Dan Ashworth: released from contractual obligations after agreement reached between Newcastle and Man Utd (Official)

[Joe1984]

3 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

I read it at the time and know he helped upgrade the training ground from the days of a plunge pool being a garden waste bin.

 

I am not talking down his abilities, I just don’t think he has left any sort of legacy in his time here for things he has drastically improved.

Maybe he can sort out Old Traffords leaky roof...

[Bunk Moreland]

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

Just how much over PSR were we? 

 

£1m-£500mn depending on which incompetent journalist you ask

[The Butcher]

Good riddance to the cunt.

[Zero]

1 minute ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

What? 

I know Ashworths work for the club is a bit vague, but generally speaking he should be responsible for making long term plans and set up directions for the club. Making plans to comply with FFP/PSR has to be Ashworths responsibility, as this involves a lot of inputs from different departments within the club.

 

it seems like this part of duties left behind by Ashworth has not been well taken up by others. 

[The College Dropout]

22 minutes ago, kingxlnc said:

For what it's worth, if he hadn't been placed on gardening leave in Feb and was in role, I doubt we would have gotten as manic a situation as this weekend. 
He is a bit more far removed from the squad, and so can be a bit colder and more ruthless. He wasn't budging with Joelinton's contract, he could have gotten rid of him. Same with others. With Wilson, or Trippier etc he may have accepted less to get rid, and save on the wages too. The point is, it would have been in his remit, and his neck on the line to ensure we meet PSR.  
Part of this crisis is having your main guy in charge of this metric leave and not be replaced adequately or in time. 

Agree with this. I can't give him all the credit but Brighton is v. strict on wage budget. I thought it's imperative we are too - to prevent fire sales in the future like we almost had to do.

 

Since he left we've secured our top players on big deals. Which is good but might also be a problem.

 

I like Joelinton but he's not irreplaceable. I don't like us singing players to big contracts that nobody else will match. Villa have that with Tielemans and maybe a few others. We now have it with Joelinton & Kelly. If we needed to sell them, I don't think we could.

11 minutes ago, Menace said:

 

Reckon the club are spinning this narrative so we don't get ripped off on transfers to be honest. Having a £70M black hole is mental.

Forcing dals for 1st July feels a bit more than "spinning a narrative".

 

FWIW I think part of the Forest money is more aligned to what we'll give them later in the window than a PSR hole.

[Izakaya]

Bye cunt. 

 

Reminds me of that Charlie from Clarkson's Farm. Just a joyless wank of a man. 

[Miggys First Goal]

Bye. 

[KaKa]

12 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Agree with this. I can't give him all the credit but Brighton is v. strict on wage budget. I thought it's imperative we are too - to prevent fire sales in the future like we almost had to do.

 

Since he left we've secured our top players on big deals. Which is good but might also be a problem.

 

I like Joelinton but he's not irreplaceable. I don't like us singing players to big contracts that nobody else will match. Villa have that with Tielemans and maybe a few others. We now have it with Joelinton & Kelly. If we needed to sell them, I don't think we could.

Forcing dals for 1st July feels a bit more than "spinning a narrative".

 

FWIW I think part of the Forest money is more aligned to what we'll give them later in the window than a PSR hole.

 

Lloyd Kelly was on £30,000 a week. At Bournemouth.

 

Why do you think he's on big wages now? And what sort of figure do you think that is?

[Kid Icarus]

[RS]

I’m raging about this. Yet again the biggest club in the world flexes it’s might and  minion clubs like us have to bow down to them. 
 

This will guarantee another season of overarching success for the biggest club in the world.  I mean, how much success does the biggest club in the world want?
Raging etc. 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, KaKa said:

 

Lloyd Kelly was on £30,000 a week. At Bournemouth.

 

Why do you think he's on big wages now? And what sort of figure do you think that is?

I think that when you sign an established player in their prime on a free transfer, you probably sign him to wages that nobody else would match. Only thing is perhaps his injuries put other teams off.

 

Take Tosin - had he joined I would say the same thing. We've probably given him a deal nobody else would match, unless he's better than everyone expects - he might be hard to shift if needed.

 

I like Kamara at Villa. Rumoured to be on 175k. I think he's worth every penny but his wage reduces his market substantially. Tielemans, Villa could only shift to Saudi.

 

While we don't have massive revenues. We need players that can be sold easily. PSR champions of the world Brighton & Spurs do this v. well. Only 1 or 2 are on the megabucks. The rest all have wages that can be easily sold (in the main - that one French lad signed for megabucks is an exception).

[manorpark]

Just now, RS said:

I’m raging about this. Yet again the biggest club in the world flexes it’s might and  minion clubs like us have to bow down to them. 
 

This will guarantee another season of overarching success for the biggest club in the world.  I mean, how much success does the biggest club in the world want?
Raging etc. 

 

Great sarcasm, well said !!!

[huss9]

1 hour ago, NE27 said:

 

Clubs management and future prospects sold, PSR saves the day again.

 

Glad we didn't go bankrupt yesterday, small graces.

i heard from a good source it was really close.

got in just before the PSR window slammed shut.

horror show. Eales summoned to meeting with Yasir today.

[LFEE]

53 minutes ago, Chris L said:

this whole PSR comment. 

 

if they are using that line already, does it not mean its a boost to the new financial year/years, rather than scraping it through the last one?  

 

like say we got 15m for him, thats 15m better off on this round already?  

 

or am i still completely lost with this whole thing? 

This was my main pick out. A lot assuming it’s for last years PSR but the fact it’s being done in July and the line is ambiguous would also suggest it’s to aid the next batch of spending which I’m leaning towards.

[The Prophet]

Just now, LFEE said:

This was my main pick out. A lot assuming it’s for last years PSR but the fact it’s being done in July and the line is ambiguous would also suggest it’s to aid the next batch of spending which I’m leaning towards.

 

If we make a profit last year, it'll help the rolling calc for the coming year regardless.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well pre-July PSR is still in the rolling 3-year period, so either way it's income. 

[tarie4]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I think that when you sign an established player in their prime on a free transfer, you probably sign him to wages that nobody else would match. Only thing is perhaps his injuries put other teams off.

 

Take Tosin - had he joined I would say the same thing. We've probably given him a deal nobody else would match, unless he's better than everyone expects - he might be hard to shift if needed.

 

I like Kamara at Villa. Rumoured to be on 175k. I think he's worth every penny but his wage reduces his market substantially. Tielemans, Villa could only shift to Saudi.

 

While we don't have massive revenues. We need players that can be sold easily. PSR champions of the world Brighton & Spurs do this v. well. Only 1 or 2 are on the megabucks. The rest all have wages that can be easily sold (in the main - that one French lad signed for megabucks is an exception).

In my humble opinion, our strategic objectives differ from those of the clubs you mentioned. Our chairman has made it clear that our goal is to achieve the top position, and emulating those clubs will not lead us to that outcome. The strategy of having only two players on high salaries and the rest on average salaries limits our aspirations to the top four trophy. If we want to consistently compete for the title like Manchester City and Liverpool, we need to invest in at least ten players with salaries above 170k. As Darren mentioned in the first episode, there is a strong correlation between wage expenditure and league position.

[The Prophet]

Not sure where it's come from, but £12 million being floated on Twitter.

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:43 by The Prophet

[KaKa]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I think that when you sign an established player in their prime on a free transfer, you probably sign him to wages that nobody else would match. Only thing is perhaps his injuries put other teams off.

 

Take Tosin - had he joined I would say the same thing. We've probably given him a deal nobody else would match, unless he's better than everyone expects - he might be hard to shift if needed.

 

I like Kamara at Villa. Rumoured to be on 175k. I think he's worth every penny but his wage reduces his market substantially. Tielemans, Villa could only shift to Saudi.

 

While we don't have massive revenues. We need players that can be sold easily. PSR champions of the world Brighton & Spurs do this v. well. Only 1 or 2 are on the megabucks. The rest all have wages that can be easily sold (in the main - that one French lad signed for megabucks is an exception).

 

Don't think you can compare the likes of what  Kamara and Tielemans would command, to what Lloyd Kelly would.

 

Lloyd Kelly was on £30,000 a week at Bournemouth. I'd guess he's on around £70,000 to £80,000 a week at most with us.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:43 by KaKa

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, tarie4 said:

In my humble opinion, our strategic objectives differ from those of the clubs you mentioned. Our chairman has made it clear that our goal is to achieve the top position, and emulating those clubs will not lead us to that outcome. The strategy of having only two players on high salaries and the rest on average salaries limits our aspirations to the top four trophy. If we want to consistently compete for the title like Manchester City and Liverpool, we need to invest in at least ten players with salaries above 170k. As Darren mentioned in the first episode, there is a strong correlation between wage expenditure and league position.

We don't have the revenues to support that and the club know it.

 

Unless we increase revenues substantially we'll need to sell, sell, sell. If not for Minteh we would have sold Gordon or someone.

 

While we don't have the revenues needed. We need to be able to have markets for nearly all of our players. It doesn't matter what we pay those who can go to elite clubs (Bruno, Isak) - others will pay more. But your Joelintons, Willocks etc. we need to be able to shift them quickly if needed.

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

Not sure where it's come from, but £12 million bring floated on Twitter.

 

Solid deal.

 

Not sure If I'm remembering correctly, but that was around what we were willing to accept for him to start after the window closed? 

 

And so looks like we maybe just removed that stipulation, and allowed for him to start right away.

[tarie4]

28 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Agree with this. I can't give him all the credit but Brighton is v. strict on wage budget. I thought it's imperative we are too - to prevent fire sales in the future like we almost had to do.

 

Since he left we've secured our top players on big deals. Which is good but might also be a problem.

 

I like Joelinton but he's not irreplaceable. I don't like us singing players to big contracts that nobody else will match. Villa have that with Tielemans and maybe a few others. We now have it with Joelinton & Kelly. If we needed to sell them, I don't think we could.

Forcing dals for 1st July feels a bit more than "spinning a narrative".

 

FWIW I think part of the Forest money is more aligned to what we'll give them later in the window than a PSR hole.

In the current market, it is challenging to find a suitable replacement for the player in question for a transfer fee below 60 million and weekly wages less than 120k. Additionally, considering the player's contract status and the potential sale of Joe for less than 40 million, the financial implications must be carefully evaluated.

 

It is important to recognize that as an aspiring big club, we may need to make strategic investments in both transfer fees and wages to strengthen our squad. This approach has been successfully adopted by clubs like Manchester City, liverpool, Manchester United Chelsea (under the Russian guy) and Arsenal. While it may involve taking short-term financial hits, it can ultimately contribute to long-term success and competitiveness. The Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has attempted to adopt a strategic approach, as you have rightly pointed out, but unfortunately, this strategy has not yielded any significant achievements. Aside from their commendable run in the UEFA Champions League, the club has failed to secure any notable accomplishments.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Don't think you can compare the likes of what  Kamara and Tielemans would command, to what Lloyd Kelly would.

 

Lloyd Kelly was on £30,000 a week at Bournemouth. I'd guess he's on around £70,000 to £80,000 a week at most with us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly, nobody else of equal or more repute wanted to pay Lloyd Kelly 70-80k.

 

Unless something is putting other clubs off - injuries, attitude, age, when you sign an established player on a free transfer- you will usually pay them more than anyone else would. Which might make it difficult to sell them going forward. Free transfers are great for top clubs that can snap up the talent they can keep and hold with little care for resale - that's what Real Madrid do (Courtois, Alaba, Rudiger etc.), can sign them all at 30.

 

Like I say, the ends justify the means. Villa don't want to sell Kamara, he's been key for them getting into the CL. It's worked out. You just don't want too many of those on the books. Which is why they sold Luiz. He was on lowish wages, close to contract renewal time so they cashed in. The only issue is that desperation made them accept a lower fee than he's worth imo.

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

In the current market, it is challenging to find a suitable replacement for the player in question for a transfer fee below 60 million and weekly wages less than 120k. Additionally, considering the player's contract status and the potential sale of Joe for less than 40 million, the financial implications must be carefully evaluated.

 

It is important to recognize that as an aspiring big club, we may need to make strategic investments in both transfer fees and wages to strengthen our squad. This approach has been successfully adopted by clubs like Manchester City, liverpool, Manchester United Chelsea (under the Russian guy) and Arsenal. While it may involve taking short-term financial hits, it can ultimately contribute to long-term success and competitiveness. The Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has attempted to adopt a strategic approach, as you have rightly pointed out, but unfortunately, this strategy has not yielded any significant achievements. Aside from their commendable run in the UEFA Champions League, the club has failed to secure any notable accomplishments.

You're using big words but the logic isn't coherent.

 

We do not have the revenues of the clubs you mentioned. We will be hit with points deductions or fire sales if we do not keep tight with expenditure.

[FLUMPO235]

Good luck Dan, thanks for your work but you could and should have handled your exit better. It’s soured the experience with you and you’ve let the club, fans and your parents down.