Dave Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I just don't buy that all our financial dealings are based purely around the £35m we got for Carroll. What if we were planning to spend £10m in the summer before we sold Carroll? Do we now have to spend £45m? The club will be run based on what Mike Ashley decides it can afford this season and for the life of any player's contract. I don't think our activity can just be measured against this magical £35m we got for Carroll. Probably because the justification all along, from the manager, club and plenty of people on here was that the money would rebuild the first team. We needed a striker before we sold our best one. Llambias himself has said that we didn't 'need' the money, so why is it now acceptable for it to disappear into general running costs? the 'didn't need the money' could be taken many ways, one interpretation being we didn't need to sell to survive. Llambias also said that Ashley didn't want to sell him, a story which you believe IIRC. So again, if it's the case that we didn't need or want to raise this £35m, why shouldn't all of this unexpected, unbudgeted excess money go straight back into the first team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 i dont mean any offence mate, at all. i actually think you're good crack i just resent the idea that i'm penny counting by demanding that we be competitive to a level that we deserve as a club is there a person on here who'd argue that the club should be investing as a minimum a net spend on players every year? if there is i've yet to come across them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Llambias also said that Ashley didn't want to sell him, a story which you believe IIRC. So again, if it's the case that we didn't need or want to raise this £35m, why shouldn't all of this unexpected, unbudgeted excess money go straight back into the first team? sorry where did i miss this not all going on players now? thought pardew was explicit in saying that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 i like all the "preaching financial restraint" people me like oh I'm sorry Oscar Wilde, should I have said it a different way? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I think loans with the option to buy, in return times, has brought about the best value for money. Would hate to see that cash spunked against the wall on someone who turns out to be Torres-esque How could that possibly happen when we have such an amazing scout? Anyway, if we don't spend every penny of the £35m then the club will be ripped to shreds. Loans with options to buy won't satisfy people this summer. Calculators at the ready... for someone who preaches financial restraint you'd do well to get off your highhorse. you're not part of a exclusive club you know, i dont want nufc to go bust either. i just dont like seeing the fans getting taken for mugs by a greedy, stupid individual who has no ties to the club other then the money he invested without thinking about it first. being on the conservative side of the financial discussion doesnt make any of you more astute, it just makes you all more passive imo That was a bit unnecessary :-[ I'm just arguing what I think is right, just like everyone else. i dont mean any offence mate, at all. i actually think you're good crack i just resent the idea that i'm penny counting by demanding that we be competitive to a level that we deserve as a club I want us to spend money, and it's obvious that the squad needs significant investment. I think that at a minimum we should be aiming to invest everything the club earns each season - never to make a profit. But unfortunately that investment includes other things that aren't transfer fees or even player-related, that's all I believe. My calculators comment was a bit petty I suppose, I just get the feeling that we'll be judged more by whether or not we spend this magical number of £35m than whether we make decent progress in improving the squad. We'll see anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 i like all the "preaching financial restraint" people me like oh I'm sorry Oscar Wilde, should I have said it a different way? ashley apologist Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Rooney was leading the line for Manure and England at 18, if he's good enough he's old enough. Would like to think we have scouts watching every second he spends on the pitch for the remainder of this season, if we'd even consider spending £20 million on him. The crazy thing is, people here the name 'Lukaku' and p*ss their pants in excitement, without even seeing him play. If there's any truth in it whatsoever then we'll have been watching him for a good while. I don't think Pardew's playing FM at home thinking that's who I'll get. If he is he'll know that a bid of £7m+ will be enough as their chairman always deems this too good an offer to turn down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Llambias also said that Ashley didn't want to sell him, a story which you believe IIRC. So again, if it's the case that we didn't need or want to raise this £35m, why shouldn't all of this unexpected, unbudgeted excess money go straight back into the first team? sorry where did i miss this not all going on players now? thought pardew was explicit in saying that? When Carroll was sold Pardew said the money would be spent on the first team. A few weeks later he mentioned in a press conference that spending the money would also cover, wages and other costs (like Tiote's new contract I would imagine). Recently the line (from Llambias) is that the money will 'stay in the club' - hardly surprising when Ashley's never taken a penny out etc. The discussion here is whether or not it would be fine for the £35m to disappear into general running costs or whether it should be invested directly into the first team; namely on new signings this summer. And whether or not Pardew can be believed anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I'm happy knowing that 35 million and potential 15 million Enrique money will cover the cost of us going down, with potentially one or two signings coming in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Llambias also said that Ashley didn't want to sell him, a story which you believe IIRC. So again, if it's the case that we didn't need or want to raise this £35m, why shouldn't all of this unexpected, unbudgeted excess money go straight back into the first team? sorry where did i miss this not all going on players now? thought pardew was explicit in saying that? When Carroll was sold Pardew said the money would be spent on the first team. A few weeks later he mentioned in a press conference that spending the money would also cover, wages and other costs (like Tiote's new contract I would imagine). Recently the line (from Llambias) is that the money will 'stay in the club' - hardly surprising when Ashley's never taken a penny out etc. The discussion here is whether or not it would be fine for the £35m to disappear into general running costs or whether it should be invested directly into the first team; namely on new signings this summer. And whether or not Pardew can be believed anyway. hm, so basically people pouring over the word for word content of pardew and delboys statements trying to read things into it ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I think loans with the option to buy, in return times, has brought about the best value for money. Would hate to see that cash spunked against the wall on someone who turns out to be Torres-esque How could that possibly happen when we have such an amazing scout? Anyway, if we don't spend every penny of the £35m then the club will be ripped to shreds. Loans with options to buy won't satisfy people this summer. Calculators at the ready... for someone who preaches financial restraint you'd do well to get off your highhorse. you're not part of a exclusive club you know, i dont want nufc to go bust either. i just dont like seeing the fans getting taken for mugs by a greedy, stupid individual who has no ties to the club other then the money he invested without thinking about it first. being on the conservative side of the financial discussion doesnt make any of you more astute, it just makes you all more passive imo That was a bit unnecessary :-[ I'm just arguing what I think is right, just like everyone else. i dont mean any offence mate, at all. i actually think you're good crack i just resent the idea that i'm penny counting by demanding that we be competitive to a level that we deserve as a club I want us to spend money, and it's obvious that the squad needs significant investment. I think that at a minimum we should be aiming to invest everything the club earns each season - never to make a profit. But unfortunately that investment includes other things that aren't transfer fees or even player-related, that's all I believe. My calculators comment was a bit petty I suppose, I just get the feeling that we'll be judged more by whether or not we spend this magical number of £35m than whether we make decent progress in improving the squad. We'll see anyway. If we improve the squad and the results are seen on the pitch I can't see why anyone would care what is spent. It's a straw man commonly thrown in that as long as we spend money people are happy - total bollocks. Particularly given some of the dross we've spent big on over the years (including a number of players this regime brought in). However, it is an undisputable fact that if you want to go anywhere you need to spend money. The only minor exception to this rule is Arsenal who have Arsene Wenger instead of Alan Pardew. They're hardly on a shoestring budget anyway. The point is that this Carroll money was apparently unexpected and therefore I see no reason why it can't all be spent on new players. Considering how easily we could have been battling for the European spots this season, IMO that spending should commence this summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Llambias also said that Ashley didn't want to sell him, a story which you believe IIRC. So again, if it's the case that we didn't need or want to raise this £35m, why shouldn't all of this unexpected, unbudgeted excess money go straight back into the first team? sorry where did i miss this not all going on players now? thought pardew was explicit in saying that? When Carroll was sold Pardew said the money would be spent on the first team. A few weeks later he mentioned in a press conference that spending the money would also cover, wages and other costs (like Tiote's new contract I would imagine). Recently the line (from Llambias) is that the money will 'stay in the club' - hardly surprising when Ashley's never taken a penny out etc. The discussion here is whether or not it would be fine for the £35m to disappear into general running costs or whether it should be invested directly into the first team; namely on new signings this summer. And whether or not Pardew can be believed anyway. depends, if the club breaks even or even a small manageable loss for this season without the carroll money, i'd want/expect it all to go on team/squad strengthening consisting of trnasfer fees with a small part if necessary going on wages. on a side note, with most other clubs transfers being spread over the length of the contract, like the players wages i wonder if clubs look so much at the fee or the projected yearly cost of the entire deal ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I just don't buy that all our financial dealings are based purely around the £35m we got for Carroll. What if we were planning to spend £10m in the summer before we sold Carroll? Do we now have to spend £45m? The club will be run based on what Mike Ashley decides it can afford this season and for the life of any player's contract. I don't think our activity can just be measured against this magical £35m we got for Carroll. By the way, it's widely reported we received £30 million cash, upfront from Liverpool. In my opinion, all of this money should be spent this summer at the very least. purely on transfer fees, why ? what if we can afford the transfer fees but each player wants 80kpw ? agreed it would be nice if spent well but the idea of "should" smacks of spending for spendings sake. True. I'm not sure we can consider that kind of spending unless we manage to get rid of a few players like Smith and Xisco (who alone contribute £4.7m of the wage bill, a year). Then there are players like Campbell, Lovenkrands and Perch, who we'd ideally replace. If we could shed these three the wage bill would be reduced by around £50k a week or £2.6m - would that be fair to say? So ideally we'd generate at least £5m from the sales of these five and reduce the wage bill by around £2.6m a year. Let's assume we sell Enrique for £10 million, and in the same process also reduce the wage bill by £1.8m a year (£35k a week is a conservative estimate). We'll also have £40k a week freed from Carroll and Kuqi leaving the club = £2m a year We have the £30 million from the Carroll sale ready to spend. So, ideally from players sales in 2011, we'd have have raised around £45 million. Ideally, we would have also reduced the wage bill by £6.4 million a year. Which gives us just over £50 million to spend on transfer and signing on fees and money to put aside to pay the entire contracts of any new signings. How would you spend it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I just don't buy that all our financial dealings are based purely around the £35m we got for Carroll. What if we were planning to spend £10m in the summer before we sold Carroll? Do we now have to spend £45m? The club will be run based on what Mike Ashley decides it can afford this season and for the life of any player's contract. I don't think our activity can just be measured against this magical £35m we got for Carroll. By the way, it's widely reported we received £30 million cash, upfront from Liverpool. In my opinion, all of this money should be spent this summer at the very least. purely on transfer fees, why ? what if we can afford the transfer fees but each player wants 80kpw ? agreed it would be nice if spent well but the idea of "should" smacks of spending for spendings sake. True. I'm not sure we can consider that kind of spending unless we manage to get rid of a few players like Smith and Xisco (who alone contribute £4.7m of the wage bill, a year). Then there are players like Campbell, Lovenkrands and Perch, who we'd ideally replace. If we could shed these three the wage bill would be reduced by around £50k a week or £2.6m - would that be fair to say? So ideally we'd generate at least £5m from the sales of these five and reduce the wage bill by around £2.6m a year. Let's assume we sell Enrique for £10 million, and in the same process also reduce the wage bill by £1.8m a year (£35k a week is a conservative estimate). We'll also have £40k a week freed from Carroll and Kuqi leaving the club = £2m a year We have the £30 million from the Carroll sale ready to spend. So, ideally from players sales in 2011, we'd have have raised around £45 million. Ideally, we would have also reduced the wage bill by £6.4 million a year. Which gives us just over £50 million to spend on transfer and signing on fees and money to put aside to pay the entire contracts of any new signings. How would you spend it? i don't think we'd figure in the entire contract but i could see the first years wages being included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Nolito linked in the Metro Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. That's because almost without fail a net profit in a transfer window means we've sold players that other clubs want and value highly and replaced them with players that other clubs don't want or don't value highly. That's if they're replaced at all. I can't see how an almost inevitable weakening of the first team could ever be a good thing. Tiote was a brilliant spot but he's just one player (it's ludicrous to include Ben Arfa in this talk IMO). I can't help but wonder a) whether it can be done regularly and if so b) what our scouting team could do with more financial backing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. That's because almost without fail a net profit in a transfer window means we've sold players that other clubs want and value highly and replaced them with players that other clubs don't want or don't value highly. That's if they're replaced at all. I can't see how an almost inevitable weakening of the first team could ever be a good thing. Tiote was a brilliant spot but he's just one player (it's ludicrous to include Ben Arfa in this talk IMO). I can't help but wonder a) whether it can be done regularly and if so b) what our scouting team could do with more financial backing. if the rumours are right that even without the carroll money the club wouldjust about break even for this season then this is really the first window in which we can legitimatly say there is money there to spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. That's because almost without fail a net profit in a transfer window means we've sold players that other clubs want and value highly and replaced them with players that other clubs don't want or don't value highly. That's if they're replaced at all. I can't see how an almost inevitable weakening of the first team could ever be a good thing. Tiote was a brilliant spot but he's just one player (it's ludicrous to include Ben Arfa in this talk IMO). I can't help but wonder a) whether it can be done regularly and if so b) what our scouting team could do with more financial backing. Yeah, I've got those concerns as well, let's hope we identify enough of the right players to improve the squad. That said, we have a long history of spending a lot of money on players who turned out to be total wasters, so the problem can work both ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. more than anything, for me, it's a general atmosphere and direction of the club and what is the likely outcome of it. imo the general feeling of the ashley era so far has been 'look, we're skint, it's not my fault, you'll have to make do with lovenkrands and i'm selling whoever i want'. In this regard he reminds me a lot of our current government, but thats a different discussion. i just dont think this outlook will change because we get out of such big debt, or improve our income to wages ratio or the sale of carroll for mega money or anything really. i'm desperate to be proved wrong though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. That's because almost without fail a net profit in a transfer window means we've sold players that other clubs want and value highly and replaced them with players that other clubs don't want or don't value highly. That's if they're replaced at all. I can't see how an almost inevitable weakening of the first team could ever be a good thing. Tiote was a brilliant spot but he's just one player (it's ludicrous to include Ben Arfa in this talk IMO). I can't help but wonder a) whether it can be done regularly and if so b) what our scouting team could do with more financial backing. if the rumours are right that even without the carroll money the club wouldjust about break even for this season then this is really the first window in which we can legitimatly say there is money there to spend. Exciting times, eh? Or we could just pay off some of that hideous debt the club has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. more than anything, for me, it's a general atmosphere and direction of the club and what is the likely outcome of it. imo the general feeling of the ashley era so far has been 'look, we're skint, it's not my fault, you'll have to make do with lovenkrands and i'm selling whoever i want'. In this regard he reminds me a lot of our current government, but thats a different discussion. i just dont think this outlook will change because we get out of such big debt, or improve our income to wages ratio or the sale of carroll for mega money or anything really. i'm desperate to be proved wrong though. thats basically what it comes down to. no doubting he wants his cash back or at least as much as he can (i very much doubt he'll get it all back). he can achieve this in either of two ways. 1) little bits here and there from selling players for more than they were bought for and took in wages/development etc as i don't think the club will ever run at much of a profit if continually selling it's best players to feed the owners bank balance or 2) try to build the club into a decent finacial state in a decent position in the league to attract a buyer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I know what you mean Dave, I basically agree. I'm not saying that people will be happy if we spend £35m on players who turn out to be terrible - that's the logic working in the other direction. What I meant was that (initially at least) people will hammer the club if they don't spend £35m. I've already seen a lot of criticism based on whether we happen to make a net profit on transfers in any given window. If that's a straw man argument then great, I hope it is. more than anything, for me, it's a general atmosphere and direction of the club and what is the likely outcome of it. imo the general feeling of the ashley era so far has been 'look, we're skint, it's not my fault, you'll have to make do with lovenkrands and i'm selling whoever i want'. In this regard he reminds me a lot of our current government, but thats a different discussion. i just dont think this outlook will change because we get out of such big debt, or improve our income to wages ratio or the sale of carroll for mega money or anything really. i'm desperate to be proved wrong though. I guess my view of the Ashley era is that was it was exciting when he first arrived, then he made loads of errors and it went to shit, now it is cautiously looking up. Without the Carroll sale I bet more people would agree with that (though I don't want to derail the thread). We have made some good signings, much more likeable than the overpaid dross we used to buy, and (say) we finish in the top 10 or 11 and continue in the same way in the summer I'll be pretty satisfied. That would represent steady progress for me. I'm worried about a lot of things as well obviously, like I hope we keep Enrique and can continue to identify the right players to buy. Hopefully a bit more financial clout will help. (Also, I genuinely believe that it's total bollocks that Ashley is doing anything to fund his personal wealth. He will never make back the money he's put into NUFC, except maybe if he gets us into the Champions League). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudwiser Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I may be naive here but i reckon that there is a reason the progressive climb down re the carroll money - The club want to avoid club insantly doubling the transfer fees the minute we get involved a la Man City so the are constanly trying to down play the available transfer money I always knew derek was a smart one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Parka Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Nolito linked in the Metro Slightly more realistic than lukaku! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts