Toonpack

I woudl suggest that Man U, Arsenal and Spuds would tend to disagree, and any number of continental teams also patently know nowt about football. They don't do it as a primary objective in the case of the three English clubs. There is nothing wrong with signing players with a potentially high resale value but the teams do this because they want young, hungry players rather than hasbeens or people who have lost their drive and focus. I would suggest we do it largely with potential profit in mind. I expect this to be backed up when Tiote leaves over the next 12 months. I seriously doubt our scouting network is anything like the 3 sides you mention either. French clubs are a different matter because there is less money there and good players will eventually want to play for more high profile teams in more high profile leagues. Spurs did, that's how they got their money to progress, they may not have stated it but I would suggest that the mainstay of their (all three mentioned) buying strategy is resale value (with the odd exception - Berbatov for example), if it wasn't, how do they make transfer profits all the time ?? It's one of the few ways left they can raise their revenues as just about all else (outside of TV dosh) has stagnated over the last three years. I havent spent any time looking at Spurs so I cant agree or disagree that logic but one thing that does differ is the logic behind doing it. We appear to be buying cheap with our aim being to selling on at a profit while Spurs looks more like buy good players we want and if we decide to sell or are offered silly money then we make a profit."EDIT: Just realised Ive basically repeated what Alex said above Bold bit, I don't believe either of the two "methods" is proven to be our intended method, yet. We've been buying cheap because that's all we could afford (IMO), if it continues (because now we really, 100%, no hiding place, can afford better) well then you have a point.

Ewans up in West Monkseaton at the roundabout is quality an all, all his stuff is local sourced. Lad I knew worked there for a while, reckoned Ewan used to pick his beef when they were still in the field. Farm to Freeze in Wooler is superb as well and hell of a lot cheaper than Blagdon (if further away).

Having an ankle Op per the Beeb ticker thingy

It should always be at least a consideration, unless you are looking for "icing on the cake", otherwise you end up in a financial shambles, sound familiar? Regarding your other point about the Champions League, buying and selling on, for goodly profit (as in Spurs) is the only way we're ever going to be able to break into "the closed shop", in today's game there is no other way, without a bazillionaire. It's symptomatic of the modern game, there is a turnover of players because players and agents ensure it happens because that's where their big bucks are, you need to recognise that and work accordingly. There's a HUGE difference in how that can be implemented. How we'll do it remains to be seen. There's two ways it can go - loads of cheap tat (£2-£3 mill) and sell on slightly less cheap say £4-£5 Mill, or buy £7-£12 Mill decent stuff and when the inevitable time comes sell of for £15-£20 Mill+, there's also the Bosman market as well. Dunno which way we're going to go yet. We've scored on one bit of cheap tat (Tiote) and maybe scored on a higher ranged player (HBA) which IF he comes off will be worth a hell of a lot more than we paid. There's a limit to the number of players that the monster rich teams want/need and there are dozens of players per position, all over the planet, who would improve our squad, you've just got to find them. Whatever happens, if you get a silly offer, you take it, every time IMO. Of course you must reinvest it - that's the bit we don't know yet.

I woudl suggest that Man U, Arsenal and Spuds would tend to disagree, and any number of continental teams also patently know nowt about football. They don't do it as a primary objective in the case of the three English clubs. There is nothing wrong with signing players with a potentially high resale value but the teams do this because they want young, hungry players rather than hasbeens or people who have lost their drive and focus. I would suggest we do it largely with potential profit in mind. I expect this to be backed up when Tiote leaves over the next 12 months. I seriously doubt our scouting network is anything like the 3 sides you mention either. French clubs are a different matter because there is less money there and good players will eventually want to play for more high profile teams in more high profile leagues. Spurs did, that's how they got their money to progress, they may not have stated it but I would suggest that the mainstay of their (all three mentioned) buying strategy is resale value (with the odd exception - Berbatov for example), if it wasn't, how do they make transfer profits all the time ?? It's one of the few ways left they can raise their revenues as just about all else (outside of TV dosh) has stagnated over the last three years.

Agree, absolutely nowt wrong with them. One of the shittest artists/bands going around imo. A three point penalty should be added for that. Chad Kroger/The Paddle Pop Lion = the Doctor Suess of rock lyrics. I've got a track on a CD by Chad Kroger, called "Hero". Wondered who he was. A good tune IMO, done with the lead singer from Saliva, who's name escapes me. Kroger has a crackin voice an all. Not a patch on Morrisey obviously

I would suggest that Man U, Arsenal and Spuds would tend to disagree, and any number of continental teams also patently know nowt about football.

When Llambias comes out with quotes about signing players with high resale value, it pretty much confirms were gonna be a glorified wigan and become a selling club Everyone does it, but becasue we state we're going to do it, the hysteria kicks in again IF and only IF we start shipping out players for anything but top-end prices/value (without replacement), you may have a point. Man U and Asenal (for example) have made significant profits on transfers over the last 3 years (tens of millions), it's how Spurs mounted their (hopefully brief) resurgence. On the continent it's an intrinsic part of many an operating model (Lyon, Lille and Porto for example).

Got one of them, plays ye olde 45's, had everything from Sam Cooke via Coolio through to Metallica on it. It's in storage just now. On the subject of the bloke in your street, there's an Elvis house on Whiltley Lodge over from the Kittiwake

Agree, absolutely nowt wrong with them. You're american, you're allowed to have fucking terrible taste... Nope, am Brit through and through, would love to retire stateside when then time comes mind. Bet you think the The Smiths were good, or maybe, given your choice of companions, you're more of an Erasure "man"

Agree, absolutely nowt wrong with them.

kind words, kind words - you build merit in the Great Cycle of Life Dr G I'm afraid the abuse is the price of fame..... they are tragic sufferers from envy, feelings of inadequacy, their pointless, vapid existences - stuck between the bottle and the Sun........ sad, very very sad But my shoulders are broad, my spirit undimmed. I continue - if I can improve the lot of one of the ingrates on here so they come back as a worm rather than as a leech I shall feel it was all worth while Just shut up you nob, honestly. Just pipe down and chat normally instead of being a tool. abuse again.... it really doesn't DO anything are you a typical product of modern education dear boy? the classic 300 word vocabulary of a Sun reader Well Dear Deidre's more interesting than reading your pish. How does this pishometer work, is everything pish in your head, or can you occassionaly back it up ??

Good luck all the new engagee's Been married 30 years, this year, and as a word of warning, my Mrs' appreciation of diamond rings didn't end with the engagement ring

IF we're talking for this season, Carroll, £35Mill for how many games/goals

Lille

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/7615655.stm so thats 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at £20m per year with another 20m this year and next and the year after. Now to me the words "bank roll" mean give, not lend. Thats backed up by the last sentence ending with "and not expect anything back". Again if you dont expect anything back then its a gift, its being given not a loan. Interest free credit from DFS isnt advertised with the words "we give you a sofa and dont expect anything back" So by that logic he should have put in £80m which means that if we take the full £140m into account hes lent us a further £60m (which frankly should be written off because thats how much relegation cost us, but thats a different argument). The 2nd option is that we owe him nothing and hes behind on his payments. The £70m to clear existing debt could be argued as not part of the running costs, it should have been advertised properly by Hall either paying off the debt then selling for £200m or advertising it for £132m + take on debts. If the former then the inclusion in the sale price would mean the cost wasnt passed onto the club. Aye OK By that logic the debts he did pay off saved the club £7Mill a year in interest which would be a total of £28Mill, so we owe him another £8Mill So are you disagreeing that he lied at the start when he said hed "bankroll" the club to the tune of £20m per year? Youre saying that means lend? I wish I could have fun that way, is it fair to say that my ST payments are simply a loan that I expect back at some time? To bankroll is to: support (a person, organization, or project) financially A loan is: a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest (Oxford English Dictionary) He is doing the former. In the accounts etc. it's called the latter, but he's not charging interest (unlike just about every other owner in the Prem). I don't believe the term bankroll is usually used in financial statements Ordinarily a wealthy investor or institution will bankroll a start up company, for example, as they require amounts of capital they can't generate themselves until they're up and running and successful (usually for a portion of equity, see Dragon's Den as an illustration). The "Bankrollers" always expect their money back, plus lots more usually. As for your season ticket, No it's not a loan, it's a fee you pay for something you get in return, or rather, are guaranteed to get in return i.e. acces to the ground and a games to watch. As I said, with reasoning, on another thread (Carroll thread post #383), you can beat Ashley with multiple sticks, but the money stick truly isn't one of them. How he'll make his money back will be the interesting bit. I doubt he'll get the club to take out loans from banks so he can pay himself dividends mind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...ted/7615655.stm so thats 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at £20m per year with another 20m this year and next and the year after. Now to me the words "bank roll" mean give, not lend. Thats backed up by the last sentence ending with "and not expect anything back". Again if you dont expect anything back then its a gift, its being given not a loan. Interest free credit from DFS isnt advertised with the words "we give you a sofa and dont expect anything back" So by that logic he should have put in £80m which means that if we take the full £140m into account hes lent us a further £60m (which frankly should be written off because thats how much relegation cost us, but thats a different argument). The 2nd option is that we owe him nothing and hes behind on his payments. The £70m to clear existing debt could be argued as not part of the running costs, it should have been advertised properly by Hall either paying off the debt then selling for £200m or advertising it for £132m + take on debts. If the former then the inclusion in the sale price would mean the cost wasnt passed onto the club. Aye OK By that logic the debts he did pay off saved the club £7Mill a year in interest which would be a total of £28Mill, so we owe him another £8Mill

Over and above the purchase price and existing debt pay-off (£132Mill +£70Mill), the additional working capital that he's loaned is, as far as I can see, £69.8Mill up to 09/10. Not sure what the year by year increments are, it was around £41 Mill total up to year end 08/09. So £70m was because he didnt do due diligence and then hes loaned a further £70m to the club to help it run. Seeing as hes been here now for 4 years then we dont owe him £140m, we either owe him £60m or (and I think this is the case) he owes the club £20m. But conveniently he seems to gloss over that when announcing how lovely hes been to us. How's that work ????

KAPOW

Over and above the purchase price and existing debt pay-off (£132Mill +£70Mill), the additional working capital that he's loaned is, as far as I can see, £69.8Mill up to 09/10. Not sure what the year by year increments are, it was around £41 Mill total up to year end 08/09.

Tell me you're not serious, really

Thank god. I seen someone had posted on this thread, and thought he'd scored. Just put 25 quid on Fulham. He didn't even travel (SSN) crocked (again) evidently fuck me. It's 3-0 to Liverpool after 17 minutes oh my god. Hopefully they give Dogleash the job and he reverts to being the manager we know he can be

Thank god. I seen someone had posted on this thread, and thought he'd scored. Just put 25 quid on Fulham. He didn't even travel (SSN) crocked (again) evidently

The thing is Leazes the "golden period" ended in 97, we had a brief hiatus under SBR and we didn't back him when we needed to (the Bowyer summer), because we couldn't afford it, we fucked off SBR and then unbelieveably mortgaged the future and threw buckets of cash at Souness, cash we didn't have. Will we get anywhwere near the nineties positon again, I very much doubt it, not without some form of bizare miracle. BUT ownership change or not, we wouldn't have got near it again either under any continuance of the previous regime. In fact we'd be a hell of a lot worse off than we are now IMO, but we can't discuss that area, we promised

Thought the same. He likes a game of, do you want to see my puppies, alledgedly