TRon Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Back on the subject of Dyer, I know it pains the Dyer hate mob that we are going to get so much money for him, but trust me, this works in our favour. I can picture it now: Northern Monkey: " 7 fucking million??! He isn't worth half of that! Nooooooo!!!! He's a fucking little waster who's taken us for mugs - Get rid for £1m!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest black Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Still shite though! QFT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Back on the subject of Dyer, I know it pains the Dyer hate mob that we are going to get so much money for him, but trust me, this works in our favour. I can picture it now: Northern Monkey: " 7 fucking million??! He isn't worth half of that! Nooooooo!!!! He's a fucking little waster who's taken us for mugs - Get rid for £1m!!! you're an idiot. and i mean that with the utmost of respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Northern Monkey has said in post 777 what is in my mind, it makes sense. Coupled with the fact that Allardyce himself has complained about backing. Unless you know more than he does about it. Whether you like it or not, no manager complained about the last board like this. I want to believe they will back the manager as much as the last board, but just because I want to believe it doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to pretend that they are just yet. What I say stands. If Shepherd and Hall had did this, they would be getting absolutely crucified by you lot, and whats more you know it. BTW, the ex board had earned the benefit of the doubt in my eyes, because they had backed their managers and shown they had ambition, despite mistakes which of course nobody makes except us. If you underestimate the value of backing your managers, its your problem, people like me have tried to tell you for long enough. Allardyce on the backing he's had. “We’ve invested well, I’ve spent more than I’ve ever spent this summer and I’m grateful for that,” explained a manager who has so far signed seven players. “I’m fortunate to have that, I’ve been able to invest more on transfer fees and more on wages and I’ve got bigger and better players. When you do that you have more quality, you can play better football. When you don’t, it’s about upsetting bigger and better teams, it’s about embarrassing them and it’s something you don’t get credit for. You’re doing it with lesser players and that makes you better than them. But it also means people start saying you’re something you’re not.” http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/newcastleunited/journalsport/tm_method=full%26objectid=19618467%26siteid=50081-name_page.html how come chaps like you riducule the Chronicle, then take bits that suit you Never mind. I expect you will ignore this mind : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premiership/newcastle/article2240973.ece Whether the new owner will let me spend as much as Freddy would have is something we’ll find out come the end of August [when the transfer window closes] but there’s a few players I’ve targeted, either for August or when the window reopens in January, and so far, so good.” and THAT, is all I have said. No more, no less. Quite amazing how you and others are jumping around just because a post isn't either totally anti-Shepherd, or pro-Ashley. But I expected that from the likes of you too. You ridicule the Times, then take the bits that suit you though. Their claims about the Owen clause, which turned out to be correct, is one example that springs to mind. Also, that Chronicle article quoted above has crediblity because it contains direct quotes rather than just supposition. I suspect you realise this though. just so long as its either anti Shepherd/Hall or pro-Ashley eh Alex mackems.gif I don't ridicule the Times BTW, just certain pompous journos when they publish "opinions", especially something about Newcastle because it is anti-Newcastle , most of who are the same people who laughingly said that Keegan "spent a load of money and failed because he won nothing" For the record, I have taken on board both quotes. See my post earlier where I state "Just because I want to believe Ashley will back the board more than the Halls and Shepherd doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to pretend they have just yet". Because, basically, whatever you want to believe, they haven't. Not yet. And you don't know if they will or not any more than I do. Yet. Where have I said that though? Address the points man and stop making things up. Agree with some of your other points, some are just silly. You can't compare a regime that's been in five minutes to one that was in for years in terms of backing the manager. Anyway, I bet you're quite optimistic at the minute, secretly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I'm not jumping through hoops until I see some concrete evidence that he at least has the desire to succeed. Ashley has already put around £200 million of his own money into the club, which is around £200 million more than Shepherd ever did. Do you interpret this as a representing a desire for the club NOT to succeed? You can't really classify the £200m he spent as being money 'put into the club'. How much was the buy-out? £140m? The club hasn't seen a penny of that. Where does the other £60m come from? Our net spending is approximately £15m, and that's what he's put into the club so far, excluding other unknown expenditure like developing the training ground, hiring in new staff etc. Well, even if he only put £1.50 into the club that would be £1.50 more than Shepherd ever put in. As for the difference between £140 million and £200 million, you have perhaps missed the stories about the extent of the debt which has been left behind by Shepherd. £60 million is probably an underestimate – most have pegged it at around £80 million. By taking on that debt, Ashley is actually paying for our recent player purchases under Shepherd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Back on the subject of Dyer, I know it pains the Dyer hate mob that we are going to get so much money for him, but trust me, this works in our favour. I can picture it now: Northern Monkey: " 7 f****** million??! He isn't worth half of that! Nooooooo!!!! He's a f****** little waster who's taken us for mugs - Get rid for £1m!!! you're an idiot. and i mean that with the utmost of respect. Considering you were were saying Dyer wasn't worth half of the £6m, we are now £4m richer (touch wood) thanks to not under-selling our assets. So who is the idiot in this scenario? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I'm not jumping through hoops until I see some concrete evidence that he at least has the desire to succeed. Ashley has already put around £200 million of his own money into the club, which is around £200 million more than Shepherd ever did. Do you interpret this as a representing a desire for the club NOT to succeed? You can't really classify the £200m he spent as being money 'put into the club'. How much was the buy-out? £140m? The club hasn't seen a penny of that. Where does the other £60m come from? Our net spending is approximately £15m, and that's what he's put into the club so far, excluding other unknown expenditure like developing the training ground, hiring in new staff etc. Well, even if he only put £1.50 into the club that would be £1.50 more than Shepherd ever put in. As for the difference between £140 million and £200 million, you have perhaps missed the stories about the extent of the debt which has been left behind by Shepherd. £60 million is probably an underestimate most have pegged it at around £80 million. By taking on that debt, Ashley is actually paying for our recent player purchases under Shepherd. That is a good point about the debt, wasn't thinking about it. Anyhow, the point still stands that he hasn't actually put that much money 'into' the club, and it's pretty obvious that in the long-run, he'll be taking money out of the club. That's what billionaire businessmen do to stay as billionaires. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I'm not jumping through hoops until I see some concrete evidence that he at least has the desire to succeed. Ashley has already put around £200 million of his own money into the club, which is around £200 million more than Shepherd ever did. Do you interpret this as a representing a desire for the club NOT to succeed? You can't really classify the £200m he spent as being money 'put into the club'. How much was the buy-out? £140m? The club hasn't seen a penny of that. Where does the other £60m come from? Our net spending is approximately £15m, and that's what he's put into the club so far, excluding other unknown expenditure like developing the training ground, hiring in new staff etc. Well, even if he only put £1.50 into the club that would be £1.50 more than Shepherd ever put in. As for the difference between £140 million and £200 million, you have perhaps missed the stories about the extent of the debt which has been left behind by Shepherd. £60 million is probably an underestimate ? most have pegged it at around £80 million. By taking on that debt, Ashley is actually paying for our recent player purchases under Shepherd. That is a good point about the debt, wasn't thinking about it. Anyhow, the point still stands that he hasn't actually put that much money 'into' the club, and it's pretty obvious that in the long-run, he'll be taking money out of the club. That's what billionaire businessmen do to stay as billionaires. Still better than what Shepherd did -- pay himself dividends in order to buy more shares. Though on a much smaller scale, that's a bit like the kind of leveraged buy-out that the Glazer family used to buy Man U. They got the club, but borrowed to purchase against future revenues, and as a result Man U is now saddled with a £680 million debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I reckon we'll really see the difference between the old and the new regimes if we achieve a bit of success (ie top four) Before, we reached a certain point through spending money, and then were unable to push on because it was all spent. Once the upward momentum starts to falter, it's difficult to recover, as we discovered twice. If Allardyce gets us into the Champions League, I think he'll get more money, and not just a pat on the back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £7mill is a fair price, are we losing Nobby to them too ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £7mill is a fair price, are we losing Nobby to them too ? Apparently not, according to the Journal this morning. Seems like Portsmouth is the most likely destination. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £7M for Dyer is great money imo. Glad to get rid of one of the "old pieces" of Newcastle who never could give us consistent performances due to injurys and lack of effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £14m for Dyer and Parker? Amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Deal completed according to the Chronicle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Deal completed according to the Chronicle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmymag Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Hopefully the Dire saga is nearing an end and £7 million is a very good piece of business. It just shows that it's easier to play poker when you have a billion in chips to back up your decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Deal completed according to the Chronicle. Not the first time Anal has told us the deal is completed though is it so I'll wait until I see Dyer in a West Ham shirt on SSN until I believe it. EDIT: Looking at the pic of the back page I can't believe he's got the nerve to use a pic of last nights paper where he said the deal was back on in one of those "we told you first" bollocks pieces. You told us over a week ago that he'd signed for £6 million and then when it fell through told us that there was no chance the deal would be resurrected. United are hoping that West Ham will come back in for him, but all the messages I am getting from East London is that they have no intention in doing so. However, at the end of the day Solano’s future now lies in United’s hands, but if anyone at St James’ Park thinks the Dyer deal can be resurrected then they are mistaken. Link Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £14m for Dyer and Parker? Amazing. THIS. Staggering. Thank God for Icelandic stupidity! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 So Anal saying Dyer deal is done, probably really means Dyer has re-signed a 6 year deal for £100grand per week with us. Icelandic stupidity "Hmmmmm £7million, well should we or not mini me?" http://weblog.site5.com/images/photos/minime.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £14m for Dyer and Parker? Amazing. THIS. Staggering. Thank God for Icelandic stupidity! Instead getting Geremi and Barton or Smith for around £6m 2 better players and £8M in on the bank for us ....Quality dealing by Sam and the rest involved :clap: :clap: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £14m for Dyer and Parker? Amazing. THIS. Staggering. Thank God for Icelandic stupidity! I hope he's not paying us in biscuits! Actually, if Freddie was still here he'd have loved that deal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 How much have we spent now then? When taking the money from parkers and dyers tranfers off from our outlay? About £10-11M?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £14m for Dyer and Parker? Amazing. THIS. Staggering. Thank God for Icelandic stupidity! Instead getting Geremi and Barton or Smith for around £6m 2 better players and £8M in on the bank for us ....Quality dealing by Sam and the rest involved :clap: :clap: If this comes off, definately. I was aghast when we pulled the plug on the Dyer thing at £6m. If we can get another mill for the little cunt, i'll be over the moon! I genuinely thoguht Ashley had fucked that one up, but fair play to him and his team if it goes through at £7m - although the sickening feeling at thinking we were going to have to keep paying superstar wages to a very average player weren't nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Monkey Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 £14m for Dyer and Parker? Amazing. THIS. Staggering. Thank God for Icelandic stupidity! I hope he's not paying us in biscuits! Actually, if Freddie was still here he'd have loved that deal! "£4m cash, £2m based on appearances, and all the chocolate bourbons i can eat.......what do you mean, you can't make that many bourbons???" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 How much have we spent now then? When taking the money from parkers and dyers tranfers off from our outlay? About £10-11M?? £20.9m out and £13.5m in? 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