Kitman

All seems a bit unnecessary Deano.

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh? I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty. There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted. You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

If he had any shame, yes. 100%.

1 October according to physioroom.com I suspect our entire game plan is to see how he does as a support striker with either Ba or Best up front. Our relative comfort in the league could hinge on how well he comes back and how lucky we are with injuries, given our paucity of striking options and lack of defensive cover. No doubt we'll be back in for a striker in January if all goes to shit. 100% this time.

Please God, not Diouf. Woman beating shit of a man.

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

Perhaps Deano could go double or quits for the January window......

Why don't you just use the hoover them up with the extension thingy (with no fitting on the end)? You'll find they make a very satisfying 'thock' noise as they hurtle to their deaths, and you can do it from a distance. I used to pick up spiders and chuck 'em out the window (because I'm nails) but my missus would hoover the buggers to death if I wasn't in......which is just as well as I'm not sure I'd have survived the shock of seeing her with a hoover in her hand......

Dumb and obese. Not a good combination.

Well am 38 and i had convinced myself by Tuesday night that we would get a striker so you're in company anyway. However, when we sold Enrique i was in the same hopeful state of mind (without reason at that moment) and Gemmill basically made a strong case and post that he wouldnt be replaced and we wouldnt get a striker. Thats when i caught myself and realised aye, getting carried away with hope but the form book is there for all to see. So i reset the expectations and assumed no one was coming in. Then we signed Santon, hormones went through the roof and there was me refreshing french transfer market websites. Ffs. Yes, well santon felt like we were gathering momentum, and between a LB and striker, I thought LB was the less likely. On a number of fronts I thought a new striker was a no brainer. How wrong can you get

He must be on glue. I rarely go on there anymore.

To be fair Pardew's career was rapidly heading down the toilet before we took him on. In fact it was down the toilet, into the sewer and bobbing its way towards the sea when we threw him a lifeline. So I don't think he'll jump ship before he's put in a good shift with us regardless of the barriers placed in his way, not unless he's got somewhere good to go to. I'm pretty confident he would have known what he was getting into before he accepted the hotseat. That's assuming of course he's not nuts deep in gambling debts as is rumoured. In which case he'll cling on for grim death like a limpet, whatever humiliation he has to ensure, otherwise Big Tony and his mates will cut his knackers off with a rusty spoon. Or something.

"The lying bitch was asking for it, officer"

I don't know why I expected us to sign a striker. My head said nothing would happen. My heart said they couldn't be that stupid. I'm a bit disappointed with myself, 44 years old and still a bit gullible.

I don't think we'll get relegated but I don't think Ashley will allow any signifcant investment in the team until the club can both fund itself and repay his loans.

This is pure speculation but I wonder if we're on a strict 'one out one in' type policy. So if anyone had come in for Ranger/Lovenkrands/Best we probably would have magically signed another striker. I'm guessing Ba and Ben Arfa is our first choice strikeforce for the season so one of those 3 would have possibly needed to leave before we brought someone else in.

No way is that the worst strikeforce in the prem. Everton have an argentinian loanee and a rarely fit Saha as their only strikers with Beckford and Yakubu gone not to mention the likes of Norwich and Swansea. The strikeforce could be better certainly. I reckon we were in for a few strikers but were to stingy to pull any deal off, we'll probably try again in January. Not ideal but it's still a decent squad overall imo. OK, maybe I was exagerrating because I'm fucking pissed off. Glad you're happy with it though, I'm not.

"I know I've been sayin' for a while now we needed bodies in. but I'm delighted with what we've got, I really am. We was in for some quality players, we was hopin' to get them over the line, in fact I know we was close to gettin' a number of them. But them clubs was askin' for silly money, we was offerin' them top fees and top wages but we have to be smart, we're not backed by a sovereign nation like Man City, it's not like we can do a deal at any price. When I look at the signings we've made I'm delighted, I really am. Your Cabayes, your Santons, your Obertans, your Elliots - these are top class players. And don't forget we've got Hatem to come back, he'll be like a new signing. Plus them players we got already - your Bests, your Sholas, your Perches - these are top top players and they're getting the chance to show me what they can do. I'm really excited by them kids coming through from our Academy too, they're knocing on the door every day. So, look, would I have liked some more bodies in? Yes, what manager wouldn't? Am I disappointed? Nah, I'm happy with what I've got, make no mistake we're looking to take this club forward and challenge for some silverware in the next ten years and that's what we're going to do. Er, will that do, Mike?"

The squad's not good enough and there's no excuse for not strengthening. We don't need a teamsheet to tell us that.

Very disappointed we didn't get another striker. Even a few loan deals would have given us much needed depth in defence and up front. There's no excuse really, they had long enough to sort it, they didn't want to spend the money or preferred to play a game of brinkmanship. Ba/Best/Ameobi/Lovenkrands/Jailbait. Worst strikeforce in the prem. Twats.

300k spend Disgraceful. Well, anyone still reckon that Ashley has any ambition whatsoever for this club? 30 million profit in January, 300k net spend 8 months later. Do that math, 'team positive.' It's maths yankee pigdog no it's math It is if you're going to a religious service with a speech impediment