sandman02uk 0 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 wasn't the sale of Sir les and the buying of Owen also done at board level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PUGATRON1000 0 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "Backing your manager, which means allowing him to manage his own players and backing him to build and improve rather than force him to sell and replace cheaply." -- Canny definition LM, which online dictionary did you get that from?, or if you didn't can i have a go??? Backing your manager -- Allowing him to sign players that will improve the team and move the club forward. How's that?? who are you ? Are you some sort of 12 year old gimp from Singapore ? Aside of that, if you don't understand how football success has been achieved by every successful club since football began............then you must be a 12 year old from Singapore [especially one who thinks the Halls and Shepherd brought an end to decades of trophies and glory]. Laughable. Edit unfortunately, there seems to be more posters attracted here of a Newcastle Online mentality. Hopefully not. I dont recall EVER having mentioned either the Halls or Shepherds on here, but if you feel the need to falsely attribute something to me (so you can shift the thread into one of your standard five themes,) instead of responding to my point then go ahead. It says a lot that the first thing to pop into your mind is a 12yr old asian, I'm assuming Thailand is on your list of places to visit? To paraphrase you for a moment LM "Why wont u answer my question?" The question being "Would you agree or disagree with my definition of backing your manager?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PUGATRON1000 0 Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 "Backing your manager, which means allowing him to manage his own players and backing him to build and improve rather than force him to sell and replace cheaply." -- Canny definition LM, which online dictionary did you get that from?, or if you didn't can i have a go??? Backing your manager -- Allowing him to sign players that will improve the team and move the club forward. How's that?? Well this didn't happen as Sir Bobby says in his book that Gary Speed was sold behind his back and only found out about the transfer when he was saying his goodbyes... You've jumped in ahead of yourself here mate, I'm just asking what people think of that definition of backing a manager, think generically if u like, doesnt have to be NUFC specific yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Was interested to see what Ashley has actually spent on players since he got here, totting up gross spend.... Summer 2007 Joey Barton £5,800,000 Abdoulaye Faye £2,000,000 Alan Smith £6,000,000 Habib Beye £2,000,000 Jose Enrique £6,000,000 David Rozenhal £3,100,000 Total = £24.9m January 2008 Fabio Zamblera £300,000 Total = £300K Summer 2008 Danny Guthrie £2,500,000 Jonas Gutierrez £5,200,000 Fabricio Coloccini £9,100,000 Francisco Jiminez Tejada "Xisco" £5,000,000 Total = £21.8m January 2009 Kevin Nolan £4,000,000 Total = £4m Summer 2009 None Total = £0 January 2010 Danny Simpson £1,000,000 Wayne Routledge £1,000,000 Mike Williamson £1,000,000 Leon Best £1,000,000 Total = £4m Summer 2010 James Perch £1,000,000 Cheick Tiote £3,500,000 Total = £4.5 Million Spend January 2011 Hatem Ben Arfa £5,750,000 Total = £5.75m Summer 2011 Yohan Cabaye £4,300,000 Gabriel Obertan £3,250,000 Rob Elliot £100,000 Davide Santon £5,300,000 Total = £12.95m January 2012 Papiss Demba Cissé £10,000,000 Total = £10m GRAND TOTAL = £88.2m An average re-investment onto the pitch of £17.6m a year over 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 By way of comparison, I've also looked at who we signed in the 5 years prior to Ashley arriving.... Viana £8,500,000 Bramble £4,500,000 Woodgate £9,000,000 Ambrose £2,500,000 Milner £5,000,000 Butt £2,000,000 Nzogbia £250,000 Carr £2,000,000 Faye £2,000,000 Babayaro £1,000,000 Boumsong £8,000,000 Parker £6,500,000 Emre £3,800,000 Luque £9,500,000 Owen £17,000,000 Solano £1,500,000 Duff £5,000,000 Martins £10,140,000 Total - £98.15million Which is an average of £19.63m a year. Amazing that we have such entrenched views of which owner wasted so much money opposed to which one is so wise and thrifty, or which one had ambition and was willing to back the manager as opposed to which one is filling his pockets. All on the back of £2m a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 That's all well and good but where is the Carroll money??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Don't you need to consider money raised from sales too if you're going to make any meaningful comparison? Ashley's brought a lot more in has he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 Don't you need to consider money raised from sales too if you're going to make any meaningful comparison? Ashley's brought a lot more in has he not? That's what the OP and the entire thread is about. Look at page 1 if you want the latest balance there. I was interested to see what was actually being spent on the field though, irrespective of what any other club is daft enough to pay us for our players, what are we willing to go and pay for players from other clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 That's all well and good but where is the Carroll money??? Sports Direct, or someones back pocket perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) He has but its a very interesting perspective. You can look at it a few ways. The spends are similar yet we know Ashley has recouped a hell of a lot more. You cant say it is because MA only sells our top players either as the previous 5 we sold players like Viana, Chopra, Boumsong, Jenas, Robert, Bellamy etc. Edited March 1, 2012 by JawD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) He has but its a very interesting perspective. You can look at it a few ways. The spends are similar yet we know Ashley has recouped a hell of a lot more. You cant say it is because MA only sells our top players either as the previous 5 we sold players like Viana, Chopra, Boumsong, Jenas, Robert, Bellamy etc. you could, but it's not so simple as that is it ? Robert and Bellamy fell out with the manager [yes, we know] and Viana, Chopra and Boumsong were all not good enough, 2 of them were mistakes, and half of europe were after Viana at the time but he chose Newcastle ahead of Liverpool too for that matter. Only Jenas remains, and he was sold for other documented problems. None of those players were sold for purely monetary reasons, whereas recent players at the club have been, and will continue to be sold for that reason. This is a big, big difference. Edited March 1, 2012 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 1, 2012 Author Share Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) He has but its a very interesting perspective. You can look at it a few ways. The spends are similar yet we know Ashley has recouped a hell of a lot more. You cant say it is because MA only sells our top players either as the previous 5 we sold players like Viana, Chopra, Boumsong, Jenas, Robert, Bellamy etc. He's recouped a hell of a lot more when you look at transfers alone, but he had to cover the cost of relegation (his mistakes) with that too. NUFC have had to keep on borrowing to maintain the level of spending we have over the last 5 years. Edited March 1, 2012 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 He has but its a very interesting perspective. You can look at it a few ways. The spends are similar yet we know Ashley has recouped a hell of a lot more. You cant say it is because MA only sells our top players either as the previous 5 we sold players like Viana, Chopra, Boumsong, Jenas, Robert, Bellamy etc. He's recouped a hell of a lot more when you look at transfers alone, but he had to cover the cost of relegation (his mistakes) with that too. NUFC have had to keep on borrowing to maintain the level of spending we have over the last 5 years. Completely agree about the relegation comment. In my opinion the sole reason we were relegated was because of him fucking around with managers. The frequency of change and the shambolic way it was handled, no wonder the players didnt have a clue. Joe fucking Kinnear? All time low for the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Don't you need to consider money raised from sales too if you're going to make any meaningful comparison? Ashley's brought a lot more in has he not? That's what the OP and the entire thread is about. Oh aye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 He has but its a very interesting perspective. You can look at it a few ways. The spends are similar yet we know Ashley has recouped a hell of a lot more. You cant say it is because MA only sells our top players either as the previous 5 we sold players like Viana, Chopra, Boumsong, Jenas, Robert, Bellamy etc. you could, but it's not so simple as that is it ? Robert and Bellamy fell out with the manager [yes, we know] and Viana, Chopra and Boumsong were all not good enough, 2 of them were mistakes, and half of europe were after Viana at the time but he chose Newcastle ahead of Liverpool too for that matter. Only Jenas remains, and he was sold for other documented problems. None of those players were sold for purely monetary reasons, whereas recent players at the club have been, and will continue to be sold for that reason. This is a big, big difference. There is a big difference I agree, Carroll would have stayed but the offer was OTT. But Barton, he fell out with the club like Bellamy did. Woodgate and Hamann left I think for money and brighter things like Jenas. I digress though, I agree with the point that if asked, I doubt anyone would think MA had spent near the same amount as the club did in the 5 years before he came. Not the balance of in/out, just spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Nothing new about it, just thought it was a nice picture to put in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 6434 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That chart should be the other way round tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Doesn't include £10m for Cissé or the £6.8m agent fees, which we were top 3 for in the ranking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Doesn't include £10m for Cissé or the £6.8m agent fees, which we were top 3 for in the ranking. and then the thread dies That's not to mention the practical 'lotto win' the club had with Carroll. 70% of the clubs on that list (conservative estimate) wouldn't have turned down that sort of money for a player in Carroll's position and invested all the money back into the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Doesn't include £10m for Cissé or the £6.8m agent fees, which we were top 3 for in the ranking. and then the thread dies That's not to mention the practical 'lotto win' the club had with Carroll. 70% of the clubs on that list (conservative estimate) wouldn't have turned down that sort of money for a player in Carroll's position and invested all the money back into the side. I know you've been conservative, but I doubt there is a team on the planet that would have turned down £35m for Andy Carroll. if he was local Man U lad that'd done ok and Real Madrid had come sniffing, £35m? They'd have snapped their fucking hands off and laughed all the way to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 That's right. It's from September 2011. If you have a later version hoy it up, otherwise you'll have to envisage where we'd be following the jan business. About the Sunderland level I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Doesn't include £10m for Cissé or the £6.8m agent fees, which we were top 3 for in the ranking. and then the thread dies That's not to mention the practical 'lotto win' the club had with Carroll. 70% of the clubs on that list (conservative estimate) wouldn't have turned down that sort of money for a player in Carroll's position and invested all the money back into the side. The chart suggests that the percentages are the other way round. 65% spend every penny they pull in. But aye, we've gone the arsenal, spurs, mackem route when pulling in big money, rather than the liverpool, man u one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Exclusive-Newcastle-Mike-Ashley-spends-cash-to-extend-Fabricio-Coloccini-and-Tim-Krul-contracts-article873902.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 So Colo on £77k a week and Krul on £58k. Doesn't seem to fit into our alleged "wage structure" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19825 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Show of intent if there's truth in it. Rewarding our best players with improved contracts. It's the right thing to do a long as its not a tactic aimed to hike up a transfer fee in the summer ala Carroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now