Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Didn't Douglas say we wouldn't be signing anyone on loan and we were not interested in Sturridge only a couple of weeks ago? Yes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 We could definitely do with losing Smith and Xisco even on frees. I know we don't know the wages for certain but these two have been mentioned many times as being on high wages and I think there is a decent amount of education behind these guesses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Sturridge would be an incredible signing, and I'm not even exageratting. To me, we'd actually be filling a space in the first team that needs to be filled with the perfect signing. Get rid of Smith and Xisco to create a wage space and bring it on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Didn't Douglas say we wouldn't be signing anyone on loan and we were not interested in Sturridge only a couple of weeks ago? Yes Also said we had no interest in Demba Ba Signing Sturridge even on loan would be so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Didn't Douglas say we wouldn't be signing anyone on loan and we were not interested in Sturridge only a couple of weeks ago? Yes In fairness to Douglas, he does qualify todays claim by saying.. "Mevlut Erdinc’s snub forced them into a major transfer rethink." Just hope it is true, and we don't have tomorrow's Lee Ryder article in The Chronicle saying the opposite again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 I'd take Daniel Sturridge on loan. Don't like the idea about Pardew having to 'sell before he can buy' though. The wage bill has been trimmed massively over the last 2 years and he's still wanting it dropped further. Everything that is happening is pointing towards the club being sold in the next year or so, IMO. Can only hope it turns out to be true because Ashley has no intent on taking the club forwards. It's sensible squad management IMO. There is still so much fat to be trimmed off the squad, and if we can get it done over the next year we will be so much healthier for it. Do it this window and we can bring in some quality players. Smith, Xisco, Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Harper, Raylor and Perch wouldn't be missed on the pitch and would save a small fortune. Thankfully 4 of them run out of contract and by this tine next year gone, fingers crossed we can get rid sooner, save even more wages and possibly even bring in a fee for one or two. I personally cannot wait for the day that lot have gone as when we do we can operate with much more freedom in the transfer market and bring in the type of players who can move the club forward. The club may have decent money to punt on transfer fees, but wages we are still crippled by past mistakes, Ashley rightly or wrongly doesn't want to saddle the club with an even higher wage bill than it is now, a wage bill we couldn't afford if we went down and can barely afford now, even getting in to Europe won't extend the coffers that much, but getting some off the books will and the easiest way IMO to move the club financially forward to supporting itself and becoming a real asset to any buyers who want to build on stable foundations in the future. Or we could accept the Sunderland way, approaching 90% wage to turnover ratio, leaving no growth in the future under new financial rules and an owner who has painted himself in to a corner and if he wanted to leave couldn't due to the sorry state of the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Don't like the idea about Pardew having to 'sell before he can buy' though. The wage bill has been trimmed massively over the last 2 years and he's still wanting it dropped further. I just think that Ashley wants 'value for wages' with his players. The likes of Smith and Xisco are still a huge drain on resources and they contribute absolutely nothing of value. I firmly believe that if we were able to get a proven world-class player on £60,000+ a week that Ashley would do it. It's not about 'doing it on the cheap' for me, it's about getting value for money. Obviously, the mantra of if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys applies, but there are exceptions to that rule (see Tiote) and Ashley seems intent on finding more of those exceptions. It's a risky strategy but certainly more viable than the old Shepherd transfer policy. Also, I don't think it's a case of Pardew needing to raise transfer funds through player sales. I think if he was to remove what is estimated to be £100,000~ a week from the wage bill by getting shot of those two players (even on free transfers) then he'd be able to bring in two or maybe even three players in their place, depending on their wages of course. Additionally, it's not as if he's having to sell key players to get the wage budget down. Smith and Xisco contribute fuck all between them. The likes of Perch, R.Taylor and Routledge also aren't needed/the required standard and can be moved on too. I'd be interested to see what Ashley's policy would look like if Pardew removed all of these chaff/high earning players from the wage bill and we moved up the table gradually as a result. If he doesn't sell the club as you suggested, would he begin to invest and chase the European spots in order to garner more revenue? It's guesswork. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Don't like the idea about Pardew having to 'sell before he can buy' though. The wage bill has been trimmed massively over the last 2 years and he's still wanting it dropped further. I just think that Ashley wants 'value for wages' with his players. The likes of Smith and Xisco are still a huge drain on resources and they contribute absolutely nothing of value. I firmly believe that if we were able to get a proven world-class player on £60,000+ a week that Ashley would do it. It's not about 'doing it on the cheap' for me, it's about getting value for money. Obviously, the mantra of if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys applies, but there are exceptions to that rule (see Tiote) and Ashley seems intent on finding more of those exceptions. It's a risky strategy but certainly more viable than the old Shepherd transfer policy. Also, I don't think it's a case of Pardew needing to raise transfer funds through player sales. I think if he was to remove what is estimated to be £100,000~ a week from the wage bill by getting shot of those two players (even on free transfers) then he'd be able to bring in two or maybe even three players in their place, depending on their wages of course. Additionally, it's not as if he's having to sell key players to get the wage budget down. Smith and Xisco contribute fuck all between them. The likes of Perch, R.Taylor and Routledge also aren't needed/the required standard and can be moved on too. I'd be interested to see what Ashley's policy would look like if Pardew removed all of these chaff/high earning players from the wage bill and we moved up the table gradually as a result. If he doesn't sell the club as you suggested, would he begin to invest and chase the European spots in order to garner more revenue? It's guesswork. Good Post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Thought it said he can buy a striker and a full back and after that it is sell before we buy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Don't like the idea about Pardew having to 'sell before he can buy' though. The wage bill has been trimmed massively over the last 2 years and he's still wanting it dropped further. I just think that Ashley wants 'value for wages' with his players. The likes of Smith and Xisco are still a huge drain on resources and they contribute absolutely nothing of value. I firmly believe that if we were able to get a proven world-class player on £60,000+ a week that Ashley would do it. It's not about 'doing it on the cheap' for me, it's about getting value for money. Obviously, the mantra of if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys applies, but there are exceptions to that rule (see Tiote) and Ashley seems intent on finding more of those exceptions. It's a risky strategy but certainly more viable than the old Shepherd transfer policy. Also, I don't think it's a case of Pardew needing to raise transfer funds through player sales. I think if he was to remove what is estimated to be £100,000~ a week from the wage bill by getting shot of those two players (even on free transfers) then he'd be able to bring in two or maybe even three players in their place, depending on their wages of course. Additionally, it's not as if he's having to sell key players to get the wage budget down. Smith and Xisco contribute f*** all between them. The likes of Perch, R.Taylor and Routledge also aren't needed/the required standard and can be moved on too. I'd be interested to see what Ashley's policy would look like if Pardew removed all of these chaff/high earning players from the wage bill and we moved up the table gradually as a result. If he doesn't sell the club as you suggested, would he begin to invest and chase the European spots in order to garner more revenue? It's guesswork. Pretty much I'd happily see Smith and Xisco out the door if it meant we could bring in Sturridge and A.N Other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Don't like the idea about Pardew having to 'sell before he can buy' though. The wage bill has been trimmed massively over the last 2 years and he's still wanting it dropped further. I just think that Ashley wants 'value for wages' with his players. The likes of Smith and Xisco are still a huge drain on resources and they contribute absolutely nothing of value. I firmly believe that if we were able to get a proven world-class player on £60,000+ a week that Ashley would do it. It's not about 'doing it on the cheap' for me, it's about getting value for money. Obviously, the mantra of if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys applies, but there are exceptions to that rule (see Tiote) and Ashley seems intent on finding more of those exceptions. It's a risky strategy but certainly more viable than the old Shepherd transfer policy. Also, I don't think it's a case of Pardew needing to raise transfer funds through player sales. I think if he was to remove what is estimated to be £100,000~ a week from the wage bill by getting shot of those two players (even on free transfers) then he'd be able to bring in two or maybe even three players in their place, depending on their wages of course. Additionally, it's not as if he's having to sell key players to get the wage budget down. Smith and Xisco contribute f*** all between them. The likes of Perch, R.Taylor and Routledge also aren't needed/the required standard and can be moved on too. I'd be interested to see what Ashley's policy would look like if Pardew removed all of these chaff/high earning players from the wage bill and we moved up the table gradually as a result. If he doesn't sell the club as you suggested, would he begin to invest and chase the European spots in order to garner more revenue? It's guesswork. Pretty much I'd happily see Smith and Xisco out the door if it meant we could bring in Sturridge and A.N Other. Yeah there's a chance I would too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Thought it said he can buy a striker and a full back and after that it is sell before we buy? Yes it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Sturridge would be an incredible signing, and I'm not even exageratting. To me, we'd actually be filling a space in the first team that needs to be filled with the perfect signing. Get rid of Smith and Xisco to create a wage space and bring it on Talk of Sturridge coming here doesn't do much for me. I'd be worried Tiote might end up going to Chelsea as part of the deal. I know Villa Boas has said they are interested in Parker on loan but it's reported that not all the Chelsea staff rate him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 It dosn't do much for you because you are guessing what might happen lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 It dosn't do much for you because you are guessing what might happen lol In a nutshell yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 The likes of Smith and Xisco were Ashley sanctioned signings and to be honest, even to get shot of them on frees is still going to cost the club a lot of dosh. Perhaps that's where the Carroll cash is gonna go? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 As delighted as I would be to get Sturridge on loan, it'd be yet another reason to not spend a transfer fee on a new player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Don't like the idea about Pardew having to 'sell before he can buy' though. The wage bill has been trimmed massively over the last 2 years and he's still wanting it dropped further. I just think that Ashley wants 'value for wages' with his players. The likes of Smith and Xisco are still a huge drain on resources and they contribute absolutely nothing of value. I firmly believe that if we were able to get a proven world-class player on £60,000+ a week that Ashley would do it. It's not about 'doing it on the cheap' for me, it's about getting value for money. Obviously, the mantra of if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys applies, but there are exceptions to that rule (see Tiote) and Ashley seems intent on finding more of those exceptions. It's a risky strategy but certainly more viable than the old Shepherd transfer policy. Also, I don't think it's a case of Pardew needing to raise transfer funds through player sales. I think if he was to remove what is estimated to be £100,000~ a week from the wage bill by getting shot of those two players (even on free transfers) then he'd be able to bring in two or maybe even three players in their place, depending on their wages of course. Additionally, it's not as if he's having to sell key players to get the wage budget down. Smith and Xisco contribute f*** all between them. The likes of Perch, R.Taylor and Routledge also aren't needed/the required standard and can be moved on too. I'd be interested to see what Ashley's policy would look like if Pardew removed all of these chaff/high earning players from the wage bill and we moved up the table gradually as a result. If he doesn't sell the club as you suggested, would he begin to invest and chase the European spots in order to garner more revenue? It's guesswork. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
womblemaster Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 `I'd be worried Tiote might end up going to Chelsea as part of the deal.` You have a BIG nose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 As delighted as I would be to get Sturridge on loan, it'd be yet another reason to not spend a transfer fee on a new player. Not really not spending, just delaying. I reckon we'd take up the buy option at the end. EDIT: Quote from Pardew on the second page - "We would also do a loan player if there was something at the end of it for us.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnes23 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Sturridge doesn't fit the type of striker we were previously supposed to be after. Not sure how well he would complement Ba, either. Obviously would be delighted if we got him in, even on loan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Sturridge doesn't fit the type of striker we were previously supposed to be after. Not sure how well he would complement Ba, either. Obviously would be delighted if we got him in, even on loan. He'd be exactly the type of forward we were looking at, pacy and a good eye for goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 We shouldn't try to sign any one as there's the off chance that the club will want one of our best players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishmael Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 as opposed to those slow lumbering goal shy forwards that we aren't interested in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnes23 Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Sturridge doesn't fit the type of striker we were previously supposed to be after. Not sure how well he would complement Ba, either. Obviously would be delighted if we got him in, even on loan. He'd be exactly the type of forward we were looking at, pacy and a good eye for goal. Doesn't fall into the same category as the "second striker" types like Erdinc and Long,though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts