Kitman

He'd need to be wearing flippers by the sound of it

Why you would leave all of that for Sydney is beyond me

Yeah. Not exactly, but there'd be less expectation. Isn't that the point? Its the same as the fullback position. We needed a player, we sold one, got one in, and still need one more. Only difference with the striker situation is the player we sold was for an absolute fortune and was replaced for nothing. If you believe (as I do) that we're operating on a 'one out one in' principle, then Carroll was replaced by Ba. Which means unless the likes of Lovenkrands, Ranger or (please God) Ameobi get transferred in Jan, there's little prospect of seeing a new striker this season. In the summer Smith, Guthrie and I think Loven's contracts are up which gives more headroom. If we were serious about kicking on we'd recruit a new striker, CB and RB but presumably that would shoot the wage bill/budget to shit so I doubt we'll see anything in Jan, especially if the current rate of progress is maintained. Which is a crying shame. Especially since I assume Ba will be off to play in the Africa Nations Cup, which would leave us very short upfront. Ameobi could play for Nigeria but I see that as improving the squad if he does.

England have been pretty terrible so I don't get the optimism. I'm probably going to England vs Scotland, just sorting out the tickets. Went to ABs v France at the weekend, it was mint. No comparison with the toon crowd on a good day though, not least because the match was over after 15 minutes.

One of my Kiwi mates is a toon fan but apart from I see the occasional toon shirt here and there. Plenty of footy fans at work though (incl West Ham, Brum, Wolves) so get a bit of PL banter. NZ seems to be a Mackem free zone, so no FTM craic.

Yeah. Not exactly, but there'd be less expectation. Isn't that the point? Its the same as the fullback position. We needed a player, we sold one, got one in, and still need one more. Only difference with the striker situation is the player we sold was for an absolute fortune and was replaced for nothing. If you believe (as I do) that we're operating on a 'one out one in' principle, then Carroll was replaced by Ba. Which means unless the likes of Lovenkrands, Ranger or (please God) Ameobi get transferred in Jan, there's little prospect of seeing a new striker this season. In the summer Smith, Guthrie and I think Loven's contracts are up which gives more headroom. If we were serious about kicking on we'd recruit a new striker, CB and RB but presumably that would shoot the wage bill/budget to shit so I doubt we'll see anything in Jan, especially if the current rate of progress is maintained. Which is a crying shame.

As if there's a choice

As I understand it from one of Muslim colleagues, you can eat during the day as long as you pay a penance (for instance a donation). Whilst I respect cultural differences I think our Muslim players could stretch to this arrangement around match days for the duration of their short playing careers. Plenty of time for devotion when they've retired.....

The only way that piece makes sense to me is if Ashley's decided to substitute some of his personal debt with bank debt. Something he's not wanted to do up to now.

Neutrino would be a good name for a superhero. Or maybe a brand name like Coffee Neutrino or Bar Neutrino. That's my contribution to the debate.

He needs to be handled gently if he's going to be broken in properly

Sensible decision if you ask me. When players have been out for so long, there's a higher chance of them picking up muscle injuries, so he definitely needs to be nurtured back. Imagine the reception he'll get when he comes off the bench on Saturday? I agree, off the bench for a few matches, no starts in the prem

And Rodney Marsh's

It's all about opinions, isn't it

In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. We were - give or take where spurs are now 5 years ago man. In that time TV money has gone up about 30%. Still not in London though

We should just ask the Greys to draw us a roadmap. Would savea lot of time and expense.

Cracking film imo, well worth a watch. I'd recommend 16 Blocks too, another rare Bruce Willis film with acting and a storyline

Home win

The Illuminati work in mysterious ways. It's either them or the underground lizards.....

The rotten stench of a long dead thread reanimated by dark forces for reasons unknown.......

Apologies you are correct, problem with trusting newspaper sites that incorrectly show Euro figures as Sterling! Redone the figures, using the actual Sterling amounts in the Deloitte pdfs to get: So as can be seen, the minimum increase in the UK for the other "UK Rich clubs" was just over 35% since 2007, we are on 0.01% Using the average increase (as I did previously) would give an average increase since 2007 of 52.42% Applying that to our £85.9m from 2007 should have seen us on £130.94m turnover for 2010. Spookily and I assume totally luckily this is virtually exactly the same answer as before 0.1% actually. We've done 10 times better than you're claiming! Presumably achieving 130 mill would be contingent on qualifying for the CL. I presume that's why Spurs have shown such a jump?

On that point there must be a tipping point where it's cheaper to offer a key player more money than it is to buy a replacement on cheaper wages, unless the new player is on a free transfer (and even then as we know you have to pay agents fees etc). I take your point about all of the squad wanting to re-negotiate though so there's a knock on effect. I'm just wondering whether it's true that you'll save money by replacing players, especially once the last high earners like Colo and Smith (and possibly Xisco) are shipped out. You'd hope that replacing a player is a decision made on footballing grounds not financial ones. The Carrroll sale is obviously a financial decision whereas I would say the Nolan sale was possibly more of a footballing one - an ageing player who would offer less and less on the pitch but wanted a long contract. I'm sure there are increments that get discussed and I'm sure there will come a stage when the cap will get genuinely tested for the very reason you've mentioned. I'm not saying it's easy to live with on a personal level either, because it's not, it's gutting. I s'pose I try my best to get a bit less worked up about it though if possible, because I think acquisition remains a more straightforward process than retention under those constraints. Thus when we decided we wouldn't buy a striker last window I thought they were just taking the piss out of us-that was eminently do-able and would have made a real difference. Yes. I've wondered since whether there's a 'one out one in' component to that thinking i.e. some other reason a new striker didn't come through other than 'they made joke offers and fucked it up'. If financial discipline is all important then it wouldn't surprise me if a large part of why we didn't sign a new striker was that we couldn't get any of the old ones off the wage bill (Loven, Ameobi, Ranger in particular). Which would be crazy from a footballing pov of course. I was hoping that the reason we signed up Shola to a new contract was we were preparing to ship him out but hey ho, another disappointment from the summer.

On that point there must be a tipping point where it's cheaper to offer a key player more money than it is to buy a replacement on cheaper wages, unless the new player is on a free transfer (and even then as we know you have to pay agents fees etc). I take your point about all of the squad wanting to re-negotiate though so there's a knock on effect. I'm just wondering whether it's true that you'll save money by replacing players, especially once the last high earners like Colo and Smith (and possibly Xisco) are shipped out. You'd hope that replacing a player is a decision made on footballing grounds not financial ones. The Carrroll sale is obviously a financial decision whereas I would say the Nolan sale was possibly more of a footballing one - an ageing player who would offer less and less on the pitch but wanted a long contract.

You're right, best not to bother trying Toonpack's sympathies lie with the owner and his bank balance for some reason. Dunno why some people worry about FMA's bank balance, he's very rich. (I realise it's easy to play with other people's money but then I didn't ask him to buy NUFC.)

To have any chance of signing a new striker, we'll have to shift a couple of the current batch imo. That's they way these guys operate.