AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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? I don't know why you find that funny, the answer is that we are making significant regular losses and have a mountain of debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 The plan without the Carroll money might have been to sell a Jonas here, and a Coloccini there... Maybe, who knows, the point is that just because we didn't plan for the Carroll money doesn't mean we should now spunk it up the wall as quickly as possible. Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. When running a football club, all that stuff has to be balanced with spending on the first XI, that's all I've ever argued. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 The plan without the Carroll money might have been to sell a Jonas here, and a Coloccini there... Maybe, who knows, the point is that just because we didn't plan for the Carroll money doesn't mean we should now spunk it up the wall as quickly as possible. Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. When running a football club, all that stuff has to be balanced with spending on the first XI, that's all I've ever argued. Ian - for the sake of your own sanity, I'd give up to be honest. You can only bang your head against a brick wall so many times.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. The why did Billy Bullshit feel the need to reassure the fans it would all be spaffed on improving the team? Nay team, Squad. Nay Squad, Club. Nay transfers, Bore Holes and Training Bibs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 There's nothing wrong with holding cash back for later use btw, as long as we've built a strong enough squad ready to go for this season. In my view we are still short of a left back and a striker minimum. The thinking seems to be that these are players we will look to bring in so if that happens I will be fairly happy with the work done this summer, provided they are of sufficient quality. If it doesn't happen for whatever reason/excuse I'll be fucking angry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. The why did Billy Bullshit feel the need to reassure the fans it would all be spaffed on improving the team? Nay team, Squad. Nay Squad, Club. Nay transfers, Bore Holes and Training Bibs. Yeah, I totally agree that what he said about investing it all in the team was wrong. I never believed it at the time. But criticising him for saying something is different to blaming him for not being right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. it's not terrible ian, it's an ok idea, but football is a game founded on certain financial principles such as invest/spend or die because we have some (very manageable) debt this is taken as an excuse to explain away absolutely anything...in the same way as marquee signings were used to masque the deficiencies of the old regime we're a fucking huge club with huge income and support ian, shame we can't afford fuck all really...must be mint being bolton and that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 That was sort of my point Ian, we're more likely to be able to reject other big bids and keep the bulk of the main squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. it's not terrible ian, it's an ok idea, but football is a game founded on certain financial principles such as invest/spend or die because we have some (very manageable) debt this is taken as an excuse to explain away absolutely anything...in the same way as marquee signings were used to masque the deficiencies of the old regime we're a fucking huge club with huge income and support ian, shame we can't afford fuck all really...must be mint being bolton and that I know what you mean, I'm not qualified to say exactly how much spending is or isn't affordable, we're all just guessing. It depends how quickly we're trying to make the club sustainable and/or reduce the debt. And is with all transfer spending, it's an art form and a balance between speculation and restraint. I just know that Ashley won't be subsidising us like some owners do, and he won't want to let the debt he's owed continue to rise and rise. So that's the reality we're operating under. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 I'm sure people just forget what happened in terms of spending and wages offered upto 2007 like. That has to go back into the club somehow regardless of TV money, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 As it stands we're definitely short a couple, and as the days tick by it becomes an increasing concern. Though I think we will still get a couple more bodies in I'm less sure of this than I was and I fully understand all the queries regarding the Carroll money, as visibly - none of it has really been spent. Two or three of the right quality could really have seen us trying to make our mark this season. As it stands right now, it really does seem Ashley is content to cross his fingers and hope for the best. Hope to feel better about this in a months time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 The plan without the Carroll money might have been to sell a Jonas here, and a Coloccini there... Maybe, who knows, the point is that just because we didn't plan for the Carroll money doesn't mean we should now spunk it up the wall as quickly as possible. Why is using some of it to finance the general running of the club over the next X years (which we couldn't afford before) so terrible. When running a football club, all that stuff has to be balanced with spending on the first XI, that's all I've ever argued. Ian - for the sake of your own sanity, I'd give up to be honest. You can only bang your head against a brick wall so many times.. I know, I managed to abstain over the weekend but I got sucked back in again. I should give up on the whole site TBH, but I like a good debate about football. I know I'm helping to make too many threads about the same argument though, so I'll stop. Maybe I just need to come back when the season starts and just talk about the stuff on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. Honest answer to the first one is because they don't have an owner who wants to stop their debt increasing. Either because their debt is serviceable or because they're prepared to keep subsidising the club out of their own pocket. The second one, I'm not really sure. It could get us into the top 6 if we find more bargain players who end up being quality, the top 4 is much harder obviously. And it will happen much more slowly than if we spent a lot more. I'm not trying to deny that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 It's all very well having an aim of less debt, but the problem is we're not going to be able to play Les Debt upfront if we get an injury to our threadbare strikeforce. Not spending is only the sensible option if you don't need to spend, a full squad of players capable of competing at the level you're playing at isn't a luxury. If we fill the positions we need filling and then people start asking to upgrade players like Simpson or Best, then we can go woah nelly, maybe we should service the debt first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. The why did Billy Bullshit feel the need to reassure the fans it would all be spaffed on improving the team? Nay team, Squad. Nay Squad, Club. Nay transfers, Bore Holes and Training Bibs. Yeah, I totally agree that what he said about investing it all in the team was wrong. I never believed it at the time. But criticising him for saying something is different to blaming him for not being right. My point is that it's inherent in him. His lying was the trotting out of a last minute, botched discussion/party line agreed between him and Llambias, for sure. Why not just say it like it is and be done with it? He'd be far better recieved. There's no question, it was a massive fee and represents a huge result for the Owner but from a fans perspective, to lose a geordie number nine, the future of the club for ten years and you get fuck all back it makes you question his agenda as the manager - why would he want to be at a club that does that? Also, it was obvious that AC was being touted around the premiership when we sold him so it wasn't an unexpected bid. That's why I think the same will happen to Tiote. I'd put my on it if a bookie would take a bet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 It's all very well having an aim of less debt, but the problem is we're not going to be able to play Les Debt upfront if we get an injury to our threadbare strikeforce. Not spending is only the sensible option if you don't need to spend, a full squad of players capable of competing at the level you're playing at isn't a luxury. If we fill the positions we need filling and then people start asking to upgrade players like Simpson or Best, then we can go woah nelly, maybe we should service the debt first. Of course, it has to be a balance. But we've already shown that we can compete, the next step is showing that we can thrive. Obviously that's harder/more expensive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 It's all very well having an aim of less debt, but the problem is we're not going to be able to play Les Debt upfront if we get an injury to our threadbare strikeforce. Not spending is only the sensible option if you don't need to spend, a full squad of players capable of competing at the level you're playing at isn't a luxury. If we fill the positions we need filling and then people start asking to upgrade players like Simpson or Best, then we can go woah nelly, maybe we should service the debt first. Can't disagree with a word of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 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. The why did Billy Bullshit feel the need to reassure the fans it would all be spaffed on improving the team? Nay team, Squad. Nay Squad, Club. Nay transfers, Bore Holes and Training Bibs. Yeah, I totally agree that what he said about investing it all in the team was wrong. I never believed it at the time. But criticising him for saying something is different to blaming him for not being right. My point is that it's inherent in him. His lying was the trotting out of a last minute, botched discussion/party line agreed between him and Llambias, for sure. Why not just say it like it is and be done with it? He'd be far better recieved. There's no question, it was a massive fee and represents a huge result for the Owner but from a fans perspective, to lose a geordie number nine, the future of the club for ten years and you get fuck all back it makes you question his agenda as the manager - why would he want to be at a club that does that? Also, it was obvious that AC was being touted around the premiership when we sold him so it wasn't an unexpected bid. That's why I think the same will happen to Tiote. I'd put my on it if a bookie would take a bet. Fair play, I'm not Pardew's personal cheerleader, I just think he's doing a decent job in difficult circumstances. I'll agree to disagree about the other stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted July 18, 2011 Share Posted July 18, 2011 Pretty sure I read Wolves were one of only a few clubs operating at a profit like. 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