Decky Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 if we had competent people in charge over the transfer of Shay Given who knew how to make business and knew the real value of what they were selling we could easily and we should had sold Shay Given for at least £10m. The Given transfer=Really bad transfer business imo Who is runing the outgoing transfer negotiations at our club btw? Wise? £12 million for James Millner approx £6.5 million plus Taylor for N'Zogbia £3million for Rozenhal Pretty good deals, so the Given one wasnt great, but you cant fault the board for our outgoing deals Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 it's a shame we didn't say to them, 'you can have him for £6m in the summer, but if you want him now it's £10m...' if they really wanted him we'd have trousered an extra £4m. still the best keeper we've ever had mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Although it isn't the greatest amount, the money we've secured from other deals (Milner and Dyer to name a couple) more than makes up for this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Marlon Harewood, do your worst kidda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stalker Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Given wanted out [move]Man City knew this [/move] [move][/move] Berbatov also wanted out... Bellamy wanted out, Man City knew that as well, yet West Ham robbed them blind, £15 million for that old waster. You've also got to remember that as a club we owed a lot more to Given than Spurs did to Berbs or West ham to Bellamy. For all the years of loyal service he'd given to the club he had to be allowed to leave if he wanted to, and therefore to even get £6 million is pretty good. On another point I'm still shocked and disgusted at the number of you who are willing to abuse Given, he is still and always will be a legend in my eyes. He eventually got fed up with the turmoil at the club, but who wouldn't have, I'm amazed he stayed with us as long as he did. Can you explain this please? I mean that given all his years of loyal service he should expect that he will be treated fairly by the club, along the lines that older players who have given long service are often allowed to move clubs for free even if they are still under contract. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Given wanted out [move]Man City knew this [/move] [move][/move] Berbatov also wanted out... Bellamy wanted out, Man City knew that as well, yet West Ham robbed them blind, £15 million for that old waster. You've also got to remember that as a club we owed a lot more to Given than Spurs did to Berbs or West ham to Bellamy. For all the years of loyal service he'd given to the club he had to be allowed to leave if he wanted to, and therefore to even get £6 million is pretty good. On another point I'm still shocked and disgusted at the number of you who are willing to abuse Given, he is still and always will be a legend in my eyes. He eventually got fed up with the turmoil at the club, but who wouldn't have, I'm amazed he stayed with us as long as he did. Can you explain this please? I mean that given all his years of loyal service he should expect that he will be treated fairly by the club, along the lines that older players who have given long service are often allowed to move clubs for free even if they are still under contract. A service is defined as something that is offered for free. Given was paid a massive wage. He stayed with us for years, but your suggestion of letting your best players go for nothing is ridiculous, should Liverpool let Gerrard go for nothing then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Given wanted out [move]Man City knew this [/move] [move][/move] Berbatov also wanted out... Bellamy wanted out, Man City knew that as well, yet West Ham robbed them blind, £15 million for that old waster. You've also got to remember that as a club we owed a lot more to Given than Spurs did to Berbs or West ham to Bellamy. For all the years of loyal service he'd given to the club he had to be allowed to leave if he wanted to, and therefore to even get £6 million is pretty good. On another point I'm still shocked and disgusted at the number of you who are willing to abuse Given, he is still and always will be a legend in my eyes. He eventually got fed up with the turmoil at the club, but who wouldn't have, I'm amazed he stayed with us as long as he did. Can you explain this please? I mean that given all his years of loyal service he should expect that he will be treated fairly by the club, along the lines that older players who have given long service are often allowed to move clubs for free even if they are still under contract. A service is defined as something that is offered for free. Given was paid a massive wage. He stayed with us for years, but your suggestion of letting your best players go for nothing is ridiculous, should Liverpool let Gerrard go for nothing then? link? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Thought this worthwhile of a bump as it has now come out (from Llambias at the Supporter's Panel meeting) that the fee we received for Shay Given was £5.9m. Let the moaning commence. (Probably justified, to be honest.) Where did you seen this? Seen a few bits from the Chronicle but I didn't read that. Can't be arsed to go and find the exact article, but it's in the Journal today. In the OP of the Llambias thread that TheSpence started earlier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Ashley bails out Newcasle United to the tune of £10m - Owner dips into personal fortune to help club - Fees still outstanding for Nolan and Given - Simon Williams, The Guardian Mike Ashley has been forced to inject £10m of his own money to cover Newcastle United's operating costs as he grapples with the club's cash-flow problems. The money is believed to have been partly needed to cover the £4.5m owed to Bolton Wanderers for the midfielder Kevin Nolan, who joined the Magpies last month, as Newcastle are still waiting to receive £5.9m from Manchester City for goalkeeper Shay Given. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why have we not received the money from Manchester City yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It said in one of the papers that Ashsley loaned the club the money to pay for the Nolan deal in full but we won't get the first instalment for Given and co until the Summer. I can't quite understand why we have to pay in full for players when no other club does. Surely it just means we will continue to have cash flow problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why does it not surprise me that our club operates like that. Aye take our 1st choice goalie, infact have him free until the end of the season, and then start paying, interest free credit too! Are you sure Mike Ashley doesn't own SCS? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It said in one of the papers that Ashsley loaned the club the money to pay for the Nolan deal in full but we won't get the first instalment for Given and co until the Summer. I can't quite understand why we have to pay in full for players when no other club does. Surely it just means we will continue to have cash flow problems. Club owns it assets outright thus making us more attractive to potential buyers/investors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 It said in one of the papers that Ashsley loaned the club the money to pay for the Nolan deal in full but we won't get the first instalment for Given and co until the Summer. I can't quite understand why we have to pay in full for players when no other club does. Surely it just means we will continue to have cash flow problems. Club owns it assets outright thus making us more attractive to potential buyers/investors. Also means we're not still paying for players after they've left the club, like we were with Luque and Emre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 In a lesser way it'll mean we're very attractive to sell to n all as clubs needing a quick buck will get said buck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 In a lesser way it'll mean we're very attractive to sell to n all as clubs needing a quick buck will get said buck. That would be handy if we were actually buying players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Are there any benefits to us paying in a different way to the rest of football? Even the world's flushest club evidently don't do it this way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Given wanted out [move]Man City knew this [/move] [move][/move] Berbatov also wanted out... Bellamy wanted out, Man City knew that as well, yet West Ham robbed them blind, £15 million for that old waster. You've also got to remember that as a club we owed a lot more to Given than Spurs did to Berbs or West ham to Bellamy. For all the years of loyal service he'd given to the club he had to be allowed to leave if he wanted to, and therefore to even get £6 million is pretty good. On another point I'm still shocked and disgusted at the number of you who are willing to abuse Given, he is still and always will be a legend in my eyes. He eventually got fed up with the turmoil at the club, but who wouldn't have, I'm amazed he stayed with us as long as he did. Can you explain this please? I mean that given all his years of loyal service he should expect that he will be treated fairly by the club, along the lines that older players who have given long service are often allowed to move clubs for free even if they are still under contract. A service is defined as something that is offered for free. Given was paid a massive wage. He stayed with us for years, but your suggestion of letting your best players go for nothing is ridiculous, should Liverpool let Gerrard go for nothing then? link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfless_service Before you claim it as another service, the service above is obviously the one he was getting at if he feels that we should have let Given go for free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Are there any benefits to us paying in a different way to the rest of football? Even the world's flushest club evidently don't do it this way. you say you want a revolution, well you know, we all want to save the world [works better if you sing it] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Are there any benefits to us paying in a different way to the rest of football? Even the world's flushest club evidently don't do it this way. Like someone else said, if were the buying club then if were paying up front then other clubs are probably more likely to agree to sell/agree a lower fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Doesn't seem to have helped us so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Doesn't seem to have helped us so far. Maybe it has with the players we got in, we just dont know. Doesn't apply with Johnson when Man City have squillions though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Doesn't seem to have helped us so far. Maybe it has with the players we got in, we just dont know. Doesn't apply with Johnson when Man City have squillions though. They've got squillions but they don't want to pay up front for players either. Which players have we brought in which you feel we needed to twist their arm, or saved a significant amount on the fee through this method? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I'd be amazed if any other top level clubs paid upfront for deals. Regardless of how much money club does/doesn't have Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Boy Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 So say they had accepted our bid for Johnson. Would we have paid it all upfront, and still recieved nothing yet for Given? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 So say they had accepted our bid for Johnson. Would we have paid it all upfront, and still recieved nothing yet for Given? Do you think anyone on here knows the answer to that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now