ICNewcastle

[Guest thenorthumbrian]

From icnewcastle, if this is true then it's shocking.

 

two things stand out

"For our information is that United were still trying to sell Michael Owen to Spurs at 10pm on Monday night – just two hours before the transfer deadline."

 

and

 

"For while most of United’s transfers have come into the “undisclosed fee” bracket it seems that United have actually made a profit of £1.65m on their deals.

This is in direct contrast to 15 of the other Premier League teams who have all spent more than they have clawed in"

 

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/sundaysun/tm_headline=the-reasons-why-kevin-keegan-resigned%26method=full%26objectid=21681798%26siteid=72703-name_page.html

 

[Guest elbee909]

You mean from our good friend, Alan Oliver.  Anagram "I anal lover".  Brett Emerton for manager.  By the end of, y'know, the week.

[Fatwax]

Quite simply a terrible journalist.

[Mick]

The second point should be seen as a plus if we've improved our squad while making money, I'm not convinced that we'll know now though.  I hope that I'm wrong but I think the last week will cost us this season, only time will tell but it's got to have a negative effect on the players and club.

[Bad Mongo]

It's not all that "wide of the mark", though, to use one of AO's own clichés. The club should have spent at least twice the amount if funds actually were available, as was promised. We got nearly £20M in through sales (Emre (£2M), Rozenhal(£3M), Faye(£2M), Milner(£12M)), and did certainly not spend much more on new players, all while not replacing Milner, and not getting proper cover for the fullbacks.

 

The thing about Owen and other key players being put up for sale has been widely circulated in other media, and while it might be untrue (unlikely, if you ask me), it's certainly not Oliver's invention.

 

[edit] And Mick, the club shouldn't be about making money on selling players. That's what clubs on their way down do. If we make money on sales, they should be reinvested ASAP, just like Keegan promised to do, but couldn't.

[Guest thenorthumbrian]

That doesn't mean the article isn't true.

There is a lot to come out about this whole business and as long as the hiearchy at NUFC are saying nowt can we assume that they have got something to hide ?

[Guest black n white]

are we in the business of making money or getting 3 points, always thought it was the 3 points like doh

[Guest optimistic nit]

i believe the second point but not the first.

[Mick]

 

[edit] And Mick, the club shouldn't be about making money on selling players. That's what clubs on their way down do. If we make money on sales, they should be reinvested ASAP, just like Keegan promised to do, but couldn't.

 

I didn't say that we should be about making money, I said it would be a plus if we've improved while making money.  I'm surprised anybody would really argue against that.

 

I didn't say that making money should have been a priority.

[ShearMagic]

So, because we've improved our squad WHILST making money, it's a terrible thing?

[eaststar]

nothing wrong with the club making money.

 

if you win and make money that is ideal.

 

not win and lose money

[Guest GeordieAce]

Bugs the tits of me how he starts every setence with 'For'

[Bad Mongo]

We haven't improved the areas of the squad that most desperately needed it, though: central (defensive) midfield and fullbacks (backup), nor have we replaced Milner. Neither have "we" made money; those money are only "ours"  insofar as they are reinvested in the club. Virtually all the clubs we're supposedly competing with, bar Spurs, have invested more. I'm happy with not spending over the odds, but not with a negative investment.

[ShearMagic]

Serious question.

 

What would people have preferred?

 

To still be in loads of debt and a chance to go bankrupt

 

OR

 

To spend ridiculous amounts on transfers?

[Mick]

Serious question.

 

What would people have preferred?

 

To still be in loads of debt and a chance to go bankrupt

 

OR

 

To spend ridiculous amounts on transfers?

 

The second if it didn't lead to the first.

[Bad Mongo]

It's not an either/or. Ashley said there were money to spend, and he lied.

[Mick]

It's not an either/or. Ashley said there were money to spend, and he lied.

How do you know that he lied?

 

Not spending doesn't mean it wasn't available, the problem seems to be who was allowed to spend it.

[Wullie]

Serious question.

 

What would people have preferred?

 

To still be in loads of debt and a chance to go bankrupt

 

OR

 

To spend ridiculous amounts on transfers?

 

Is there no middle ground like?

[merlin]

None of this discussion alters the basic point of contention - that the manager was NOT consulted on these selling/buying decisions which is was KK has said in his statement ; just because ICNewcastle have published an article which MAY have had Oliver's input is neither here nor there because the basic issue which caused all this trouble was lack of consultation with the manager.

 

People should keep that firmly in mind because it must be sorted out.

[ShearMagic]

Serious question.

 

What would people have preferred?

 

To still be in loads of debt and a chance to go bankrupt

 

OR

 

To spend ridiculous amounts on transfers?

 

Is there no middle ground like?

 

Well, when you consider he's spent a couple of hundred million (reportedly) on clearing debts, do you blame him for not offering 100m to spend on transfers too?

 

Would we have all liked to see more spent on new players? Yes, probably, however we've still improved the squad.

 

Spurs ended up with a profit from this window too btw.

[Guest]

This net spend thing is exaggerated by the fact we got over-the-odds for Milner.

 

Spurs probably have made quite a bit profit this summer, they've still spent a lot of money though.

[buzza]

Out:

Carr, Ramage, Emre, Milner, Faye, Rozenthal

In:

Coloccini, Guthrie, Jonas, Gonzalez, Bassong, Xisco

 

Six out and six in. Which six would you go for? I know my six and if we made a profit then unreal!!

[Bad Mongo]

Six out and six in, in a squad already desperately lacking in numbers. Two of the players out could play right back, none of the players in (I'm sure Coloccini can, but not for us); only one of the players out can be considered a youngster/backup player (Ramage), while two (Guthrie, Bassong) or or three (+ Xisco) of the players in should; only two of the players in are certain to improve the first team (with Gonzales as a big unknown); two experienced centre backs replaced with one + a youngster.

 

There's nothing wrong with the players brought in, they just fail to strengthen the key areas that most needed strengthening. They're a bunch of players on the cheap, we haven't built a squad. We're being made profitable, not competitive. We're not being made into Arsenal, we're made into Spurs.