José Enrique

[Stu]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

Yes, but they didn't have Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias running running them

 

From our signings this season in Ben Arfa and Tiote i would say things are going in the right direction transfer policy wise.

 

We also signed Best and Perch [/obvious lazy retort]

 

Wow, Neesy, you're actually holding up in this debate

[TRon]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

We'll find out if the Ashley policy is comparable to Arsenal and Sevilla this summer. Wenger might buy only promising players but they tend to be the best in the world and don't cost peanuts.

[80]

I understand those that say they too would have accepted a £35 million bid for the player, but as fans, we would reinvest that money into the squad. Will Ashley? We can only wait and see. Selling Carroll has improved our financial standing, but it has shown other clubs that we will sell our best players and that ultimately the club lacks ambition.

 

I don't think the club selling Carroll for £35m shows that they lack ambition.

 

Failing to reinvest that money back into the squad will show a lack of ambition.

 

True, that is kind of what I'm trying to get at. I just don't think they will reinvest the a lot of the money, which is why I am bitter about the sale.

 

I understand those that say they too would have accepted a £35 million bid for the player, but as fans, we would reinvest that money into the squad. Will Ashley? We can only wait and see. Selling Carroll has improved our financial standing, but it has shown other clubs that we will sell our best players and that ultimately the club lacks ambition.

 

TBH selling a player for the all time british record signing of an english player doesn't demonstrate that we'd sell our best players due to a lack of ambition. It shows that if you want our best players, you better be willing to cough up the dough to pay for them

 

We'll see what happens with Enrique and Tiote in the summer ...

 

I agree tottally with the sentiment of distrust that you have, I have it too. But there a number of reasons I'm certain that they won't leave 1) Where are they going to go? All the top teams have it covered 2)Even if a top team do want them as benchwarmers, are these teams gonna pay over ten million minimum for a benchwarmer?

 

Mind you if we do go down they'll be gone as well as the fact that I don't hold high our chances of keeping them if we don't bring any players in.

 

Hypothetically speaking ...

 

Evra leaves Man Utd for a Barcelona/R. Madrid/Inter type club for £8 million. Guess who they come to first? Liverpool shed Konchesky ... they come for Enrique. Barcelona look for a long-term replacement for Abidal (plus he's Spanish).

 

Man Utd finally get rid of Hargreaves, Tiote could be the athletic DM they've needed for years. Abramovich continues to pump transfer funds into Chelsea, so they bid £15m. West Ham stay up, and Redknapp finally gives up on Parker, guess which DM they come for.

 

Call my viewpoint grim, but with these bastards as owners I've lost all optimism for this club. Just think we're going to become a conveyor belt for talent, Ashley's cash cow.

 

Do you know what a cash cow is?

 

Ashley will be lucky if he ever breaks even let alone makes a profit out of Newcastle United.

 

We're hardly Ashley's cash cow FFS, he hasn't made any money out of us and stands very little chance of ever doing so.

 

I have a business degree ... so yes.

 

You seriously think he can't turn this club into a "nice little earner" for himself? Decreasing wage bill, emphasis placed on "developing young players" to be harvested in the future - leading to increasing revenue from transfer sales.

 

He sold Carroll for £35 million, Tiote and Enrique could realistically go for a combined £22 million. This situation would put him £47 million in profit from 3 players. Let's say Ben Arfa has a good season next term, he could be worth £12-15 million by the end of 2011/12.

 

And he would still be considerably short of the £200M plus he has already invested into the club.

 

So no, I think it is a long way from becoming a cash cow or a 'nice little earner'.

 

He'd still possess the value of the club though in absence of those players (a value which will have increased in the mean time). Furthermore, with ticket income remaining strong and guaranteed, if people take him up on 3+ year deals, he'll also have a relatively cheap wage bill. With television money having leaped up recently also, of course.

 

Do we have any genuine reason to believe he is going to personally pocket the £35M from the sale of Andy Carroll and all transfer income from future player sales?

 

Ticket income may be strong but not guaranteed(opt out clause at the end of each season), the value of the club remains but so would the debt that the club has.

 

 

 

 

Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club.

 

No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts).

 

Yes, but the value of Assets at the club in terms of playing squad has fallen.  If that £35M is spunked then the value of was spent and then wasted will have gone from the club.

 

Indeed, or it might be well invested or not invested at all. And the team might do better or worse without him. So selling Carroll doesn't necessarily do anything to the club's value.

 

Your right, as with Assets they can rise or fall.  Tiote and Ben Arfa will be assets which are likely to rise, especially with Tiote.

 

Which is why I disagreed and said Ashley can sell players and keep making money...

 

That is correct, as long as we replace every player sold with a player with equal potential to that we'll make a profit on them.  Isn't this what ashley has said he wants to do anycase ?!?

 

Give or take, yep. Although the replacement player doesn't have to be as good as the player who just left, just ideally good enough to ensure the rest of the club doesn't lose any earning potential (largely through ticket sales and television money). That way you can sell high, buy cheap and pocket the profit.

 

Brilliant if you are Ashley, but is that what you want our football club to become?!

 

If it get's rid of him sooner, I'm all for it.

 

Fair play, but the question is whether he'd really want to go if it's that profitable and he's given an easy ride by people.

 

It'll take him a long time even on that model for him to make his money back.

 

I'm sure with the negative publicity etc, he would rather get rid of us.

 

Won't take that long at all in the great scheme of things. Not many businesses offer the returns he could be looking at. Also, remember, he'll get a big chunk of money as and when he sells the club - add whatever it goes for on top of whatever he does take out of the club first.

 

Furthermore, he doesn't get that much negative publicity really. Nothing compared to what he could receive. Hell, if I were him I'd take a certain pleasure in having a small legion of people trying to do anyone down who do criticise him, as well.

[Thespence]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

Why do people hark on like we have policy? It is a fucking myth!!!What policy do we have place just so I know.

[80]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

Yes, but they didn't have Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias running running them

 

From our signings this season in Ben Arfa and Tiote i would say things are going in the right direction transfer policy wise.

 

No, two different points. I'm not denying the possibility they can run (parts of) a club well, I'm saying Arsenal and Sevilla had Boards that wanted to achieve footballing success, whereas I suggest Ashley and Llambias don't. And for good measure they'll denigrate the club by treating it like a prostitute, going for streaks across the pitch, abusing good club servants and appointing Joe Kinnears of the world.

[Guest neesy111]

I understand those that say they too would have accepted a £35 million bid for the player, but as fans, we would reinvest that money into the squad. Will Ashley? We can only wait and see. Selling Carroll has improved our financial standing, but it has shown other clubs that we will sell our best players and that ultimately the club lacks ambition.

 

I don't think the club selling Carroll for £35m shows that they lack ambition.

 

Failing to reinvest that money back into the squad will show a lack of ambition.

 

True, that is kind of what I'm trying to get at. I just don't think they will reinvest the a lot of the money, which is why I am bitter about the sale.

 

I understand those that say they too would have accepted a £35 million bid for the player, but as fans, we would reinvest that money into the squad. Will Ashley? We can only wait and see. Selling Carroll has improved our financial standing, but it has shown other clubs that we will sell our best players and that ultimately the club lacks ambition.

 

TBH selling a player for the all time british record signing of an english player doesn't demonstrate that we'd sell our best players due to a lack of ambition. It shows that if you want our best players, you better be willing to cough up the dough to pay for them

 

We'll see what happens with Enrique and Tiote in the summer ...

 

I agree tottally with the sentiment of distrust that you have, I have it too. But there a number of reasons I'm certain that they won't leave 1) Where are they going to go? All the top teams have it covered 2)Even if a top team do want them as benchwarmers, are these teams gonna pay over ten million minimum for a benchwarmer?

 

Mind you if we do go down they'll be gone as well as the fact that I don't hold high our chances of keeping them if we don't bring any players in.

 

Hypothetically speaking ...

 

Evra leaves Man Utd for a Barcelona/R. Madrid/Inter type club for £8 million. Guess who they come to first? Liverpool shed Konchesky ... they come for Enrique. Barcelona look for a long-term replacement for Abidal (plus he's Spanish).

 

Man Utd finally get rid of Hargreaves, Tiote could be the athletic DM they've needed for years. Abramovich continues to pump transfer funds into Chelsea, so they bid £15m. West Ham stay up, and Redknapp finally gives up on Parker, guess which DM they come for.

 

Call my viewpoint grim, but with these bastards as owners I've lost all optimism for this club. Just think we're going to become a conveyor belt for talent, Ashley's cash cow.

 

Do you know what a cash cow is?

 

Ashley will be lucky if he ever breaks even let alone makes a profit out of Newcastle United.

 

We're hardly Ashley's cash cow FFS, he hasn't made any money out of us and stands very little chance of ever doing so.

 

I have a business degree ... so yes.

 

You seriously think he can't turn this club into a "nice little earner" for himself? Decreasing wage bill, emphasis placed on "developing young players" to be harvested in the future - leading to increasing revenue from transfer sales.

 

He sold Carroll for £35 million, Tiote and Enrique could realistically go for a combined £22 million. This situation would put him £47 million in profit from 3 players. Let's say Ben Arfa has a good season next term, he could be worth £12-15 million by the end of 2011/12.

 

And he would still be considerably short of the £200M plus he has already invested into the club.

 

So no, I think it is a long way from becoming a cash cow or a 'nice little earner'.

 

He'd still possess the value of the club though in absence of those players (a value which will have increased in the mean time). Furthermore, with ticket income remaining strong and guaranteed, if people take him up on 3+ year deals, he'll also have a relatively cheap wage bill. With television money having leaped up recently also, of course.

 

Do we have any genuine reason to believe he is going to personally pocket the £35M from the sale of Andy Carroll and all transfer income from future player sales?

 

Ticket income may be strong but not guaranteed(opt out clause at the end of each season), the value of the club remains but so would the debt that the club has.

 

 

 

 

Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club.

 

No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts).

 

Yes, but the value of Assets at the club in terms of playing squad has fallen.  If that £35M is spunked then the value of was spent and then wasted will have gone from the club.

 

Indeed, or it might be well invested or not invested at all. And the team might do better or worse without him. So selling Carroll doesn't necessarily do anything to the club's value.

 

Your right, as with Assets they can rise or fall.  Tiote and Ben Arfa will be assets which are likely to rise, especially with Tiote.

 

Which is why I disagreed and said Ashley can sell players and keep making money...

 

That is correct, as long as we replace every player sold with a player with equal potential to that we'll make a profit on them.  Isn't this what ashley has said he wants to do anycase ?!?

 

Give or take, yep. Although the replacement player doesn't have to be as good as the player who just left, just ideally good enough to ensure the rest of the club doesn't lose any earning potential (largely through ticket sales and television money). That way you can sell high, buy cheap and pocket the profit.

 

Brilliant if you are Ashley, but is that what you want our football club to become?!

 

If it get's rid of him sooner, I'm all for it.

 

Fair play, but the question is whether he'd really want to go if it's that profitable and he's given an easy ride by people.

 

It'll take him a long time even on that model for him to make his money back.

 

I'm sure with the negative publicity etc, he would rather get rid of us.

 

Won't take that long at all in the great scheme of things. Not many businesses offer the returns he could be looking at. Also, remember, he'll get a big chunk of money as and when he sells the club - add whatever it goes for on top of whatever he does take out of the club first.

 

Furthermore, he doesn't get that much negative publicity really. Nothing compared to what he could receive. Hell, if I were him I'd take a certain pleasure in having a small legion of people trying to do anyone down who do criticise him, as well.

 

Football, has never been much of a profitable business for anyone because it's football and not a proper day-to-day consumer business.

 

I think when he thinks he could make around a £50M-£75M loss in total is when he'll bail.  £75M over 4-5 years isn't a great deal of money to him in the grand scheme of things.

[Colocho]

You know, Ashley has taken a lot of shit in the past few years but we're actually being run like a football is supposed to be, given the financial constraints on us. Eventually, every club will have to be run like us, making a small profit/loss each year and trying to improve through bargains. The model that City and Chelsea run is unsustainable and eventually they will have to change. How long that takes is an obvious unknown, but maybe, just maybe, we'll be better off if we have our finances in order when the other clubs collapse under the weight of the debt so that we can take advantage. Or our conservatism will leave us way too far behind and thus making it impossible to catch up with the teams in the CL. If you take the latter view, then what City are doing is correct because they will consolidate their position in the top 4 with CL revenue and make it improbable that we'll overtake them in the near future.

 

Agree, this is basically why I don't let my hatred for Ashley get out of hand. He's made a fair few mistakes but his approach to finances isn't one of them.

 

The only alternative is massive spending from his personal wealth, which he obviously isn't going to do. So it's pointless moaning about it.

 

So forcing Keegan out of the club, employing Joe Kinnear, treating Shearer like shite, sacking Hughton and complete disregard for the fans are all forgivable because "he" has got the finances in order.

 

Christ, we live in a moralistic world.

[quayside]

Carroll would have had a value of zero in our official accounts because a) we never paid a fee for him and b) it's not his first contract at the club.

 

We'll make a nice profit this year. That, I'm pretty sure of given how Ashley has slashed wages, made a profit on transfers and will be pocketing the highest tv revenue in a few years. Of course, we've made a hefty loss in the past few years so it's possible that Ashley will consider this year as a step toward recouping his investment and thus won't spend in the summer.

 

Is that right? I would have thought that all our assets would have a value on the balance sheet. Not that I know much about this stuff!

 

Players are valued at what they cost us. That value is then wrtitten down over the duration of the contract. Carroll cost us nothing so his value in the balance sheet would have been nothing.

 

That is true, but a buyer will always value what a team is worth in their own terms, not what is written on paper.

 

 

 

That's an entirely different point. The question was on how players are valued in the accounts.

 

Any potential buyer would have to take a view on what the assets and any future earnings are worth. Doing due diligence is a decent idea as well.

[Guest neesy111]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

Yes, but they didn't have Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias running running them

 

From our signings this season in Ben Arfa and Tiote i would say things are going in the right direction transfer policy wise.

 

No, two different point. I'm not denying the possibility they can run (parts of) a club well, I'm saying Arsenal and Sevilla had Boards that wanted to achieve footballing success, whereas I suggest Ashley and Llambias don't. And for good measure they'll denigrate the club by treating it like a prostitute, going for streaks across the pitch, abusing good club servants and appointing Joe Kinnears of the world.

 

That is correct.  The model is the correct way if we want to progress at the club, whether this board has learnt from it's past mistakes is a completely different proposition.

[80]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

Yes, but they didn't have Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias running running them

 

From our signings this season in Ben Arfa and Tiote i would say things are going in the right direction transfer policy wise.

 

We also signed Best and Perch [/obvious lazy retort]

 

Wow, Neesy, you're actually holding up in this debate

 

I don't do obvious lazy retorts... except for satire, that's my usual excuse.

[Wallace]

I too think Jose will go. 

 

More hopeful with Tiote because I think he might want another year learning about the Premier League before he steps up to a bigger club.  However, if a big offer comes in, he might not get the choice.

 

I am just concerned that we don't sell too many and if an offer comes in for some players and they are turned down, then those players are not disheartened.  We cannot afford to overhaul the squad each year in the hope we are going to find another half dozen players who prove to be as successful as Tiote.  We need to evolve rather than start from scratch each year.

 

It is looking like we are going to have to buy a lot of players this Summer as it is.  Before Carroll left, we needed another striker, left back and right winger.  We still need those players so it is likely that we will now need 2 LBs, 3 strikers (would let Lovenkrands go) and I would let a couple of other fringe players go like Ryan Taylor and Alan Smith.  I also get the feeling the club would listen to offers to Colo to get him off the wage bill.

 

That is starting to be a very long shopping list and with decent left backs and strikers being in short supply, the scouts are going to have their work cut out.

 

Let's hope we are safe from relegation sooner rather than later because we might then give some playing time to Vukic, Ferguson and Airey.

 

[Guest neesy111]

Carroll would have had a value of zero in our official accounts because a) we never paid a fee for him and b) it's not his first contract at the club.

 

We'll make a nice profit this year. That, I'm pretty sure of given how Ashley has slashed wages, made a profit on transfers and will be pocketing the highest tv revenue in a few years. Of course, we've made a hefty loss in the past few years so it's possible that Ashley will consider this year as a step toward recouping his investment and thus won't spend in the summer.

 

Is that right? I would have thought that all our assets would have a value on the balance sheet. Not that I know much about this stuff!

 

Players are valued at what they cost us. That value is then wrtitten down over the duration of the contract. Carroll cost us nothing so his value in the balance sheet would have been nothing.

 

That is true, but a buyer will always value what a team is worth in their own terms, not what is written on paper.

 

 

 

That's an entirely different point. The question was on how players are valued in the accounts.

 

Any potential buyer would have to take a view on what the assets and any future earnings are worth. Doing due diligence is a decent idea as well.

 

It is, but the football world isn't like a normal business that has property, cash etc as assets.  Barcelona will have a team of assets worth nothing on paper i.e. messi, pedro,  xavi, puyol, iniesta.  Does that devalue the club, ofcouse it doesn't if a buyer was interested.

[quayside]

Carroll would have had a value of zero in our official accounts because a) we never paid a fee for him and b) it's not his first contract at the club.

 

We'll make a nice profit this year. That, I'm pretty sure of given how Ashley has slashed wages, made a profit on transfers and will be pocketing the highest tv revenue in a few years. Of course, we've made a hefty loss in the past few years so it's possible that Ashley will consider this year as a step toward recouping his investment and thus won't spend in the summer.

 

Is that right? I would have thought that all our assets would have a value on the balance sheet. Not that I know much about this stuff!

 

Players are valued at what they cost us. That value is then wrtitten down over the duration of the contract. Carroll cost us nothing so his value in the balance sheet would have been nothing.

 

That is true, but a buyer will always value what a team is worth in their own terms, not what is written on paper.

 

 

 

That's an entirely different point. The question was on how players are valued in the accounts.

 

Any potential buyer would have to take a view on what the assets and any future earnings are worth. Doing due diligence is a decent idea as well.

 

It is, but the football world isn't like a normal business that has property, cash etc as assets.  Barcelona will have a team of assets worth nothing on paper i.e. messi, pedro,  xavi, puyol, iniesta.  Does that devalue the club, ofcouse it doesn't if a buyer was interested.

 

I'm confused. I didn't say anything at all about devaluing a club because the balance sheet understates player values. If balance sheet values were used to value a business then Ashley should have been paid by Hall and Shepherd to take it off their hands. And a football club might well have cash and property btw.

[Guest neesy111]

Carroll would have had a value of zero in our official accounts because a) we never paid a fee for him and b) it's not his first contract at the club.

 

We'll make a nice profit this year. That, I'm pretty sure of given how Ashley has slashed wages, made a profit on transfers and will be pocketing the highest tv revenue in a few years. Of course, we've made a hefty loss in the past few years so it's possible that Ashley will consider this year as a step toward recouping his investment and thus won't spend in the summer.

 

Is that right? I would have thought that all our assets would have a value on the balance sheet. Not that I know much about this stuff!

 

Players are valued at what they cost us. That value is then wrtitten down over the duration of the contract. Carroll cost us nothing so his value in the balance sheet would have been nothing.

 

That is true, but a buyer will always value what a team is worth in their own terms, not what is written on paper.

 

 

 

That's an entirely different point. The question was on how players are valued in the accounts.

 

Any potential buyer would have to take a view on what the assets and any future earnings are worth. Doing due diligence is a decent idea as well.

 

It is, but the football world isn't like a normal business that has property, cash etc as assets.  Barcelona will have a team of assets worth nothing on paper i.e. messi, pedro,  xavi, puyol, iniesta.  Does that devalue the club, ofcouse it doesn't if a buyer was interested.

 

I'm confused. I didn't say anything at all about devaluing a club because the balance sheet understates player values. If balance sheet values were used to value a business then Ashley should have been paid by Hall and Shepherd to take it off their hands. And a football club might well have cash and property btw.

 

I've confused you.  I'm just saying what is on a balance sheet and what a buyer views a club are different.  I think more so in football than other businesses. 

[TRon]

FWIW most people assumed Ashley wouldn't invest last season but we did buy Best and Routledge. He's in a position to spend proper money this summer, he might just shock everyone by doing it.

[Guest BlacknWhiteArmy]

I think Jose's going in the summer tbh 

[ponsaelius]

Liverpool scout was there on Saturday watching José. Very interested apparently.

[Guest neesy111]

You know, Ashley has taken a lot of shit in the past few years but we're actually being run like a football is supposed to be, given the financial constraints on us. Eventually, every club will have to be run like us, making a small profit/loss each year and trying to improve through bargains. The model that City and Chelsea run is unsustainable and eventually they will have to change. How long that takes is an obvious unknown, but maybe, just maybe, we'll be better off if we have our finances in order when the other clubs collapse under the weight of the debt so that we can take advantage. Or our conservatism will leave us way too far behind and thus making it impossible to catch up with the teams in the CL. If you take the latter view, then what City are doing is correct because they will consolidate their position in the top 4 with CL revenue and make it improbable that we'll overtake them in the near future.

 

Agree, this is basically why I don't let my hatred for Ashley get out of hand. He's made a fair few mistakes but his approach to finances isn't one of them.

 

The only alternative is massive spending from his personal wealth, which he obviously isn't going to do. So it's pointless moaning about it.

 

So forcing Keegan out of the club, employing Joe Kinnear, treating Shearer like shite, sacking Hughton and complete disregard for the fans are all forgivable because "he" has got the finances in order.

 

Christ, we live in a moralistic world.

 

Better than potentially not having a club which would have happened under previous regime.

[ATB]

Liverpool scout was there on Saturday watching José. Very interested apparently.

 

good for them. heard Messi is pretty good. surly pardew is very interested.

[Mick]

Better than potentially not having a club which would have happened under previous regime.

 

That's not true, we would probably have a different owner and a slightly different name.

[Stu]

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/images/684_467.jpg

[Mick]

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/images/684_467.jpg

 

[Disco]

Liverpool scout was there on Saturday watching José. Very interested apparently.

 

Anyone but them if worse comes to worse.

[Guest EastEndGeordie]

Is any player bigger than NUFC? The negativism on the board is amazing, tbh if a player really can't show a bit of loyalty to the club that made him then I don't really want them here.

[quayside]

Sevilla has this policy in early noughties and Arsenal still do.  Doesn't exactly hamper them though.

 

Yes, but they didn't have Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias running running them

 

From our signings this season in Ben Arfa and Tiote i would say things are going in the right direction transfer policy wise.

 

No, two different points. I'm not denying the possibility they can run (parts of) a club well, I'm saying Arsenal and Sevilla had Boards that wanted to achieve footballing success, whereas I suggest Ashley and Llambias don't . And for good measure they'll denigrate the club by treating it like a prostitute, going for streaks across the pitch, abusing good club servants and appointing Joe Kinnears of the world.

 

This is really the fundamental difference between those that give Ashley a chance and those that won't.

 

The utter f*ck ups of the past involving KK, Wise, JFK etc cannot be defended. The rare public pronouncements from "the club" by  Llambias suggest that he is an utter c*nt with no class about him whatsoever. And from that perspective I welcome Pardew who does at least make an effort to communicate in a way that those that follow our club can relate to.

 

The key though is whether there is anything about Ashley that wants the club to succeed on the pitch. I can totally understand the point of view you (and others) put forward and there is plenty of "previous" to back up your case. Fwiw I do think Ashley wants success. I don't think he wants to turn up and watch the team he owns being mediocre also rans. But he wants it done his way, and there is clearly a financial cap on what he will and what he won't do. He's stuck many millions into the club and to date not recovered any of it. How he responds to that situation is where his strategy will be defined. And of course if he really does want success there is the question of whether it is possible under the model he is operating. It is almost certain that whatever strategy he adopts it will depart from the one wanted by a lot of fans as it will not involve large funds of fresh investment in the squad.