Cronky Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 One thing that really gets on my tit is this claim that Shepherd has 'always' backed his managers with cash. There have been some eye-catching buys, but generally the pattern recently has been fairly modest for a club of our size. Saddo that I am, I did a little bit of research - Over the last 8 transfer windows, from the Summer of 2003, we have not spent any money at all in 4 of them. (Summer 03, Jan 04, Jan 06, Jan 07) In the Summer of 04, our transfer income actually exceeded the outgoings by £7 million, due to Woodgate being shipped out. So we've only spent money in 3 of the last 8 windows. Over this entire period, the net spend (ie transfers paid minus transfers received) amounts to £36 million, which averages to £9 million per year. Greater than most Premiership clubs I know, but nothing remarkable when you consider the club's turnover. Given that the club's spending has not, in fact, been anything that spectacular over this period, the insanity of blowing £17 million on Owen becomes even more exasperating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 One thing that really gets on my tit is this claim that Shepherd has 'always' backed his managers with cash. There have been some eye-catching buys, but generally the pattern recently has been fairly modest for a club of our size. Saddo that I am, I did a little bit of research - Over the last 8 transfer windows, from the Summer of 2003, we have not spent any money at all in 4 of them. (Summer 03, Jan 04, Jan 06, Jan 07) In the Summer of 04, our transfer income actually exceeded the outgoings by £7 million, due to Woodgate being shipped out. So we've only spent money in 3 of the last 8 windows. Over this entire period, the net spend (ie transfers paid minus transfers received) amounts to £36 million, which averages to £9 million per year. Greater than most Premiership clubs I know, but nothing remarkable when you consider the club's turnover. Given that the club's spending has not, in fact, been anything that spectacular over this period, the insanity of blowing £17 million on Owen becomes even more exasperating. why do you only count summer spending ? (woodgate.boumsong incoming) edit...read the entire post first man madras you mong madras replies ...aye so i jumped in too early,however he should realise big turnover doesn't mean we have lots to spend Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I think it's the wages we pay the underperforming shithouses that is crippling the Club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 One thing that really gets on my tit is this claim that Shepherd has 'always' backed his managers with cash. There have been some eye-catching buys, but generally the pattern recently has been fairly modest for a club of our size. Saddo that I am, I did a little bit of research - Over the last 8 transfer windows, from the Summer of 2003, we have not spent any money at all in 4 of them. (Summer 03, Jan 04, Jan 06, Jan 07) In the Summer of 04, our transfer income actually exceeded the outgoings by £7 million, due to Woodgate being shipped out. So we've only spent money in 3 of the last 8 windows. Over this entire period, the net spend (ie transfers paid minus transfers received) amounts to £36 million, which averages to £9 million per year. Greater than most Premiership clubs I know, but nothing remarkable when you consider the club's turnover. Given that the club's spending has not, in fact, been anything that spectacular over this period, the insanity of blowing £17 million on Owen becomes even more exasperating. Surely it is often nigh on impossible to spend money in January, no matter how much of it you have got, as teams don't want to sell their best players halfway through the season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kenton Magpie Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You cant really blame Fred for not giving Roeder money in the last two windows, it may be down to the fact that Roeder couldnt spend that money as he has no pulling power that makes a player want to play under him management! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You cant really blame Fred for not giving Roeder money in the last two windows, it may be down to the fact that Roeder couldnt spend that money as he has no pulling power that makes a player want to play under him management! Well, there's a pattern here that's been established with the last three managers. The overall annual budget is about £9 million. Our overall spend in the Summer was £10 million, and it was clear from the last minute farce with Milner, that any further spending had to be financed by someone going out. On reflection, half the budget for the last 4 years was blown on one player. Funds were witheld before and after to enable that to happen. Freddie set his heart on the idea of one big-name striker to replace Shearer, which was a foolish strategy in any event, even if you consider that Owen was worth that kind of money (which I don't.) This kind of amateurish over-involvement by Freddie is what's brought about our decline over the last few seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 I'm sure the extra cash from the Sky deal will help out the transfer funds cause there isn't a cat in hells chance that it would be passed on to the fans. They'll probably say it has been when they keep the season ticket prices the same as last year, then wack them up twice as much next time we have a decent run in the league or when Shearer takes over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Everyone has that extra money though TT, it'll only help for buying from abroad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 This thread could run and run... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stormrider Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Owen + Luque = £26m. that's more than 60% of our entire transfer spending in the past 8 transfer windows. this sums up the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Everyone has that extra money though TT, it'll only help for buying from abroad. Yes I know that but if the extra cash allows us £10m to spend in the transfer window then it gives us money to spend which we don't seem to have at this exact moment in time. All the cash has to get thrown at defenders though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC06 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The fat pig is the cancer of this club and until he is in charge this club will regress season after season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NIToon Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 We all know the frees that are available, which wouldn't eat into funds other than signing on fees, it will be a big indicator to see how savvy NUFC are in the transfer market this year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 One thing that really gets on my tit is this claim that Shepherd has 'always' backed his managers with cash. There have been some eye-catching buys, but generally the pattern recently has been fairly modest for a club of our size. Saddo that I am, I did a little bit of research - Over the last 8 transfer windows, from the Summer of 2003, we have not spent any money at all in 4 of them. (Summer 03, Jan 04, Jan 06, Jan 07) In the Summer of 04, our transfer income actually exceeded the outgoings by £7 million, due to Woodgate being shipped out. So we've only spent money in 3 of the last 8 windows. Over this entire period, the net spend (ie transfers paid minus transfers received) amounts to £36 million, which averages to £9 million per year. Greater than most Premiership clubs I know, but nothing remarkable when you consider the club's turnover. Given that the club's spending has not, in fact, been anything that spectacular over this period, the insanity of blowing £17 million on Owen becomes even more exasperating. Surely it is often nigh on impossible to spend money in January, no matter how much of it you have got, as teams don't want to sell their best players halfway through the season? Is the correct and obvious answer, but not spending in January is always a good stick with which to beat the Board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The fat pig is the cancer of this club and until he is in charge this club will regress season after season Doesn't make sense but I know what you're trying to mumble on about.... :sleepy1: I'd sooner people like you buggered off tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 One thing that really gets on my tit is this claim that Shepherd has 'always' backed his managers with cash. There have been some eye-catching buys, but generally the pattern recently has been fairly modest for a club of our size. Saddo that I am, I did a little bit of research - Over the last 8 transfer windows, from the Summer of 2003, we have not spent any money at all in 4 of them. (Summer 03, Jan 04, Jan 06, Jan 07) In the Summer of 04, our transfer income actually exceeded the outgoings by £7 million, due to Woodgate being shipped out. So we've only spent money in 3 of the last 8 windows. Over this entire period, the net spend (ie transfers paid minus transfers received) amounts to £36 million, which averages to £9 million per year. Greater than most Premiership clubs I know, but nothing remarkable when you consider the club's turnover. Given that the club's spending has not, in fact, been anything that spectacular over this period, the insanity of blowing £17 million on Owen becomes even more exasperating. I sometimes wish you were right and the Board didn't back successive managers with cash, there wouldn't have been so many fucking millions wasted if that was true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC06 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The fat pig is the cancer of this club and until he is in charge this club will regress season after season Doesn't make sense but I know what you're trying to mumble on about.... :sleepy1: I'd sooner people like you buggered off tbh. What exactly doesnt make sense you stupid fuck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The fat pig is the cancer of this club and until he is in charge this club will regress season after season Doesn't make sense but I know what you're trying to mumble on about.... :sleepy1: I'd sooner people like you buggered off tbh. What exactly doesnt make sense you stupid f***? mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The fat pig is the cancer of this club and until he is in charge this club will regress season after season What exactly doesnt make sense you stupid fuck? Re-read your post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Surely it is often nigh on impossible to spend money in January, no matter how much of it you have got, as teams don't want to sell their best players halfway through the season? Normally, it's unsettled players moving in Jan. There's no reason why Roeder couldn't have been looking for disgruntled bench-warmers at top European clubs to improve the squad rather than poaching the star players from smaller clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You can knock Shepherd for plenty of things but one thing you can't say is he doesn't back managers financially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You can knock Shepherd for plenty of things but one thing you can't say is he doesn't back managers financially. wey, bugger Baggio in defending the board shocker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC06 Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 You can knock Shepherd for plenty of things but one thing you can't say is he doesn't back managers financially. In the last transfer window he backed Roeder with plenty of cash a?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now