Ant1815 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Our league position probably had something to do with it too. Had we been in 16th place 1 point above the relegation zone then I'm sure they'd have spent money to improve. However, being that we looked to be in a more comfortable position they probably thought we'd have enough to stay up, even if it was just a limp across the finish line at the end of the season. It's a gamble, but we know Ashley's a gambler. whether it pays off or not remains to be seen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Our league position probably had something to do with it too. Had we been in 16th place 1 point above the relegation zone then I'm sure they'd have spent money to improve. However, being that we looked to be in a more comfortable position they probably thought we'd have enough to stay up, even if it was just a limp across the finish line at the end of the season. It's a gamble, but we know Ashley's a gambler. whether it pays off or not remains to be seen. really don't believe league position was taking into it. points away from relegation is a much better guide. fwiw i echo quysides sentiments . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes, not signing any striker on loan was the problem here, even if Sturridge and Vela didn't want to come to us for whatever reason there is still many players round the globe we could have gotten. We now have a strikeforce of Best, Lovenkrands and Ranger til our savior Shola Ameobi returns, someone please shoot me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Our league position probably had something to do with it too. Had we been in 16th place 1 point above the relegation zone then I'm sure they'd have spent money to improve. However, being that we looked to be in a more comfortable position they probably thought we'd have enough to stay up, even if it was just a limp across the finish line at the end of the season. It's a gamble, but we know Ashley's a gambler. whether it pays off or not remains to be seen. should never risk anything untill were mathematicaly certain to stay up. Plus we should still be trying to finish as high as we can in the league, it would hekp keep gate attendances up and make us a more attractive proposition to players we go in for in the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 i feel pretty sure they knew people were gona come asking about carroll and they should have had some targets of thier own. You mean like how Liverpool were pursuing Carroll before Torres' future was confirmed so they weren't left standing there with 2 hours of the window left with a big bag of money and no fucking strikers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delima Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If we are not relegated this year, and we buy some players this summer, the management will be proven right n have the last laugh. If we get relegated, then the detractors here are proven right End stating the obvious. I think the management made the right decision. It is not easy to buy strikers in January. Liverpool paid well for Suarez n carroll. Chelsea was held ransom. Spurs bought no one despite having all the money n perhaps more urgency / incentive than us. Aston villa paid full fee fir bent. Imagine if our board paid that money for bent instead, how much criticism will it get ? Just because Bolton get sturridge, doesn't mean we can get him as well. Strikers are always in great demand, how many sturridges are there ? The board gamble that we could survive without Carroll. And I agree. Carrioll is a vig loss yes but offensively we have also strengtened with HBA n Ireland. So it is a calculated gamble. 5 months will buy us more time, more options n better prices. Europe is out of touch so we really just needful survive. N I think we can survive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 i feel pretty sure they knew people were gona come asking about carroll and they should have had some targets of thier own. You mean like how Liverpool were pursuing Carroll before Torres' future was confirmed so they weren't left standing there with 2 hours of the window left with a big bag of money and no f***ing strikers? torres future was confirmed as soon as carroll asked for a move. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Wouldn't be suprised if Mike and Derreck stuck a wager on whether we stay or not after the window shut, just another roll of the dice for the fat cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant1815 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Our league position probably had something to do with it too. Had we been in 16th place 1 point above the relegation zone then I'm sure they'd have spent money to improve. However, being that we looked to be in a more comfortable position they probably thought we'd have enough to stay up, even if it was just a limp across the finish line at the end of the season. It's a gamble, but we know Ashley's a gambler. whether it pays off or not remains to be seen. should never risk anything untill were mathematicaly certain to stay up. Plus we should still be trying to finish as high as we can in the league, it would hekp keep gate attendances up and make us a more attractive proposition to players we go in for in the summer. Not saying I agree with not strengthening, just saying they probably looked at the situation and figured we probably had enough in us to stay up without having to panic buy and pay over the odds. Regardless of what we want Ashley has two priorities this year, avoid relegation and keep costs down. He's going to try and balance those two out. I honestly don't think he's interested in us pushing for Europe, or anything except staying in the PL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Our league position probably had something to do with it too. Had we been in 16th place 1 point above the relegation zone then I'm sure they'd have spent money to improve. However, being that we looked to be in a more comfortable position they probably thought we'd have enough to stay up, even if it was just a limp across the finish line at the end of the season. It's a gamble, but we know Ashley's a gambler. whether it pays off or not remains to be seen. should never risk anything untill were mathematicaly certain to stay up. Plus we should still be trying to finish as high as we can in the league, it would hekp keep gate attendances up and make us a more attractive proposition to players we go in for in the summer. Especially the way this season is going. Win a couple of games you're 7th/8th, lose a couple and you're bottom 5. Scary really but to be honest it's very rare this season that we've been as piss poor as we were last night. That gives me hope, along with Pardew's admission last night that we need to find a system that suits playing with the strikers we have availabel. Good to see he's not planning on carrying on lumping up balls to Ranger/Best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Oh yeah, loads. Should have gone into his own pocket for a striker, greedy c***. He assured the fans, he was going to improve the squad. If he hadn't said that, fair enough.. Routledge being allowed to leave on a loan is reason enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 For those saying it was all a bit last minute and too late to get a replacement in, Nolan's in the Chronicle saying they knew Carroll would be out for the next 8 weeks or so anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 For those saying it was all a bit last minute and too late to get a replacement in, Nolan's in the Chronicle saying they knew Carroll would be out for the next 8 weeks or so anyway. Yes, but even if Carroll was still here, we still had 4 other strikers on the first team list, 3 of which have scored goals this season, inclduing one with a recent hattrick. Had they brought someone in, even on loan to cover Carroll's injury, that'd be 6 on the list when he was available. Once they knew he was going, then I can understand that prices may have suddenly rocketed for any targets - and who would have wanted to pay daft money for a half decent striker? Many clubs may have declined loaning us a player too, and tried to push us to buy them instead, with our forthcoming funds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Best's hattrick was bad timing, and Shola was looking alright as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Best's hattrick was bad timing, and Shola was looking alright as well. Shola's frustrating as hell, but he's better than most give him credit for and he's decent enough, but unfortunately he's a complete crock a la Woodgate, Dyer, etc. His injury last night was a freak one which could have happened to any player, but we all know he would have been out anyway within a couple of weeks. He's useful in the squad because when fit he's good enough to play, but you can't seriously run a team which relies on him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning_Linguist Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Best's hattrick was bad timing, and Shola was looking alright as well. SPOT ON! Lets face it with Xisco and Carroll we had 6 (arguably) Squad strikers, 4 of which were hardly used but when they were they did well so why should the club strengthen without apparent need?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Ashley's intentions are clearly short-term - to recoup every pound he's ploughed into the club and bail out. He obviously views selling assets and operating on a shoestring as the most viable means of achieving this, and not squad strengthening and aiming for Europe/trophy. And with Hughton gone and his puppet Pardew at the helm, he's got a manager he can walk all over to do this. The best we can hope for IMO is making a good profit on the like of Tiote, Enrique etc, survival in the Prem and Ashley finally getting the money he wants to sell up. Upon reflection, I'd have to say your analysis is very plausible, perhaps the most rational explanation there's been so far of why he's acting the way he is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Chelsea panic bought and paid over the market price for Torres. The reason Chelsea had to pay £50m for Torres was because it left Liverpool in a bad position to get in a replacement and they in turn would have to pay over the odds for whoever they got in (fee and/or wages), so the Torres price was inflated with an amount to mitigate that extra expense. This allowed them to panic buy and pay over the market price for Carroll because they didn't want it to mess up their season and are trying to get into Europe. The reason Liverpool paid £35m for Carroll was because it left Newcastle in a bad position to get in a replacement and they in turn would have to pay over the odds for whoever they got in (fee and/or wages), so the Carroll price was inflated with an amount to mitigate that extra expense. This allowed Ashley to rub his hands and put the extra money in the bank because he thinks we have enough points already to avoid relegation. If we'd had to pay over the odds for a replacement, then that's what we should have done as a one-off if we wanted to try to avoid derailing the season as that's precisely why we got an inflated price for Carroll. The fact we didn't even get a loan player in shows once again exactly where Ashley's priorities lie. Tend to agree, but I think this links back into what Turnbull said as well as to the reasons for the short-termist/short-sighted approach to things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM 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. Have to say I do think you're giving him too much benefit of the doubt there, in all honesty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCONA 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 So Ireland we don't count him at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo 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. Have to say I do think you're giving him too much benefit of the doubt there, in all honesty. I know, I think I probably am as well. My basic problem is calling what Ashley is doing 'short-termist'. If anything, what was happening before he arrived was much more short-termist and was putting the future of the club in danger. He is a gambler and he's gambling the short-term (we'll probably stay up) against the long term (the club's finances will be stable). I don't think he's doing anything much for the short term, except maybe capitalising on an opportunity to bring in £35m. 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