Sean Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Bare in mind Merino looks like he could be our new Cabaye, and Lejuene was poached for a cheap-ish buy out fee. Would people rate this window better had we spend 12 mil on Merino instead of a loan, and got Lejuene in for upwards of 12mil aswell. The window was a disappointment in the fact we only got 6 players, yet no LB, no# 10 or striker. But if we had bought those two and had an outlay of 50mil instead of 35mil, would people be happier? Sometimes I feel like our NET spend dictates our effective transfer business to much. I'd be happy if we'd been honest with the manager about the budget/type of players he could sign instead of lying to him and making him waste a huge amount of time on deals we had no intention of doing tbh. So the answer would be no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty__mag Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 No matter how you look at it. Our defence has moved forward massively under Rafa. At least we dont have to think about a relegation fight with Colo & Taylor anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Net spend is crap these days. Everton's would have pretty much been nil had Barkley not cancelled last minute but they'd have had a superb window. Huddersfield and Brighton's seems high because they had no one to sell, low wages etc so could afford to spend Yeah but our net spend over ten years is less than 50m quid, which makes it impossible for anyone to cloud the issue here surely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's a fair point about whether our NET spend has an affect on what's viewed as a successful window. Had we spent 15m each, say, on Lejeune and Merino it would make our transfer window as a bigger success IMO. How much we pay on fees, in comparison to our rivals, basically is a sign of our ambition and such things matter in the football world. Whether we are willing to pay to the going rate on wages and transfers, goes along with players and agents. If it's clear that we are only looking for a bargain or a release clause, how are we ever going to get the players we want? I wouldn't be surprised if some agents flat out refuse to deal with us because of the tight arse nature of our chiefs. If we are willing to pay the price for players, it would be a start and I'd be willing to give them the benefit of doubt over the amount of players we get through the door (quality over quantity and all that), but it's clear that neither quality nor quantity matter. We will do the bare minimum to survive and only start acting seriously once things have gone wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's a fair point about whether our NET spend has an affect on what's viewed as a successful window. Had we spent 15m each, say, on Lejeune and Merino it would make our transfer window as a bigger success IMO. How much we pay on fees, in comparison to our rivals, basically is a sign of our ambition and such things matter in the football world. Whether we are willing to pay to the going rate on wages and transfers, goes along with players and agents. If it's clear that we are only looking for a bargain or a release clause, how are we ever going to get the players we want? I wouldn't be surprised if some agents flat out refuse to deal with us because of the tight arse nature of our chiefs. If we are willing to pay the price for players, it would be a start and I'd be willing to give them the benefit of doubt over the amount of players we get through the door (quality over quantity and all that), but it's clear that neither quality nor quantity matter. We will do the bare minimum to survive and only start acting seriously once things have gone wrong. No way a window in which we failed to sign a goalscorer or first choice goalkeeper would be considered good no matter how much the other signings had cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiedean Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's more the expenditure to me. Premier league teams are now consistently spending over 20m on players even the bottom feeders like Bournemouth and palace are. We will never ever compete because Ashley will not spend over 15m let alone over 20 or 25m. When you see players like Danny Drinkwater going for 35m you realise we don't belong in this league with Ashley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 So tin hat on here like buuuut assume Rafa stays, keeps us up and Ashley doesn't renege on his public statement about having all the money the club earns would we not theoretically be in a decent position next summer? Obviously I guess we'll only get to spend this season's money (unlike other teams) but it would have to be better than this summer you'd think. I mean approach it from the pov that Ashley isn't an absolute cunt and Rafa holds him to the money statement. Rafa seems to have done very, very well to me on a piss poor budget, would love to let him have one decent crack at spending some money at least :/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiedean Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 So tin hat on here like buuuut assume Rafa stays, keeps us up and Ashley doesn't renege on his public statement about having all the money the club earns would we not theoretically be in a decent position next summer? Obviously I guess we'll only get to spend this season's money (unlike other teams) but it would have to be better than this summer you'd think. I mean approach it from the pov that Ashley isn't an absolute cunt and Rafa holds him to the money statement. Rafa seems to have done very, very well to me on a piss poor budget, would love to let him have one decent crack at spending some money at least :/ Wake up man in 12 months there will be no Rafa and no Premier league....but hey there will still be Ashley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 I'm under no illusions like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 So tin hat on here like buuuut assume Rafa stays, keeps us up and Ashley doesn't renege on his public statement about having all the money the club earns would we not theoretically be in a decent position next summer? Obviously I guess we'll only get to spend this season's money (unlike other teams) but it would have to be better than this summer you'd think. I mean approach it from the pov that Ashley isn't an absolute c*** and Rafa holds him to the money statement. Rafa seems to have done very, very well to me on a p*ss poor budget, would love to let him have one decent crack at spending some money at least :/ We would be, but the trust between Rafa and Ashley has completely disintegrated. Rightly so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 So tin hat on here like buuuut assume Rafa stays, keeps us up and Ashley doesn't renege on his public statement about having all the money the club earns would we not theoretically be in a decent position next summer? Obviously I guess we'll only get to spend this season's money (unlike other teams) but it would have to be better than this summer you'd think. I mean approach it from the pov that Ashley isn't an absolute c*** and Rafa holds him to the money statement. Rafa seems to have done very, very well to me on a p*ss poor budget, would love to let him have one decent crack at spending some money at least :/ Wake up man in 12 months there will be no Rafa and no Premier league....but hey there will still be Ashley I'm.not as sure it's as simple as that mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Mojo's got a point, but there's already reports in the press Ashley will take 33 million of this seasons money for himself so its unlikely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Mojo's got a point, but there's already reports in the press Ashley will take 33 million of this seasons money for himself so its unlikely. Haha well if that's true we're totally done on more than one level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 What's the £33m for? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 What's the £33m for? He put in as running costs last year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 A company he owns put in £33m in December, £18m to pay a loan back to him directly and £15m to cover running expenses. All one big tax swindle I'm sure, given that it's all his money just moving around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 So where did the £30m transfer profit and the parachute payment go? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 So where did the £30m transfer profit and the parachute payment go? Probably offset against the amount you would get for staying in the league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 A company he owns put in £33m in December, £18m to pay a loan back to him directly and £15m to cover running expenses. All one big tax swindle I'm sure, given that it's all his money just moving around. Why does it seem like the club owes him more and new money every season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Because he keeps getting us relegated then feels he has to put his own cash in to get us back, only to want it back in the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's ludicrous to believe despite slashing the wage bill that we needed 73 million (40 million transfer profits plus the 33 million "loan") to stay afloat last year, if every club needed that amount to survive when they go down, they would all be in administration surely, especially when we more or less filled out our stadium every game last season, no one else who gets relegated will come anywhere near our average attendance. Just tax fiddling and a way to say to everyone how much we our in debt to his benevolent leadership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's ludicrous to believe despite slashing the wage bill that we needed 73 million (40 million transfer profits plus the 33 million "loan") to stay afloat last year, if every club needed that amount to survive when they go down, they would all be in administration surely, especially when we more or less filled out our stadium every game last season, no one else who gets relegated will come anywhere near our average attendance. Just tax fiddling and a way to say to everyone how much we our in debt to his benevolent leadership. Everybody else gets funding from advertising. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's ludicrous to believe despite slashing the wage bill that we needed 73 million (40 million transfer profits plus the 33 million "loan") to stay afloat last year, if every club needed that amount to survive when they go down, they would all be in administration surely, especially when we more or less filled out our stadium every game last season, no one else who gets relegated will come anywhere near our average attendance. Just tax fiddling and a way to say to everyone how much we our in debt to his benevolent leadership. Gates & matchday is about £25m The wage bill the year we went down was triple that. That can't even buy you Danny Drinkwater. Ticket income is becoming less and less important as the ridiculous TV money increases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huss9 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 It's ludicrous to believe despite slashing the wage bill that we needed 73 million (40 million transfer profits plus the 33 million "loan") to stay afloat last year, if every club needed that amount to survive when they go down, they would all be in administration surely, especially when we more or less filled out our stadium every game last season, no one else who gets relegated will come anywhere near our average attendance. Just tax fiddling and a way to say to everyone how much we our in debt to his benevolent leadership. Gates & matchday is about £25m The wage bill the year we went down was triple that. That can't even buy you Danny Drinkwater. Ticket income is becoming less and less important as the ridiculous TV money increases. yet the fat cunt is willing to risk it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 25m Gates+matchday seems a bit low for a team that pulls 50k attendances consistently. Is that for the C'ship season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts