mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? it's certainly not a good thing when you're looking to progress as a football team and have manageable debt... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 To summarize, the problem is with the overall lack of investment, not the manner through which we're making the signings we are making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 How much extra would it have cost to deploy a scout or two in the likes of Spain, Italy, Germany etc? I think there are a few football teams in those countries too. May have been worth a look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Good sides carry debt because they invest in quality. No one is asking them to break the bank but we're currently running at a profit this transfer winndow, which given previous assurances. is quite frankly unacceptable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The Sunday Sun revealed Sturridge to be a target a fortnight ago and, while he remains on the list, United would prefer to tie up a permanent deal and are reluctant to wait until mid to late August to broker a deal for the Chelsea man. fucking great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? it's certainly not a good thing when you're looking to progress as a football team and have manageable debt... We could have spent £10m on Carlton Cole rather than Ba on a free. i know which i would rather have. We spent £4.5m on a French intenrational midfielded. Or we could have spent £20m on Henderson. Again, I know which I would prefer. Of course I'd have loved us to get Gameiro or Gervinho, and we do need a left back at least for the back 4. We do however have to accept that with no European football and not being in London we're not going to get the likes of G or G easily, £35m or no £35m in our pocket. Using it to plug a few financial holes, improving the training facilities (which in teurn will hopefully help our injury record) whilst still freshening up the team is the best way that we could have used the money imo. Again, I hope that we've kept some in reserve so that should we get Europa league football next year (or look like we're in with a shout of it in Jan), we have the ability to spent some more cash then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 To summarize, the problem is with the overall lack of investment, not the manner through which we're making the signings we are making. sums up my feelings Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guinness_fiend Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Man U are spending the Ronaldo money this summer in reality though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. I screwed up and left out Liverpool, obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Obviously the ideal owner is the one who takes on "manageable debt" and invests wisely to naturally grow the club. The vast majority of Premiership owners either tilt towards the extreme of being stubbornly unwilling to take financial risks or the other extreme of being Mr. Moneybags. Very few get that balance right, although ours is unique in that he manages to be extra unlikable in the process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free ok so we got one good striker for free, and in response to asking for the club to spend you answer with "we could have pissed 10m away on carlton cole" it doesn't add up...why can we only be astute when there's no money involved? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 i have no problem with the job the scouts are doing to be honest, who does? problem is with the money (not) being spent nowt else "limitations breed creativity" i like that actually, sums it up pretty well Sorry not directly pointed at you, but the fact that we're not spending vast sums of money keeps coming up. I still find it strange that in every walk of life you look to spend the least amount of money to bring the greatest benefit, except for football. Of course I would love another striker brought in and a decent replacement/backup for Enrique as a minimum, but for some people it appears that would rather we had spent £15m on a striker of Ba's ability and another £15m on a player of Cabaye's ability, and then spent another £10m on a winger like Marveaux. I like the fact that we are looking outside of the UK for signings as they give much better value for money, and the fact we are exploiting clauses like are we is to me, a good thing. Everyone is happy we're looking for Bargains. People are not happy that we sold our best asset & then used the money to balance our finances. Which is what happened. So a company that has recently been losing money and has a bit of debt uses a windfall to plug some of the gaps? Whilst still recruiting new players in the summer window, exploiting contract loopholes/expirations to reduce these costs. And that's a bad thing? Two types of owners. One sells your best asset, then finds bargains he could have found anyway and uses the money to cover their wages to stop any future loss. The other owner doesnt cover wages using that money, he accepts the potential for a little loss because of them. He reinvests the money back into the transfer fees for other players, with the potential to bring more success to the club & increase the clubs turnover because of that. Along with the bargains hes found, he gives himself a very good chance of achieving this. The 2nd one risks that because he loves football and he loves the club. That is why he bought into it. The first owner is Mike Ashley. Just out of curiosity, how many teams in the Premiership are owned by the former type? (Serious question, as I have no idea.) Manchester City, Manchester United, Norwich City, Swansea City, Sunderland, and Wolves are the only teams with a net loss this transfer window so far Yes, yes, I know none of those teams sold Andy Carroll for 35m in the winter. Just saying. Sorry, I was being a 'tard. I meant the latter type (the "love the club" type). Randy Learner? But then even he has reigned in the spending. No-one should be folled with what's going on at Liverpool, there will be a 'cycle' where the club is forced to break even. If the Champs League doesn't reappear, then player sales will follow to balance things up. I screwed up and left out Liverpool, obviously. I didn't notice! And I screwed up in not being able to spell fooled! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Picking up on the the extremes point, it's spot on. I don't think you'll talk to many who'd argue we haven't improved the squad, with Cabaye and Ba we've added some real quality to the first team and we'll be a better side because of that. However we could be better still if we bothered to actually invest some of the cash we've raked in over the last six or so months. No one is asking Ashley to break the bank, no one is asking the scouts to stop searching for bargains, but the way we're currently operating is frankly unacceptable. The examples of N'Zogbia and Sturridge show there is real quality out there if you're willing to invest. Instead we're settling for players that might see us improve, instead of buying a couple of others on top of them which will see us improve. It sends a clear message to fans and players alike we're willing to settle and that simply isn't enough for the more ambitious lads such as Enrique. Instead we seem to have bought into his attitude that we're in financial woe in which any sort of investment will be overinflated and will subsequently lead to fianacial ruin, frankly it's ridiculous. What makes it more frustrating still is the smoke and mirrors coming form the powers that be. Why insinuate you're going to spend said money when you have no intention to what so ever. There's still time in this transfer window but so far there's nothing to suggest even a modicum of ambition from the board. Buy cheap, sell big, wonderful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The whole we'd of had to pay over inflated fee x for player y is frankly ridiculous when there is genuine qulaity going for reasonable prices. Yes we've improved the squad this summer on a shoe string budget, but it could be improved further if we bother to invest substantially. right, it's always extremes - ask for investment and it gets answered with "we could have paid 10m for carlton cole" well aye, we could, but we could also maybe have scouted another player that might have been mint for the same price, or more, or less, if we were serious about wanting quality on the pitch We did - we got Ba on a free ok so we got one good striker for free, and in response to asking for the club to spend you answer with "we could have pissed 10m away on carlton cole" it doesn't add up...why can we only be astute when there's no money involved? Its a general thing though, not a specific on a player. People are moaning about the fact we have not spent £35m plus this summer and proclaiming it as a sign that the club is showing no ambition as we have only been signing freebies and those with magic clauses. I'm saying that we could have substituted our signings so far with the likes of Cole, or spent stupid money on the likes of Henderson. I'm not saying we shouldn't still be looking at improving the squad further but I am happy with the players we have brought in so far. Of course another spin on our activity is that we are looking at value, regardless of how it comes about. We could have signed Reo-Coker on a free but our centre midfield signing so far has been Cabaye - thats £4.5m less that Mike's going to be able to take out of the club now isn't it? Oh, and going off today's game - I'm even more firmly in the 'need for more reinforcements camp'. We're still too light in reserve at best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 People are moaning about the fact we have not spent £35m plus this summer who is? not heard anyone calling for that level of investment, perhaps ages ago when we sold carroll people might have got excited but in the cold light of day no-one is expecting that imo, no-one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 People are moaning about the fact we have not spent £35m plus this summer who is? not heard anyone calling for that level of investment, perhaps ages ago when we sold carroll people might have got excited but in the cold light of day no-one is expecting that imo, no-one I'm not trawling trough the board to get names, but there are plenty of comments in the transfer threads adding the Carroll and Nolan fees together and moaning that we're not reinvesting it all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 People are moaning about the fact we have not spent £35m plus this summer who is? not heard anyone calling for that level of investment, perhaps ages ago when we sold carroll people might have got excited but in the cold light of day no-one is expecting that imo, no-one I'm not trawling trough the board to get names, but there are plenty of comments in the transfer threads adding the Carroll and Nolan fees together and moaning that we're not reinvesting it all true, not sure i'd go as far as plenty but there were some fuckwits saying that i suppose Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts