit on ihis investment, if he can find a buyer. And that's the thing, if this is Ashley's intention, then he's got to move fast because his asset will soon deminish in value if we continue to neglect the first team.

 

How many times does it have to be said that transfers don't just happen because you want them too.  Its usually a long slow process of negotiation (the transfers of Jonas and Guthrie being the exception) and they can often fall through.  Look at Modric, Woodgate and Aimar, we made firm offers totalling £32 million for the three of them and got none of them.  Meanwhile we've offered £9.5 million (exactly the fee asked for apparently) for Coloccino and the c*** at Depor now wants even more, so that may also end without a signing.  Some people seem to have this idea that every day we don't sign a player is a day that Mike Ashley has wisheld money, its nonesense!  You can't just stick £50 million in the hands of Keegan/Wise/Vetere ect and say "Right I want £50 million worth of players tomorrow"..

[mrmojorisin75]

Still people will not answer the question of, why the TV money is not being invested. It appears to be going towards paying of Ashleys costs in purchasing the club rather than spending on the playing staff. Call me selfish but I would rather we had success on the pitch than an owner who is in line to make a huge profit on ihis investment, if he can find a buyer. And that's the thing, if this is Ashley's intention, then he's got to move fast because his asset will soon deminish in value if we continue to neglect the first team.

 

How many times does it have to be said that transfers don't just happen because you want them too.  Its usually a long slow process of negotiation (the transfers of Jonas and Guthrie being the exception) and they can often fall through.  Look at Modric, Woodgate and Aimar, we made firm offers totalling £32 million for the three of them and got none of them.  Meanwhile we've offered £9.5 million (exactly the fee asked for apparently) for Coloccino and the c*** at Depor now wants even more, so that may also end without a signing.  Some people seem to have this idea that every day we don't sign a player is a day that Mike Ashley has wisheld money, its nonesense!  You can't just stick £50 million in the hands of Keegan/Wise/Vetere ect and say "Right I want £50 million worth of players tomorrow"..

 

fine point that teasy - the alleged stories about the luque deal (if true) highlight what happens when you don't set your stall out

 

BUT there must come a point where our valuation of a player vs the selling clubs valuation has to give...if the coloccini stuff is true then the whole things on hold for less than 1m GBP right?  do we pay that extra or face the prospect of not bringing in a new quality CB we obviously appear to rate?

 

principles are great, i'm sure we all agree that, but if principles see us start next season with alan smith, damien duff, shola ameobi and cacapa in or on the fringe of our first team & us still having no midfield to speak of then frankly those principles can fuck right off

[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?

 

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.

 

UV i thought about posting this yesterday but never did - you've reminded me:

 

ashley is renowned for upsetting the applecart in the business world right?  doesn't mind pissing off the blue chips if he ends up successful; i just seriously hope he hasn't seen a niche in the game here, a way to pick good players up on the cheap by getting them to invoke the webster ruling

 

all legal issues aside we'll be hated, utterly HATED throughout the game & people would simply not do business with us

 

that is not something we want to become

[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.

 

you're allowed to cancel your contract if you're of a certain age, have fulfilled part of your contract, and hand your notice in within 15 days of the end of the season, which is what Jonas did.

 

You're allowed to do it, yes, but you're doing it "without just cause".

[UV]

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

 

If only eh 

 

To use a currently popular argument:

 

If Bowyer & Milner had cost £10m each would people have been happy then?

[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?

 

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.

 

UV i thought about posting this yesterday but never did - you've reminded me:

 

ashley is renowned for upsetting the applecart in the business world right?  doesn't mind pissing off the blue chips if he ends up successful; i just seriously hope he hasn't seen a niche in the game here, a way to pick good players up on the cheap by getting them to invoke the webster ruling

 

all legal issues aside we'll be hated, utterly HATED throughout the game & people would simply not do business with us

 

that is not something we want to become

seems unlikely as we could have done it with coloccini but according to the agent we've met the demands of the depor chairman who then moves the goalposts again (as he did with luque)

[UV]

UV i thought about posting this yesterday but never did - you've reminded me:

 

ashley is renowned for upsetting the applecart in the business world right?  doesn't mind pissing off the blue chips if he ends up successful; i just seriously hope he hasn't seen a niche in the game here, a way to pick good players up on the cheap by getting them to invoke the webster ruling

 

all legal issues aside we'll be hated, utterly HATED throughout the game & people would simply not do business with us

 

that is not something we want to become

 

I don't like the ruling personally, I think it will cause an even greater inflation in player wages, but I have no problems with the club exploiting it as long as we're doing it by the rules. In a couple of years time it will be commonplace and everyone will be doing it. I'm actually quite surprised there weren't more around this year. There's talk of £30m for Berbatov now, but at the end of the year he could buy out his contract for what, £3m, and then hawk himself around to the highest bidder.

[madras]

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

 

If only eh 

not really,we just got 5th(on goal difference from villa iirc) and the difference between our play that season and the previous one was massive drop.