Twitter nonsense

[Cajun]

There's a clause in Xisco's contract stating we have to settle Greece's national debt if he plays another game so we can forget that one.

[Guest taps01]

Spanish press today saying depor want xisco back

[Sifu]

Spanish press today saying depor want xisco back

 

Good.

[madras]

Honestly don't give a f*** how much we spend as long as we improve the squad.  I am very happy with what we have done so far.  Would be even happier if we got rid of Smith and Xisco.

 

Your first sentence is an oft-repeated false dichotomy.

 

If we improve the squad with no money spent to the point where we're coming second in the table, the question to then ask is, why didn't we invest and we might have come first?

the question could also be how much of his own money should he spend on NUFC ? lets see where this 35mill goes, right now at a rough guestimate you'd say nolan gone and cabaye coming have equalled each other out, kuqi's and campbells wages could be ba's, which leaves merveaux on a reported 60kpw (just over 3 million per year or 15mill for the 5 year term of contract). we have to include wages as in a lot of cases they actually total more than the transfer fee though i hope and doubt if the club is taking the full term wage from the carroll 35mill (which would be ineteresting to see where it would lead eventually if we literally only gave wages we based on cash we had in our possession, i suppose it would be 3million we didn't have to find next season and thus could work as a long term thing but not one i'd advocate for us now). then we have the lunacy of those saying we should spend the 35mill purely on transfer fees, to those people i have to say that it'll either be debt or oweing ashley more and we know where that would lead in the long term.

 

 

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football. i know wullie will come back and say its purely about the 35mill carroll money but he conveniently forgets the debt we have (to ashley) or basically what we are doing is chelsea on a smaller scale.

[Guest bimpy474]

Honestly don't give a f*** how much we spend as long as we improve the squad.  I am very happy with what we have done so far.  Would be even happier if we got rid of Smith and Xisco.

 

Your first sentence is an oft-repeated false dichotomy.

 

If we improve the squad with no money spent to the point where we're coming second in the table, the question to then ask is, why didn't we invest and we might have come first?

the question could also be how much of his own money should he spend on NUFC ? lets see where this 35mill goes, right now at a rough guestimate you'd say nolan gone and cabaye coming have equalled each other out, kuqi's and campbells wages could be ba's, which leaves merveaux on a reported 60kpw (just over 3 million per year or 15mill for the 5 year term of contract). we have to include wages as in a lot of cases they actually total more than the transfer fee though i hope and doubt if the club is taking the full term wage from the carroll 35mill (which would be ineteresting to see where it would lead eventually if we literally only gave wages we based on cash we had in our possession, i suppose it would be 3million we didn't have to find next season and thus could work as a long term thing but not one i'd advocate for us now). then we have the lunacy of those saying we should spend the 35mill purely on transfer fees, to those people i have to say that it'll either be debt or oweing ashley more and we know where that would lead in the long term.

 

 

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football. i know wullie will come back and say its purely about the 35mill carroll money but he conveniently forgets the debt we have (to ashley) or basically what we are doing is chelsea on a smaller scale.

 

Very good post, agree 100% 

 

Just how i wish i could put things if i wasn't the laziest sod in my chair, reading rather than posting 

[Matt]

i know wullie will come back and say its purely about the 35mill carroll money but he conveniently forgets the debt we have (to ashley) or basically what we are doing is chelsea on a smaller scale.

 

We have no debt to Ashley.

[Dave]

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football.

 

Not the first time you've come out with this. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make it become the truth.

[madras]

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football.

 

Not the first time you've come out with this. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make it become the truth.

maybe not for you but it's what many want. tell me dave, should we live within our means or get money from a benefactor ?

[Dave]

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football.

 

Not the first time you've come out with this. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make it become the truth.

maybe not for you but it's what many want. tell me dave, should we live within our means or get money from a benefactor ?

 

Generally the former is preferable to me wherever possible, including when we make £35m clear profit on a player that cost us nothing to bring to the club. Your question implies you believe we shouldn't spend a bean until the £150m Ashley has invested in his own business is paid back.

[fredbob]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Whilst I think there's one, possibly 2 more strikers in the offing, can anyone explain to me why no one see's Ba as our replacement for Carroll?

[Dave]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

[madras]

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football.

 

Not the first time you've come out with this. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make it become the truth.

maybe not for you but it's what many want. tell me dave, should we live within our means or get money from a benefactor ?

 

The former is preferable to me. Your suggestion implies we shouldn't spend a bean until the £150m Ashley has invested in his own business is paid back.

i may seem that way but i'm not. after possibly seeing the club break even for the first time in  a while,improve on the pitch, i'd rather not rush headlong into more debt. i want that money spent on team strengthening and hopefully some people will take more notice of the full deal as opposed to just the transfer fee (the biggest single expense at most clubs are wages), i'd also like a bit kept for january aswell.

 

 

seriously as someone who so rarely suffers from headaches that i think i've got a tumor when i get one, i got one tonight thinking about the idea of accounting for all the wages now idea. i came down on the idea that in theory it could work, given patience, but the fans and i'll include myself wouldn't wear it long enough.

[madras]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

you know fine well he means that some would have been happier if we'd spent money instead of getting frees and cheapies so to speak.

[Dave]

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football.

 

Not the first time you've come out with this. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make it become the truth.

maybe not for you but it's what many want. tell me dave, should we live within our means or get money from a benefactor ?

 

The former is preferable to me. Your suggestion implies we shouldn't spend a bean until the £150m Ashley has invested in his own business is paid back.

i may seem that way but i'm not. after possibly seeing the club break even for the first time in  a while,improve on the pitch, i'd rather not rush headlong into more debt. i want that money spent on team strengthening and hopefully some people will take more notice of the full deal as opposed to just the transfer fee (the biggest single expense at most clubs are wages), i'd also like a bit kept for january aswell.

 

 

seriously as someone who so rarely suffers from headaches that i think i've got a tumor when i get one, i got one tonight thinking about the idea of accounting for all the wages now idea. i came down on the idea that in theory it could work, given patience, but the fans and i'll include myself wouldn't wear it long enough.

 

Does the TV money, gate receipts, prize money, merchandising and other income stop this summer or something? You make it sound like without selling Carroll we wouldn't have been able to afford to pay the current squad without borrowing more money from Ashley.

[Wullie]

If the single biggest expense at most other clubs is wages (and it is, generally speaking), why aren't they all embracing this brilliant revolutionary idea of paying nothing for players? How have the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs all managed to get it so wrong?

[madras]

the more i read these threads the more it strikes me that for all people hate chelsea and citeh for they way they have achieved their current status, it's exactly what they themselves want whilst knowing it is no good for football.

 

Not the first time you've come out with this. Repeating the same rubbish doesn't make it become the truth.

maybe not for you but it's what many want. tell me dave, should we live within our means or get money from a benefactor ?

 

The former is preferable to me. Your suggestion implies we shouldn't spend a bean until the £150m Ashley has invested in his own business is paid back.

i may seem that way but i'm not. after possibly seeing the club break even for the first time in  a while,improve on the pitch, i'd rather not rush headlong into more debt. i want that money spent on team strengthening and hopefully some people will take more notice of the full deal as opposed to just the transfer fee (the biggest single expense at most clubs are wages), i'd also like a bit kept for january aswell.

 

 

seriously as someone who so rarely suffers from headaches that i think i've got a tumor when i get one, i got one tonight thinking about the idea of accounting for all the wages now idea. i came down on the idea that in theory it could work, given patience, but the fans and i'll include myself wouldn't wear it long enough.

 

Does the TV money, gate receipts, prize money, merchandising and other income stop this summer or something? You make it sound like without selling Carroll we wouldn't have been able to afford to pay the current squad without borrowing more money from Ashley.

no, and if all that were to provide a surplus then use that aswell. i don't think there'd be much of a one, if at all though.

[fredbob]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

you know fine well he means that some would have been happier if we'd spent money instead of getting frees and cheapies so to speak.

 

As far as I'm concerned we'be signed 5 very good players by all accounts for £7.8m, yet people still fail to see the subjective nature of football transfer fees. I remember saying how I thought the £35m would be another noose for the club to hang itself with, looks like I may be right.

[Dave]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

you know fine well he means that some would have been happier if we'd spent money instead of getting frees and cheapies so to speak.

 

As far as I'm concerned we'be signed 5 very good players by all accounts for £7.8m, yet people still fail to see the subjective nature of football transfer fees. I remember saying how I thought the £35m would be another noose for the club to hang itself with, looks like I may be right.

 

Five?

[fredbob]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

 

Care to point out where yourself and others have advocated Ba as a credible replacement for Carroll? I cant remember a single post stating Ba as a very good replacement for carroll yet I can see little reason other than perhaps an injury record (and price) to suggest otherwise.

[fredbob]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

you know fine well he means that some would have been happier if we'd spent money instead of getting frees and cheapies so to speak.

 

As far as I'm concerned we'be signed 5 very good players by all accounts for £7.8m, yet people still fail to see the subjective nature of football transfer fees. I remember saying how I thought the £35m would be another noose for the club to hang itself with, looks like I may be right.

 

Five?

 

If I'm defending the transfer record in recent times I have ti include others transfers, including Ben arfa and tiote. (My bad maths is off, £12.8m). Fact is we don't seem to be signing utter shit, which for me would be an indication of no ambitions like wigan but genuine quality players who were sought by others. Quite how you can argue past that I'm not sure.

[Dave]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

 

Care to point out where yourself and others have advocated Ba as a credible replacement for Carroll? I cant remember a single post stating Ba as a very good replacement for carroll yet I can see little reason other than perhaps an injury record (and price) to suggest otherwise.

 

Not sure what's that got to do with my post.

 

Anyway, I've spent all day saying that Ba does appear to be the replacement for Carroll. What I imagine would disappoint some people about that would be that after apparently chasing Gameiro with a £14m bid, going to an opportunist free signing taking advantage of some silly relegation clause seems a bit of a step down in terms of ambition and commitment to invest the Carroll money in his replacement. I not sure we'd have even been interested in Ba if it wasn't for his contract situation and the chance to get someone in on a very low risk wage structure as has been widely reported. Ashley probably loves the fact that he couldn't pass a medical, for that very reason. Fuck the consequences if his knee breaks, at least we won't pay.

 

None of which is to say Ba is a bad player, and if he scores the goals Pardew today said he's expecting of him then I'm sure nobody will give a fuck. I'm just pointing out that most people said the above at the time.

[Rich]

As usual, is the answer not somewhere in between what people are arguing here? I know that's a relatively boring conclusion, but I can see valid points on both sides.

 

For example, the £35m for Carroll should - in my opinion - be getting reinvested as transfer fees, signing on fees, wages and bonuses - but I have absolutely no complaints about the players we've brought in so far, despite their value - and I include Ben Arfa, Gosling and Tiote in that too. The six players are all very exciting to me, although I appreciate only one of them has proven his quality in our shirt for a sustained period so far.

 

Also, if the money isn't fully reinvested it's not like it will be going into Ashley's pockets at the expense of the club, but it may save him from dipping into his own funds again to keep the balance sheet in the black for another season. I'm sure we were getting close to "breaking even" anyway, though, without having to sell players to do so - but I'm not as in tune with our finances as some are, so I may be wrong on that.

[Rich]

And just on that last point; I may have had my expectations quashed by recent seasons (and some may attribute this as one of Mike's successes), but I'd be perfectly happy if Ba was Carroll's replacement if he did actually stay fit for the majority of the season (30 games+), but much more so if there is quality brought in elsewhere - at good cost if needs be.

[timeEd32]

If we did in fact place a serious bid for Gameiro then I see no reason for all this panic. It means there's money to be spent on the right people. Everyone needs to relax.

[Dave]

If only we'd spent £24m on the players we've signed so far, instead of £4.3m that we have spent.

 

Yeah that would be really clever. Paying for players available for free is ace.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

you know fine well he means that some would have been happier if we'd spent money instead of getting frees and cheapies so to speak.

 

As far as I'm concerned we'be signed 5 very good players by all accounts for £7.8m, yet people still fail to see the subjective nature of football transfer fees. I remember saying how I thought the £35m would be another noose for the club to hang itself with, looks like I may be right.

 

Five?

 

If I'm defending the transfer record in recent times I have ti include others transfers, including Ben arfa and tiote. (My bad maths is off, £12.8m). Fact is we don't seem to be signing utter shit, which for me would be an indication of no ambitions like wigan but genuine quality players who were sought by others. Quite how you can argue past that I'm not sure.

 

Would that be Wigan whose best player we sold to them and now apparently want back?

 

Our transfers in recent times have been just as much a mixed bag as they always have IMO.

 

Btw I got slaughtered in January for suggesting the Ben Arfa fee would be coming out of the summer transfer budget. Might be wrong but I can't remember madras sticking up for me then, which he should have based on his current viewpoint that it all goes in together. Money out then, less money out now.