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

[madras]

Thanks for backing up my argument

i'm backing up the part that i doubt he walked for want of a left back. after that you are on your own.

[Guest Edd]

Ashley worked wonders getting that left back we've needed for 5 FUCKING MONTHS. The squad has quality but is tiny and has been filled with unproven premier league players. And at what cost? A profit actually! Well done Mike, job well done!

 

That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too.  The cunt.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Ashley worked wonders getting that left back we've needed for 5 FUCKING MONTHS. The squad has quality but is tiny and has been filled with unproven premier league players. And at what cost? A profit actually! Well done Mike, job well done!

 

That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too.  The cunt.

 

He's part of the master plan too

[mrmojorisin75]

Enrique -Hamstring injury

Zoggy - midfielder (and needed more there because of sale of milner)

Kadar - out for a year

Bassong - Centre-back that struggled at Coventry

 

Yeah we're in fine shape!

 

Has Enrique had his hamstring injury for five months?

Had we sold Milner five months ago?

 

At some point you have to say sorry but you have to use the squad to cover and give the youth team exposure.

 

We have a £6m left back who is only 22 and shows good promise.

 

Are you going to buy an older left back and push Enrique back to the reserves? And are you going to pay more than £6m for one? Even Man Utd don't have this sort of investment in a reserve Left Back.

 

Or are you going to buy a 19 year old to cover? Isn't this what the club have been doing in buying up young talent to fill the academy and reserves?

 

If Evra and the Brazillian twin Man U have get injured whilst Brown and O'Shea are suspended is it negligent of Ferguson not to have splashed £5m on another left back to cover exceptional circumstances?

 

you are wasting your time...they never bought a left back man!  keegan was lied to...

[wor jackie]

But they have Evra and played a full season. How many times did Enrique appear on our bench this and last season? If two sets of management see him day in and day out and he doesn't start more than he's on the bench they must be seeng something we don't. And if we can't get a specialist full back to a club like NUFC then I look firmy to the people responsible to player recruitment.

[Teasy]

no i know, but how much do you think sky & ST money comes to over 2 summers?  i'm gonna say 30m a season from sky and say the same from ST's/corporates each summer so basically 120m since he took the club over, and that ignores other revenue streams

 

i don't that's being unrealistic/OTT either personally...and you then think assuming we stay up it's coming again next season, and the season after that...

 

so why couldn't he invest a net of say 50m to now on the right types of player for him (i.e. value for money) and recoup that over the subsequent seasons from club income?

 

it wouldn't even need to have been long term debt

 

We can probably assume that the new TV deal has taken our revenue up to around £100 million (looking at it optimistically) and that our wage bill will probably have dropped a bit.  But that still means over half of the money we make will be going on player wages.  There are then also plenty of other costs (cost of the merchandise we've sold, wages for none playing staff, energy costs ect).  There's no way we've come out with £60 million a season spare, maybe £30 million at a stretch.  Still enough to spend the cash so you're point stands, but to be honest I think money has been available to spend on the players they see as the right ones.

[UV]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

Ashley worked wonders getting that left back we've needed for 5 f***ing MONTHS. The squad has quality but is tiny and has been filled with unproven premier league players. And at what cost? A profit actually! Well done Mike, job well done!

 

That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too.  The c***.

 

What happens at Arsenal when the player becomes a first team regular?

 

Does he:

a) Sell him

b) Give him a good salary to keep him happy

 

Hint: Arsenal have the 3rd highest wage bill in the League. In the 06-07 season it was 40% higher than ours.

 

Arsenal's relative success is not sustained quite as cheaply as is made out. Are we really trying to follow the Arsenal model (with Wise as a young Wenger) when our best young players are complaining about contracts throughout the season and handing in transfer requests?

[madras]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

Ashley worked wonders getting that left back we've needed for 5 f***ing MONTHS. The squad has quality but is tiny and has been filled with unproven premier league players. And at what cost? A profit actually! Well done Mike, job well done!

 

That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too.  The c***.

 

What happens at Arsenal when the player becomes a first team regular?

 

Does he:

a) Sell him

b) Give him a good salary to keep him happy

 

Hint: Arsenal have the 3rd highest wage bill in the League. In the 06-07 season it was 40% higher than ours.

 

Arsenal's relative success is not sustained quite as cheaply as is made out. Are we really trying to follow the Arsenal model (with Wise as a young Wenger) when our best young players are complaining about contracts throughout the season and handing in transfer requests?

ask hleb and flamini.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

But they have Evra and played a full season. How many times did Enrique appear on our bench this and last season? If two sets of management see him day in and day out and he doesn't start more than he's on the bench they must be seeng something we don't. And if we can't get a specialist full back to a club like NUFC then I look firmy to the people responsible to player recruitment.

 

Fair enough so you would want to sell Enrique to buy in a better replacement? Squad improvement right?

 

If this is the case then so be it.

 

Likewise if Keegan was told that selling Milner would allow Schweinstieger to be brought in its a good move year?

 

Nope. Its being a selling club I'm afraid, sell to buy, not investing any real money. Apparently.

 

The fact that we failed to rubber stamp the Schweinstieger deal is another debate btw. I'm sure that if Keegan had been told that Evra or Clichy was available but we would have to move Enrique on he would have been happy. If however Keegan had wanted to spend £6m on Warnock and keep Enrique then on this position I'm with the board, it would have been a stupid move.

[Tsunami]

So, some on here accept that Ashley is in it for the money first and are happy with that and the fact that any success would come as by a by product and that by and large PL safety would be acceptable? With the strategy he is using that is the best we can hope for. If that is the ambition of Ashley and those supporters are happy to accept this then we do not deserve success.

 

 

[Teasy]

Enrique -Hamstring injury

Zoggy - midfielder (and needed more there because of sale of milner)

Kadar - out for a year

Bassong - Centre-back that struggled at Coventry

 

Yeah we're in fine shape!

 

Bassong struggled at Coventry?, not really.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

 

Our run of good form last season came when Milner was not in the team.

 

Good move to try and replace him?

[TRon]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

Ashley worked wonders getting that left back we've needed for 5 f***ing MONTHS. The squad has quality but is tiny and has been filled with unproven premier league players. And at what cost? A profit actually! Well done Mike, job well done!

 

That's Wengers policy at Arsenal too.  The c***.

 

What happens at Arsenal when the player becomes a first team regular?

 

Does he:

a) Sell him

b) Give him a good salary to keep him happy

 

Hint: Arsenal have the 3rd highest wage bill in the League. In the 06-07 season it was 40% higher than ours.

 

Arsenal's relative success is not sustained quite as cheaply as is made out. Are we really trying to follow the Arsenal model (with Wise as a young Wenger) when our best young players are complaining about contracts throughout the season and handing in transfer requests?

 

Haven't Arsenal been in the Champions league for the last decade or so?

 

Doesn't that mean they have far, far greater cash resources to spend on wages and players? And haven't they consistently sold their best players when the price was right, like Henry, Viera and Petite?

 

Hint: Yes.

 

[Lenny]

Personally I dont see selling Milner for £12 million as being a selling club. If we'd used the money to buy in a replacement then we'd have had the necessary depth in that position. Also, £12 million was too good to turn down as he just isn't that good.

 

There's no excuse for not getting in a replacement however.

[Teasy]

 

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.

 

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run.  An offer came in for him which we turned down.  As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise.  We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract.  Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it.  To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO.  There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion.

[mrmojorisin75]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

 

Our run of good form last season came when Milner was not in the team.

 

Good move to try and replace him?

 

but, but, but, but, but he was a first team regular....so, so,so, so, so KK must have been forced to sell him

 

 

[UV]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

 

Our run of good form last season came when Milner was not in the team.

 

Good move to try and replace him?

 

Was Milner played on the RW at every opportunity this season when every other option was fit?

Was Enrique left on the bench when his replacement was a left winger who can't defend?

 

 

Good move to replace him? Arguably, depending on the replacement.

Good move to try to replace him after he's been sold? No.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

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.

 

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run.  An offer came in for him which we turned down.  As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise.  We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract.  Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it.  To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO.  There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion.

 

Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner

[mrmojorisin75]

 

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.

 

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run.  An offer came in for him which we turned down.  As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise.  We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract.  Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it.  To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO.  There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion.

 

Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

So either you want a £6m left back in reserve or you are advocating selling him to buy a replacement - which is precisely what a number of people are criticising Ashley for in the first place

 

There's a difference between replacing a player who the manager is not happy with (both Allardyce & Keegan have been reluctant to play him) and just getting rid of a regular first teamer. I'm sure you can see that.

 

 

Our run of good form last season came when Milner was not in the team.

 

Good move to try and replace him?

 

Was Milner played on the RW at every opportunity this season when every other option was fit?

Was Enrique left on the bench when his replacement was a left winger who can't defend?

 

 

Good move to replace him? Arguably, depending on the replacement.

Good move to try to replace him after he's been sold? No.

 

Which is why I've said numerous times I can understand Keegan being pissed off if he was told that Schweinsteiger was being brought in if we sold Milner only for someone to fuck it up, and that it was foolish to confirm the Milner sale on this basis if the other deal was not 100% secure.

 

I've also said that the failure to secure said player is another debate to the good/bad idea to try and sell.

[Guest Slippery Sam]

 

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.

 

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run.  An offer came in for him which we turned down.  As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise.  We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract.  Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it.  To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO.  There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion.

 

Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner

 

Proving, once again, that if you are prepared to pay some money you will get your man. Like Modric, for example. Who dares wins!

[Teasy]

Is £16 million not 'some money' like?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

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.

 

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run.  An offer came in for him which we turned down.  As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise.  We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract.  Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it.  To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO.  There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion.

 

Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner

 

Proving, once again, that if you are prepared to pay some money you will get your man. Like Modric, for example. Who dares wins!

 

We offered more than Spurs for Modric.

[Offshore]

So, some on here accept that Ashley is in it for the money first and are happy with that and the fact that any success would come as by a by product and that by and large PL safety would be acceptable? With the strategy he is using that is the best we can hope for. If that is the ambition of Ashley and those supporters are happy to accept this then we do not deserve success.

 

 

 

The only ones saying that he's only in it for the money are the same ones on your side of the arguement.

 

The others, me included, acknowledge that the club is not being run a toy and so has to be run with a bit of business accumen.

[johnnypd]

 

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.

 

Milner was unhappy with his wages, a contract he'd signed only a year earlier with 3 years left to run.  An offer came in for him which we turned down.  As you say Milner then saw that as an opportunity to get a raise.  We turned his proposal down, which was the right thing to do IMO considering he'd just had one of his worst seasons only one year after signing his last contract.  Milner asked to go and we got a fantastic offer, so we accepted it.  To say that we decided to move him on to pay for the likes of Coloccini, or that we'd budgeted for selling him, just isn't fair at all IMO.  There's really nothing at all to support that conclusion.

 

Especially as no one in their right mind would budget getting £12m for Milner

 

i didn't say they budgeted £12m for Milner, in fact if you read my post i mention the figure keegan allegedly slated which might be closer to what the club budgeted. before we sold milner the club may have budgeted in for moving on smith and ameobi but those didn't happen and they might have looked at an alternative way of raising funds.

 

and in my OP im talking about how things actually turned out. you can theorise all you want but it's a fact that we spent nothing. once again people take a little detail from a big post and ignore the general argument.