Toonpack

It could be for us Chez, but I'm not so sure we insist on all money up front on sales (we did with Carroll, - I think it was only £30M of the £35M though - but not certain that's the rule) we do pay up front though. My issue with "net spend" is that for most clubs it's not so clear cut and as it tends to be used as a carte blanche measure of "ambition", in those circumastances it's severely flawed, given nearly all clubs pay an amount up front then the balance of the fee over a period of years. Someone "pays" £30 Mill for someone, they're probably only paying £10m up front then £5m each year for 4 years. If they sell a player for say £10Mill they probably get £6Mill up front then say £2Mill over the next couple of years. Their net spend (in the papers) is £20Mill when in fact it's really only £4Mill in real money terms, canny difference. Which gets even more complicated if the £30Mill player is sold whilst there's still a balance owing (Sunlun still owed Spurs a wedge when they sold Bent, but all that gets "reported" is the price players are bought/sold for in a particular year). There's no carry over, yet that £20Mill net spend is "cast in stone". Only if all fees paid/received were paid 100% up front would Net spend be a "real" measure. Despite the HUGE numbers in any net spend table, virtually all the "succesfull" clubs report profits on player trading.

Notice the trend ????? (you will if you add in the other positions)

That's what is possible now thicko !!!! On a long term and SUSTAINABLE basis

Not proven, probable, but not fact. The argument, which I've tried to ignore sometimes without success (like today), is that under the "previous regime's approach" he thinks we would be closer to challenging for title's than we are now, when in reality we'd be lightyears (and probably divisions) away from it. The current approach is our best, and most sustainable, approach to achieve continued and consistent success, perhaps ever.

It is fundamentaly superior approach, simply because of its absolute sustainability. You are, as ever, fundamentaly wrong.

Joe Harvey deserves one more than any

You always agree with the forum thicko's :icon_lol:

A young'un (or two) is what we need. We'll buy a CB and in addition to being a challenge to Taylor/Williamson he should ideally have potential/be good enough to challenge Colo longer term. No guarantee Taylor will be back anywhere near how he was playing, a fully ruptured achilles is a VERY bad thing.

If silly money offers come in players will be sold, if we qualify for the CL that risk is somehwat mitigated. It's not rocket science, it's the same for any club. If we do get in the CL, Spurs will be at risk more than us (Modric/Bale)

No-one is going to get "poached" if a silly offer comes in a player will likely be sold, with CL cash that risk diminishes, otherwise they'll not flog anyone if they can help it. Despite the "selling our best players" hysteria and bullshit in certain quarters, it is NOT a policy here any more than it is for any club.

Aye, many thought those two were shit until they "blossomed" in the Championship.

It was "great" on two fronts, first it made us slash and burn the fat very quickly and it switched the light on with Ashley that the advice he'd been getting was utter shite, it was around then he made the changes, nare a foot wrong since (contentious ground name notwithstanding).

He didn't set fire to NUFC, he just didn't put the flames out quick enough. Best owner we've ever had tbh, only one who's chanced his own cash.

This. He won't deviate from his model, the "windfall" of the CL (if it happens) will be dealt with very carefully, if the club can afford a player it'll buy one (or two or three) if it can't it won't. He won't "push the boat out" to try and go faster/better. Maybe one or two more players as the CL cash would cover their fee's and wages etc for the duration. It would expand our spending power but only within the model Fine with that personally. It's worked so far, why would he ??

If Ashley had sold us to some new owner, when we were relegated, and the club had done exactly what it has done since then up to today, what would we think of that "new" owner ???

Courtesy of BA tbh

More made up drivel No I didn't and no it hasn't and yes it was. The prediction of "going bust" wasn't crystal ball "in the future" stuff, it was an opinion formed, after the event, based on the evidence readily available, we were goosed. As for the relegation, it was an accident waiting to happen.

Please show me where I said I didn't "know about the advertising on the roof etc." btw I fly over the place twice a week and have done since last July. The rest is usual "sometime in the future something will happen" bollocks, which I don't even bother arguiomng anymore. No reference to what has actually happened.

Comprehension problems remain I see. What you have been saying for years is unadulterated rubbish. You state his sole motive is to promote SD, I strongly disagree with that standpoint, if he can get some £££ from someone else for the space/name that the SD branding takes up, he'd take it IMO. My post is simply stating, "even if" he was using NUFC in that way, NUFC have to be succesful, (way over and above the run of the mill you seem to think is the plan, given SD's strategic direction). So it's a win/win. Symbiosis if you will.

Define "destroyed" please, could be a laugh

- 1 Lots of unanswered questions over there. I suppose in with a shout of the CL at the arse end of the season isn't progress

Wow this is an old thread !!! Manmade global warming was a load of tosh when the thread started, and it remains a load of tosh.

Fucking hell man, he's got away with a miraculous (medical or otherwise) recovery and the poor fuckers insensitive, unbelievable

He has the right to his faith, what's so wrong about that, if someone was dissing race or homosexuality like you (and others) disparage religion, there'd be fucking hell on. Monumental double standards

2nd'ed