Loïc Remy

[Wullie]

Depends what you mean by spending - Arsenal and Spurs, particularly the former, have proved that you don't need anyone at all putting their hand in their pocket to compete for and attain Champions League qualification, you just need to be sensibly run (which we are not, despite utter nonsense spouted to the contrary) and appoint good managers.

 

The two operate in very different ways but neither of them are anything like us.

 

Totally true, I would love us to be run as well as those two.

 

Eh? That runs completely contrary to everything else you post Ian.

 

Arsenal scoured the globe for a manager who ticked every box and found one of the greats - you're on record as saying you're content to keep Alan Pardew who we salvaged from a landfill after a League One club had binned him.

 

Spurs have spent around £60m this summer, purely from money generated by the football club - you're on record as saying you don't want us to spend money in those quantities in case they flop.

 

I made this point earlier about something else - you can't have it both ways! You want a good manager and sensible investment based on the massive income generated by the Premier League but when anyone says "sack Pardew and sign some players" you're first to jump up and shout them down.

[Wullie]

Because they need to?

 

Plenty of clubs that finished above us have invested significantly. If they needed to, why don't we?

 

Because the policy now is to only spend what we generate?

 

Does that make it acceptable, because it's our policy?

 

It is what it is. We are unlikely to see Ashley ploughing extra money in to facilitate a signing so we don't have much choice, but if that meant we had no money and couldn't compete then of course it wouldn't be acceptable for us as supporters.

 

But that's by the by, we should be generating money, and we do have a budget. What it may mean though is that we have to use what money we have fairly carefully and might struggle to increase an offer for Gomis without affecting our chances of getting the right left winger in. This is possibly why Kinnear made the point that they needed to get the striker situation sorted before moving on to other areas.

 

If we come out of this window with just Monsieur Remy mind, the whole fkn lot of them need pelting with s***.

 

IF?!

 

Yeah, if. I don't see it myself as I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that we have a fair of money allocated for this window.

 

We're just having a 'mare trying to get the players we want for the prices we feel comfortable with.

 

 

It's like going to Saville Row with 100 GBP (a "fair amount of money" some would say) and not being able to get yourself a bespoke suit. We undervalue other club's players (and constantly say it would take a king's randsom to buy one of our own), and indeed actually target players that we believe we can get under market value. It's not really surprising that other clubs often won't play ball, or that we are not seen as an ambitious club heading in the right direction by some of the players we target, because we're not and we're trying to take other clubs for a ride by targetting players with contractual issues etc. On the one hand this is clever, but not so much when it's the only policy you know, regardless of the needs of the squad or the manager.

 

Great point this.

 

"It'll take £20m for Tiote to go anywhere, btw can we have Debuchy for £4m please?"

[Unbelievable]

If we are making any progress at all (have we since Ashley took over? I wouldn't say so), you could only classify it as "absolute" progress (if such a thing exists), not relative, because other, smaller clubs are overtaking us left, right and center.

 

That's probably fair, although I do think we exaggerate the progress of other clubs sometimes. Hopefully success that is based on short term thinking or unsustainable spending will be short-lived. Also, financial fair play is meant to reign in the clubs that rely too much on the personal wealth of the owner, although it remains to be seen whether that will work.

 

It's hard to underestimate the progress of clubs like Swansea and Southampton during the 6 years Ashley has been in charge of us, looking at our own "progress". They're on the up, yet both spent a significant amount despite having excellent seasons, while we're on the slide. It's all good and well looking at our squad of players and saying they're all internationals (the absolute progress) and should see us comfortably above these clubs, but they're also chock full of internationals. The average level in the Premiership has gone up much more than our own imho (the relative lack of progress).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Depends what you mean by spending - Arsenal and Spurs, particularly the former, have proved that you don't need anyone at all putting their hand in their pocket to compete for and attain Champions League qualification, you just need to be sensibly run (which we are not, despite utter nonsense spouted to the contrary) and appoint good managers.

 

The two operate in very different ways but neither of them are anything like us.

 

Totally true, I would love us to be run as well as those two.

 

Eh? That runs completely contrary to everything else you post Ian.

 

Arsenal scoured the globe for a manager who ticked every box and found one of the greats - you're on record as saying you're content to keep Alan Pardew.

 

Spurs have spent around £60m this summer, purely from money generated by the football club - you're on record as saying you don't want us to spend money in those quantities in case they flop.

 

I made this point earlier about something else - you can't have it both ways! You want a good manager and sensible investment based on the massive income generated by the Premier League but when anyone says "sack Pardew and sign some players" you're first to jump up and shout them down.

 

I think you're misunderstanding.

 

I would love us to appoint a better manager than Pardew, kind of obvious. But he's here, Ashley is unlikely to appoint someone brilliant, and I think the 5th place earned him a bit of leeway. And as with anyone associated with NUFC, I would love to see them succeed.

 

The thing about flops is just not my argument at all. If we could afford to take risks in the market and suffer some expensive flops then I wouldn't object. The problem was that under the previous regime we were increasing our debt significantly every year, and credit was getting more expensive and hard to get. Under this regime, we can't afford it unless Ashley subsidises us, which he won't do. The biggest profit we've ever posted is £10m.

 

I try not to shout anyone down, and I've always said that I admire everyone's ambition for the club. I don't think there's any contradiction in my position.

[SEMTEX]

Because they need to?

 

Plenty of clubs that finished above us have invested significantly. If they needed to, why don't we?

 

Because the policy now is to only spend what we generate?

 

Does that make it acceptable, because it's our policy?

 

It is what it is. We are unlikely to see Ashley ploughing extra money in to facilitate a signing so we don't have much choice, but if that meant we had no money and couldn't compete then of course it wouldn't be acceptable for us as supporters.

 

But that's by the by, we should be generating money, and we do have a budget. What it may mean though is that we have to use what money we have fairly carefully and might struggle to increase an offer for Gomis without affecting our chances of getting the right left winger in. This is possibly why Kinnear made the point that they needed to get the striker situation sorted before moving on to other areas.

 

If we come out of this window with just Monsieur Remy mind, the whole fkn lot of them need pelting with s***.

 

IF?!

 

Yeah, if. I don't see it myself as I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that we have a fair of money allocated for this window.

 

We're just having a 'mare trying to get the players we want for the prices we feel comfortable with.

 

 

It's like going to Saville Row with 100 GBP (a "fair amount of money" some would say) and not being able to get yourself a bespoke suit. We undervalue other club's players (and constantly say it would take a king's randsom to buy one of our own), and indeed actually target players that we believe we can get under market value. It's not really surprising that other clubs often won't play ball, or that we are not seen as an ambitious club heading in the right direction by some of the players we target, because we're not and we're trying to take other clubs for a ride by targetting players with contractual issues etc. On the one hand this is clever, but not so much when it's the only policy you know, regardless of the needs of the squad or the manager.

 

Great point this.

 

"It'll take £20m for Tiote to go anywhere, btw can we have Debuchy for £4m please?"

 

Analogy needs fleshing out.

 

Needs to mention that the shops are only open for 8 hours

Needs to mention you've got a massive interview tomorrow morning

Needs to mention you spent 6 hours sat in one place begging the assistant to sell you a £200 suit for £50

Needs to mention the £200 suit is marked down from £1000 already

Needs to mention  "begging" really means you sat there playing candy crush for 5 and a half hours and then quietly asked the shop keep if you could have the suit on the cheap. and he couldn't hear you because you whispered it so quietly

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Needs to mention that business is all about getting a better deal for yourself than you give to your suppliers.

[Wullie]

Why do you keep mentioning profits as posted by the accounts as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

[Unbelievable]

Needs to mention that business is all about getting a better deal for yourself than you give to your suppliers.

 

So you end up butt naked at your interview?

[Wullie]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

 

Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143

 

How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts?

 

It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down.

 

Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs.

 

If we spent £100m on players tomorrow, the final profit/loss number in the accounts would still say the same as it did yesterday, the £100m would simply be in assets instead of cash. That's why your profit numbers that you're using to justify us not buying any players are a complete irrelevance.

[colinmk]

If we are making any progress at all (have we since Ashley took over? I wouldn't say so), you could only classify it as "absolute" progress (if such a thing exists), not relative, because other, smaller clubs are overtaking us left, right and center.

 

That's probably fair, although I do think we exaggerate the progress of other clubs sometimes. Hopefully success that is based on short term thinking or unsustainable spending will be short-lived. Also, financial fair play is meant to reign in the clubs that rely too much on the personal wealth of the owner, although it remains to be seen whether that will work.

 

It's hard to underestimate the progress of clubs like Swansea and Southampton during the 6 years Ashley has been in charge of us, looking at our own "progress". They're on the up, yet both spent a significant amount despite having excellent seasons, while we're on the slide. It's all good and well looking at our squad of players and saying they're all internationals (the absolute progress) and should see us comfortably above these clubs, but they're also chock full of internationals. The average level in the Premiership has gone up much more than our own imho (the relative lack of progress).

 

It's not exactly rocket science what themselves and the likes of Norwich are doing either. Appoint good managers, make progress. Sign gradually better players within your means, make progress. Invest in youth, make progress. We had a good manager and sacked him, our current manager makes a mockery of our youth, we aren't allowed to sign players unless we think we can make a profit out of it in the long run and to top it all off we are a much, much bigger club than any of them in the first place!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

 

Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143

 

How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts?

 

It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down.

 

Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs.

 

You're simplifying the argument again. I'm not saying that we can only spend exactly the profit we make. No business works like that.

 

But one of two things has to happen. Either the trend has to be in the right direction (improving financial position overall, despite short-term losses) or we have to use credit to support our spending (either affordable credit from a bank or individual investment from an owner).

 

The problem we had in the past was a rapidly-worsening debt position with credit getting more expensive. And the problem we have now is no more subsidy from the owner.

[Wullie]

Why do you keep mentioning profit as a reason for us not to spend? You've already had it explained to you how accounts work but you don't seem to be grasping it at all.

 

How do you mean? It's not about assets v liabilities on the balance sheet - if we keep spending more than we bring in then our debt continues to increase. So either we have to borrow the money or Ashley has to provide it.

 

Is that not the case?

 

Well explain this to me: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21152143

 

How have Spurs managed to spend £60m (about £40m net) having posted a loss in their last accounts?

 

It's because the players they've bought go onto their accounts as assets. There's no loss there until the contracts start to go down.

 

Saying "we've posted a £10m profit so could only afford £10m" is simply a gross misrepresentation of how the whole thing works. Football clubs don't just wait till summer, see how much cash is in the petty tin, then go out and spend it. Spurs did not make £60m profit that they've had free to use ffs.

 

You're simplifying the argument again. I'm not saying that we can only spend exactly the profit we make. No business works like that.

 

But one of two things has to happen. Either the trend has to be in the right direction (improving financial position overall, despite short-term losses) or we have to use credit to support our spending (either affordable credit from a bank or individual investment from an owner).

 

The problem we had in the past was a rapidly-worsening debt position with credit getting more expensive. And the problem we have now is no more subsidy from the owner.

 

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

[Dokko]

End of the day there are two sides of the arguement here.

 

Group A: I want newcastle to sign more players but I understand the limits the club have selfimposed and have to work within while it won't change any time soon under Ashley.

 

Group B: I want newcastle to sign more players end of, no excuses, we are better than this and clubs around us don't have the same problem.

 

Both want the same, arguing about it and the same points over and over again isn't going to make it any more likely to happen. Neither are going to change their minds, so it's pointless really going on about it any further. Just cross your fingers the club gets another striker in at least.

 

 

 

 

 

So this Remy fella...

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

[Wullie]

Man United got £60m TV money this season for winning the title - next season the club that finishes bottom will receive £63m, yet all the players, by and large, are going to be on the same wages. A massive increase in revenue with no increase in costs, and we're meant to believe that we're still completely skint and that signing players could place the club in jeopardy.

 

Make no mistake about it, Mike Ashley is going to take most of that increase back out of his loan, whilst still taking the £10m he's already clearing out of course.

 

That's ok though, because Leeds.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If Ashley takes too much out I will criticise him for it. If we get the new TV money and don't invest enough, I will criticise that as well. But that doesn't change the overall position I just explained.

[Wullie]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

[Guest neesy111]

He took out 10M last year, a significant amount considering our small transfer budget.

[Wullie]

If Ashley takes too much out I will criticise him for it. If we get the new TV money and don't invest enough, I will criticise that as well. But that doesn't change the overall position I just explained.

 

If we get the new tv money? If?

[Wullie]

He took out 10M last year, a significant amount considering our small transfer budget.

 

Apparently Ian's going to criticise him for that, he's just said. Over to you Ian.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We don't need subsidy from the owner. What it is about that simple concept that you cannot grasp?

 

We post much more profit than most other Premier League clubs. Much more than Tottenham, Everton, sunderland, Liverpool, and that's with Mike Ashley grasping his loan back year-on-year. Must have bills to pay, the poor soul.

 

Where does the money come from then? Am I missing something incredibly obvious here?

 

I know players are assets once they arrive, but obviously that can't mean that anyone can just spend infinite money. You still need cash. We never posted a profit over £10m... therefore if we spend more than that we start incurring losses that add to our debt, right?

 

Ian.

 

If we spent £10m tomorrow on a player on a five year deal, the profit the day after would still be £10m. Next year (assuming a hypothetical situation in which every other single thing remains constant), the profit posted would be £8m.

 

Please understand this. How many times?

 

Your profit numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant to the argument.

 

Aren't you confusing P&L with balance sheet? I understand how player values are accounted for as assets, but increasing spending still increases debt right?

[Guest chopey]

Keegan used to always say that the season ticket money always be spent on improving the team, under Ashley we dont even spend the pie money

[Incognito]

We need a Remynder about which thread we're in.

[Guest reefatoon]

Wowsers, haven't managed to get on all day (bloody work), and this thread as gone off on one.  So while the adults talk about money, who wants to join my in giggling at an old man going up an escalator?

 

http://i.imgur.com/fbQeO.gif