Pardew on Total Sport tonight

[Dr Venkman]

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.

 

don't get me wrong i'm not a big fan, i'm generally down on it tbh. but if you're a rich man then London's got a lot to offer

[Colocho]

London is a great place to live.

[Dr Venkman]

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.

 

 

in a nut shell. the offer was too good to turn down but not on the premise of improving the team as the majority of people defending the sale claimed. the claim that it supposedly allows us to make a reasonable number of realistic signings is ridiculous though, no-one can convince me we cant do that without selling Carroll.

 

here's an idea, don't sell Carroll and spend the MASSIVE fees of the Ba deal on his extra wages. every other deal could and should have been done and we'd be in a better position going into the new season. that'd be thinking of the football though, obviously.

[Colocho]

I can't see how Ba and Marveaux would have cost more than a total of £6m... and that's being generous. Surely we aren't handing out £3 million to agents and players signing as free agents?!

[Guest Antec]

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'.

 

This, it just doesn't add up

[AyeDubbleYoo]

London is a great place to live.

 

I agree with Colocho!

 

It's a pitiless beast like, if you've got a decent job and can get around it's awesome, but if not I would imagine it would be difficult. Much prefer living here than I ever did visiting.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

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'.

 

This, it just doesn't add up

 

Have to agree with that like, except to say that we obviously don't know the details of the deals.

 

I don't think you can avoid this sort of dealing totally in football, it's a fact of the game. But I do think Mike Ashley is someone who won't go ahead if he feels people are taking the piss.

[colinmk]

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'.

 

This, it just doesn't add up

 

Nothing with these guys ever does.

[fredbob]

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.

 

You're obviously not happy with the transfers so far otherwise you wouldn't be constantly moaning like a bitch.  It's so painfully obvious here that the overriding issue here isn't the potential quality of player we're bringing in or looking to bring in, its the amount of cash we're spending.

 

The stupid thing about this, is I actually agree with your fundamental point, I think some money needs to spent on the squad, I argued pretty much the exact point you're contesting in the post above. I'm starting to think though that my shot was slightly off Target, instead of spending to improve the squad, I think we need to spend money to appease fans like yourself.

 

I can see us spending £12m of the £35m, would that be enough for people? (This might be a trick question) 

 

 

 

 

[Dr Venkman]

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.

 

You're obviously not happy with the transfers so far otherwise you wouldn't be constantly moaning like a bitch.  It's so painfully obvious here that the overriding issue here isn't the potential quality of player we're bringing in or looking to bring in, its the amount of cash we're spending.

 

The stupid thing about this, is I actually agree with your fundamental point, I think some money needs to spent on the squad, I argued pretty much the exact point you're contesting in the post above. I'm starting to think though that my shot was slightly off Target, instead of spending to improve the squad, I think we need to spend money to appease fans like yourself.

 

I can see us spending £12m of the £35m, would that be enough for people? (This might be a trick question) 

 

 

 

 

 

worst post of the year

[Dave]

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.

 

You're obviously not happy with the transfers so far otherwise you wouldn't be constantly moaning like a bitch.  It's so painfully obvious here that the overriding issue here isn't the potential quality of player we're bringing in or looking to bring in, its the amount of cash we're spending.

 

The stupid thing about this, is I actually agree with your fundamental point, I think some money needs to spent on the squad, I argued pretty much the exact point you're contesting in the post above. I'm starting to think though that my shot was slightly off Target, instead of spending to improve the squad, I think we need to spend money to appease fans like yourself.

 

I can see us spending £12m of the £35m, would that be enough for people? (This might be a trick question) 

 

Can't be arsed arguing with this other to say you're wrong and I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my opinion. I want to see some ambition to move up the table and the squad significantly improved accordingly. If that's done on a shoestring then fine. I simply don't personally believe this can be done without spending money however, and the Carroll money should allow us to do so. It needs to justify his sale to satisfy me, because I was against it all the way through.

 

What we've done so far is a decent start but not what I would describe as significant, it's as simple as that.

[fredbob]

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.

 

You're obviously not happy with the transfers so far otherwise you wouldn't be constantly moaning like a bitch.  It's so painfully obvious here that the overriding issue here isn't the potential quality of player we're bringing in or looking to bring in, its the amount of cash we're spending.

 

The stupid thing about this, is I actually agree with your fundamental point, I think some money needs to spent on the squad, I argued pretty much the exact point you're contesting in the post above. I'm starting to think though that my shot was slightly off Target, instead of spending to improve the squad, I think [ib]we need to spend money to appease fans like yourself[/b].

 

I can see us spending £12m of the £35m, would that be enough for people? (This might be a trick question) 

 

Can't be arsed arguing with this other to say you're wrong and I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my opinion. I want to see some ambition to move up the table and the squad significantly improved accordingly. If that's done on a shoestring then fine. I simply don't personally believe this can be done without spending money however, and the Carroll money should allow us to do so. It needs to justify his sale to satisfy me, because I was against it all the way through.

 

What we've done so far is a decent start but not what I would describe as significant, it's as simple as that.

 

If its not about the money, then how can you categorically say that the improvements we'be made are only 'decent' rather than 'significant'? You openly admit you haven't seen much of them. I'm just struggling to see how you came to this conclusion.

 

For what its worth I haven't seen a great deal of cabaye and marveuax and only seen ba a few times but I'm not the one who's categorically giving these transfer an objective 'rating'.

 

Fully expect this post to he ignored.

 

[traeir]

I'm still optimistic that we will spend at least 10-15 million more this window. I'm just convinced that when the club was convincing Cabaye, Ba and Marveaux to sign the board must have promised some other good signings as well otherwise I don't think a player like Cabaye would have signed.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm still optimistic that we will spend at least 10-15 million more this window. I'm just convinced that when the club was convincing Cabaye, Ba and Marveaux to sign the board must have promised some other good signings as well otherwise I don't think a player like Cabaye would have signed.

 

You're probably right.

 

I just think the initial flurry of activity has got people excited, and this lull is making people overly negative. Hopefully it'll pick up again once the market starts moving.

[Guest Antec]

I'm still optimistic that we will spend at least 10-15 million more this window. I'm just convinced that when the club was convincing Cabaye, Ba and Marveaux to sign the board must have promised some other good signings as well otherwise I don't think a player like Cabaye would have signed.

 

You're probably right.

 

I just think the initial flurry of activity has got people excited, and this lull is making people overly negative. Hopefully it'll pick up again once the market starts moving.

 

I think that the initial flurry of activity has got people excited because they were all cheap or free signings giving people the impression there would still be enough money left for further (sensible) spending. Hearing that we've supposedly paid a fortune on agents/signing on fees and wages has put a bit of a downer on things

[Hughesy]

Although I am generally in the camp whereby I don't think a full £35 million MUST be spent - I do find it very strange that we have given such large agent and signing on fees to 2 players who are injury prone. 

 

Think one of the articles suggested we had paid £2 million to Ba's agent and £2 million upfront to Ba himself.  That can't make good business sense if we have done that.

[Colocho]

Although I am generally in the camp whereby I don't think a full £35 million MUST be spent - I do find it very strange that we have given such large agent and signing on fees to 2 players who are injury prone.  

 

Think one of the articles suggested we had paid £2 million to Ba's agent and £2 million upfront to Ba himself.  That can't make good business sense if we have done that.

 

Link?

 

Luke Edwards, now of The Telegraph suggested we paid a total of around £2 million (each) to sign Ba and Marveaux.

[Lotus]

I'm afraid it's made me more cynical tbh.

 

The idea that we're signing players who will be 'hard to hold onto' unless we're challenging for europe and then NOT signing quite enough players to actually do that just makes me wonder if the board are buying stock, waiting for it's value to go up, sell on and then say to the fans that the player wants CL football and as we all know, we can't quite achieve that with the likes off Man City and Chelsea with their spending power blah blah blah.

 

Sounds like they're already sowing the seeds of the idea of selling these players on.

 

I so hope i'm just being negative but i just felt that, listening 'between the lines' so to speak, there's no actual intention to build a footballing side, just an enviroment where by players are brought in, given exposure and sold on for profit.

[Hughesy]

From the same Luke Edwards article on Telegraph.

 

"It is thought as much as £2 million was paid to agents to land Ba, with a similar sum paid up front to the Senegal international. The same applied to Marveaux. "

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/8618782/Alan-Pardew-defends-Newcastle-spending-policy-but-fans-fear-team-will-suffer-without-significant-reinvestment.html

[Colocho]

I'm afraid it's made me more cynical tbh.

 

The idea that we're signing players who will be 'hard to hold onto' unless we're challenging for europe and then NOT signing quite enough players to actually do that just makes me wonder if the board are buying stock, waiting for it's value to go up, sell on and then say to the fans that the player wants CL football and as we all know, we can't quite achieve that with the likes off Man City and Chelsea with their spending power blah blah blah.

Sounds like they're already sowing the seeds of the idea of selling these players on.

 

I so hope i'm just being negative but i just felt that, listening 'between the lines' so to speak, there's no actual intention to build a footballing side, just an enviroment where by players are brought in, given exposure and sold on for profit.

 

Yep. Painful thing is, some Newcastle fans actually talk about making a profit on players when we sell them (when looking at new/potential signings).

 

No names.

[Hughesy]

I don't think there is a problem in a fan identifying a player who will increase in value and could be sold for more than the purchase price.  It doesn't make a fan any less keen for success.  I hope the club does identify and buy players who increase in value.

 

I don't quite understand the 'bubble' some other fans live in.  The whole 'fingers in the ears, chanting 'I don't care about balance sheets'' is so shortsighted and simplistic, I can't actually believe people think it, let alone say it out loud.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

[TRon]

What I take from the very cautious financial approach is that Ashley would still sell the club given a decent offer. In the meantime he's not going to sink any more of his money into it and will run it as a profitable business rather than a source of enjoyment which is the initial reason he gave for buying the club. In that light this summer could have been worse, although it's all slightly underwhelming given the money that is coming in. It's his money though and until someone with a bit more vision comes in and buys the club we'll just have to bite the bullet.

[Dave]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

[Dr Venkman]

I don't think there is a problem in a fan identifying a player who will increase in value and could be sold for more than the purchase price.  It doesn't make a fan any less keen for success.  I hope the club does identify and buy players who increase in value.

 

I don't quite understand the 'bubble' some other fans live in.  The whole 'fingers in the ears, chanting 'I don't care about balance sheets'' is so shortsighted and simplistic, I can't actually believe people think it, let alone say it out loud.

 

everything in moderation