Toonpack

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

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.

We did well to cover over the fact that his legs were gone this season. The perfect crime. Will be surprised if anyone even notices that Nolan's not here next season. Business as usual, chalk up another win for Ashley. He mustn't need legs then cos he was CT'a player of the season. There's no higher authority. Are you sure? You wouldnt be making things up again would you? And that's a player you want to sell? Is there any player at the club whose sale could not be justified? It appears you were making things up tbh Player of the season and second on a shortlist aren't the same thing, I would have the temerity to suggest.

Talksport reckon he's getting £70K a week, well that's what they (Alvin Martin and the ginger twat) said on me way home

Other than it being fairly common knowledge a week earlier that a deal had been agreed in principal with Spurs for £22m, this was then backed up by 'Arry talking about our transfer dealings the day after. Other than that good solid information that they were going to accept £22m I agree, there is nothing to say theyd have caved in to an additional 8m Really, is this documented somewhere? I would have thought if it were true the £30 Mill would have been a sort of "snap their hands off" sort of thing yet the £30Mill was rejected. Strange that, even Carroll is quoted as knowing nothing about any move until that final day.

Alledgedly 3yr deal with option for a 4th at £50K a week It's not about the money though.

"Newcastle would have gone bust if Ashley hadnt come in." Thats not speculation like? you say that enough Yes it's speculation on my part, based upon my interpretation/opinion of evidence, never said it wasn't. BTW Ashley or someone with deep pockets, is what I usually say, just happens to have been Ashley. There is no foundation to suggest they would have taken £30Mill. We're talking about a chain of bazillionaire's negotiating, NO WAY would Liverpool have, in turn, tried to squeeze Chelsea if they thought they didn't have to. (that's speculation too, but I think it's logical).

You don't think they would have accepted the 30 if it had been made clear that that was the final offer? But they didn't accept £30Mill, that's the truth of the matter. With what words Liverpool responded to them declining the 30 we don't know, but they went off and screwed Chelsea for another £5Mill, they wouldn't have done that unless they thought they really had to. Oh come on, if we'd rejected the 30 and Liverpool had come back and said "well that's it, 30 is as high as we're prepared to go", there was still at least a good 6 hours of the window left for us to cave. You're crazy if you think we wouldn't have taken the 30 million come midnight. I would have mind. BUT your post is speculation, the fact is we didn't. Why on earth would Liverpool risk, in turn, re-screwing Chelsea if they thought they didn't REALLY need to. If it was so easy, why didn't they screw Chelsea for another £10Mill to make a wee profit on the deal.

You don't think they would have accepted the 30 if it had been made clear that that was the final offer? But they didn't accept £30Mill, that's the truth of the matter. With what words Liverpool responded to them declining the 30 we don't know, but they went off and screwed Chelsea for another £5Mill, they wouldn't have done that unless they thought they really had to.

A point oft missed in this area of discussion, is that, they turned down £30Mill for Carroll. Yes they said his price was £35Mill but they did so no to £30Mill.

Since putting the club on the market the first time he's closer to £55million in profit on the transfer market. What relevance does this have though? The £21m worth of players sold after relegation would not have covered the losses made during the subsequent season and we are in the process of spending the Carroll money. If we spend it all, then there will be no "profit" from the transfer market, as spurious a notion that is anyway. A few people are trying to make out we are a selling club but as far as i can see only Milner, N'Zogbia and Carroll support that view. I'm glad we sold Milner, disappointed at the time for Carroll but with the NOTW article on Sunday questioning his attitude, lifestyle and fitness, it looks like it could be fantastic business. Which leaves N'Zogbia which we are potentially buying back. Shit evidence tbh. Word on the street is he's anything but happy in the land of the scally.

Citeh's new one. Do you get a matching keffiyeh to go with the collar ??

You never know, until they play. Plenty have come good and plenty haven't.

Shone for Brum last season and looks a decent player, but we don't need anymore CM's unless it's a DM Possible replacement for Nolan IF he goes?? Unless it's instead of a buy in another area of need, isn't it "the more the merrier" from a squad depth perspective ? I do expect it'll be to cover "outgoing" though. I don't see us going for him if we have no CM outgoings like, and nor should we get rid of any CM's (Just Smith) But he's a good player and I wouldn't mind seeing him here if we did happen to unfotunately get shot of someone Can't he put in a shift at RB as well ?? (Don't know a huge amount about him tbh) would be an upgrade on Raylor or Guthrie though I reckon.

Shone for Brum last season and looks a decent player, but we don't need anymore CM's unless it's a DM Possible replacement for Nolan IF he goes?? Unless it's instead of a buy in another area of need, isn't it "the more the merrier" from a squad depth perspective ? I do expect it'll be to cover "outgoing" though.

Oh yes, definitely a WUM moment, although "shite at this level" is probably unfair (given my previous post about some players deemed not shite at this level) definitely should be improved on and not relied upon though.

I dunno, when I saw the fee I certainly blinked !!

If Bent and Carroll had been sold for £12-£15 million each and Henderson for say £8-£10Mill, he'd have a point.

I wonder how many strikers we're going to buy. We're surely after more than one....maybe Ba plus a new No 9? Presumably Ba would be second striker but that presumes Ba and first choice striker stay fit. Faced with the alternative of Best, Shola or Lovenkrands, I'd send Ba onto the pitch even if he wasn't fit. Fuck it, I'd send him on in a moon boot and crutches . Despite the fact that those three outscored Defoe, Crouch and Pavulychenko ??? Yes, despite that. Despite the fact it was also in less minutes on the pitch

I wonder how many strikers we're going to buy. We're surely after more than one....maybe Ba plus a new No 9? Presumably Ba would be second striker but that presumes Ba and first choice striker stay fit. Faced with the alternative of Best, Shola or Lovenkrands, I'd send Ba onto the pitch even if he wasn't fit. Fuck it, I'd send him on in a moon boot and crutches . Despite the fact that those three outscored Defoe, Crouch and Pavulychenko ???

Not yet they don't. Historically they have not, January they didn't, but by 1st September we'll see what they're up to but they do have a long list of players they'll likely ship out yet.

I think now we have a few clubs like Stoke and Bolton where "fans" are living their dream by just owning the clubs without regard to any desire to make money as such which could be argued was the intention of people like Shiniwatra(?) at Man City or the various Pompey shady owners who thought buying and selling clubs would be a "market". Maybe that was Ashley's original idea but I've never had a strong idea of what he ever intended. I agree its unlikely that they (Bolton etc) will chuck more money in but there's always the spectre of them underwriting wages for someone like Barton or Nolan. What I dread is clubs like ours embracing the UEFA rules with the idea of fairness but the usual suspects refusing to play ball. Well if the hyperbole is to be believed, many of the usual suspects are behind the drive for the rule. They know, because of their lofty positions, that their turnover is such that they will likely remain at the pinacle whilst ceasing to have to flush their cash down the drain (into players pockets). They might even be able to start making a decent wedge from the game or a return of their investment. These billionaire types play a very long game. Saw an interesting snippet about Kroenke, as well as uplifting his shareholding in the club itself he bought 59% of Arsenal Broadband (which I never knew even existed) as these guys think the media revolution is just starting, the example was quoted that the NY Yankees media company is actually worth three times what the team is. We have NFL and US sports team owners in the Prem, the NFL owners are currently prepared to sacrifice a whole season to win a bigger share of the pot from the players (it's good leverage as players get the majority of their income from game-cheques, no play, no pay). The owners'll likely take a huge hit initially but they'll recoup it longer term. The UEFA rules play into the hands of the real billionaires as in providing a platform to actually make money. The "we are rich-ish and love the club" crew are not going to cut it, long term.

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course). That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means. Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up. But if the that turnover includes a higher percentage of wages then there's still less "spare" cash for transfers which is how we operated in the past. It's the rise from a wages/turnover ration of 46% (I remember seeing quoted) to 86% that really fucked us imo. There's also a lion/antelope analogy where if the people who own QPR or Bolton wake up today and decide to spend £100m then you could say we "should" spend £120m to keep ahead then of course there's nothing to stop them chucking another £50m into the mix. That's why I think the turnover argument is almost pointless. Nothing apart from Platini's rules that is (if they want to play in Europe). The turnover argument was pointless, but it shouldn't be now. If of course the rules genuinely work. 60% of £100Mill is a lot better than 60% of £62Mill (Bolton) btw (and I appreciate you chose them as an illustrative example) Bolton's debt of circa £93Mill comrises £8Mill to banks and £85Mill to the owner as a loan for which he charges 5% interest, hardly a philanthropic footing from which it would lead you to think he'll throw significant further sums in. If QPR (or anyone) decides to go go all Man City, there's not much you can do about it. In truth it's no more a pisser now than it was when Abramovich showed up, it might even be getting better.

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course). That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means. Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up.