But we're owned by a billionaire!

[Dave]

Put your hands up, when Ashley took over, who expected us to go out and splash silly money on new players, to not give a fuck about extortionate wage demands, to be able to cancel players' contracts just because we don't think they're good enough and so on?

 

It's bonkers to me, this argument that seems to filter through that just because Ashley has a few quid in the bank, he should be running the club with his own money. The club has to be sustainable with or without Ashley's cash (don't forget, the papers have him leaving every other week), and it has to be a business run well.

 

I hate Roman Abramovich.

[SteveMc]

That has to be the ultimate aim.  But a little subsidisation in the short term woukd be nice.

[themanupstairs]

Put your hands up, when Ashley took over, who expected us to go out and splash silly money on new players, to not give a f*** about extortionate wage demands, to be able to cancel players' contracts just because we don't think they're good enough and so on?

 

It's bonkers to me, this argument that seems to filter through that just because Ashley has a few quid in the bank, he should be running the club with his own money. The club has to be sustainable with or without Ashley's cash (don't forget, the papers have him leaving every other week), and it has to be a business run well.

 

I hate Roman Abramovich.

 

That man is the head-cunt of all cunts. I hold him responsible (well, sort of) for destroying football as we know it.

[Mr. Snrub]

I never expected an Abramovich style spending spree, throwing money at other clubs, but I expected at least a couple of good, £10m+ signings.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Imo Ashley is running the club the right way for the long term.

 

See West Ham how it can all go horribly wrong by splashing cash just because you have some.

[Ericz]

Based on Ashley's track record at commercial level, he is never one to splash cash recklessly.

[mrmojorisin75]

1. huge crowds

 

2. big turnover

 

3. increased TV money

 

once the initial debt was cleared dave it didn't have to be run off his own money, it could be surely run spending a good amount (more than 10m net anyway) based on the 'spurs model' of signing players who'll likely keep some value in the market

 

this will go on forever if the usual suspects come in but no's 1-3 are enough for me

 

i never expected abramovich-esque levels of spending but i truly expected more than this - yes i know i'm not allowed to form an opinion before sep 2nd so in the event we buy some players please disregard

[Guest thommo78]

Thats quite an extreme version and Abramovich has spoilt it for every other "new owner" who is now being expected to follow his lead however, I thought we would have spent more than we have. What is our net spend this year..5m. We are short of players and although I am happy with what we have brought in I personally expected more or t least some statement of intent with the playing staff. I acknowledge the great financial state the club is now in and all the work being done at youth level etc. Unless you are Arsen who has an uncanny ability to keep arsenal up the top without spending...net spends of 10 and 5 m each season isn't sufficient to get us to where we want to be. You can tell people to be patient.......We've been patient for 50 years so I'm OK to wait another few seasons...Personally I expected a little more..maybe a nice suprise coming at the end of this week but I can't see it at present!

 

 

[BONTEMPI]

Abramovich is a cunt, it was down to him that players wages and prices started to hike up! The transfer market was dropping down to a reasonable level until that prick turned up.

 

I'd hate to be a Chelsea fan, i'd rather build a team like Wenger has done and keep it ticking over by good scouting and not throwing millions just for the sake of it.

 

 

[TRon]

That's fair enough, but from what KK has said in the past, it seems Ashley's expectations are of challenging for the top 4, which will need some investment. FWIW I'm pretty sure that we will still buy big if the player is right. Selling Milner for £9m is just good business IMO.

[Dave]

1. huge crowds

 

2. big turnover

 

3. increased TV money

 

once the initial debt was cleared dave it didn't have to be run off his own money, it could be surely run spending a good amount (more than 10m net anyway) based on the 'spurs model' of signing players who'll likely keep some value in the market

 

this will go on forever if the usual suspects come in but no's 1-3 are enough for me

 

i never expected abramovich-esque levels of spending but i truly expected more than this - yes i know i'm not allowed to form an opinion before sep 2nd so in the event we buy some players please disregard

 

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know.

 

Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans?

[mrmojorisin75]

That's fair enough, but from what KK has said in the past, it seems Ashley's expectations are of challenging for the top 4, which will need some investment. FWIW I'm pretty sure that we will still buy big if the player is right. Selling Milner for £9m is just good business IMO.

 

it is if they can secure a replacement in 4 days, otherwise we'll be throwing lua lua in or relying on geremi/smith

[AfroP]

a few high profile high cost signings were what i was expecting when a billionare took over.

but what he has done is brought the club out of the state that fat fred and co left it in. and i'd rather see 130million being spent on stabilising the club than see it spent on players who are only therte for the dosh and then bugger off at sale prices when the club collapses due to lack of infrastructure

[TRon]

That's fair enough, but from what KK has said in the past, it seems Ashley's expectations are of challenging for the top 4, which will need some investment. FWIW I'm pretty sure that we will still buy big if the player is right. Selling Milner for £9m is just good business IMO.

 

it is if they can secure a replacement in 4 days, otherwise we'll be throwing lua lua in or relying on geremi/smith

 

We could also play Zog, Duff or Jonas there if pushed. Our best run of form last season was when Milner was out of the team. I don't think he'll be a massive loss. 

[Ericz]

 

 

Personally, the ideal situation would be to grab talented youngsters at young age + at a cheap price and groom them up in our own academy?

 

Is that currently themed as the Arsenal model? -shrugs-

 

But I am sure we have to add older players at one point or another to cover up the gaps etc (if there are any). - like Manchester United?

[Dave]

Thats quite an extreme version and Abramovich has spoilt it for every other "new owner" who is now being expected to follow his lead however, I thought we would have spent more than we have. What is our net spend this year..5m. We are short of players and although I am happy with what we have brought in I personally expected more or t least some statement of intent with the playing staff. I acknowledge the great financial state the club is now in and all the work being done at youth level etc. Unless you are Arsen who has an uncanny ability to keep arsenal up the top without spending...net spends of 10 and 5 m each season isn't sufficient to get us to where we want to be. You can tell people to be patient.......We've been patient for 50 years so I'm OK to wait another few seasons...Personally I expected a little more..maybe a nice suprise coming at the end of this week but I can't see it at present!

 

 

 

That's fair enough, and no doubt some will accuse me of settling for low ambitions/spending, getting my excuses in early etc. I too think the squad is light and that we still need a few good players in before Monday night.

 

I'm just fed up of this argument popping up every now and then that we're somehow a special case due to the riches of our owner away from football. We're not.

[mrmojorisin75]

1. huge crowds

 

2. big turnover

 

3. increased TV money

 

once the initial debt was cleared dave it didn't have to be run off his own money, it could be surely run spending a good amount (more than 10m net anyway) based on the 'spurs model' of signing players who'll likely keep some value in the market

 

this will go on forever if the usual suspects come in but no's 1-3 are enough for me

 

i never expected abramovich-esque levels of spending but i truly expected more than this - yes i know i'm not allowed to form an opinion before sep 2nd so in the event we buy some players please disregard

 

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know.

 

Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans?

 

well your first point is bullshit dave, are you saying our crowds & turnover are anywhere neat pompey, hull, stoke, blackburn, 'boro etc...?

 

our spending power reflects what we're spending dave, nothing more nothing less...i find your argument laughable - you can only increase spend if you improve matters on the pitch without spending?  that's the rationale and it isn't how football works

 

i'll let NE5 and others take it from here

[Ericz]

Can Gaydamak be considered as a Billionaire? What about the Liverpool owners?

 

I think to be fair, our squad is actually bigger than a lot of other squads out there maybe? - the likes of Everton, Portsmouth, Blackburn, Arsenal?

 

Mmmmm of course, critics will turn to say we should have more ambition and compare/aim ourselves to be like Manchester United or even Chelsea (luxury of 3 players in 1 position?)?

[mrmojorisin75]

That's fair enough, but from what KK has said in the past, it seems Ashley's expectations are of challenging for the top 4, which will need some investment. FWIW I'm pretty sure that we will still buy big if the player is right. Selling Milner for £9m is just good business IMO.

 

it is if they can secure a replacement in 4 days, otherwise we'll be throwing lua lua in or relying on geremi/smith

 

We could also play Zog, Duff or Jonas there if pushed. Our best run of form last season was when Milner was out of the team. I don't think he'll be a massive loss. 

 

me either, i'm just saying it's another body down and i consider smith/duff to be worse options in any position than milner

[manorpark]

My opinion is in the Arshavin thread, no point in repeating the detail here because people don't like to read/hear/believe it . . .

 

Summarised - there is something not right going on at my club.

 

(I am not a "reds under the bed" Daily Mail reader Dave!!!)

 

But . . .

 

[garth]

I've said it before in another thread Ashley's not the cash cow everybody was making him up to be. First foremost he's a businessman everything must run smoothly and in profit.

[Dave]

1. huge crowds

 

2. big turnover

 

3. increased TV money

 

once the initial debt was cleared dave it didn't have to be run off his own money, it could be surely run spending a good amount (more than 10m net anyway) based on the 'spurs model' of signing players who'll likely keep some value in the market

 

this will go on forever if the usual suspects come in but no's 1-3 are enough for me

 

i never expected abramovich-esque levels of spending but i truly expected more than this - yes i know i'm not allowed to form an opinion before sep 2nd so in the event we buy some players please disregard

 

Pretty much all clubs in the Premier League have 1-3, how many have spent more than £10m net this summer? Honest question, I don't know.

 

Our spending power reflects our finishing positions over the last couple of years, surely. We're therefore cutting our cloth accordingly. If we finish this year well in the top half I'd expect higher spending next year to build on that. Is that concept difficult to accept for our fans?

 

well your first point is bullshit dave, are you saying our crowds & turnover are anywhere neat pompey, hull, stoke, blackburn, 'boro etc...?

 

our spending power reflects what we're spending dave, nothing more nothing less...i find your argument laughable - you can only increase spend if you improve matters on the pitch without spending?  that's the rationale and it isn't how football works

 

i'll let NE5 and others take it from here

 

First point, see the bit where I said 'pretty much all'. Obviously some clubs have bigger stadia than others, but most in the Premier League get 30k+, and all get the increased TV money.

 

Second point, where did I say we should be (or are) spending nothing? I didn't say that at all.

[Dave]

I've said it before in another thread Ashley's not the cash cow everybody was making him up to be. First foremost he's a businessman everything must run smoothly and in profit.

 

Is that a bad thing?

[TRon]

My opinion is in the Arshavin thread, no point in repeating the detail here because people don't like to read/hear/believe it . . .

 

Summarised - there is something not right going on at my club.

 

(I am not a "reds under the bed" Daily Mail reader Dave!!!)

 

But . . .

 

 

I'd be more worried if I was a City supporter wrt something not being right. They are spending big mind.

[garth]

I've said it before in another thread Ashley's not the cash cow everybody was making him up to be. First foremost he's a businessman everything must run smoothly and in profit.

 

Is that a bad thing?

 

No it's not! I'm puzzled why half the Premiership Clubs haven't gone bankrupt already.