NUFC summer activity prediction thread

[Wullie]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

[TRon]

Part of the problem is we bought too many players suited to the championship when we were down there such as Perch, Ryan Taylor, Best etc. I said at the time we should be buying players who won't look out of place in the premier but I suppose our finances at the time restricted us. Now we are having to try and shift these players before we can allocate those wages to better players by the looks of it.

 

Ryan Taylor and Perch? What you on about man?

 

So Taylor was bought when we still technically in the Premier (on the way down). Perch was signed after we won promotion, my bad. We first tried to buy him while we were in the Championship. Regardless, they weren't quality signings that's the point.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

But Wullie, the accounts state regular losses for every year in recent memory, that's a fact.

 

Unless we're happy to let that debt increase (which clearly some clubs are for the reasons we've discussed) something had to change. The Shepherd era created an underlying business that wasn't sustainable, that seems to be a fact as well.

 

If you're arguing that Ashley should be letting the debt increase and continuing to subsidise it himself, then that's a valid argument. Maybe you think he has a moral obligation to do so. If not, then something about our ratio of income:outgoings had to be tweaked.

[Hughesy]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

[Mr Logic]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

 

This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on.

[Wullie]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

But Wullie, the accounts state regular losses for every year in recent memory, that's a fact.

 

Unless we're happy to let that debt increase (which clearly some clubs are for the reasons we've discussed) something had to change. The Shepherd era created an underlying business that wasn't sustainable, that seems to be a fact as well.

 

If you're arguing that Ashley should be letting the debt increase and continuing to subsidise it himself, then that's a valid argument. Maybe you think he has a moral obligation to do so. If not, then something about our ratio of income:outgoings had to be tweaked.

 

Where are the losses coming from though Ian? What major outgoings does a football club have other than wages, given that the stadium mortgage was automatically paid off when Ashley took over because he hadn't done his homework (and therefore the incoming funds from SJP should be vastly in excess of what they were under Shepherd)?

 

If the club is making a loss because the wages are too high, then that is Ashley's fault. We also took a huge hit because of relegation - Ashley's fault. Turnover is lower than it was under Shepherd - Ashley's fault. It's fuck all to do with Shepherd and everything to do with being absolutely shit at running a football club to an acceptable standard, both financially and on the field.

[Wullie]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

 

This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on.

 

In what sense? Not financially and on the pitch, the difference is marginal.

[Mr Logic]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

 

This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on.

 

In what sense? Not financially and on the pitch, the difference is marginal.

 

Damn it man, don't ask me questions I can't answer. Any accountants online?

 

I was thinking along the lines of many saying the club was on the verge of going under when Ashley took over. Statements from Mort etc. And that Ashley had turned that around, at least to a good degree.

 

Am I way off?

[Wullie]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

 

This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on.

 

In what sense? Not financially and on the pitch, the difference is marginal.

 

Damn it man, don't ask me questions I can't answer. Any accountants online?

 

I was thinking along the lines of many saying the club was on the verge of going under when Ashley took over. Statements from Mort etc. And that Ashley had turned that around, at least to a good degree.

 

Am I way off?

 

If he's prepared to write off the money he has loaned the club when he leaves, then you are right.

 

We all know he won't and the club's debt (to him) is much larger than when he arrived. His status as a guarantor overshadows some utterly disastrous financial mismanagement from what I can see. For a Premier League club of our gates not to be able to afford transfer fees, well that speaks for itself imo.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

But Wullie, the accounts state regular losses for every year in recent memory, that's a fact.

 

Unless we're happy to let that debt increase (which clearly some clubs are for the reasons we've discussed) something had to change. The Shepherd era created an underlying business that wasn't sustainable, that seems to be a fact as well.

 

If you're arguing that Ashley should be letting the debt increase and continuing to subsidise it himself, then that's a valid argument. Maybe you think he has a moral obligation to do so. If not, then something about our ratio of income:outgoings had to be tweaked.

 

Where are the losses coming from though Ian? What major outgoings does a football club have other than wages, given that the stadium mortgage was automatically paid off when Ashley took over because he hadn't done his homework (and therefore the incoming funds from SJP should be vastly in excess of what they were under Shepherd)?

 

If the club is making a loss because the wages are too high, then that is Ashley's fault. We also took a huge hit because of relegation - Ashley's fault. Turnover is lower than it was under Shepherd - Ashley's fault. It's fuck all to do with Shepherd and everything to do with being absolutely shit at running a football club to an acceptable standard, both financially and on the field.

 

There's definitely a lot of truth to that, obviously if Ashley had made loads of brilliant decisions then we would have just gone on to more success and had a higher turnover than we do.

 

As it was he was naive and then made some catastrophic mistakes in the initial period. Saying that, since relegation he's done alright-ish (if Hughton's sacking was a mistake, we haven't suffered).

 

Still think your argument about the wages is a bit of a logical backflip though, are you saying you would have supported Ashley in reducing the wage bill even faster than he has?

 

As for the general income of the club, it is what it is. We haven't been in Europe for some time and have just suffered a relegation, I know our stadium is big but our tickets aren't the most expensive. Anyway, don't have accounts to hand for detailed chat about that.

[Wullie]

I don't have a problem with big wages, that's the state of the game.

 

What I do have a problem with is constant whinging and whining and crying about the wage bill left to him by Shepherd, then going and handing out comparable deals and then whinging and whining and crying about that.

 

Absolutely no doubt in my mind that in the next 2-3 years, we'll see, at best, several of Tiote, Coloccini, Ben Arfa, Cabaye, Marveaux, Ba pushed out the door because their wages are too high - and some people will still bring Shepherd into it in an attempt to defend it.

 

Makes me laugh when I see people defending not buying anybody because "Ba, Cabaye, Marveaux are on £60k a week" and then the same people saying we shouldn't be in for N'Zogbia or Sturridge at £60k a week because the club shouldn't be held to ransom.

[Mr Logic]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

 

This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on.

 

In what sense? Not financially and on the pitch, the difference is marginal.

 

Damn it man, don't ask me questions I can't answer. Any accountants online?

 

I was thinking along the lines of many saying the club was on the verge of going under when Ashley took over. Statements from Mort etc. And that Ashley had turned that around, at least to a good degree.

 

Am I way off?

 

If he's prepared to write off the money he has loaned the club when he leaves, then you are right.

 

We all know he won't and the club's debt (to him) is much larger than when he arrived. His status as a guarantor overshadows some utterly disastrous financial mismanagement from what I can see. For a Premier League club of our gates not to be able to afford transfer fees, well that speaks for itself imo.

 

Ok I'll not comment further on this as I really know nothing. Was speaking off the top of my head.. I know next to nothing of the clubs finances and in all honesty they interest me even less. I just want to see us playing nice football and winning matches.

 

 

[TRon]

One thing which puzzles me about income is why we still have Sports Direct as our main "sponsors" for the stadium. Does Ashley actually pay anything for it, because if he doesn't then I'm pretty sure that could pay for a few wages. Shepherd was reckless with the spending when he was here, but we must have pulled in a lot more sponsorship money just due to the higher profile players we brought in. Ashley seems to have gone to the other extreme altogether.

[Optimistic Nut]

Got an issue with the lower sponsorship thing you bring up Wullie. The last negotiations Shepherd had with Adidas was when we were near the top of the table and we were the only Premier League club they had, by the end of his time we were bottom half and they also had Liverpool and Chelsea. Our income is still in line with the clubs we compete with today (Everton, etc). There's no way Shepherd would have been able to do much better post 2007 had he stayed imo. He also said he'd have taken that money for Carroll.

[Wullie]

Got an issue with the lower sponsorship thing you bring up Wullie. The last negotiations Shepherd had with Adidas was when we were near the top of the table and we were the only Premier League club they had, by the end of his time we were bottom half and they also had Liverpool and Chelsea. Our income is still in line with the clubs we compete with today (Everton, etc). There's no way Shepherd would have been able to do much better post 2007 had he stayed imo. He also said he'd have taken that money for Carroll.

 

I'm not trying to defend Shepherd, I hated him. Our income should be much higher than Villa and Everton because of the size of the stadium and much higher prices than sunderland.

 

Tron's point about Sports Direct is a good one. The club must be losing millions in revenue due to most of the advertising space within SJP being coated in Sports Direct blurb.

[NewJerseyMag]

Got an issue with the lower sponsorship thing you bring up Wullie. The last negotiations Shepherd had with Adidas was when we were near the top of the table and we were the only Premier League club they had, by the end of his time we were bottom half and they also had Liverpool and Chelsea. Our income is still in line with the clubs we compete with today (Everton, etc). There's no way Shepherd would have been able to do much better post 2007 had he stayed imo. He also said he'd have taken that money for Carroll.

 

I'm not trying to defend Shepherd, I hated him. Our income should be much higher than Villa and Everton because of the size of the stadium and much higher prices than sunderland.

 

Tron's point about Sports Direct is a good one. The club must be losing millions in revenue due to most of the advertising space within SJP being coated in Sports Direct blurb.

 

Interesting point. Does he get the advertising for free?

 

Since Sports Direct is a separate entity from NUFC, SD should be charged the going rate like any other firm, but I bet they are not.

[Optimistic Nut]

Guess we'll see in the next accounts?

[NewJerseyMag]

Guess we'll see in the next accounts?

 

I guess we will. One of my main issues right now is that we dont seem to be trying to grow the business; this requires increasing revenues.

 

It all seems to be about cost cutting. That suggests MA believes there isn't a realistic chance of increasing income. This equals mid table mediocrity forever; I think MA knows everyone will show up pretty much no matter what, so whats the point speculating when not much extra money will be generated.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Does seem strange that Ashley isn't pushing harder for better sponsorship deals. Maybe now we're back in the Premier League he will do.

[Mr Logic]

Thought I read, in here somewhere, that the sponsorship must be paid for.. money must be seen to be moving from one place to another?

[smith1__]

My predictions:

Out list:

Xisco - 1,5M

Perch - 1M

Routledge 1,5M

 

In list:

Erdinc - 7M

[madras]

Got an issue with the lower sponsorship thing you bring up Wullie. The last negotiations Shepherd had with Adidas was when we were near the top of the table and we were the only Premier League club they had, by the end of his time we were bottom half and they also had Liverpool and Chelsea. Our income is still in line with the clubs we compete with today (Everton, etc). There's no way Shepherd would have been able to do much better post 2007 had he stayed imo. He also said he'd have taken that money for Carroll.

 

I'm not trying to defend Shepherd, I hated him. Our income should be much higher than Villa and Everton because of the size of the stadium and much higher prices than sunderland.

 

Tron's point about Sports Direct is a good one. The club must be losing millions in revenue due to most of the advertising space within SJP being coated in Sports Direct blurb.

i'd guess that we will have a bigger income income than villa and everton for the season gone. however it has to be viewed in the context of years of losses. pointless having a bigger turnover than club X if you are going to live beyond it constantly. as in the past i've said i have no problem with the club having debt, the problem has always been the sustainability of that debt and i'm not at all sure we were headed a good way.

 

interesting that people blame him for the large wages given to smith,geremi etc when thats exactly what people want, an owner who'll just say yes to the manager all the time regardless. which way do people want it ?

[NewJerseyMag]

Got an issue with the lower sponsorship thing you bring up Wullie. The last negotiations Shepherd had with Adidas was when we were near the top of the table and we were the only Premier League club they had, by the end of his time we were bottom half and they also had Liverpool and Chelsea. Our income is still in line with the clubs we compete with today (Everton, etc). There's no way Shepherd would have been able to do much better post 2007 had he stayed imo. He also said he'd have taken that money for Carroll.

 

I'm not trying to defend Shepherd, I hated him. Our income should be much higher than Villa and Everton because of the size of the stadium and much higher prices than sunderland.

 

Tron's point about Sports Direct is a good one. The club must be losing millions in revenue due to most of the advertising space within SJP being coated in Sports Direct blurb.

i'd guess that we will have a bigger income income than villa and everton for the season gone. however it has to be viewed in the context of years of losses. pointless having a bigger turnover than club X if you are going to live beyond it constantly. as in the past i've said i have no problem with the club having debt, the problem has always been the sustainability of that debt and i'm not at all sure we were headed a good way.

 

interesting that people blame him for the large wages given to smith,geremi etc when thats exactly what people want, an owner who'll just say yes to the manager all the time regardless. which way do people want it ?

 

I dont think its quite like that. Its glaringly obvious we have not replaced Carroll adequately. The rational of the sale was that the proceeds were to be used to revamp the squad and make us a better team overall.

 

In fact, as far as I can make out, the net spend is NIL; the saved wages plus Nolan money offsets the new signings.

 

So, we have been misled once again with double speak.

[Guest Mantis]

Why aren't any of the other Premier League clubs using 100% of their income to "finance the general running of the clubs"?

 

Ian, how likely is the strategy you are championing to get us back into the top 6/top 4 of the Premier League? If the answer is "not very" then it's not workable.

 

Because a large number of them are financed by generous benefactors who are happy to throw money at their clubs?

 

Like Stoke and Wolves? Aye, righto.

 

Ok - I'll try again - other clubs weren't trying to correct years of negligent ownership that had created an 100% unsustainable business.

 

Any other examples you'd like me to bat back?

 

How long are you going to bang this drum? Will you still be defending him in 2015 on the basis of "what Shepherd did"?

 

At what point does it become his responsibility seeing as there isn't a contract at the club that wasn't signed under Ashley?

 

I'd agree that there comes a point where Shepherd's mistakes become irrelevant (even if they did set off a chain of catastrophic events).  But I am not sure that pointing out that none of the contracts at the club were not signed by Ashley makes a whole lot of difference.  He still inherited a mess and has to try and clean up that mess.

 

This will be a popular post. It has to be said if Ashley left the club tomorrow he would leave it in a hell of a lot better condition than the day he took it on.

 

Healthier balance sheet but short on playing staff of right quality.  But why worry about squad ability, its only a football club.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Got an issue with the lower sponsorship thing you bring up Wullie. The last negotiations Shepherd had with Adidas was when we were near the top of the table and we were the only Premier League club they had, by the end of his time we were bottom half and they also had Liverpool and Chelsea. Our income is still in line with the clubs we compete with today (Everton, etc). There's no way Shepherd would have been able to do much better post 2007 had he stayed imo. He also said he'd have taken that money for Carroll.

 

I'm not trying to defend Shepherd, I hated him. Our income should be much higher than Villa and Everton because of the size of the stadium and much higher prices than sunderland.

 

Tron's point about Sports Direct is a good one. The club must be losing millions in revenue due to most of the advertising space within SJP being coated in Sports Direct blurb.

i'd guess that we will have a bigger income income than villa and everton for the season gone. however it has to be viewed in the context of years of losses. pointless having a bigger turnover than club X if you are going to live beyond it constantly. as in the past i've said i have no problem with the club having debt, the problem has always been the sustainability of that debt and i'm not at all sure we were headed a good way.

 

interesting that people blame him for the large wages given to smith,geremi etc when thats exactly what people want, an owner who'll just say yes to the manager all the time regardless. which way do people want it ?

 

I dont think its quite like that. Its glaringly obvious we have not replaced Carroll adequately. The rational of the sale was that the proceeds were to be used to revamp the squad and make us a better team overall.

 

In fact, as far as I can make out, the net spend is NIL; the saved wages plus Nolan money offsets the new signings.

 

So, we have been misled once again with double speak.

 

I think Carroll was sold because the offer was too good to turn down. I don't think it had anything to do with the money being used to revamp the squad.

 

Pardew was unwise to try to justify the sale after the fact on that basis, but I don't think he ever sait that was the 'reason' for the sale.