Alan Pardew

[Wullie]

I think we should be signing at least two more. A striker is the bare minimum.

 

Well then we agree (although I'd say the bare minimum is someone who can play as a wide left forward).

[Optimistic Nut]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

[Jayson]

Ashley has put a setup in place where he simply doesnt believe it is necessary to spend as much as other clubs to achieve in the same manner, arguing with his system is only worthwhile if you believe the quality of player we're getting in isnt good enough.

 

Most think our side is pretty decent & Pardews the issue afaia.

[Guest Dontooner]

But those clubs don't have anywhere near our debt or prolonged losses do they?

 

There's an argument to be had about the pros and cons of paying in advance TBF, it does hinder short term purchasing power for sure.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

I explained it in my previous post, either way we are in debt. Either by the banks or via a personal loan.

It more like How Ashley wants to run the club as he wants to sell it for a eventual good profit.

Shepherd was pay 50 million pounds for selling his shares in the club, while he brought us into more debt with the banks.

Ashely is going to sell us for more and we will still owe either the new owner on a personal loan or the Consortium a big loan to the banks on our debt and the cost of buyout.

 

Stop talking about debt as it is like a household debt because it different in different model of businesses.

[Wullie]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

Cisse can play there.

 

By the end of the season, I think the player who will have made by far the most appearances as a wide forward will be a defensive midfielder.

[Wullie]

Ashley has put a setup in place where he simply doesnt believe it is necessary to spend as much as other clubs to achieve in the same manner, arguing with his system is only worthwhile if you believe the quality of player we're getting in isnt good enough.

 

Most think our side is pretty decent & Pardews the issue afaia.

 

Same principle applies to the manager though. He won't pay for a Premier League one.

 

Our side is "decent" but features a couple of glaring holes that aren't even filled with a capable Premier League player for the start of the season.

[Dokko]

But those clubs don't have anywhere near our debt or prolonged losses do they?

 

There's an argument to be had about the pros and cons of paying in advance TBF, it does hinder short term purchasing power for sure.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

I explained it in my previous post, either way we are in debt. Either by the banks or via a personal loan.

It more like How Ashley wants to run the club as he wants to sell it for a eventual good profit.

Shepherd was pay 50 million pounds for selling his shares in the club, while he brought us into more debt with the banks.

Ashely is going to sell us for more and we will still owe either the new owner on a personal loan or the Consortium a big loan to the banks on our debt and the cost of buyout.

 

Stop talking about debt as it is like a household debt because it different in different model of businesses.

 

Is that supposed to be aimed at me? I hope you've quoted the wrong person there because its a wasted post if not as I'm not the one disregarding the £100m+ we owe Ashley, we are already in debt and where i've been coming from all along.

[Guest Dontooner]

At anybody who misunderstands the liabilities we have as NUFC the club and Mike Ashley the sole shareholder.

[Dokko]

At anybody who misunderstands the liabilities we have as NUFC the club and Mike Ashley the sole shareholder.

 

Then that wouldn't be me, please refrain from randomly quoting people and throwing shit out there as the waters are muddied enough already on this subject.

[TRon]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

Remy could do a job there, but he still looks more like a genuine striker by nature. HBA was used by Hughton on the left wing, but not much since.

[Mole_Toonfan]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

There's also Gouffran and Remy who can play CF, we definitely need another wide option with utmost urgency.

 

Need a striker too obviously, Shola is far too close to the team for my liking but i definitely agree with Wullie on the whole LW/LF necessity.

[Optimistic Nut]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

Cisse can play there.

 

By the end of the season, I think the player who will have made by far the most appearances as a wide forward will be a defensive midfielder.

 

 

 

Jonas isn't a defensive midfielder if that's who you mean. He's a winger, just a shit one now.

[TRon]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

There's also Gouffran and Remy who can play CF, we definitely need another wide option with utmost urgency.

 

Need a striker too obviously, Shola is far too close to the team for my liking but i definitely agree with Wullie on the whole LW/LF necessity.

 

Me too. Although a CF who can hold the ball up effectively might be a useful addition, especially if Pardew is going to be the manager for the foreseeable future.

[Guest Dontooner]

At anybody who misunderstands the liabilities we have as NUFC the club and Mike Ashley the sole shareholder.

 

Then that wouldn't be me, please refrain from randomly quoting people and throwing s*** out there as the waters are muddied enough already on this subject.

I believe you posted this

 

"So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?"

 

Just reminding you, as NUFC under Shepherd or Ashley we are in debt. There is no difference.

[themanupstairs]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

Cisse can play there.

 

By the end of the season, I think the player who will have made by far the most appearances as a wide forward will be a defensive midfielder.

 

 

 

Jonas isn't a defensive midfielder if that's who you mean. He's a winger, just a s*** one now.

 

Think he was talking about Sissoko.

[Wullie]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

Cisse can play there.

 

By the end of the season, I think the player who will have made by far the most appearances as a wide forward will be a defensive midfielder.

 

 

 

Jonas isn't a defensive midfielder if that's who you mean. He's a winger, just a shit one now.

 

I totally disagree but fair enough. All his best performances in the past two years have come either centrally or in a wide role where he has basically operated as a doubling-up full back.

[Wullie]

I think Remy & HBA can play there. Someone who can play more central is more important.

 

Cisse can play there.

 

By the end of the season, I think the player who will have made by far the most appearances as a wide forward will be a defensive midfielder.

 

 

 

Jonas isn't a defensive midfielder if that's who you mean. He's a winger, just a s*** one now.

 

Think he was talking about Sissoko.

 

I wasn't although you've reminded me that he's been playing there.

 

Dear me. Our wide options are by far the weakest area of our side.

[Dokko]

At anybody who misunderstands the liabilities we have as NUFC the club and Mike Ashley the sole shareholder.

 

Then that wouldn't be me, please refrain from randomly quoting people and throwing s*** out there as the waters are muddied enough already on this subject.

I believe you posted this

 

"So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?"

 

Just reminding you, as NUFC under Shepherd or Ashley we are in debt. There is no difference.

 

Not interest free debt, not debt that saw us owe money on players not even at the club and partial season tickets mortgaged for the ground expansion.

 

Like I say, your post at me just muddies things, doesn't clarify anything, if anything you should be asking Wullie about the debt we owe Ashley and why that doesn't count when looking at what debt we are in.

[colinmk]

Totally agree with Wullie about Jonas there. His good attributes are screaming out for him to be used in that role rather than a winger.

[Guest bimpy474]

Jonas offers absolutely nothing in an attacking sense, central midfield would be best, hassling and getting it back would be his game now. Just not in our team thanks.

[Wullie]

At anybody who misunderstands the liabilities we have as NUFC the club and Mike Ashley the sole shareholder.

 

Then that wouldn't be me, please refrain from randomly quoting people and throwing s*** out there as the waters are muddied enough already on this subject.

I believe you posted this

 

"So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?"

 

Just reminding you, as NUFC under Shepherd or Ashley we are in debt. There is no difference.

 

Not interest free debt, not debt that saw us owe money on players not even at the club and partial season tickets mortgaged for the ground expansion.

 

Like I say, your post at me just muddies things, doesn't clarify anything, if anything you should be asking Wullie about the debt we owe Ashley and why that doesn't count when looking at what debt we are in.

 

Because he can choose not to call that debt in when we need players desperately like we do now.

 

Do you think debt is just debt? Sorry like but it simply isn't. A debt to your mam is not the same as debt to Barclays, just like a debt to our owner puts us in no financial danger whatsoever, not the slightest bit.

[Optimistic Nut]

Totally agree with Wullie about Jonas there. His good attributes are screaming out for him to be used in that role rather than a winger.

 

He hasn't got the ball retention ability to play there imo. His passing is terrible. Put him there and goals like the first Mackem one last season will be far more common .

[Dokko]

At anybody who misunderstands the liabilities we have as NUFC the club and Mike Ashley the sole shareholder.

 

Then that wouldn't be me, please refrain from randomly quoting people and throwing s*** out there as the waters are muddied enough already on this subject.

I believe you posted this

 

"So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?"

 

Just reminding you, as NUFC under Shepherd or Ashley we are in debt. There is no difference.

 

Not interest free debt, not debt that saw us owe money on players not even at the club and partial season tickets mortgaged for the ground expansion.

 

Like I say, your post at me just muddies things, doesn't clarify anything, if anything you should be asking Wullie about the debt we owe Ashley and why that doesn't count when looking at what debt we are in.

 

Because he can choose not to call that debt in when we need players desperately like we do now.

 

Do you think debt is just debt? Sorry like but it simply isn't. A debt to your mam is not the same as debt to Barclays, just like a debt to our owner puts us in no financial danger whatsoever, not the slightest but.

 

And this is why Dontooner needs a word with you, not me.

 

That debt is still on the books if and when we are sold. It doesn't just disappear, I'm sure you mam wouldn't hold it against you if you never paid her back, Ashley will want every penny.

[Guest bimpy474]

"One moment of magic from the 26-year-old can turn any match in United's favour and Pardew said"

 

That old moment of magic 

[themanupstairs]

Jonas offers absolutely nothing in an attacking sense, central midfield would be best, hassling and getting it back would be his game now. Just not in our team thanks.

 

I would actually want to see him starting in a midfield 3, as the one that links play between Sissoko and Cabaye. I'd have him ahead of Tiote, and since Anita's not getting a look-in, might as well. I think he would actually do very well for us there should we play the 433 consistently.