Raconteur Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Shirley should be 'Alan Pardew defends NUFC transfer inactivity' IN: Amalfitano Good Bigirimana Anita OUT: Best Forster Smith Guthrie Lovenkrands Inactivity? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Exactly. The idea of spending Tiote money on, say, M'Vila and Debuchy sounds great. But we know the club wont think like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Urgh. All the talk about selling someone. We're due some buys without selling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
binnsy Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 worst thing about the lack of transfer activity this year is yet again we go into a season with a squad that is not big enough or strong enough to co mpete in all the competitions that we have entered for the 4th season running. to be fair when we were relegated i wasn't bothered about cups as all that mattered that year was getting promoted. the next season was all about staying up. then last season i thought we could give the cups a go but then with the nightmare pre season and sales of big players and not knowing who the likes of cabaye were again i just thought lets concentrate on the league. all those expectations changed this summer, we have a good team and everyone knew 3 or 4 new players coming in would put us in a great position off to kick on. we even had the manager and chief scout saying the same on radio interviews and for the first time in 4 years i was looking forward to having a crack at winning something. yet we are only in September and the manager has written off the league cup and gambling with the kids to progress in Europe. the fans have every right to feel let down and cheated. http://i.imgur.com/xRVT6.png i was on my phone but no idea what happened there lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 There were just no good deals to be had Amazing that people keep buying this tripe. "No good deals" basically is Ashley-speak for "not keen on spending his own money." Or it suggests that we dont just buy anyone whos available if theyre only a slight step up on what we have, when potentially we can get a much bigger step up in the near future instead. If we'd have bought x, Debuchy comes available in Jan/next window, x is better than Simpson but Debuchys still a much bigger step up on x. Would you then not sign Debuchy? Or should we just make our transfer policy to piss out on wages/fees constantly in the short term regardless of the long term implications ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Or should we just make our transfer policy to p*ss out on wages/fees constantly in the short term regardless of the long term implications ? You're believing the Pardaganda. There is a middle ground between signing a very good player and wasting millions on a stopgap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 He was talking all summer about getting 2 or 3 first team players in, we got 1. Of course people are annoyed. We also lost some useful players. Exactly. Does he genuinely expect us to roll over and be "thankful"? Seeing as our recent long term improvement completely outweighs that of not signing a few backup players, id imagine he does expect people to be thankful for that yeah. I am. I really enjoyed last season myself, dunno about you. Its almost as if hes actually suggesting people stay positive? Weird. Good job he said that then. I was literally about to go and chuck myself off the Tyne Bridge. Phew. It makes sense for him to backup Ashley. The guy controls the funds that can improve us on the pitch, ofcourse hes going to quell negativity towards that person from fans. Some of the negativity of a slightly dissapointing window towards him has been completely disproportional anyway seeing as the entire supposed "missed opportunity" was afforded due to Ashley. Thats what hes saying. "Look over the period of 18 months, we spend wisely". It is suprising given the amount of success the system achieved for us last season, how quickly people are ready to lose faith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Or should we just make our transfer policy to p*ss out on wages/fees constantly in the short term regardless of the long term implications ? You're believing the Pardaganda. There is a middle ground between signing a very good player and wasting millions on a stopgap. Such as who? At only 20k a week you're into millions a year + an initial fee. Id suggest its harder/more expensive to upgrade a premiership RB for example than you imagine & doesnt make sense financially if you have the prospects of a much better player wanting to join in the near future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Or should we just make our transfer policy to p*ss out on wages/fees constantly in the short term regardless of the long term implications ? You're believing the Pardaganda. There is a middle ground between signing a very good player and wasting millions on a stopgap. Such as who? At only 20k a week you're into millions a year + an initial fee. Id suggest its harder/more expensive to upgrade a premiership RB for example than you imagine & doesnt make sense financially if you have the prospects of a much better player wanting to join in the near future. A young player? A loan signing? Andy Griffin! It impossible to believe that there was only 1 right back in the world who would be an improvement on Simpson. Who else was on this magical list that Pardew kept referring to? It looked like Debuchy was our only hope and even then we didn't try hard enough to get him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Still think it's a shame we never went for Clyne too. We must have high hopes for Tavernier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. Your signature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Still think it's a shame we never went for Clyne too. We must have high hopes for Tavernier. Pardew seems to really like him and Streete. Must say Tavernier looks a bit raw to me, positionally suspect but with good physical abilities. Probably needs more games at a higher level than his previous loan spells. Real shame with Streets injuries. Reckon he would have been involved a lot this year had he not been injured. Seems as if his injury hasn't healed properly and that he'll be out for a couple of more months, making it a 9-month lay-off. Not good at this stage of his career. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuneaton Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 i suppose you could say the intertoto cup is silverware, doesnt mean anyone wants it though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. You call it "tight", many would call it not being moronic with money. It makes little sense to spend money on a player when the prospects of a much better signing soon becoming available are there, its a pretty simple concept to understand tbh. Just because you WANT something to happen doesnt mean its possible, situations sometimes have to be revised. You're talking with vague disatisfaction moreso than any well reasoned argument. Enough with the Q&A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. You call it "tight", many would call it not being moronic with money. It makes little sense to spend money on a player when the prospects of a much better signing soon becoming available are there, its a pretty simple concept to understand tbh. Just because you WANT something to happen doesnt mean its possible, situations sometimes have to be revised. You're talking with vague disatisfaction moreso than any well reasoned argument. Enough with the Q&A. We spent about £3million this summer If you think this is acceptable then you need to ask yourself where all the money goes we make. Like i said before, there is a considerable middle ground between being "moronic with money" and signing players we need, when we need them. You refusing to acknowledge this is bizarre and very blinkered to fit your/Pardew's agenda. Another injury or 2 tonight might wake you up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayson Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Round in circles. You cant digest the answers, it destroys the thread if you restate the same points continuously without digesting an opposing opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Clyne signed for Southampton in July for about £2million. Would that have been a "moronic" use of money? Or can we possibly stretch to that if we sell a few more players? Pinning all our January hopes on a player we didn't try very hard to sign in the summer is counter-productive. What if we don't get him then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 This thread really needs a football match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. You call it "tight", many would call it not being moronic with money. It makes little sense to spend money on a player when the prospects of a much better signing soon becoming available are there, its a pretty simple concept to understand tbh. Just because you WANT something to happen doesnt mean its possible, situations sometimes have to be revised. You're talking with vague disatisfaction moreso than any well reasoned argument. Enough with the Q&A. We spent about £3million this summer If you think this is acceptable then you need to ask yourself where all the money goes we make. Like i said before, there is a considerable middle ground between being "moronic with money" and signing players we need, when we need them. You refusing to acknowledge this is bizarre and very blinkered to fit your/Pardew's agenda. Another injury or 2 tonight might wake you up? Does Mike trouser the cash? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. You call it "tight", many would call it not being moronic with money. It makes little sense to spend money on a player when the prospects of a much better signing soon becoming available are there, its a pretty simple concept to understand tbh. Just because you WANT something to happen doesnt mean its possible, situations sometimes have to be revised. You're talking with vague disatisfaction moreso than any well reasoned argument. Enough with the Q&A. We spent about £3million this summer If you think this is acceptable then you need to ask yourself where all the money goes we make. Like i said before, there is a considerable middle ground between being "moronic with money" and signing players we need, when we need them. You refusing to acknowledge this is bizarre and very blinkered to fit your/Pardew's agenda. Another injury or 2 tonight might wake you up? Does Mike trouser the cash? Yup. And spends it all in casinos apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. You call it "tight", many would call it not being moronic with money. It makes little sense to spend money on a player when the prospects of a much better signing soon becoming available are there, its a pretty simple concept to understand tbh. Just because you WANT something to happen doesnt mean its possible, situations sometimes have to be revised. You're talking with vague disatisfaction moreso than any well reasoned argument. Enough with the Q&A. We spent about £3million this summer If you think this is acceptable then you need to ask yourself where all the money goes we make. Like i said before, there is a considerable middle ground between being "moronic with money" and signing players we need, when we need them. You refusing to acknowledge this is bizarre and very blinkered to fit your/Pardew's agenda. Another injury or 2 tonight might wake you up? Does Mike trouser the cash? Yup. And spends it all in casinos apparently. But he must make loads back from Pardew's gambling, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Itd cost money, which potentially we've decided to save towards a much better replacement. If you're being efficient with money this makes sense. Debuchy, VDW & Clyne were mentioned as backups, it didnt happen. Its no coincidence Anita's now filling in that position & (while early) not many are worrying about RB atm. Being efficient with money doesn't mean being tight, which we clearly are. Simpson, the first choice right back, is probably leaving in January or for free next summer so replacing him this summer was a must. Considering he rejected the "final" contract months ago we would have known this was a priority. It all boils down to us continuing to be cheap, which is a scandal considering our net spend in the last few years. You call it "tight", many would call it not being moronic with money. It makes little sense to spend money on a player when the prospects of a much better signing soon becoming available are there, its a pretty simple concept to understand tbh. Just because you WANT something to happen doesnt mean its possible, situations sometimes have to be revised. You're talking with vague disatisfaction moreso than any well reasoned argument. Enough with the Q&A. We spent about £3million this summer If you think this is acceptable then you need to ask yourself where all the money goes we make. Like i said before, there is a considerable middle ground between being "moronic with money" and signing players we need, when we need them. You refusing to acknowledge this is bizarre and very blinkered to fit your/Pardew's agenda. Another injury or 2 tonight might wake you up? Does Mike trouser the cash? We're no longer the poor, little "bankrupt" club they claim we are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Fact is we have a transfer policy that is not what is needed at this time. Also where is this extra cash from finishing 5th, new kit and shirt sponsors going to as from looking at it wept wage bill is lower this season than last season.... (to start paying Ashley off perhaps). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts