NG32 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well we all knew when that 35 mil came in, we knew that it would be the owners big chance to invest and prove themselves capable of building a team. It still early days but the tunes coming out of SJP keeps changing and tbh they've done it so many times now. Do they not learn? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument. You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt? If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from. How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?! I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes. I might be totally wrong on this but all I hear from the club is references to cutting costs rather than trying to generate new revenue streams. I think (but correct me if I am wrong) that Shepherd was pretty good on the commercial side of things and I am sure our corporate revenue has plummeted hugely since Ashley's arrival and our sponsorship deals are bringing in less money that before. Whilst the current economic climate and our relegation can be attributed to that, I am aware that there are corporate clients who have taken their business elsewhere because of Ashley and I also think we are a damaged brand that many businesses do not want to be associated with. And if that is the case, then it can only be down to Ashley. The impression I get is of a club (deliberately) cutting itself off from the community by their refusal to engage with the city and if this continues for any length of time, the damage will be irreversible as more and more fans drift away. We have seen before that when the club reaches out and embraces the city, that it can be a powerful thing and hugely beneficial to the club but all we seem to have now is mistrust and conflict. With regards to the incoming players, I see them purely as having been bought with the intent of selling them on for a profit within 2-3 years max. For example, Cabaye is 24-25 with a 5 year contract so by the end of that, he will be at the age where the club will no longer be prepared to offer him a new long-term deal and they will not want him to run the contract down so that means they will have to sell him probably in the third year of his contract. I see Ben Arfa as being their trump card because if he does prove a hit in the Premier League, then he will be a very valuable player. I'd be interested to know how they are selling the club to the incoming players as I have no expectation that there is any serious intent to build a team to challenge for European places only to do enough to comfortably survive. If we do start to look like we can achieve something it will be because of how well our players are doing which will then make them targets for other clubs and therefore they will be sold. At present, you can argue that the squad is better than last year and the club may yet surprise us with a couple of quality strikers but we still have little strength in depth. I fully expect there to be more outgoings - will they be replaced? I only hope that those leaving will be the fringe players rather than the likes of Tiote and Colo and that will be a concern until the transfer window closes. Sorry but I am a cynic and have absolutely no trust in the board or Pardew and with whatever soundbites they feed the media in order to appease fans. Fantastic posts Wullie and Wallace Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Thinking about it, where did the money come from for Ben Arfa? He signed in early january but Carroll wasn't sold till right at the end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Thinking about it, where did the money come from for Ben Arfa? He signed in early january but Carroll wasn't sold till right at the end This seasons transfer budget most likely(whatever it would have been without Carroll's cash) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It amuses me that we're now to believe we've been willing to spend a shitload of money on agents and signing on fees for two free agents, despite being told for years now that we 'don't do that any more'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Well we all knew when that 35 mil came in, we knew that it would be the owners big chance to invest and prove themselves capable of building a team. It still early days but the tunes coming out of SJP keeps changing and tbh they've done it so many times now. Do they not learn? I think they know full well that the fans will still turn up no matter what they do or say Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Sorry but I am a cynic and have absolutely no trust in the board or Pardew and with whatever soundbites they feed the media in order to appease fans. The board have been proven of this already by a leading QC and now Pardew is backing his case with the shifting comments on the Carroll money. I'm amazed people are still taken in by this gradual expectations management. And you're right about the relentless focus on costs- this club is run to be cheap- that's why there are mulit-year year ticket offers. As long as you have constant revenue and continue to cut costs, profits go up. And why can we be sure revenue will stay constant? Well, those mugs will continue to pay for their ST regardless, always in the hope of next season- hence why you need to cancel the 10 year deal before Christmas and introducing the idea that anyone who opts out will have to pay far more when the good times come rolling back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Thinking about it, where did the money come from for Ben Arfa? He signed in early january but Carroll wasn't sold till right at the end This seasons transfer budget most likely(whatever it would have been without Carroll's cash) So the entire Carroll fee will still be available then? Canny Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Thinking about it, where did the money come from for Ben Arfa? He signed in early january but Carroll wasn't sold till right at the end This seasons transfer budget most likely(whatever it would have been without Carroll's cash) So the entire Carroll fee will still be available then? Canny Yeah right Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Don't know why everyone assumes the Carroll fee is so directly related to spending. It all goes off the bottom line, we were capable of signing players before we sold Carroll... and since we've sold him we aren't going to suddenly go mental with the cheque book. People need to stop obsessing over the Carroll money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why sell him then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why sell him then? Because the offer was amazing and it helps to improve our finances. I'm not saying we might not spend slightly more now we have extra money BTW, just that it's not such a direct link as people like to make out. ("Would we have spent nothing?", "We still have £30m in the bank" etc etc). I know Pards made the situation worse by saying it would all be reinvested, but you must know he was just reacting to a question and defending a shocking development. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Don't know why everyone assumes the Carroll fee is so directly related to spending. It all goes off the bottom line, we were capable of signing players before we sold Carroll... and since we've sold him we aren't going to suddenly go mental with the cheque book. People need to stop obsessing over the Carroll money. Why are we being told that his fee is being used to fund the wages of new signings then? I'm not unhappy about the work we've done in the transfer market so far but this is starting to rankle. Don't we have other means of paying our players except through selling assets? What about gate money and tv revenue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Don't know why everyone assumes the Carroll fee is so directly related to spending. It all goes off the bottom line, we were capable of signing players before we sold Carroll... and since we've sold him we aren't going to suddenly go mental with the cheque book. People need to stop obsessing over the Carroll money. Why are we being told that his fee is being used to fund the wages of new signings then? I'm not unhappy about the work we've done in the transfer market so far but this is starting to rankle. Don't we have other means of paying our players except through selling assets? What about gate money and tv revenue? and what about the money we are no longer paying the players who have left? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Don't know why everyone assumes the Carroll fee is so directly related to spending. It all goes off the bottom line, we were capable of signing players before we sold Carroll... and since we've sold him we aren't going to suddenly go mental with the cheque book. People need to stop obsessing over the Carroll money. Why are we being told that his fee is being used to fund the wages of new signings then? I'm not unhappy about the work we've done in the transfer market so far but this is starting to rankle. Don't we have other means of paying our players except through selling assets? What about gate money and tv revenue? and what about the money we are no longer paying the players who have left? Every bit of income is used for the wages of new signings. And training facilities, and to pay the kitman, and to stock the kitchen cupboards. What I'm saying is that it's pointless to compare what we have/haven't spent on transfers to the amount we brought in for Carroll. That money might give us slightly bigger spending power, but it's all part of the overall financial picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why sell him then? Because the offer was amazing and it helps to improve our finances. I'm not saying we might not spend slightly more now we have extra money BTW, just that it's not such a direct link as people like to make out. ("Would we have spent nothing?", "We still have £30m in the bank" etc etc). I know Pards made the situation worse by saying it would all be reinvested, but you must know he was just reacting to a question and defending a shocking development. 'Slightly more'?! The entire reasoning behind taking that amazing offer was that it would be used to significantly improve the squad. The computer game experts on here assured us all that plenty of better strikers could be bought with the money we were getting for Carroll, for example. I'm reasonably happy with our transfers so far and as it stands I would say the squad is possibly a little better than it was last season, but that's making a number of assumptions about players fitting in straight away (or coming back well from major injuries), hitting the ground running and offering at least the same production as those they have replaced. Not to mention the fact that there are supposedly a number of what I consider to be useful players up for sale. The sound of goalposts being moved grows louder every day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why sell him then? Because the offer was amazing and it helps to improve our finances. I'm not saying we might not spend slightly more now we have extra money BTW, just that it's not such a direct link as people like to make out. ("Would we have spent nothing?", "We still have £30m in the bank" etc etc). I know Pards made the situation worse by saying it would all be reinvested, but you must know he was just reacting to a question and defending a shocking development. 'Slightly more'?! The entire reasoning behind taking that amazing offer was that it would be used to significantly improve the squad. The computer game experts on here assured us all that plenty of better strikers could be bought with the money we were getting for Carroll, for example. I'm reasonably happy with our transfers so far and as it stands I would say the squad is possibly a little better than it was last season, but that's making a number of assumptions about players fitting in straight away, hitting the ground running and offering at least the same production as those they have replaced. Not to mention the fact that there are supposedly a number of what I consider to be useful players up for sale. The sound of goalposts being moved grows louder every day. I don't really disagree with any of that Dave, except I don't agree that the reasoning for selling Carroll was to improve the squad. I think the reasoning behind selling Carroll was to improve our finances and because we got an offer that was too good to turn down. The improvement of the squad was something that was said to soften the blow for fans, and hopefully will actually happen in some way as a secondary effect. But it won't increase out spending to dramatic levels, it will just allow us to make a reasonable number of realistic signings. Which we're already doing. I guess my argument sometimes seems weird because the premise for it is that Carroll wasn't sold fundamentally to improve the squad and make more signings. You may or may not agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 the reason we sold carroll was to significantly reduce the loss Ashley has made since he stupidly bought the club without doing due diligence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 the reason we sold carroll was to significantly reduce the loss Ashley has made since he stupidly bought the club without doing due diligence. No doubt that's a big part of it. Though I think it's the loss made by NUFC that Ashley doesn't want to subsidise, rather than the loss to him personally. He will never get his money back except over the mega-long-term or if a sheik comes along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why sell him then? Because the offer was amazing and it helps to improve our finances. I'm not saying we might not spend slightly more now we have extra money BTW, just that it's not such a direct link as people like to make out. ("Would we have spent nothing?", "We still have £30m in the bank" etc etc). I know Pards made the situation worse by saying it would all be reinvested, but you must know he was just reacting to a question and defending a shocking development. 'Slightly more'?! The entire reasoning behind taking that amazing offer was that it would be used to significantly improve the squad. The computer game experts on here assured us all that plenty of better strikers could be bought with the money we were getting for Carroll, for example. I'm reasonably happy with our transfers so far and as it stands I would say the squad is possibly a little better than it was last season, but that's making a number of assumptions about players fitting in straight away, hitting the ground running and offering at least the same production as those they have replaced. Not to mention the fact that there are supposedly a number of what I consider to be useful players up for sale. The sound of goalposts being moved grows louder every day. I don't really disagree with any of that Dave, except I don't agree that the reasoning for selling Carroll was to improve the squad. I think the reasoning behind selling Carroll was to improve our finances and because we got an offer that was too good to turn down. The improvement of the squad was something that was said to soften the blow for fans, and hopefully will actually happen in some way as a secondary effect. But it won't increase out spending to dramatic levels, it will just allow us to make a reasonable number of realistic signings. Which we're already doing. I guess my argument sometimes seems weird because the premise for it is that Carroll wasn't sold fundamentally to improve the squad and make more signings. You may or may not agree with that. I think the club are shooting themselves in the foot by not saying that then. Publicly saying that the Carroll fee is being used to pay wages gives totally the wrong message IMO. Maybe you should apply for the job of club PR spokesman because you are doing a better job than the current lot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 the reason we sold carroll was to significantly reduce the loss Ashley has made since he stupidly bought the club without doing due diligence. No doubt that's a big part of it. Though I think it's the loss made by NUFC that Ashley doesn't want to subsidise, rather than the loss to him personally. He will never get his money back except over the mega-long-term or if a sheik comes along. Was going to say, it would stop him putting more in rather than reduce his curent loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I think the club are shooting themselves in the foot by not saying that then. Publicly saying that the Carroll fee is being used to pay wages gives totally the wrong message IMO. Maybe you should apply for the job of club PR spokesman because you are doing a better job than the current lot Havent got the original quote memorised but did it say 'new wages' or just 'squad'? As that could just as easily mean existing wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I think the club are shooting themselves in the foot by not saying that then. Publicly saying that the Carroll fee is being used to pay wages gives totally the wrong message IMO. Maybe you should apply for the job of club PR spokesman because you are doing a better job than the current lot Hmm, not sure about that. Their communication is a bit crap, I guess it's pretty difficult to communicate this sort of thing to the fans. TBF if I didn't come on this forum I would probably just be enjoying the signings we're making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I like London tbh, it's the people I find strange. it's a brilliant place to be if you've got a few quid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebellious Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I like London tbh, it's the people I find strange. it's a brilliant place to be if you've got a few quid Couldn`t stand living there, but I do like the odd weekend out down there. 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