GM Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 To live within our means. Spending 10s of millions of pounds on footballers is outragous, especially given the current climate Football clubs aren't publicly-owned concerns, though. They're privately-owned businesses operating in a cut-throat competitive environment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 To live within our means. Spending 10s of millions of pounds on footballers is outragous, especially given the current climate Football clubs aren't publicly-owned concerns, though. They're privately-owned businesses operating in a cut-throat competitive environment. They don't operate in a vacuum though, if they're getting squeezed by higher prices from suppliers, less income and lack of available credit then they have to tighten their belts the same. At least ones not in the Champions League and not owned by mega-rich owners do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 To live within our means. Spending 10s of millions of pounds on footballers is outragous, especially given the current climate Football clubs aren't publicly-owned concerns, though. They're privately-owned businesses operating in a cut-throat competitive environment. They don't operate in a vacuum though, if they're getting squeezed by higher prices from suppliers, less income and lack of available credit then they have to tighten their belts the same. At least ones not in the Champions League and not owned by mega-rich owners do. Sounded like Static87 was coming at it from a moral standpoint rather than an economic one. Not clear however what "living within our means" entails when the reality is Mike Ashley is a multi-millionaire? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yeah you're right, he's just decided that he'll only invest a limited amount of money and try to run the club within its own means. Basically as if it was one of his other businesses. It might work if everyone else was doing the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Best's hattrick was bad timing, and Shola was looking alright as well. these things should be irrelevant to transfer plans because shola's not good enough and always injured and best's not good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gash Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 The Larsson deal proves it's not always our fault we don't sign a player. I know we can't expect to compete with the likes of Birmingham, but the club Larsson plays for managed to pick up a striker and a winger on loan, so it's not entirely impossible you know. But they are a club who were willing to spend £7m? on Keane, do you really want Newcastle becoming that kind of club again? I don't think i would if i was a fan, you don't know how much money they are splashing out on loans alone in a desperate attempt to stay in the league, luckily Newcastle were/are in a good position where it would take a very unfortunate situation for you to get relegated so the club doesn't need to be held at ransom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Simple. There are cunts, and then there are real cunts. Then there are colossal cunts. Beyond the boundaries of cuntitude, there are even cunts so large that they comprise the dark matter at the center of our galaxy. Look into Ashley's asshole and you'll likely discover the Higgs Boson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If our owners had an ounce of gumption they would have told Chelsea, You give us Sturridge on loan and we'll let Carroll go to the dippers and you get Torres. But no they didn't think about that did they. Thick cunts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyn davies Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 based on last nights efforts we are in deep stum, relegation deffo a possibility, ranger it appears can't cut it,Best been found out,Lovenkrands not upto it, yep we are in the sh*t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Simple. There are cunts, and then there are real cunts. Then there are colossal cunts. Beyond the boundaries of cuntitude, there are even cunts so large that they comprise the dark matter at the center of our galaxy. Look into Ashley's asshole and you'll likely discover the Higgs Boson. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Simple. There are cunts, and then there are real cunts. Then there are colossal cunts. Beyond the boundaries of cuntitude, there are even cunts so large that they comprise the dark matter at the center of our galaxy. Look into Ashley's asshole and you'll likely discover the Higgs Boson. And Llambias Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ7 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 To live within our means. Spending 10s of millions of pounds on footballers is outragous, especially given the current climate However, spending a bit on wages for a loan player in a position we're short, isn't. They gambled two years ago by not bringing in players in the positions we were short, and we ended up relegated and losing far more money than we would have had we signed a decent central midfielder. One point we went down by! One decent midfielder could have produced a bit of magic in a game we drew in, like Portsmouth at home, or Fulham. We gambled, looked terrible for the rest of the season and went down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It depends on what happens over the next couple of windows doesn't it? You could hardly call Ashley short-termist if he took the £35m that Liverpool were prepared to panic-buy Carroll for and invested it sensibly in 5 or 6 solid new signings. Not that I'm saying he will, but y'kna. Allowing for four-year contracts (Pardew has said it will be for wages too) those 5 or 6 would all have to be free transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing for four year contracts, a £5m player becomes a £9m one (on 20k/w =~ £1m/yr), so probably 3 or 4 players in within that budget would make more sense. Our scouting team better keep producing Tiotes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It depends on what happens over the next couple of windows doesn't it? You could hardly call Ashley short-termist if he took the £35m that Liverpool were prepared to panic-buy Carroll for and invested it sensibly in 5 or 6 solid new signings. Not that I'm saying he will, but y'kna. Allowing for four-year contracts (Pardew has said it will be for wages too) those 5 or 6 would all have to be free transfers. where did he say that!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing for four year contracts, a £5m player becomes a £9m one (on 20k/w =~ £1m/yr), so probably 3 or 4 players in within that budget would make more sense. Our scouting team better keep producing Tiotes. £20k/week? Wow, I bet we'll attract some right talent with those wages. Maybe ten years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It depends on what happens over the next couple of windows doesn't it? You could hardly call Ashley short-termist if he took the £35m that Liverpool were prepared to panic-buy Carroll for and invested it sensibly in 5 or 6 solid new signings. Not that I'm saying he will, but y'kna. Allowing for four-year contracts (Pardew has said it will be for wages too) those 5 or 6 would all have to be free transfers. where did he say that!? In the presser before Fulham. Was reported all over the place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing for four year contracts, a £5m player becomes a £9m one (on 20k/w =~ £1m/yr), so probably 3 or 4 players in within that budget would make more sense. Our scouting team better keep producing Tiotes. £20k/week? Wow, I bet we'll attract some right talent with those wages. Maybe ten years ago. So the severe salary cap has been lifted? Even if 20k is a little on the low side do you see it really being higher than 35k? A long spell of attempting to unearth cheap foreign talent is in our future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It depends on what happens over the next couple of windows doesn't it? You could hardly call Ashley short-termist if he took the £35m that Liverpool were prepared to panic-buy Carroll for and invested it sensibly in 5 or 6 solid new signings. Not that I'm saying he will, but y'kna. Allowing for four-year contracts (Pardew has said it will be for wages too) those 5 or 6 would all have to be free transfers. where did he say that!? In the presser before Fulham. Was reported all over the place. ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing for four year contracts, a £5m player becomes a £9m one (on 20k/w =~ £1m/yr), so probably 3 or 4 players in within that budget would make more sense. Our scouting team better keep producing Tiotes. £20k/week? Wow, I bet we'll attract some right talent with those wages. Maybe ten years ago. So the severe salary cap has been lifted? Even if 20k is a little on the low side do you see it really being higher than 35k? A long spell of attempting to unearth cheap foreign talent is in our future. I've never seen confirmation of a rigid salary cap. I'd based my figures on £35k/week which I reckon is probably about the standard going rate these days, particularly for players that I assume Ian W meant would be going straight in and around the first team. I wasn't having a go at you btw, just making the point that the £35m won't actually go very far at all when you include contracts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Best's hattrick was bad timing, and Shola was looking alright as well. There was always the danger that their flurry of goals would lull us into a false sense of security, Pardew was definitely after a striker before the window opened but seemed to change his priorities when we picked up good results recently. That added to the fact the strikers who have moved are costing a fair bit in wages like Keane, was probably a big factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny Green Balls Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Best's hattrick: blatantly a gambit by West Ham to keep us from buying a striker, and thus begin our long descent into the abyss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing for four year contracts, a £5m player becomes a £9m one (on 20k/w =~ £1m/yr), so probably 3 or 4 players in within that budget would make more sense. Our scouting team better keep producing Tiotes. £20k/week? Wow, I bet we'll attract some right talent with those wages. Maybe ten years ago. So the severe salary cap has been lifted? Even if 20k is a little on the low side do you see it really being higher than 35k? A long spell of attempting to unearth cheap foreign talent is in our future. I've never seen confirmation of a rigid salary cap. I'd based my figures on £35k/week which I reckon is probably about the standard going rate these days, particularly for players that I assume Ian W meant would be going straight in and around the first team. I wasn't having a go at you btw, just making the point that the £35m won't actually go very far at all when you include contracts. I'd have thought it would be an overall limit, linked to turnover. That's supposedly what we're doing - say, keeping wages at no more than 60% of turnover. So as you say, you're looking at a couple of big contracts. The more people like Smith you can shift, the more room for manouevre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Allowing for four year contracts, a £5m player becomes a £9m one (on 20k/w =~ £1m/yr), so probably 3 or 4 players in within that budget would make more sense. Our scouting team better keep producing Tiotes. £20k/week? Wow, I bet we'll attract some right talent with those wages. Maybe ten years ago. So the severe salary cap has been lifted? Even if 20k is a little on the low side do you see it really being higher than 35k? A long spell of attempting to unearth cheap foreign talent is in our future. I've never seen confirmation of a rigid salary cap. I'd based my figures on £35k/week which I reckon is probably about the standard going rate these days, particularly for players that I assume Ian W meant would be going straight in and around the first team. I wasn't having a go at you btw, just making the point that the £35m won't actually go very far at all when you include contracts. I'd have thought it would be an overall limit, linked to turnover. That's supposedly what we're doing - say, keeping wages at no more than 60% of turnover. So as you say, you're looking at a couple of big contracts. The more people like Smith you can shift, the more room for manouevre. It is amazing how people so often ignore wages and focus on transfer fees. That is what Lerner asked MON to do - work on the wages bill - and the media took it as "stop spending". it isn't about that. We've shifted this window: Carew - 55k Sidwell - 30k Davies - 35k Ireland - 45k (a rough stab towards what you're paying of his 70k pwk) 165k a week. that's the best part of 8m a year. As Leffe said, the issue isn't "max earnings = xxx thousand a week", it is looking at situations where you have large numbers of players sapping decent money for little return. Unfortunately, MON left us with nigh on an entire squad of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 You signed quite a few players this window, though. Makoun, Bent, Bradley, Walker... your squad is still very large. But I agree on the point that people seem very oblivious about how much wages, bonuses and fees add up to. No such thing as a cheap/free transfer. 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