Loïc Remy

[Unbelievable]

Because they need to?

 

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

[Guest neesy111]

Not to mention he probably made the club significantly worse off by leading us to our relegation. Seems to be often forgotten.

 

He's using the clubs money to pay for his own mistakes.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to fuck if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

 

I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say.

 

As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly.

[Guest icemanblue]

Because they need to?

 

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

 

Because they don't have a squad of the same talent as ours? Because they overperformed last season? Because we underperformed last season? Because Pardew?

[BottledDog]

As to whether we are rolling in Money I don't know. We are just about breaking even. The TV money is guaranteed what will become of it is anyone's guess.

 

Cheers for both those replies. At the end of the day I think it comes down to how much money we made last season as to what we have to spend as Ashley has reiterated that he'd not be sticking any more in, and I can't imagine we'll be taking out loans in order to add in next years TV money into this windows budget.

 

Still I'd like to think we'll have maybe £15m allocated and that should get us the 2 more we need; though it does rather mean we can't be too soft and just throw another million at Gomis. If Loic has already taken £2m then that would only leave, what,say  £4m for a decent attacking winger which won't get us anywhere near someone like Tom Ince.

 

Fuck, hope the rumoured £20m is true.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

 

I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say.

 

As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly.

 

Never mind on a practical level. We as fans have got every right to be angry about it. You're equating money to ambition in your reading of Dave's post. Dave is saying finance is used as a defence to our lack of ambition. We could be a lot more ambitious without spending a kings ransom. 

[Guest]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

 

That first line always does my head in. Can only imagine what the alternative to Ashley buying Shepherd & Hall out of the shite would have been, but I'd imagine things would be far worse than they are now. That's not sticking up for Ashley because he should still be doing more.

[BottledDog]

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?

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

 

That first line always does my head in. Can only imagine what the alternative to Ashley buying Shepherd & Hall out of the s**** would have been, but I'd imagine things would be far worse than they are now. That's not sticking up for Ashley because he should still be doing more.

 

That was 6 years ago.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

 

I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say.

 

As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly.

 

Never mind on a practical level. We as fans have got every right to be angry about it. You're equating money to ambition in your reading of Dave's post. Dave is saying finance is used as a defence to our lack of ambition. We could be a lot more ambitious without spending a kings ransom. 

 

Well in that case I agree, we should be ambitious. But in practical terms doesn't that depend on how much we can afford to spend? Arguably we do come down on the stingy side of sensible, but that's another discussion about money.

[Deuce]

Wenger's the man. Has his crown jewels asset-stripped on a bi-annual basis, doesn't get/to spend jack, and still leapfrogs Spurs in April and into the CL every year

Every. Single. Year.

 

Spurs have had the better players for at least the last two seasons. At least the season before last RVP was the best player between them and maybe even the league. But last season, Bale was the RVP figure and Arsenal still finished above them.

 

Dunno about that. Bale was definitely cream of the crop, but Cazorla, Podolski, and Walcott (and maybe Giroud) would all have started for Spurs last season. And Arsenal's defense down the stretch was airtight.

[Dr Venkman]

If Liverpool committed such a cardinal financial sin, how come they haven't gone out of business? How come they're still spending and spending? The Premier League clubs are swimming in money, some people haven't quite grasped this. They can afford to spend big money with very little consequence.

 

Ian, funny how you agreed with TT saying that spending doesn't bring success, yet also claim we can't compete with Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, because they've got more money than we have. It's one or the other, you can't have both.

 

If we don't trust Graham Carr's choices enough to spend the asking price, why is he employed?

 

Liverpool bring in a lot more money than us, they can afford to make mistakes to a point. Big mistakes like they've made won't put them out of business but they have pushed them further away from the CL and certainly any title ambitions. Had they spent that money wisely they'd be much better off. We can't not with our owner. Any mistake we make we are saddled with until the end of his contract, see Xisco or Smith, and since we nearly went down, any big mistake could cost us dearly.

 

We are over cautious and it is frustrating but i was more frustrated at seeing Smith pick up £60kpw for doing nowt or even worse on the pitch being a liability.

 

 

End of the day we all want us to sign more players, we all want a better team but spending money doesn't automatically equal better results and mistakes made we are lumbered with while spending over the top means we can't or simply won't spend next time round. You've got to consider this before saying oh aye, just chuck and extra couple of million at Gomis to make it happen...its nonsense even without our tight arse owner.

 

 

 

 

Why is it nonsense? Nonsense is relying on Shola, again. We need some better footballers man, we need to pay clubs money for them and we need to pay them wages. We've got money, what's wrong with you people?

[Unbelievable]

Because they need to?

 

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

 

Because they don't have a squad of the same talent as ours? Because they overperformed last season? Because we underperformed last season? Because Pardew?

 

Pardew is here though. We could have invested in a replacement for him if we felt he was what was holding us back, but chose not to. This is not just about the players, it's about having just come off a season where we survived by the skin of our teeth, coming out with noises about lessons learned and yet going into the new season with near enough the same setup. It's indefensible.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying f*** about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.

 

go back to the Bobby Robson quote about the club. Nobody made Ashley buy us. Nobody said don't do due diligence or it won't be a good investment. But he can get to f*** if he thinks owning something that thousands of people are emotionally attached, and invested in does not bring with it a level of responsibility.

 

He may be the owner but its more akin to an invasion. We shouldn't toe his line just because he had the money to purchase our club.

 

I do agree with this to a certain extent, he has a responsibility to the club and the city. But how far that stretches in terms of practical things like player purchases is quite hard to say.

 

As for Dave's post, nobody will be surprised I disagree with that. I don't see how you can possibly analyse the club's position and the players we can or can't buy unless you have an interest in the financial side. Otherwise you'd just be clamouring for us to sign everyone and wondering why we aren't competing with Man City. It's just part of modern football sadly.

 

Never mind on a practical level. We as fans have got every right to be angry about it. You're equating money to ambition in your reading of Dave's post. Dave is saying finance is used as a defence to our lack of ambition. We could be a lot more ambitious without spending a kings ransom. 

 

Well in that case I agree, we should be ambitious. But in practical terms doesn't that depend on how much we can afford to spend? Arguably we do come down on the stingy side of sensible, but that's another discussion about money.

 

Pardew is our Manager Kinnear is our Director of Football. I think we have the money available to make more ambitious appointments than this.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Pardew is our Manager Kinnear is our Director of Football. I think we have the money available to make better appointments than this.

 

You won't get any disagreement from me on that.

[Unbelievable]

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?

[Guest neesy111]

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?

 

We're not spending what we generate because of the money Ashley has taken out recently.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc

 

We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis.

 

And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

[AyeDubbleYoo]

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc

 

We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis.

 

And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

 

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments.

 

Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of.

[Dr Venkman]

Liverpool do bring in more money but not to the proportions they spend more than us, not even close.

 

They beat us 6-0 on our own patch with Downing and Henderson in the team, the latter scoring twice. Yet certain people on here think they're the mugs and we're the dead clever ones. Absolutely embarrassing.

 

Who is saying we are dead clever? I think most people see the positives in our dealings as well as the pitfalls, right now those pitfalls are unfortunately shining through, in Jan it was very different.

 

Liverpool are mugs for what they spent and brought in, or are they mugs to let Downing go for £6m now since he played in a match they won 6-0? It's one or the other.

 

 

This is basically all anyone has ever claimed. I've never said our approach is the only one, I just see the positives in it. Certainly beats spunking money on the shite players we used to buy.

 

Yep. It seems the Remy injury has tipped a few over the edge today, proper panic mode has set in...just pay whatever and buy whatever that's all that matters...spend spend spend. Like a bunch of women in a shoe shop. Oooh sparkly, two sizes too small but i've got to have them, now all i need is to buy everything else to match them.

 

What the fuck are you on about man? We nearly got relegated and yet haven't bought a single player.

 

How does it matter to you in the slightest whether a player costs £7m or £10m? Either is peanuts to a Premier League club in 2013.

 

Are you not getting the part that we have a strict budget and won't go over it especially when the club owes Ashley £130m already thanks to the fat retard doing exactly what you want right now?

 

Or do you want us to be more in debt to Ashley? Or blow budgets for the next few windows? Do you operate like that in your life? Just buy houses you can't afford, cars and insurance way above your pay? Nice living for about a year until reality kicks in.

 

Transfers were moved forward in jan, we've spent a fair chunk of this windows money then and now we are looking to squeeze out the best deals and time is running out. That's why I care because come the next window and we need X player in X position we have fuck all money to do it with.

 

Ashley isn't going to change, living within a budget is here to stay until he's gone, so blowing money is exactly the wrong thing to do under him as we will pay for it later. Even adding more debt to him lessens the chances we'll see him gone any time soon.

 

Finally, the club hasn't done enough this season, but it could have all been sorted sacking the manager and bringing in a new face, most of our problems would have been solved right then rather than just buying more players for him to fuck up.

 

 

What are you talking about man? We're a premier league club being run on a league one transfer budget. No-one's asking for the club to spend beyond it's means, we're asking for a fair level of investment befitting a club of our size and wealth.

[Unbelievable]

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc

 

We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis.

 

And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

 

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments.

 

Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of.

 

What kind of argument is this? Better not seriously invest, because it might not work out for each and every player we buy?

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc

 

We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis.

 

And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

 

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments.

 

Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of.

 

Somewhat of a leap of faith, where have I said speculate in the market more, unless you mean buying more players?

 

What has the length of contract got to do with anything. Surely that's contingent on other things.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc

 

We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis.

 

And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

 

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments.

 

Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of.

 

What kind of argument is this? Better not seriously invest, because it might not work out for each and every player we buy?

 

Er no, that's not what I said at all. Increased risk of expensive flops is obviously a side effect of bigger spending though, we know that from experience.

 

We were discussing what would happen if we had a different type of owner, and I was saying it wouldn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't end up with hasbeens.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

And this is arguably in the wrong thread but since we are focusing on Ashley etc

 

We paid to cancel Nile Ranger's contract, we paid to cancel Xisco's contract. If we had an owner who paid a bit more attention (gave a s***) and appointed better people maybe this sort of s**** would'nt happen. Maybe then we could grease the wheels with Gomis.

 

And not be an injury away from Gutierrez/Ameobi

 

The expertise point is definitely valid, Kinnear and (to a lesser extent) Pardew are bad appointments.

 

Saying that, I'm not sure the point about finance is that good, because if we speculated in the market more we might end up with more players on long contracts that we can't get rid of.

 

Somewhat of a leap of faith, where have I said speculate in the market more, unless you mean buying more players?

 

What has the length of contract got to do with anything. Surely that's contingent on other things.

 

I wasn't arguing with you, I was just exploring the point about a different kind of owner.

[Dr Venkman]

The finances bollocks comes up as a desperate final attempt to justify the lack of ambition and investment the club displays on a regular basis. No fan should need to give a flying fuck about it unless we're in serious danger of going under, which we're not.