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

[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

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)

 

eh?  thought coloccini was threatening to invoke that rule at the end of this coming season if they stop him moving NOW for the fee agreed

 

as people have pointed out the ruling only applies within 15 days of the end of the season past, therefore that would add up

 

so we'd need to wait another season to get him if we were doing that when we need him now see?

[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)

 

eh?  thought coloccini was threatening to invoke that rule at the end of this coming season if they stop him moving NOW for the fee agreed

 

as people have pointed out the ruling only applies within 15 days of the end of the season past, therefore that would add up

 

so we'd need to wait another season to get him if we were doing that when we need him now see?

what i mean is if its true we've been in discussions with the club and agent for 3 month you'd have thought he would have invoked the webster rule within the proper timeframe

[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

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)

 

eh?  thought coloccini was threatening to invoke that rule at the end of this coming season if they stop him moving NOW for the fee agreed

 

as people have pointed out the ruling only applies within 15 days of the end of the season past, therefore that would add up

 

so we'd need to wait another season to get him if we were doing that when we need him now see?

what i mean is if its true we've been in discussions with the club and agent for 3 month you'd have thought he would have invoked the webster rule within the proper timeframe

oh yeah i see - but i thought it was to do with the length of contract from when it was signed, no?  is it just above a certain age?

 

in that case you're right yeah

[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)

 

eh?  thought coloccini was threatening to invoke that rule at the end of this coming season if they stop him moving NOW for the fee agreed

 

as people have pointed out the ruling only applies within 15 days of the end of the season past, therefore that would add up

 

so we'd need to wait another season to get him if we were doing that when we need him now see?

what i mean is if its true we've been in discussions with the club and agent for 3 month you'd have thought he would have invoked the webster rule within the proper timeframe

oh yeah i see - but i thought it was to do with the length of contract from when it was signed, no?  is it just above a certain age?

 

in that case you're right yeah

i don't know how long his contract has ran or how old he'd have to be,so you may be right. pretty sure if he signed for us next year on a webster it'd be easy to prove us in breach.......and i'd rather have someone before sept 1st. 2008

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

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)

 

eh?  thought coloccini was threatening to invoke that rule at the end of this coming season if they stop him moving NOW for the fee agreed

 

as people have pointed out the ruling only applies within 15 days of the end of the season past, therefore that would add up

 

so we'd need to wait another season to get him if we were doing that when we need him now see?

what i mean is if its true we've been in discussions with the club and agent for 3 month you'd have thought he would have invoked the webster rule within the proper timeframe

oh yeah i see - but i thought it was to do with the length of contract from when it was signed, no?  is it just above a certain age?

 

in that case you're right yeah

i don't know how long his contract has ran or how old he'd have to be,so you may be right. pretty sure if he signed for us next year on a webster it'd be easy to prove us in breach.......and i'd rather have someone before sept 1st. 2008

 

For players under 28 only

[mrmojorisin75]

my mates a hearts fan and still rages about webster - he told me it was do with players approaching the last year of their contract and of a certain age (i thought above 28 but maybe above 26?)

 

this ties in with coloccini - he'd be able to do it at the end of the coming season and walk away for "nothing" then

 

christ in all the speculating i could have just looked it up, coulda but didna!

[afar]

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"..

 

I'm sorry teasy but that's a load of regurgitated toss, that completely misses my point.

 

You've fallen for this old line that transfer deals are just so complicated in this day and age. TBH, no they are not. They are complicated and drawn out when clubs make them that way, they can also be done pretty quickly. Look at the Robbie Keane move for example, that one appeared to done an dusted in a couple of weeks. As much as the majority on here love to loath Spuds, one thing you just have to admire is the way they make deals happen, this is a sign if you are determined enough you can deal in this market.

 

Sometimes we will have to pay over the odds in salary for players, because of our lack of recent success, geographical location, recent history of being big payers and some outside perception of the stability of the club. We have to accept this at the moment unfortunately, we have also developed a reputation as being somewhat big spenders, after our previous deal with Depor, you can bet your bottom dollar that is why their president is trying to screw us for every penny. But if all it takes an extra 1mill to seal the Colocinni deal then we have to find it, because we've got to a stage in the close season where we are becoming desperate. A situation we could have avoided had we been more aggressive earlier on in the window.

 

 

[Dave]

You might be becoming desperate, doesn't mean the club are.

[Teasy]

I'm sorry teasy but that's a load of regurgitated toss, that completely misses my point.

 

You've fallen for this old line that transfer deals are just so complicated in this day and age. TBH, no they are not. They are complicated and drawn out when clubs make them that way, they can also be done pretty quickly. Look at the Robbie Keane move for example, that one appeared to done an dusted in a couple of weeks. As much as the majority on here love to loath Spuds, one thing you just have to admire is the way they make deals happen, this is a sign if you are determined enough you can deal in this market.

 

Sometimes we will have to pay over the odds in salary for players, because of our lack of recent success, geographical location, recent history of being big payers and some outside perception of the stability of the club. We have to accept this at the moment unfortunately, we have also developed a reputation as being somewhat big spenders, after our previous deal with Depor, you can bet your bottom dollar that is why their president is trying to screw us for every penny. But if all it takes an extra 1mill to seal the Colocinni deal then we have to find it, because we've got to a stage in the close season where we are becoming desperate. A situation we could have avoided had we been more aggressive earlier on in the window.

 

I don't need to look at the Robbie Keane deal, I can look at Jonas or Guthrie for a quick deal, as I said they happen but the idea that every deal will happen like that is idiotic.  I can't be bothered to argue wether our club should have to accept paying silly money for players or not.  I don't think they should at all but if you believe we should be that desperate then that's up to you.  None of that changes the fact that money is available, there's no evidence what so ever that Mike Ashley is refusing to spend is there?.. which was the point of my post, a point you just completely ignored.

[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"..

 

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?

 

Well one thing I definitely don't think we should have done is agree to the extra money straight away.  I mean we made an initial offer, they told us to increase that offer a certain amount and we did that only for them to ask for even more.  That's taking the piss and immediately adding the extra just makes us into mugs.  Having said that if the difference between us really is £1 million and there president really is being honest this time then I think it'll be resolved.

[afar]

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"..

 

I'm sorry teasy but that's a load of regurgitated toss, that completely misses my point.

 

You've fallen for this old line that transfer deals are just so complicated in this day and age. TBH, no they are not. They are complicated and drawn out when clubs make them that way, they can also be done pretty quickly. Look at the Robbie Keane move for example, that one appeared to done an dusted in a couple of weeks. As much as the majority on here love to loath Spuds, one thing you just have to admire is the way they make deals happen, this is a sign if you are determined enough you can deal in this market.

 

Sometimes we will have to pay over the odds in salary for players, because of our lack of recent success, geographical location, recent history of being big payers and some outside perception of the stability of the club. We have to accept this at the moment unfortunately, we have also developed a reputation as being somewhat big spenders, after our previous deal with Depor, you can bet your bottom dollar that is why their president is trying to screw us for every penny. But if all it takes an extra 1mill to seal the Colocinni deal then we have to find it, because we've got to a stage in the close season where we are becoming desperate. A situation we could have avoided had we been more aggressive earlier on in the window.

 

 

 

I don't need to look at the Robbie Keane deal, I can look at Jonas or Guthrie for a quick deal, as I said they happen but the idea that every deal will happen like that is idiotic.  I can't be bothered to argue with you on wether our club should have to accept paying silly money for players or not.  I don't think they should at all but if you believe we should be that desperate then that's up to you.  None of that changes the fact that money is available, there's no evidence what so ever that Mike Ashley is refusing to spend is there?.. which was the point of my post, a point you just completely ignored.

 

Oh yes I absolutely did say we should pay silly money. You completely quoted me correctly there. I said we have to sometimes pay a little over the odds to seal a deal, unfortunately it's a fact of the situation we are now in. If you don't think we are in a desperate situation, with 18 days to go till the season starts with a squad 4 players lighter than last year's thin squad, then you really need to wedge that head of your's out of the sand, because it seems pretty firmly stuck there.

 

You were responding to my points, you, not me, so if you are going to ignore my points and set off on some tangient about how complex deals are these days, then why the hell should I respond to your points ?

 

Look if you can't be bothered to arge, as you say, why argue in the first place ?

 

BTW there is no evidence whatsover that Ashley is not refusing to spend, see two can play at that game ! Only when we get the players we desperately need though the door will that be proven otherwise and I hope to god he proves all the doubting thomas's like me wrong, nothing would make me happier.

[Teasy]

Afar I was responding to you're claim that Ashley is refusing to spend money.  I have no interest in discussing what our transfer policy should be, only making the point that money is clearly available and that not signing a player does not mean money wasn't made available.  That was the whole point of my initial post about transfers often being very long and difficult processes.

 

BTW there is no evidence whatsover that Ashley is not refusing to spend, see two can play at that game ! Only when we get the players we desperately need though the door will that be proven otherwise and I hope to god he proves all the doubting thomas's like me wrong, nothing would make me happier.

 

Well actually yes there is, despite some people continually ignoring the facts for some strange reason.  We've had confirmed bids for numerous players so far, totaling somewhere around £40 million (not to mention the many rumoured bids).  Money has been made available, amazing as this may sound to you we didn't say to the likes of Modric "sign for the Spuds, we can't afford your fee, we've only made the bid to fool the Newcastle public you know..".

[afar]

Afar I was responding to you're claim that Ashley is refusing to spend money.  I have no interest in discussing what our transfer policy should be, only making the point that money is clearly available and that not signing a player does not mean money wasn't made available.  That was the whole point of my initial post about transfers often being very long and difficult processes.

 

BTW there is no evidence whatsover that Ashley is not refusing to spend, see two can play at that game ! Only when we get the players we desperately need though the door will that be proven otherwise and I hope to god he proves all the doubting thomas's like me wrong, nothing would make me happier.

 

Well actually yes there is, despite some people continually ignoring the facts for some strange reason.  We've had confirmed bids for numerous players so far, totaling somewhere around £40 million (not to mention the many rumoured bids).  Money has been made available, amazing as this may sound to you we didn't say to the likes of Modric "sign for the Spuds, we can't afford your fee, we've only made the bid to fool the Newcastle public you know..".

 

Seems like your numbers are ising everytime you respond. 40 Million now is it ? The only official confirmation of any rejected bids we've had so for are for Modric and Woodgate. In both cases we do not know exactly how much we bid. It's fair to assume we bid in the region of 9 Mill for woody and 18 mill for Modric. That's 27mill, not 40 Mill. But that's still fine, if we had followed through with the deal. But we didn't and we still have not brought in our 2nd choices.

 

These bids were also made in January, for Woody and May ish time for Modric. It's entirely possible that Ashley has changed his stance on whether he fancies this football ownership lark in that time.

 

Like I keep having to repeat myself, action speaks way louder than words, so lets see some. I challenge Ashley to prove my fears unfounded. Until then I continue to have them and question why revenue is not being spent.

[NE5]

Afar I was responding to you're claim that Ashley is refusing to spend money.  I have no interest in discussing what our transfer policy should be, only making the point that money is clearly available and that not signing a player does not mean money wasn't made available.  That was the whole point of my initial post about transfers often being very long and difficult processes.

 

BTW there is no evidence whatsover that Ashley is not refusing to spend, see two can play at that game ! Only when we get the players we desperately need though the door will that be proven otherwise and I hope to god he proves all the doubting thomas's like me wrong, nothing would make me happier.

 

Well actually yes there is, despite some people continually ignoring the facts for some strange reason.  We've had confirmed bids for numerous players so far, totaling somewhere around £40 million (not to mention the many rumoured bids).  Money has been made available, amazing as this may sound to you we didn't say to the likes of Modric "sign for the Spuds, we can't afford your fee, we've only made the bid to fool the Newcastle public you know..".

 

Seems like your numbers are ising everytime you respond. 40 Million now is it ? The only official confirmation of any rejected bids we've had so for are for Modric and Woodgate. In both cases we do not know exactly how much we bid. It's fair to assume we bid in the region of 9 Mill for woody and 18 mill for Modric. That's 27mill, not 40 Mill. But that's still fine, if we had followed through with the deal. But we didn't and we still have not brought in our 2nd choices.

 

These bids were also made in January, for Woody and May ish time for Modric. It's entirely possible that Ashley has changed his stance on whether he fancies this football ownership lark in that time.

 

Like I keep having to repeat myself, action speaks way louder than words, so lets see some. I challenge Ashley to prove my fears unfounded. Until then I continue to have them and question why revenue is not being spent.

 

quite a lot of people disappeared and not putting up the normal defence anymore

 

 

[Elliottman]

Afar I was responding to you're claim that Ashley is refusing to spend money.  I have no interest in discussing what our transfer policy should be, only making the point that money is clearly available and that not signing a player does not mean money wasn't made available.  That was the whole point of my initial post about transfers often being very long and difficult processes.

 

BTW there is no evidence whatsover that Ashley is not refusing to spend, see two can play at that game ! Only when we get the players we desperately need though the door will that be proven otherwise and I hope to god he proves all the doubting thomas's like me wrong, nothing would make me happier.

 

Well actually yes there is, despite some people continually ignoring the facts for some strange reason.  We've had confirmed bids for numerous players so far, totaling somewhere around £40 million (not to mention the many rumoured bids).  Money has been made available, amazing as this may sound to you we didn't say to the likes of Modric "sign for the Spuds, we can't afford your fee, we've only made the bid to fool the Newcastle public you know..".

 

Seems like your numbers are ising everytime you respond. 40 Million now is it ? The only official confirmation of any rejected bids we've had so for are for Modric and Woodgate. In both cases we do not know exactly how much we bid. It's fair to assume we bid in the region of 9 Mill for woody and 18 mill for Modric. That's 27mill, not 40 Mill. But that's still fine, if we had followed through with the deal. But we didn't and we still have not brought in our 2nd choices.

 

These bids were also made in January, for Woody and May ish time for Modric. It's entirely possible that Ashley has changed his stance on whether he fancies this football ownership lark in that time.

 

Like I keep having to repeat myself, action speaks way louder than words, so lets see some. I challenge Ashley to prove my fears unfounded. Until then I continue to have them and question why revenue is not being spent.

 

£27 Mil, then Fee's for Jonas and Guthrie, then net spening last year too.

[Guest]

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

 

If only eh 

 

And you do realise we'd spent £11m just 5 months before that season, more than pretty much anyone else in Europe in that window don't you?

[ChezGiven]

Bidding for 5 different players worth £20m doesnt mean we've got a £100m to spend. If you catch my drift...

[thomas]

Bidding for 5 different players worth £20m doesnt mean we've got a £100m to spend. If you catch my drift...

Much like having £40m in TV money doesn't mean it's somehow all available for transfers.  If you catch my drift...

[Dave]

Bidding for 5 different players worth £20m doesnt mean we've got a £100m to spend. If you catch my drift...

 

Of course. But if we were bidding for players valued at £20m I assume people would be happy. Unless we didn't end up signing them of course, then they wouldn't be happy.

[afar]

Afar I was responding to you're claim that Ashley is refusing to spend money.  I have no interest in discussing what our transfer policy should be, only making the point that money is clearly available and that not signing a player does not mean money wasn't made available.  That was the whole point of my initial post about transfers often being very long and difficult processes.

 

BTW there is no evidence whatsover that Ashley is not refusing to spend, see two can play at that game ! Only when we get the players we desperately need though the door will that be proven otherwise and I hope to god he proves all the doubting thomas's like me wrong, nothing would make me happier.

 

Well actually yes there is, despite some people continually ignoring the facts for some strange reason.  We've had confirmed bids for numerous players so far, totaling somewhere around £40 million (not to mention the many rumoured bids).  Money has been made available, amazing as this may sound to you we didn't say to the likes of Modric "sign for the Spuds, we can't afford your fee, we've only made the bid to fool the Newcastle public you know..".

 

Seems like your numbers are ising everytime you respond. 40 Million now is it ? The only official confirmation of any rejected bids we've had so for are for Modric and Woodgate. In both cases we do not know exactly how much we bid. It's fair to assume we bid in the region of 9 Mill for woody and 18 mill for Modric. That's 27mill, not 40 Mill. But that's still fine, if we had followed through with the deal. But we didn't and we still have not brought in our 2nd choices.

 

These bids were also made in January, for Woody and May ish time for Modric. It's entirely possible that Ashley has changed his stance on whether he fancies this football ownership lark in that time.

 

Like I keep having to repeat myself, action speaks way louder than words, so lets see some. I challenge Ashley to prove my fears unfounded. Until then I continue to have them and question why revenue is not being spent.

 

£27 Mil, then Fee's for Jonas and Guthrie, then net spening last year too.

 

?? We've not spent 27mil though that's the point. Jonas and Gutrie could easily have been financed from the sales of Emre and Rozy.

 

If you are taking last year into consideration, where our net spend was not particuarily high anyway (don't hacve exact numbers in front of me) then to balance things out you have to include last year's TV revenue too, so that's another 40 mill or however much they got from Sky/setanta etc.

 

[afar]

Bidding for 5 different players worth £20m doesnt mean we've got a £100m to spend. If you catch my drift...

 

Precisely Chez.

[OzzieMandias]

Bidding for 5 different players worth £20m doesnt mean we've got a £100m to spend. If you catch my drift...

 

Doesn't mean we don't, either.

[sicsfingeredmong]

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

 

Valid point, especially if Ashley makes a habit of it. Hasn't Collocini's agent brought up the possibility of invoking the Webster ruling if Leindro continues to play hard-ball?

 

IMO it's the reason as to why Jimenez was recruited. He is no Super Agent, as James has suggested, but he reportedly has plenty of contacts in the player-agent game in Spain and such information - ie. player contract details, expiry dates etc - would be easily obtained, and as you suggest form the basis, or place an emphasis on anyway, to our buying approach/strategy with regards to potential 'Webster' candidates abroad/in Spain.

[Thespence]

IMO it's the reason as to why Jimenez was recruited. He is no Super Agent, as James has suggested, but he reportedly has plenty of contacts in the player-agent game in Spain and such information - ie. player contract details, expiry dates etc - would be easily obtained, and as you suggest form the basis, or place an emphasis on anyway, to our buying approach/strategy with regards to potential 'Webster' candidates abroad/in Spain.

 

You hardly need a black book to to find out when a players contract is going to run out.

 

Wonder if there is an Italian kid somewhere saying "Jose only knows when Lampards contract is going to run out due to his Chelsea connections "

[thomas]

Vetere is the one with encyclopedic knowledge and mega contacts. 

Jimenez, who also has some contacts in the footballing world, is more the "closer" for deals.

 

Which doesn't change the fact that this whole theory is a load.  How long, realistically, could a club get away with doing things like that?  2 transfers?  3?  Chairmen do talk to chairmen.  It might fly for one transfer window before we'd be either unofficially blacklisted by other clubs or officially arseraped by the FA/FIFA.    The idea that it wouldn't matter as Ashley would cut and run doesn't fly either because, again, no club would buy the players he got at a cut rate.  The plan simply wouldn't work and it's ludicrous to think that's what's in place.

 

However, I did like the attempt to lend credence to it with the whole "Ashley is renowned for upsetting the applecart" bit.  As though any daft theory is made immediately more probable because he doesn't mind bending the status quo.