Mike Ashley

[TaylorJ_01]

Mike Ashley statue, which is slightly bigger than the Robson one, which now has an advert for football socks.

[Kevo]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his shit Diadora riddled overcrowded shit shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

[Benwell Lad]

After a couple of decent performances apparently Ashley will be rubbing his hands at the prospect of players market values increasing because of course it's well known that he wants to flog all our best players.

I really can't get my head around this notion as during his tenure we've been anything but a "selling club".

If Ashley is to be criticised then surely it has to be based on his failed and strange appointments and lack of effective communication rather than our transfer dealings. We have brought more good players into the club than we have sold during his time and the whole transfer policy is a lot more astute than it ever was before.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his shit Diadora riddled overcrowded shit shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

[Skirge]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

[Guest Roger Kint]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

 

Hope he fucks us up like last January

[Skirge]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

 

Hope he fucks us up like last January

Aye but you really think he will do that again?

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

[mrmojorisin75]

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

 

not if you're offering fees for people coming out of contract

 

i don't think we'll sign anyone personally like

[Skirge]

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

 

not if you're offering fees for people coming out of contract

 

i don't think we'll sign anyone personally like

Who he sells is my biggest worry

[Lotus]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?

[Guest Roger Kint]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

 

Hope he fucks us up like last January

Aye but you really think he will do that again?

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

 

Honestly i hope he does nowt. In theory that means we are doing well

[Benwell Lad]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his shit Diadora riddled overcrowded shit shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

I don't think that we're far away and reasonable sound investment could give us a squad that could compete for top 6 or 7. For the first time in ages we have a bench which includes realistic options and a couple of promising youngsters coming along nicely.

Of course it depends on keeping key personnel, Remy is a must - a real class act - and Cabaye looks superb again and is probably our most vulnerable asset.

Ashley must see how close we are and I hope his appetite can be wetted for good times and potential glory rather than a convenient marketing tool for his core business interests.

[Skirge]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

 

Hope he fucks us up like last January

Aye but you really think he will do that again?

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

 

Honestly i hope he does nowt. In theory that means we are doing well

Yeah Remy on a permanent deal is all he should do.

[Disco]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

 

Hope he fucks us up like last January

Aye but you really think he will do that again?

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

 

Honestly i hope he does nowt. In theory that means we are doing well

 

Be interesting to see if we do keep going with our bring in cheapo forrins in January tactic this year as we probably won't need them to stay up (and that's all we're really interested in) but if we don't buy he might need to do so in summer when the market will be more inflated that normal due to the WC.

 

He'd be nuts to sell anyone before the World Cup, best potential advert their could be for a few of our players.

[Guest Roger Kint]

He cannot wait for January 1st, we all know that is when he will fk things up.

 

Hope he fucks us up like last January

Aye but you really think he will do that again?

Seems really stupid to do your main business in a window where prices tend to increase and you only have a month to get deals done.

 

Honestly i hope he does nowt. In theory that means we are doing well

 

Be interesting to see if we do keep going with our bring in cheapo forrins in January tactic this year as we probably won't need them to stay up (and that's all we're really interested in). He'd be nuts to sell anyone before the World Cup, best potential advert their could be for a few of our players.

 

Aye thats my thinking. Unless stupid bids come in there is no need to consider selling anyone. Like Skirge says possibly Remy is all we should expect(barring injuries) but i doubt he will sign before the WC. One or two young uns would be canny mind.

[Lotus]

Won't Tom Ince have 6 months left on his contract?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?

 

That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Won't Tom Ince have 6 months left on his contract?

 

Aye. All depends if Blackpool are daft. They could hold out for more in compensation than they are likely to get in Jan

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his shit Diadora riddled overcrowded shit shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

I don't think that we're far away and reasonable sound investment could give us a squad that could compete for top 6 or 7. For the first time in ages we have a bench which includes realistic options and a couple of promising youngsters coming along nicely.

Of course it depends on keeping key personnel, Remy is a must - a real class act - and Cabaye looks superb again and is probably our most vulnerable asset.

Ashley must see how close we are and I hope his appetite can be wetted for good times and potential glory rather than a convenient marketing tool for his core business interests.

 

Yeah, but even your answer betrays how difficult the issue is. Right now we could finish 8th or 9th, if we spend more we could finish 6th or 7th. That's not much of an improvement.

[Lotus]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?

 

That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player.

 

Why do other teams do it then? Even the ones with relatively small budgets, why do they spend money on players?

[Lotus]

Won't Tom Ince have 6 months left on his contract?

 

Aye. All depends if Blackpool are daft. They could hold out for more in compensation than they are likely to get in Jan

 

How is compensation defined? As in how much, i know that the word means....

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?

 

That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player.

 

Why do other teams do it then? Even the ones with relatively small budgets, why do they spend money on players?

 

Why are you trying to simplify the argument to such a degree? I'm not saying spending never leads to improvement, or that it's not likely to lead to improvement. I'm saying (in response to Kevo's post) that it's far from as easy as saying 'we're £20m away from being really good'.

[Lotus]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?

 

That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player.

 

Why do other teams do it then? Even the ones with relatively small budgets, why do they spend money on players?

 

Why are you trying to simplify the argument to such a degree? I'm not saying spending never leads to improvement, or that it's not likely to lead to improvement. I'm saying (in response to Kevo's post) that it's far from as easy as saying 'we're £20m away from being really good'.

Sorry, when you said you could spend £50M at not improve at all i thought you suggested just that.

 

Wasn't being a pedant, just think that, unless you spend it all one massive duffer, it's quite clear that spending money on players isn't so much a correlation but a causation of a better sports team and that's clearly demonstrated around the sports world where teams are, by and large, owned by businessmen who obviously see it as a causation.

[AlanSkÃrare]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

We also need a manager that teaches a purposeful way of playing football. Not the opportunist, relying-on-one-player-to-score-all-the-goals-then-sit-back football that we've played for three years now. In the long run it's not enough, despite finishing 5th with that mentality bearing fruit for almost a full season.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

This clown must surely realise we are around £20 million away from challenging a couple of the big boys. Look at Southampton for example, they spend wisely and have made a cracking start.

 

I'm no businessman, but its a great opportunity for him and his s*** Diadora riddled overcrowded s*** shop to make a few quid long-term after pumping money into us.

 

Are we really that close? This summer Spurs spent £100m. Granted they sold Bale, but still.

 

I think this highlights the problem with this whole debate TBH... footballl doesn't provide a defined return on investment. You could spend £20m and end up loads higher, or you could spend £50m and finish in the same position.

 

In business terms, it's very hard to make the case in a concrete way IMO.

 

Just so i'm clear here, across world football, there is no correlation between teams spending more money, buying better players and then achieving more points?

 

That's not what I said, no. What I'm saying is that the exact correlation is vague, the returns are uncertain and therefore hard to justify simply on a business level. That's assuming we're not talking about spending enough to fill every position with a world class player.

 

Why do other teams do it then? Even the ones with relatively small budgets, why do they spend money on players?

 

Why are you trying to simplify the argument to such a degree? I'm not saying spending never leads to improvement, or that it's not likely to lead to improvement. I'm saying (in response to Kevo's post) that it's far from as easy as saying 'we're £20m away from being really good'.

Sorry, when you said you could spend £50M at not improve at all i thought you suggested just that.

 

Wasn't being a pedant, just think that, unless you spend it all one massive duffer, it's quite clear that spending money on players isn't so much a correlation but a causation of a better sports team and that's clearly demonstrated around the sports world where teams are, by and large, owned by businessmen who obviously see it as a causation.

 

Yeah sure, spending must lead to some improvement. The question is how much for how much money? And what are the chances? These are hard questions to answer if you want to make a business case.