NUFC summer activity prediction thread

[buzza]

Deffo need another striker, right and left back and perhaps another defensive midfielder (Tiote and suspension plus any injuryb seriously weakens us...)

[mrmojorisin75]

can someone recap this latest round of shit for me, something to do with pardew being interviewed and moving the goalposts again on spending money?

 

from what i can piece together the club have more or less come out and said the spending is done, is that right?  but we'll get a striker in or something....

 

this about right?  we're expected to accept 2 free's and a buyout clause are we, seriously?

[Guest icemanblue]

can someone recap this latest round of shit for me, something to do with pardew being interviewed and moving the goalposts again on spending money?

 

from what i can piece together the club have more or less come out and said the spending is done, is that right?  but we'll get a striker in or something....

 

this about right?  we're expected to accept 2 free's and a buyout clause are we, seriously?

 

Yes. The money has been allocated to wages and signing on/agent fees, which other clubs don't have to pay.

[TRon]

can someone recap this latest round of shit for me, something to do with pardew being interviewed and moving the goalposts again on spending money?

 

from what i can piece together the club have more or less come out and said the spending is done, is that right?  but we'll get a striker in or something....

 

this about right?  we're expected to accept 2 free's and a buyout clause are we, seriously?

 

I doubt we will get the striker Pardew was talking about either. There's still plenty of time but I expected either Erdinc or Long to be close to signing by now but both deals seem to have died a death, and the noises the club are now making about only the right player being signed leads me to believe they'll stick with Best.

 

That's just my own unfounded speculation BTW, before anyone jumps in with "there's still a month to go!"

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

can someone recap this latest round of shit for me, something to do with pardew being interviewed and moving the goalposts again on spending money?

 

from what i can piece together the club have more or less come out and said the spending is done, is that right?  but we'll get a striker in or something....

 

this about right?  we're expected to accept 2 free's and a buyout clause are we, seriously?

 

Yes. The money has been allocated to wages and signing on/agent fees, which other clubs don't have to pay.

 

aye, this was what i both expected and thought had just happened

 

i still have no problem with the approach MA seems intent on taking, in the sense of making the club generate it's own income etc. but he's taking the fucking piss here now, 35m and we can't afford to spend more than 1m net on new players

 

frankly, if this is how things end, it's an outrage

 

always thought the gameiro & gervihno bids were jive (same as modric), 'cause if they weren't the money would still be there to spend surely?

 

cunts the lot of them, pardew included

[Colocho]

can someone recap this latest round of shit for me, something to do with pardew being interviewed and moving the goalposts again on spending money?

 

from what i can piece together the club have more or less come out and said the spending is done, is that right?  but we'll get a striker in or something....

 

this about right?  we're expected to accept 2 free's and a buyout clause are we, seriously?

 

Yes. The money has been allocated to wages and signing on/agent fees, which other clubs don't have to pay.

 

We must be one of the only clubs in the league (if not the only) putting money aside for up to three years of current and new players' contracts. It's a fucking joke.

[mrmojorisin75]

We must be one of the only clubs in the league (if not the only) putting money aside for up to three years of current and new players' contracts. It's a fucking joke.

 

see i don't think it's entirely a joke if done in the right way, combined with a moderate outlay of funds generate from club income on transfers and wages plus monies from sales being used for new players/contract extensions it could be very prudent in this day and age

 

it's the way ashley is screwing the pooch with a potentially decent idea that's getting me

 

finance-wise football is weird compared to other businesses, i see no reason why something in between couldn't/shouldn't be able to work

 

not putting any outlay whatsoever on new players just makes no sense man

[Minhosa]

We must be one of the only clubs in the league (if not the only) putting money aside for up to three years of current and new players' contracts. It's a fucking joke.

 

see i don't think it's entirely a joke if done in the right way, combined with a moderate outlay of funds generate from club income on transfers and wages plus monies from sales being used for new players/contract extensions it could be very prudent in this day and age

 

it's the way ashley is screwing the pooch with a potentially decent idea that's getting me

 

finance-wise football is weird compared to other businesses, i see no reason why something in between couldn't/shouldn't be able to work

 

not putting any outlay whatsoever on new players just makes no sense man

 

Especially when two or three top players (i.e: proven in top level football) in positions we need could be the difference between an ok season and a fantastic season as well as giving us base to develop from , as well as giving us more depth and as well as meaning the sale of a Tiote or Ben Arfa (which will both happen during Pardews reign, as that's the plan) would be less damaging in the short term.

 

[Colocho]

We must be one of the only clubs in the league (if not the only) putting money aside for up to three years of current and new players' contracts. It's a fucking joke.

 

see i don't think it's entirely a joke if done in the right way, combined with a moderate outlay of funds generate from club income on transfers and wages plus monies from sales being used for new players/contract extensions it could be very prudent in this day and age

 

it's the way ashley is screwing the pooch with a potentially decent idea that's getting me

 

finance-wise football is weird compared to other businesses, i see no reason why something in between couldn't/shouldn't be able to work

 

not putting any outlay whatsoever on new players just makes no sense man

 

You don't have a problem with the best part of £4 million of the Carroll money being 'spent' on two years of Tiote's new contract? It's a good concept if other money, say TV revenue is freed up to be spent on the new players our squad needs.

 

We've already lost our second choice 'left-back' and a back-up central midfielder... and the season hasn't even started yet.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

All clubs have to budget for future expenditure, including wages. I've no idea where this ridiculous idea of "we're putting aside money now for three years of players contracts" came from, the suggestion is bollocks.

 

You don't spend all your money now then realise tomorrow you need some of it, that's just basic money management. Why does everyone insist on making more of it than that?

[Minhosa]

All clubs have to budget for future expenditure, including wages. I've no idea where this ridiculous idea of "we're putting aside money now for three years of players contracts" came from, the suggestion is bollocks.

 

You don't spend all your money now then realise tomorrow you need some of it, that's just basic money management. Why does everyone insist on making more of it than that?

 

I think it came from Pardew's quotes after the Carroll sale. Something like 'Covering the cost of Cheick's new contract' or something similar.

 

May be wrong on that as my memory is shite.............

[mrmojorisin75]

We must be one of the only clubs in the league (if not the only) putting money aside for up to three years of current and new players' contracts. It's a fucking joke.

 

see i don't think it's entirely a joke if done in the right way, combined with a moderate outlay of funds generate from club income on transfers and wages plus monies from sales being used for new players/contract extensions it could be very prudent in this day and age

 

it's the way ashley is screwing the pooch with a potentially decent idea that's getting me

 

finance-wise football is weird compared to other businesses, i see no reason why something in between couldn't/shouldn't be able to work

 

not putting any outlay whatsoever on new players just makes no sense man

 

You don't have a problem with the best part of £4 million of the Carroll money being 'spent' on two years of Tiote's new contract? It's a good concept if other money, say TV revenue is freed up to be spent on the new players our squad needs.

 

We've already lost our second choice 'left-back' and a back-up central midfielder... and the season hasn't even started yet.

 

yeah, i don't have a problem with the principal of the way ashley seems intent on going, i have a problem with his execution of it - what's so hard to understand?

[Colocho]

All clubs have to budget for future expenditure, including wages. I've no idea where this ridiculous idea of "we're putting aside money now for three years of players contracts" came from, the suggestion is bollocks.

 

You don't spend all your money now then realise tomorrow you need some of it, that's just basic money management. Why does everyone insist on making more of it than that?

 

It's been reported by journalists. It should be quite a well-known fact by now that at least two years of Tiotes new contract are being funded by the £35 million received for Carroll.

 

I imagine this will also be applied to new players.

[mrmojorisin75]

You don't spend all your money now then realise tomorrow you need some of it, that's just basic money management. Why does everyone insist on making more of it than that?

 

and here is the crux of the problem ian, the carroll 35m is something that cannot be budgetted for or predicted financially

 

you're talking about the club not spending money because it might hurt us or something, this was 35m that didn't exist 7 months ago so it bears no relation to normal club income (i'm sure there's an accountancy term for it)

 

if your business is selling art and you lucked it and scored a 35m painting sale out of nowhere you'd have 2 choices, invest some/all of that into new ventures or pocket it (ashley's terms claw back some debt)

 

our business is football ian, in the history of the game non-investment hasn't taken many teams very far

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

[Colocho]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

 

But the point is, that cash is being put aside for salaries and therefore not being spent on new players. What is so hard to understand?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

You don't spend all your money now then realise tomorrow you need some of it, that's just basic money management. Why does everyone insist on making more of it than that?

 

and here is the crux of the problem ian, the carroll 35m is something that cannot be budgetted for or predicted financially

 

you're talking about the club not spending money because it might hurt us or something, this was 35m that didn't exist 7 months ago so it bears no relation to normal club income (i'm sure there's an accountancy term for it)

 

if your business is selling art and you lucked it and scored a 35m painting sale out of nowhere you'd have 2 choices, invest some/all of that into new ventures or pocket it (ashley's terms claw back some debt)

 

our business is football ian, in the history of the game non-investment hasn't taken many teams very far

 

Aye, but if you owned an art gallery and suddenly scored a £35m sale, you also wouldn't just spend it all on volatile assets now if your art gallery was making a regular loss and couldn't support its own operations in future.

 

You would spend a bit and use the rest to shore up the health of the business.

 

I want investment as much as anyone, but it should be sustainable. As I've posted many many times, the aim of any football business should be to invest every penny it earns and never make a profit over the long-term.

[Guest]

It's better than the Shepherd-let's-spend-4-years-worth-of-shirt-sponsorship-in-one-go method anyway.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

 

But the point is, that cash is being put aside for salaries and therefore not being spent on new players. What is so hard to understand?

 

Well if you just mean we're not spending money now because we know we'll need it later, then that seems a great idea to me. Do you not think so?

[mrmojorisin75]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

 

who is suggesting this?  surely you just have a wage bill and a % of profits generated reinvested into team affairs shall we call it?  any money from sales can be split however you like into dividends (so called)/transfer fees/wages

 

this is why i said i have no problem with the idea in principle, it's not bad, but the way MA is running with it it's a fucking pisstake ian...it's literally taking the piss out of 10's of 1,000's of people

 

sorry but there's no clearer way to say it

[Wullie]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

 

It shouldn't be in our bank account though. Having severely weakened the team, it must be used to strengthen it again, and should be added to whatever was already going to be spent this summer (ho ho).

[mrmojorisin75]

I want investment as much as anyone, but it should be sustainable.

 

ok we had a plan, then we sold a player for 35m

 

at what point does investing that 35m in fees and wages for new players not become sustainable?

 

bearing in mind carroll himself and nolan have left the wages bill, as has sol....

 

so what was the plan without the 35m then, look at it that way?  it can surely only have been sell players at a profit to sustain the club, there's no other logical conclusion unless you conclude that ashley is intent on raking as much of his money back as possible as fast as possible?

[mrmojorisin75]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

 

It shouldn't be in our bank account though. Having severely weakened the team, it must be used to strengthen it again, and should be added to whatever was already going to be spent this summer (ho ho).

 

precisely, especially the ho ho part

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Fair enough, still don't understand what the point would be in keeping a lump sum called "The Carroll Money" and taking money out of it now to cover wages for future years. Where does it go in the meantime? Unless we've paid Tiote two years' wages up front it's still in our bank account. Surely it would just be another income stream to add to everything else, and player wages would be paid when they are due as normal?

 

Just doesn't ring true at all, at least not in the literal way some people are suggesting.

 

Anyway, obviously I don't actually know.

 

who is suggesting this?  surely you just have a wage bill and a % of profits generated reinvested into team affairs shall we call it?  any money from sales can be split however you like into dividends (so called)/transfer fees/wages

 

this is why i said i have no problem with the idea in principle, it's not bad, but the way MA is running with it it's a fucking pisstake ian...it's literally taking the piss out of 10's of 1,000's of people

 

sorry but there's no clearer way to say it

 

Everyone is implying it all the time. Almost every post contains something like "this much of the Carroll money has gone on the training ground" or "so many million out of the Carroll money has gone on Tiote's new contract".

 

What I'm saying is exactly what you admit, that it isn't a separate stash of money and shouldn't be treated as different to any of our other income. Some people seem to be suggesting that it's criminal not to use the bulk of the money on transfer fees in this window.

 

If you agree with me then no worries.

[Guest]

The plan without the Carroll money might have been to sell a Jonas here, and a Coloccini there...