Toonpack

T'is true, but equally there's an awfull lot of "unfulfilled potential" in the game. Carroll has potential (as he's flashed that with us) the big question is whether he has the mentality or desire to fulfill it.

They do though, every single one of them (who doesn't have an Arab/Oligarch) it's just the "scale" that hides the truth. ALL the succesfull clubs do NOT go into debt to buy playing staff.

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it. If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m?? We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season. He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say. Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh. It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism. In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be. I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world. And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar. Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw). They all do it, but it's just a question of scale: They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude.

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it. If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m?? We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season. He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say. Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh. It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

Me too. No way was he worth that amount of money (even if we were cash rich).

That's the problem with Carroll and the risk Liverpool took. He "could" be an excellent player but the downside to that is just as likely, simply because of the way he is. Money wise he's "made it" without really making it in the football sense. Still gets into scrapes in Liverpool and has to "looked after" about by all accounts. He couldn't stay out of bother up here before he was a "star", if the light hasn't gone on by now, likely it won't.

There is no real evidence (as yet) of a blatant disregard for "team building". Brb selling our star player and not getting a replacement in the 7 month period they had Brb not signing a back-up CB when one of our 1st choice CB has been injured longer than hes been fit for the past few year Brb only signing replacements and not a few more players to bulk up what little squad we had If thats not disregarding team building, i dont know what is tbh 1, I assume you mean carroll, I would suggest BA was the replacement (Maiga is the supplement) 2, We had a back up centre back and you would hope that the "reserves" would be better. No outcry at the time as I recall, only now that all 3 main CB's were injured at the same time (for one game) is their gnashing of teeth and woe. (Taylor has a history of injury, but it's not like it all related tweaks and pulls in the same area, he's unlucky as he gets major shit happening to different parts of his body - shoulder, nose, achilles). But it's good to have a gripe with the benefit of hindsight. 3. Would suggest the "replacements" are actually upgrades tbh with the exception of Enrique (but he chose to leave). Just like everyone else you can only have 25 plus kids. The team/squad is better than it was last year, that is progress. We have a set budget (within the means of the club) and within that, a major "high profile" overhaul is not possible, getting all excited about some policy that "should" be in place, but would, by definition, need to break the budget, is futile. He is NOT going to change his policy, so all you can do is consider what can be done within that. so what, exactly, is your re-assessment that you made on 1st September ? "progress" would be to have put Ba alongside Carroll, put Cabaye into the midfield, and keep Nolan and Enrique by the way, not replace your best players, but this has been explained to you by many others too. Nolan wasn't worth the money he wanted and it was 100% right to get rid, unless of course you are saying he should have been paid what he got at WHU As for Enrique, he wanted away, player in last year of contract holds all the cards.

Aye, that was it

How much!!!!! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Liverpool.html

There is no real evidence (as yet) of a blatant disregard for "team building". Brb selling our star player and not getting a replacement in the 7 month period they had Brb not signing a back-up CB when one of our 1st choice CB has been injured longer than hes been fit for the past few year Brb only signing replacements and not a few more players to bulk up what little squad we had If thats not disregarding team building, i dont know what is tbh 1, I assume you mean carroll, I would suggest BA was the replacement (Maiga is the supplement) 2, We had a back up centre back and you would hope that the "reserves" would be better. No outcry at the time as I recall, only now that all 3 main CB's were injured at the same time (for one game) is their gnashing of teeth and woe. (Taylor has a history of injury, but it's not like it all related tweaks and pulls in the same area, he's unlucky as he gets major shit happening to different parts of his body - shoulder, nose, achilles). But it's good to have a gripe with the benefit of hindsight. 3. Would suggest the "replacements" are actually upgrades tbh with the exception of Enrique (but he chose to leave). Just like everyone else you can only have 25 plus kids. The team/squad is better than it was last year, that is progress. We have a set budget (within the means of the club) and within that, a major "high profile" overhaul is not possible, getting all excited about some policy that "should" be in place, but would, by definition, need to break the budget, is futile. He is NOT going to change his policy, so all you can do is consider what can be done within that.

Utter crap

I actually mark it on the staff and Ashley... it's their fault they haven't told him what a complete retard he is frequent enough.... and secondly, Ashley mostly rules things out because it's expensive, but we've could have made it with something cheap or even free aswell as long as it's experienced cover. He doesn't rule it out becasue it is "expensive". He has stated (and he's the boss) that the club must operate within it's own financial boundaries, those boundaries will dictate what we can and cannot afford. The one area where he can negatively influence that is in the size of the sums he takes out, and how often, to repay what he has previously put in. He is not going to subsidise us any longer it would appear, so we have to cut our cloth accordingly. Long term it is no bad thing, just now it's a pain in the arse.

They don't like

Should have bought a 2nd/3rd choice CB tbh. Williamson moved down to fourth choice. With Steven Taylor it's a given that he'll be out for a large part of the season with injury. Aye, exactly what I was getting at tbh. I suspect TP knew this, hence the need to put words into me mouth. Just interpreted what you said without looking for any clandestine hidden meaning. I take it as I read it, don't try and anticpate any changes of tack, or re-emphasis in someones posts tbh I aint psychic. As for OTF's "revelation", don't recall any clamour to relegate Williamson until these injuries tbh. Hindsight is a marvelous thing. Who's to say that, when fit, Williamson won't experience a similar "upsurge" in form like Taylor has had, which I put down to defensive coaching/drilling that's been engaged in. Fact remains you can't legislate for your three top CB's being fucked all at the same time. Fact remains 3 CBs (especially when one has a history of injuries) isn't enough. It's basically asking for trouble. 3 being injured at the same time will obviously be problematic for any club but it shouldn't mean you have to play two full-backs there. Especially when one of those isn't even close to Premier League standard in his proper position. Pardew wanted another one too. Also it's not like there wasn't money available following the January / summer departures. It just highlights how clueless you are that this even needs pointing out tbh. There's a difference between being clueless and being realistic. When you're down to 4th/5th choice it should not be a fullback, I agree, it should be one of the kids/younger players, sadly it appears our kids are not as good at CB as our fullbacks, in the managers opinion. Willaimson is alright as a 3rd choice, my point is, what level of player "better" than Williamson can you get who would be happy to sit ? Despite's HF's denials, the back four has played as a unit better than any back four we've had for donkeys, no reason to suppose Williamson "slotting in" won't be OK as well.

Who here rates Williamson? He's never looked any good for more than an odd game. Arms all over opposing players, and for someone as tall as he is he lacks a physical presence. Miles better than Perch or Simpson at CB, but still not good enough to be first option after an injury prone Steven Taylor. It's criminal to only have 3 actual centre backs in a premier league squad. We've got four out and out strikers in our squad - Ba, Best, Shola and Lovenkrands, plus option with Ben Arfa and Sameobi. That's a position where it's widely accepted that we need to strengthen, even though it's acceptable, at a pinch (or tacticallY), to play with only one striker. In defense you can't get away with having less than two central defenders. But the "still not good enough" is the conundrum, if he's at the standard that is deemed (by the fans) "good enough" is he happy to "sit" whilst the first choice pair are playing (were playing) so well. Williamson may well benefit as much as Taylor has from the "system". Premature to judge. Their respective abilities aside, how often does anyone lose their top 3 players at a single position, let alone such a significant position. Our main problem is the fact our kids in that area would appear to be shite/ not ready. You can only have 25 Senior pro's then it must be kids. Its about balancing the squad as much as anything. Absolutely would like an upgrade on Perch (and several others) but he is only 4th choice, that's a depth in your squad you'd hope to rarely get exposed to playing for any length of time. Do we now need another CB, yes we do, but as I've said I reckon it'll be a young up and comer, we won't buy 2 (if we do, the other'll be a kid I reckon). Bottom line is we need more defenders...and policy should always be where possible to buy players better than the ones you have. I don't think that's possible in the case of Coloccini...but it shouldn't be at all beyond our wildest dreams in the case of Taylor. The extent of ambition shouldn't be an up and comer to challenge Perch/Williamson for a place on the bench? We know they aren't good enough. And Stevie is confident he could shift them off the bench himself. Never rated Williamson. Good in the air but everything else is sub-standard for the pl. A centre back who can challenge Taylor for his spot, when fit, should be the aim for the level of quality of any centre back coming in in January. Aye, while he's injured it's easy for people to forget he's no good either. The notion that had he been fit we'd be alright for cover is daft...but basically what TP seems to be saying. Nope

Who here rates Williamson? He's never looked any good for more than an odd game. Arms all over opposing players, and for someone as tall as he is he lacks a physical presence. Miles better than Perch or Simpson at CB, but still not good enough to be first option after an injury prone Steven Taylor. It's criminal to only have 3 actual centre backs in a premier league squad. We've got four out and out strikers in our squad - Ba, Best, Shola and Lovenkrands, plus option with Ben Arfa and Sameobi. That's a position where it's widely accepted that we need to strengthen, even though it's acceptable, at a pinch (or tacticallY), to play with only one striker. In defense you can't get away with having less than two central defenders. But the "still not good enough" is the conundrum, if he's at the standard that is deemed (by the fans) "good enough" is he happy to "sit" whilst the first choice pair are playing (were playing) so well. Williamson may well benefit as much as Taylor has from the "system". Premature to judge. Their respective abilities aside, how often does anyone lose their top 3 players at a single position, let alone such a significant position. Our main problem is the fact our kids in that area would appear to be shite/ not ready. You can only have 25 Senior pro's then it must be kids. Its about balancing the squad as much as anything. Absolutely would like an upgrade on Perch (and several others) but he is only 4th choice, that's a depth in your squad you'd hope to rarely get exposed to playing for any length of time. Do we now need another CB, yes we do, but as I've said I reckon it'll be a young up and comer, we won't buy 2 (if we do, the other'll be a kid I reckon).

Again too simplistic, making the situation fit your argument. You have your two first choice CB's and your first reserve who would fill in for either in the case of injury, then if your unlucky enough to lose all 3 you are into 4th and 5th choice, they are NOT going to be as good as your 1-3. Simple common sense would see that. PLUS how do you balance your squad. Yeah let's have 5 good CB's, then what happens if your midfield gets wiped out, you play a CB in midfield and the cry goes up "our squad is paper thin" we should have more midfielders. It's nonsense. As for the "not particularly bad luck with injuries" haven't looked at the stats anywhere but if you are right, I would suggest even if we have not had a significant number of injuries in the squad (compared to others) we have had an very unusual concentration of injuries in a particularly key area of the squad. If you don't see that, and I am completely wrong, what's the answer then ?? you are completely wrong and the answer is more strength in depth. It's not a case of having internationals on the bench, but Taylor should be the back up for an international in our team. You can't go on like this is unprecedented bad luck in one position when many have feared exactly this and warned about it. One in 3 of Stevies posts since the season began have been about Perch being league 1 quality and that inevitably fucking us up. So now you're saying Taylor and Colo aren't good enough, the same Taylor and Colo who proved one of the best Cb partnerships we've had in yonks should be broken up to for some pursuit of "strength in depth". Hilarious. The concern previosuly expressed was if Colo get's injured we're fucked, not if Colo, Taylor and Willaimson are fucked. Perch did not cost us the game yesterday. Never said a word about Colo. Our best player. ALWAYS said Taylor ain't good enough. There's no 'now' about it. The fear has always been Perch getting a game. Under any circumstances....or Williamson tbh...though less so. Based upon this seasons performances you've been proven wrong then. The notion that Taylor would be happy being relegated to the bench (due to buying someone else) is crazy. He was all but off to Everton, couple of summers ago, he'd be offski even more so now given his form up until the injury. Bottom line for me is IF we buy a CB it will likely be a young-ish up and coming type who will fight it out with Williamson to partner Colo, It won't be a direct Taylor replacement/equivalent, (although it'd be good if he turned out as viable competition) because Taylor'll be back and it'd also be good to add a kid or two as it would appear we don't have any kid at CB worth shit. No I haven't. He's personally looked no better. He's not improved anything about his game, he just had better protection from the players in front of him this year. he'd like to have had other teams interested.....but they weren't, not even Everton. But you think those not good enough for Everton should be our first choice? They were like, all but a done deal. I don't give a fuck about any airy fairy good enough/not good enough for club xyz hypothesis. I only give a shit about "Our back four" and how it's performing. A back four is often better than the sum of it's parts. Taylor has been excellent in our back four, his, and the units performances have been of a very high standard, even played above himself perhaps, and to say otherwise is crazy.

Except that when John Hall sold him his stake he was quoted as saying the new fella wants to use the club to gain international recognition for his brand. Sounds like a plan from day 1. Yeah, well it would have pretty much happened from day 1 if that was the real motivating factor tbh. An element of it would have occured to him (he'd be unlikely to miss the trick tbh) but it wasn't his reason for buying a football club for hundreds of millions of quid. While it's a slightly different way of looking at it, if he was considering buying it now, do you think he would? Would he shite. Plus he's tried to flog us in the interim. It may well be the case now but you'd have to suspend all your critical faculties trying to reverse engineer it into some sort of overall 'plan' from day 1. He says he's tried to sell us. But what he did was go out on the piss and say "£400m or fuck off!". Not exactly Glengarry Glen Ross hunger for the leads. I think he had ideas of doing a great job and renaming things at the height of our success. It would have done him no favours to come in and cut the ribbon on the Donnay stand on day 1. If he goes ahead and sells the naming rights to anyone else, I might think different, as it is though, I think the only thing that slowed his branding push was his own fuck up and subsequent relegation. Well put it this way, I suppose what I have trouble with with the 'SD from day 1' branding theory is the way it's somehow implicit that acquiring NUFC for the price he did was worth hundreds of millions of quid to him simply in branding alone. Because it wasn't. Given the sort of person he is I'd be astonished if he didnt have half a mind on some SD promotional schemes when buying the club, but in terms of being his plan for buying....I don't think so. It's now become this unified theory though and one which is supposed to underpin everything he does from hereon in and everything he has ever done. It's cobblers. As you say yourself it'd have been better if he'd done it for a 'successful' team, which is probably true, but that being so, that remains the case now. So it equally supports the theory he should push us forward on the pitch. Only people don't accept that side of the logic. I don't think he will either necessarily, but not because of the branding theory, just because I think he runs the club on a whim. He'll make money off it because he can make money off it but it's worth little more as an indicator of his plans for NUFC than that. That's kinda where I am with it. I'm sorta there too(especially the cobblers bit), but would add that IMO the "vehicle theory" doesn't stack up for another major reason. MA's SD "wealth" is based upon the performance of that brand and is represented by his shareholding. Any investment SD makes to grow it's business costs MA (personally) nowt, whereas NUFC is absolutely based upon MA's personal funds, he carries all the risk himself. SD has a wobble it effects MA's personal "paper" wealth, NUFC has a wobble it costs MA in the pocket in real money. Two fundamentaly different exposures.

I'll try and make my threads as fantastic as yours in future like..... http://www.toontasti...21#entry1005021 and not to mention....I couldn't even read this one.... http://www.toontasti...25#entry1006725 . This is relevant anyway, I predicted this would happen on Steve Wraith's show, if you listen as well I said we'd beat Wolves 2-1, we did. The point is James Perch is in the 5 worst players I have ever seen play for us, I would give a club £1m just to take him from us he is that bad, I knew it would happen. He's got nee spirit, when it's on the floor he fowls, he's weak, positionally he's shite, what was Hughton thinking??!!? So you're calling him a chicken ??

If he is deemed better (by the management/scouting team) than some alternative who isn't in the ACN I'd rather have him and lose him for a little while, lets face it, it's unlikely Mali will be out there for long and his signing isn't just about January. And the following January too. So what would you want, the better player who happens to be African, or a not quite so good non-African? (I accept the level of "being good" is in the judgement of the scouts etc). Personally I'd take the better player, even if you lose him for 6 weeks every year.

Once would be a start

If he is deemed better (by the management/scouting team) than some alternative who isn't in the ACN I'd rather have him and lose him for a little while, lets face it, it's unlikely Mali will be out there for long and his signing isn't just about January.

Again too simplistic, making the situation fit your argument. You have your two first choice CB's and your first reserve who would fill in for either in the case of injury, then if your unlucky enough to lose all 3 you are into 4th and 5th choice, they are NOT going to be as good as your 1-3. Simple common sense would see that. PLUS how do you balance your squad. Yeah let's have 5 good CB's, then what happens if your midfield gets wiped out, you play a CB in midfield and the cry goes up "our squad is paper thin" we should have more midfielders. It's nonsense. As for the "not particularly bad luck with injuries" haven't looked at the stats anywhere but if you are right, I would suggest even if we have not had a significant number of injuries in the squad (compared to others) we have had an very unusual concentration of injuries in a particularly key area of the squad. If you don't see that, and I am completely wrong, what's the answer then ?? you are completely wrong and the answer is more strength in depth. It's not a case of having internationals on the bench, but Taylor should be the back up for an international in our team. You can't go on like this is unprecedented bad luck in one position when many have feared exactly this and warned about it. One in 3 of Stevies posts since the season began have been about Perch being league 1 quality and that inevitably fucking us up. So now you're saying Taylor and Colo aren't good enough, the same Taylor and Colo who proved one of the best Cb partnerships we've had in yonks should be broken up to for some pursuit of "strength in depth". Hilarious. The concern previosuly expressed was if Colo get's injured we're fucked, not if Colo, Taylor and Willaimson are fucked. Perch did not cost us the game yesterday. Never said a word about Colo. Our best player. ALWAYS said Taylor ain't good enough. There's no 'now' about it. The fear has always been Perch getting a game. Under any circumstances....or Williamson tbh...though less so. Based upon this seasons performances you've been proven wrong then. The notion that Taylor would be happy being relegated to the bench (due to buying someone else) is crazy. He was all but off to Everton, couple of summers ago, he'd be offski even more so now given his form up until the injury. Bottom line for me is IF we buy a CB it will likely be a young-ish up and coming type who will fight it out with Williamson to partner Colo, It won't be a direct Taylor replacement/equivalent, (although it'd be good if he turned out as viable competition) because Taylor'll be back and it'd also be good to add a kid or two as it would appear we don't have any kid at CB worth shit.

Should have bought a 2nd/3rd choice CB tbh. Williamson moved down to fourth choice. With Steven Taylor it's a given that he'll be out for a large part of the season with injury. Aye, exactly what I was getting at tbh. I suspect TP knew this, hence the need to put words into me mouth. Just interpreted what you said without looking for any clandestine hidden meaning. I take it as I read it, don't try and anticpate any changes of tack, or re-emphasis in someones posts tbh I aint psychic. As for OTF's "revelation", don't recall any clamour to relegate Williamson until these injuries tbh. Hindsight is a marvelous thing. Who's to say that, when fit, Williamson won't experience a similar "upsurge" in form like Taylor has had, which I put down to defensive coaching/drilling that's been engaged in. Fact remains you can't legislate for your three top CB's being fucked all at the same time.

Should change this jokers username, replace the eri with nu