Coloccini and Ashley's Evil Master Plan (Mua Ha Ha..)

[TRon]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

[Guest guinness_fiend]

Shhhh...  You'll wake the mongs.

[James]

Yes, he really wants to depreciate the value of one of his £250m assets.

[Syrette]

Shhhh...  You'll wake the mongs.

 

I can hear them whispering already...

 

"sheep"... "cockney sympathiser"...

[Guest guinness_fiend]

Yes, he really wants to depreciate the value of one of his £250m assets.

 

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/Austin_Powers_Mike_Myers_as_Dr_Evil.jpg

[manorpark]

Shhhh...  You'll wake the mongs.

 

I can hear them whispering already...

 

"sheep"... "cockney sympathiser"...

 

Still, its great when someone else seems to think as you do, makes the world go round . . .

[Guest Alan Shearer 9]

What a fucking stupid argument. Yes he's really going to make a profit after sinking £100 mill of debt by seeling some players for £2-3 mill profit, which might just cover their wages. Wake up. It's a good transfer policy for the club unless you want to go the way of the previous regime again.

[johnnypd]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

[Teasy]

I've definately never been of the opinion that Ashley isn't willing to spend on good players or that he isn't interested in the team doing well.  Like I've always said we've made big bids for very good players.  I am concerned now however that he's a toss pot with too much influence from the likes of Kemsley and Wise.

[Thomson Mouse]

Shhhh...  You'll wake the mongs.

 

 

So because people have a different opinion, they are mongs? 

[Teasy]

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. what this means for the team

 

I can never understand this argument.  Had Milner not decided he wanted to leave our net spend would have been much higher.  If Modric (or his owners..) had decided to come here our net spend would have been much higher..  No doubt many other situations out of the clubs control will have effected this as well.  Having x amount of money available to spend on players and being perfectly willing to spend that money on the right players does not equal x net spend..  which is why its a completely pointless figure to look at out of context.

[johnnypd]

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. what this means for the team

 

I can never understand this argument.  Had Milner not decided he wanted to leave our net spend would have been much higher.  If Modric (or his owners..) had decided to come here our net spend would have been much higher..  Having x amount of money available to spend on players and being perfectly willing to spend that money on the right players does not equal x net spend..  which is why its a completely pointless figure to look at out of context.

 

had Coloccini not decided to move our net spend wouldve been even lower. if my auntie had bollocks....

 

Milner did move and clubs had been interested in him all window so i am sure potential earnings for him, or others who were slated to leave but didn't, were factored in. maybe once ameobi got injured and everton bought saha instead of smith we felt we had to move on another player instead to stick to budget.

 

i think, given we've spent nothing so far since ashley's arrival and can carry over this year's alleged 'lost' budget of £12m, that in jan and next summer we'll spend a bit over £15m net, which i suppose will be an improvement. though that is being optimistic.

[Teasy]

 

had Coloccini not decided to move our net spend wouldve been even lower. if my auntie had bollocks....

 

But that's exactly my point, had Coloccini decided not to come we'd have spent even less and yet people would be judging the club based on Coloccini's decision..  Or Milners's or Modric's ect ect  That's why this shouldn't be judged on net spend.  We should judge it purely on the players that have gone out, the players that have come in and the players we know the club tried to get.

 

Milner did move and clubs had been interested in him all window so i am sure potential earnings for him, or others who were slated to leave but didn't, were factored in. maybe once ameobi got injured and everton bought saha instead of smith we felt we had to move on another player instead to stick to budget.

 

But we didn't decide we needed to sell him.  He asked to leave and a club put in a ridiculous offer for him that not one person here would have turned down even without his transfer request!

[Guest black n white]

I think the club is for sale and we will have new owners within 3-4 weeks

the man city takeover spelt the end for him

 

in respect of collo i think there's a few things in the recent statement that need noting mainly....

resale value and the club willbe ran as a business  ie making money

[johnnypd]

 

had Coloccini not decided to move our net spend wouldve been even lower. if my auntie had bollocks....

 

Exactly, that's my point FFS   So why bother talking about it?..

 

Milner did move and clubs had been interested in him all window so i am sure potential earnings for him, or others who were slated to leave but didn't, were factored in. maybe once ameobi got injured and everton bought saha instead of smith we felt we had to move on another player instead to stick to budget.

 

We felt we had to move on a player so we made Milner put in a transfer request?  Common man, he asked to leave and a club put in a ridiculous offer for him that not one person here would have turned down even without the request.

 

he put in a transfer request because a club put in a bid for him and we felt it was too low, so milner asked for more wages to reflect his 'worth'. i think he saw it as a way to get the money he thought he deserved, rather than to specificlly get a move, as despite milner asking the club to keep the request private, we publicised it, basically advertising his availability.

 

i don't know if it is true or not as im just filling the gaps with an educated guess or speculation, though it's not essential to my argument, more a devil's advocate if anything. everton's interest died down a couple of days before milner left, though i think it was that Castillo lad who was the more likely alternative to Smith, given that everton needed to replace a backup central midfielder, whereas theyd started to look at Obinna and Saha upfront. And ameobi's move also fell through a while before because of a hamstring injury. think about how much we were due for those two, the club may have budgeted in Shola's £3.5m move to Stoke (500k already paid) earlier in the summer, and Smith was to go for £4m-£5m. that matches the fee Keegan allegedly mentioned in regard to Milner's value. just something to think about.

[TRon]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

Doesn't that contradict one of the basic arguments of the Ashley critics, i.e. we are operating on a buy to sell policy? Coloccini was signed before Milner's sale.

 

In any case, if you were looking purely from a profit point of view, why spend £10m on an international centre half from a major league? For a third of that you could probably buy a defender from Africa "with potential" and a good re-sale value.

[madras]

 

had Coloccini not decided to move our net spend wouldve been even lower. if my auntie had bollocks....

 

Exactly, that's my point FFS   So why bother talking about it?..

 

Milner did move and clubs had been interested in him all window so i am sure potential earnings for him, or others who were slated to leave but didn't, were factored in. maybe once ameobi got injured and everton bought saha instead of smith we felt we had to move on another player instead to stick to budget.

 

We felt we had to move on a player so we made Milner put in a transfer request?  Common man, he asked to leave and a club put in a ridiculous offer for him that not one person here would have turned down even without the request.

 

he put in a transfer request because a club put in a bid for him and we felt it was too low, so milner asked for more wages to reflect his 'worth'. i think he saw it as a way to get the money he thought he deserved, rather than to specificlly get a move, as despite milner asking the club to keep the request private, we publicised it, basically advertising his availability.

 

i don't know if it is true or not as im just filling the gaps with an educated guess or speculation, though it's not essential to my argument, more a devil's advocate if anything. everton's interest died down a couple of days before milner left, though i think it was that Castillo lad who was the more likely alternative to Smith, given that everton needed to replace a backup central midfielder, whereas theyd started to look at Obinna and Saha upfront. And ameobi's move also fell through a while before because of a hamstring injury. think about how much we were due for those two, the club may have budgeted in Shola's £3.5m move to Stoke (500k already paid) earlier in the summer, and Smith was to go for £4m-£5m. that matches the fee Keegan allegedly mentioned in regard to Milner's value. just something to think about.

is "villa offered more than he was worth and we were after schweinsteiger" not a simpler version

[NE5]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat bastard for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

[madras]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat b****** for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

wasn't bartons at the time a world record for a defender ? (maybe wrong)

[NE5]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

Doesn't that contradict one of the basic arguments of the Ashley critics, i.e. we are operating on a buy to sell policy? Coloccini was signed before Milner's sale.

 

In any case, if you were looking purely from a profit point of view, why spend £10m on an international centre half from a major league? For a third of that you could probably buy a defender from Africa "with potential" and a good re-sale value.

 

omg

 

 

[NE5]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat b****** for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

wasn't bartons at the time a world record for a defender ? (maybe wrong)

 

yep

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat bastard for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

 

Are you confusing your fat bastards?

[NE5]

i think he wants the club to run as a self-sufficient entity that won't impact upon his or his other business's finances, which means no money from his pockets, no spending before we receive money, no speculate to accumulate, no short-term debt for investments etc. will also see a trimming of expenses like wages or even matchday suits, not many big fees spent, and rougly a one-in, one-out policy on transfers. hence the whinging about it being an expensive seat to sit in and the call for others to put their money into the club. this way he can turn up on matchday and not have to worry about the club at other times.

 

the net spend on transfers is very worrying at this point, (as it turned out, Coloccini's move was funded by Milner's sale, on balance we've spent little to nothing since ashley arrived), as is the fact he feels the backroom set-up (buy cheap, sell high) is more important than the first team 'coach'. the likes of Jiminez who are there to get us deals like the one that landed us Jonas i'd guess are an exercise in saving money - it's worth the small initial outlay as they'll save you more money than you've spent on one deal, never mind a dozen. for transfers that means it won't happen if the deal is not right for us. not neccessarily bad - but - it means that our criteria for transfers will be based on present and future finance, not just the quality of the player, which will inevitably see us miss out on targets. i also don't necessarily agree with it as, being a midtable side with nothing special to offer, we have to go that extra mile to bring players in. and i'd take a stab that the money saved by using Jiminez will not be allocated toward other transfers. ie - just cos we got guthrie and jonas for £10m less than their worth doesn't mean that £10m is going to go on other transfers, if we feel a club is asking £5m too much for a top drawer player, i think we'd rather miss out than spend half of what we saved elsewhere. just an opinion of course, but one i feel is backed up by reality.

 

what this means for the team -  i think we'll end up in and around the likes of portsmouth or blackburn, and ashley will put more emphasis on doing well in cups rather than in the league. because it doesn't take so much to go on a brave cup run every other year, while breaking into the top four demands real investment.

 

no doubt he also wants the club to make a profit and sees player development and future sales from this as one means of achieveing that profit. i also think he is betting on the market value of premiership clubs increasing in the next few years. i don't think he particularly wants to sell and wouldnt sell on a deal that would give him his money back as he feels 3 years down the line he can get better. i think the only thing that might change this is if fan discontent effects his enjoyment in which case he might take a 'money-back' offer.

 

basically, he is the sam allardyce of club owners -  boring, works to a strict budget, focused on the long-term sometimes at the expense of the present, poor at PR, obsessed with 'systems'.

 

 

nailed

 

and the sad thing is, there are STILL people who can't see it.

 

How sad.

 

 

[NE5]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat bastard for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

 

Are you confusing your fat bastards?

 

no.

 

Open your eyes.

 

 

[TRon]

I am not naieve enough to think that Ashley isn't looking to make a profit from Newcastle but if he was only looking to milk the club, why pay a record transfer fee on an international defender? This signing just doesn't fit with the idea being peddled that we are going to buy cheap imports and sell on at a profit.

 

Is it just remotely possible that as someone who's been standing on the terraces, he probably does want to watch a half decent team?

 

half decent team isn't good enough.

 

Keegan broke the record transfer fee for the club for a defender when he bought Darren Peacock, in fact. He also did it again when he bought Warren Barton. Gullit paid big money to buy Marcelino and Goma when the club needed defenders. Then they did it again when they bought Woodgate. Didn't stop them buying strikers and forwards as well. But continue defending the fat bastard for all that your'e worth and ignoring these facts.

 

 

 

Why did we sell Woodgate then if it wasn't a good deal? Or Les Ferdinand for that matter? I seem to remember a certain "fat bastard" chairman describing both deals as exactly that.