Toonpack

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either. I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with. What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept. Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet. There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9. Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved. The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them. What is the purpose of spending 5 years getting to grips with the clubs finances and getting the club spending within means...only then to go out and spend what is needed to start climbing higher? If he's not doing it now, and he's not done it before, he's never ever going to do it. And all the promises of 5 year plans, pushing on and steady growth are more lies. Nolan said what he wanted, the club said no and the manager didn't fight to keep his captain. Nolan might have accepted less....if anyone had shown an interest in retaining his services...much the same as Carroll. We don't know if he's not doing it now, we will by 1/9 The last sentence is beyond niaive

Cough cough, I haven't "embraced him" either. I believe the imposed financial policy was due to the shite left behind previously and I am pleased it's been gotten to grips with, furthermore I believe it was an absolute necessity. And yes I know the relegation made it worse, but it was beyond shite to start with. What his long term intentions will be, will be seen by 1st Sept. Either he want's to push on, or he want's to continue to trim to sell. We don't know yet. There is absolutely no proof as yet of "selling club" or lack of ambition IMO. There might be come 1/9. Nolan didn't move to West Ham because of ambition he moved because of the money/contract length (preposterous money/contract length an all). If WH and us had offered exactly the same deals (say 3 years at £45K a week) does anyone really think he'd have moved. The whole game is riddled with cunts top to bottom, owners to players, I don't trust any of them.

Yes. Link? Independant football finance guru: http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...-black-and.html or this bloke: http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/

I think the club could've done more to keep him if they'd really wanted to but he only left because West Ham made their offer, i.e. if he didn't want to leave and no one was out there willing to give him a better contract he wouldn't have gone anywhere. For a start it's a different situation to Barton because he has two years left on his current deal. True but there is a definite impression that if it's decided a player is surplus to requirements then they are made feel "unwelcome," no? Or is it just coincidence/speculation that Nolan, Barton and Carroll have all alluded to being made feel that way? I would suggest if West Ham were offering him £10K a week less, he'd have lived with any feeling of being unwelcome.

What you're forgetting is that it's Toontoon's fault that Ashley is now running down the club. He once inadvertently (though of course there's no proof) used the phrase "anyone but Fred" and the universe decided to unleash divine retribution on him and all the other doubters and force the Halls to sell to Ashley. Toontoon then forgets that it worked 15 years ago so there's no reason it won't work now. Arsenal didn't build the Emirates, Man Utd and Liverpool aren't underwritten by yanks and several lesser clubs aren't underwritten by millionaires, including "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" as only Chelsea and Man City have been bought. There has also not been a credit crunch or recession so there's no reason the turnover of a North East business should fall or finance secured. On top of that the current owner won't do the obvious - invest his own money to benefit the club in the attempt to get that investment back unlike the previous owners who put vast pennies of their own wealth into the club. Enough fuel for a phrase bot meltdown?

An excellent post, from Toontoon off skunkers, that place full of morons as per LM (TT being one of LM's favourite morons):

I agree with most of that Marcos, we should be trying to sign top players but unfortunately we have become a selling club because Ashley does not have the ambition to match our exceptional fan base Did you buy that Ferrari or Bentley yet ???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13827267 RIP Big Man

I think it's all just bollocks BUT... Scottwilsonecho Scott Wilson Strong suggestions of a final #NUFC push for Gervinho. Now if they could pull that off.....

They don't like, although depends if your talking gross (yes they do) or net (no they don't, by a distance). Their gross spend over the last 20 years (£360Mill) averages at £18Mill per year, the Net averages only £4Mill a year, over the same 20 years (£80Mill total). 20 years ago the world record transfer fee was £8m. Why not go back to 1950, you can get the average down to a few grand. Tell you what, why don't I just go back 4 years, is that "pertinent" enough of a period for you? that makes their average a £5 Mill transfer profit per year. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of the negative hysteria.

They don't like, although depends if your talking gross (yes they do) or net (no they don't, by a distance). Their gross spend over the last 20 years (£360Mill) averages at £18Mill per year, the Net averages only £4Mill a year, over the same 20 years (£80Mill total).

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player. Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be. I think amortisation is a bit of red herring, the business is run on cashflow to pay wages and player sales. We need to look at the last 2 seasons finance. What are the current best estimates on our wage bill? £55m+? What was our income in the championship? £45m? What are the operating costs beyond wages for running the club? £15m+ On that basis we could have lost around £30m last year, the wage bill was lower last year so possibly only £20m. They are just rough estimates. Income from last season could have risen by £50m for extra TV. I'm sure i saw a table of TV revenue for this year's premiership at some point recently. This must mean the money has been paid to the clubs already. We should therefore have the same £45m from the championship + £50m of TV money maybe plus some more. The wage bill has risen and at current has risen again with Cabaye or Ba but only by a £2.5m roughly. There therefore should already be money available. Ignoring Carroll just for a moment, we've spent around £15m since January 2010. Roughly we should have £95m (Income) which has gone one - £55m (wages) - £15m (Operating expenses) - £15m (Players). Which would leave £10m to spend. Then you have the Carroll money. If this is a realistic assessment then, ignoring the debt just for a moment, he could spend £20m on 4 players who earn £10m a year. If he doesnt do that then maybe that assessment of the money situation is wrong, or people are very right to point out that he should be doing this and if he isnt then he must be prioritising debt (which should be stable and non-interest bearing) instead of showing ambition for the club. Which is in essence what I've been saying, as in 1st Sept will be interesting. We will know exactly which way he's going as he (the club) aren't running down the hill after the ball any more, they have (he has) the choice.

Or put another way ...................................... ........................................ .......................

Douglas: (on twatter) Just to clear it up: #NUFC gave him a thorough medical. No concerns whatsoever on groin! Failure to agree terms w/ #lfc, basically or as put quite well on RTG You only need to slightly amend the last sentence to reflect some opinions that'll be prevalent on here.

I suppose it can if the years sales income covers the fees and is provided/held against the value of the contract, which I'm guessing would show as "cash at bank" on a diminishing balance in relation to the player. Amortisation adds a strange dimension as well though, they're paying "cash up front" but that'll be charged year on year, as fee divided by length of contract so the player value depreciates (in the books) so, for example, if Collocini was sold for £10 Mill next year (one year left) his book value will be £2Mill at the time, so that's a profit of £8Mill next year. So they bought him for £10Mill sold him for the same amount but made an £8Mill profit in the year of sale !! Is that real money then ????? I suppose it must be.

Because if you're less than 56 then you're automatically wrong on all counts. Can't be 56, I'm only 53 !! on the bright side I don't piss my pants yet.

70k is bullshit mate. If he's chosen NUFC over EFC on wages alone it's because you're lowballing. We just don't pay wages like this anymore, it's why we're pushing out the biggest wage earners. It's well documented that we're being tight on wages and transfer fees. Much like yourselves in fact. Could be right mind, they could be aggregating fee and wages so £70/week is only (only !!!) £13Mill over 3 years, just like paying £5Mill for someone and paying them £35K a week (ish) over 3 years (for example).

Really ??? Their average wage is £50,289 per week. Liverpools is £48K btw (that was before Carroll/Henderson but with Torres).

He is survived by his wife and 2 daughters.

He's been reading to much Sartre and eating baguettes, poor lad. Weren't you alluding to Camus in gen chat btw? It's spelt Cambois man !!!!

We wanted him as well, but not for 5 years. Would you have given him 5 years on £50K a week ?? just askin Same lot gave Ameobi a 3 year contract when he was 27. I rate Nolan a lot more than I do Shola. See the pattern ?

We wanted him as well, but not for 5 years. Would you have given him 5 years on £50K a week ?? just askin i would have aye. he earned a deal to take him to the end of his days with us by arguably being one of our best players of the past two seasons, leading the team and playing a massive part in fostering the team spirit that has got us out of a massive hole. he's in his prime now. 29/30/31 are generally the best years for good pros. more evidence sadly that ashley isn't prepared to splash the going rate on wages, even when it comes to his senior and most important players. Frist bold bit, sentiment has no place to play in professional sport sadly. It's not like in three years he'll be a pauper and have to buy and run a pub to survive. Second bold bit, I always thought it was 25-30 myself, but OK each to their own. Slow already, comming off ankle surgery and £50K a week for 5 years, I wouldn't. For 3 yes, not 5.

We wanted him as well, but not for 5 years. Would you have given him 5 years on £50K a week ?? just askin

Stolen from RTG Tune for Ba "BA! HUH! YEAH! What did he sign for? Absolutely NOTHING "

T'was simply a "point of order", Alex and I snipe quite a lot, all in good fun, it was far from being a defence of CT per se and pedantry is fun. Since I have ignored LM I haven't quite completely recalibrated down the sensitivity of my "making things up" radar/defences. you ignore me because you quite simply don't have a leg to stand on. The more he ignores you, the closer you get. I'm not even going to pretend I comprehend what that means. As for the quoted ignored ignoramus