manc-mag

Did he look a bit like Patrick Traughton or have I remembered that wrong?

Which actual players fit this model? Ashley didnt buy Carroll, Milner or N'Zogbia and didnt make a profit on Barton, Nolan or Enrique. Not sure you can use Carroll as an example of the model as he came from the academy and therefore has no relevance to the purchase of players in the market. He has a huge relevance ie bought for zero and sold for £35m = £35m profit. Thats the ultimate but even Ashley knows he cannot put out a team of academy players so he has to buy in. Its irrelevant if Ashley bought Milner (8m), N'Zog (5.75m), Carroll (35m), Beye (0.6m?), Bassong (7.5m), Given (5m) etc, the profit is still a profit. Those 6 alone have realised a purchase/sale profit of over £60m. Yeah but equally you can make the point that, Carroll aside, those players were all bought while we were still a 'spending club' (in relative terms). And Ashley has run a spending club-so those profits are made on selling the bigger ticket/recognised players. Might as well carry on with that model in that case as that's whats proven. I just think it's an inevitable by product of offering modest wages at the end of the day-he thinks they're the best for the money he's prepared to spend.

He was jock wasn't he? Good knowledge that like. Maybe Johnson was an average sprinter massively enhanced by drug usage for his whole career, and who's to say Maradona didn't do a few lines before every game? Wells had massive thighs. Seem to remember him in those cycling short things while everyone else was still in skimpy ron hills.

As you've alluded to, it would be amazing just to see what he could achieve if he ran (for him) the perfect race. I'd like to see him train for a 400m as well because I've little doubt he could absolutely smash that record too. Tbh I'd be interested to see him do the 400 without doing any specific training for it (ie so as not to detract from his main distances) because I reckon it'd be worth the punt. Certainly be interesting anyway in terms of stages of the race.

Imagine Bolt on steroids. Anyone reckon he could do a sub 9 second?

Think he was meant to be seeing Mark McCoy (Canadian hurdler - that should be a euphemism). 'Canadian puddle jumper Mark McCoy'

Aye, that Colin Jackson too. Eeeeeee!

Fair enough, I just don't think he's naive enough to think the 'ultimate example' of it (in Carroll) is something which is likely to be repeated often enough to make it his sole motivator. I think he's far more concerned about maintaining modest wages-and where you do that (ie where it's universally known you're not going to compete to retain a player by matching the would-be buyers wages), on balance you're less likely to achieve a huge transfer fee because the buying club doesnt have to make any other incentive available other than higher wages-because this makes the player want away instantly and you're suddenly left with someone who doesn't want to play for you anymore.

Sick of hearing stuff like this, knowing full well it's true. It's patently not true in the sense you mean though. It involves a risk; the fat bastard is hardly clairvoyant. If Santon's any good then he will be, like every other player we have, effectively for sale to anyone who will offer him better wages. The primary motive in getting him won't be to turn a massive profit on him though-if he's good we'll want to keep him-however we will lose him if he's offered more wages and then it will be an exercise in finding out how big a fee can be achieved. Thats the bit I disagree, albeit it, based on personal belief but with a fair bit of history to back it up. I believe these players are purchased with the express hope that they'll make it big and move on for a profit. If not then we would be offering bigger wages and desperately trying to hold onto players instead of firing up the chopper at the first sign of a sale. Youre right about the risk though but thats no different to the risk involved in them coming good and staying. I think it's more the case that, realistically, you know if they do become top performers they're ultimately going to be offered deals we cant match if we're operating a maximum wage cap. In those circumstances, if you're not prepared to make an exception to your wage cap (and we definitely won't) they will go. At that stage you get what you can for them. Remains to be seen whether Santon is Enrique's replacement, but say he was, Enrique goes for £6 million and it costs practically the equivalent to replace him. I just don't see that as being a predominantly transfer profit driven sequence of events. But yes, as far as we can do, when sale becomes inevitable we will get the biggest price we can. Sale will just be more common in our case given our wage structure.

For the sake of everyones sanity, the Carroll sale has to be seen for what it was-a freak transaction for silly money. To think an entire transfer policy is based around a sell-on model like that needs people to disengage brains. If people are suggesting that every player we get in we expect to sell for £35 million they need to have a word. Enrique went for £6 million and Barton went for free and they're top performers. They went because they could get more money elsewhere, it's only daft deals where £35 million figures get chucked about.

Sick of hearing stuff like this, knowing full well it's true. It's patently not true in the sense you mean though. It involves a risk; the fat bastard is hardly clairvoyant. If Santon's any good then he will be, like every other player we have, effectively for sale to anyone who will offer him better wages. The primary motive in getting him won't be to turn a massive profit on him though-if he's good we'll want to keep him-however we will lose him if he's offered more wages and then it will be an exercise in finding out how big a fee can be achieved.

Both and for Italy, even played right wing for Inter at one stage. For inter he was switched sides purely on who was injured, why he got so many games for them, he'll basically fill in where needed. Bit like Fabio for man.u, really he's a left back, he's left footed, but he can play at the right if he has to, but he's better on the left. vice versa for Rafael. like a lot of players dribbles crosses passes tackles with his right, he can use his left, but will 98% of the time drag it back or get it onto his right. Which is awful when defending and playing on the wrong side (tackling wise). edit > i didn't watch that video i've prob watched a lot of the games featured in it anyway, but i'd lay odds on the clips of him playing on the left he drags it back and does stepovers etc to get it back on his right for crosses and tackles Have to say, a propensity to put it on his right in order to put a cross in is a minor issue for me. I'm a bit old fashioned in that I'm not really arsed about how a full back attacks, I just want one that can defend. I think people can get carried away with things when a full back bombs on, it's a bonus but it's nothing compared to being composed, defensive and comfortable on the ball. It's not him crossing the ball that bothers me, it's going in with the wrong foot for tackles because he's on the wrong side that does, that gets you caught out too much too often, whether it's being off balance, or not able to recover/block a cross. It's a bad idea for defenders to be on the wrong side, but i agree for the likes of a winger it hardly matters. If he's got any defensive nous though, he'll not be a diver into tackles. I think it's less of an issue if you're not some shit last ditch slide tackler. Anyway theres an element of 'relative speaking' in what I'm saying seeing as the alternatives are currently Simpson and Taylor depending on where he's used.

Risks associated of course but 1. get him feeling a part of the club, and 2. be patient with him on the pitch = every chance he becomes a strong link in the defensive chain.

Sold to him: 1.Promise of first team football 2.Premiership 3.Match his wages 4.Newcastle great club blah blah Other (top) clubs not interested: 1.Not a current starter for Inter Pretty much it I reckon.

Both and for Italy, even played right wing for Inter at one stage. For inter he was switched sides purely on who was injured, why he got so many games for them, he'll basically fill in where needed. Bit like Fabio for man.u, really he's a left back, he's left footed, but he can play at the right if he has to, but he's better on the left. vice versa for Rafael. like a lot of players dribbles crosses passes tackles with his right, he can use his left, but will 98% of the time drag it back or get it onto his right. Which is awful when defending and playing on the wrong side (tackling wise). edit > i didn't watch that video i've prob watched a lot of the games featured in it anyway, but i'd lay odds on the clips of him playing on the left he drags it back and does stepovers etc to get it back on his right for crosses and tackles Have to say, a propensity to put it on his right in order to put a cross in is a minor issue for me. I'm a bit old fashioned in that I'm not really arsed about how a full back attacks, I just want one that can defend. I think people can get carried away with things when a full back bombs on, it's a bonus but it's nothing compared to being composed, defensive and comfortable on the ball.

It feels like a big boot is kicking me in slow motion & it's going to go through my teeth before the deadline but I can't move, stuck in a football nightmare. [/drama] But seriously, hoping for no outgoings! Be amazed if a large offer doesnt materialise tomorrow for Tiote. 'Thankfully' he's been shit for the opening games.

Wouldn't it be great if we signed Pieters or Cissokho as well? I realise it won't happen. Be nice to sign Santon first like.

That goes to the person who makes the 1,000,000th post. Unless it's you.

Can't see anything to be gained in this for NUFC whatsoever.

I'd settle for that like. Given my successfully lowered expectations of course nice work.

The 'selling' club has sweet fuck all power in the matter in reality, if a player wants to leave they leave. The player calls the shots, which is exactly why we lost Barton, Enrique, Nolan etc ourselves. They went for relative peanuts because they could get more money elsewhere, the transfer fee became a secondary issue. I reckon we'll keep doing it until we get a hefty sanction (and I think that would have to be pretty high given the savings on offer for tapping up) because Ashley and his specky croupier will have absolutely no moral qualms about it whatsoever.

Bit surprised we haven't seen the 'HBA strategy of loan-plus-option-to-buy used tbh as I thought that would become something of an Ashley mainstay. As Jay says, if they take the on paper view that we've got eg 6 strikers already, they're willingly fooling themselves and we'll be fucked for goals. And I say that despite actually having some faith in Ba to come good. Aside from him it's toothless.

Deadman doesn't waste his time talking.

Ba's 26 with a decent goal scoring record throughout his career. So I'd hardly call him potential. Yes, he's looked poor for us so far, but it's far too early to be writing him off. Aye, think the Ba example is harsh. Proven track record and although he's been unspectacular for us so far I have genuine hope he can get us regular goals. Love him to get off the mark against QPR and see how he goes from there.