Ashley's Transfer History thread

[Guest alex]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

I don't see the point in owning a club / buying a club in the first place and not doing that a bit. I suspect he now wonders what the point in owner the club / buying the club is though. Beyond making us a sellable asset in a healthier financial climate.

[McFaul 35]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

Well the reason he sacked fat Sam was he "wasn't enjoying it" I remember him making his mind up after being bored out of his skull at a game against Wigan around Boxing Day, so regardless what people think of Ashley, regardless how clueless he is, and the antagonistic decisions he's made, I think he is a football fan, an perhaps his ultimate aim while he's here is to actually shut a few people up before he sells it. He'll always be a barrow boy fat cunt however.

[NJS 3992]

^ completely agree - its about time he decided what he wants to do and what it is he's actually in it for. Even if the cautious appoarch worked from a business pov and he started making 20m a year, it would still take 12 years or more before he's up on the entire deal.

 

Even if his intention was to sell in a year or two, a "daft" punt on gaining a few places would be repaid in the selling price imo.

 

I suppose if he thinks last year was enjoyable overall then maybe he thinks that's enough - in which case someone should try and explain what it would be like watching a good team.

[Guest alex]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

Well the reason he sacked fat Sam was he "wasn't enjoying it" I remember him making his mind up after being bored out of his skull at a game against Wigan around Boxing Day, so regardless what people think of Ashley, regardless how clueless he is, and the antagonistic decisions he's made, I think he is a football fan, an perhaps his ultimate aim while he's here is to actually shut a few people up before he sells it. He'll always be a barrow boy fat cunt however.

Fan rather than a connoisseur would probably sum him up. Probably applicable beyond football as well.

[Barney 0]

I think he was at his happiest in amongst the away fans downing pints of non-alcoholic beer.

 

He's likely be lynched if he tried that again.

[Guest alex]

Like to see him try though. Hopefully with CT trying to start off his 'Ashley Wonderland' chant at the same match.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

^ completely agree - its about time he decided what he wants to do and what it is he's actually in it for. Even if the cautious appoarch worked from a business pov and he started making 20m a year, it would still take 12 years or more before he's up on the entire deal.

 

Even if his intention was to sell in a year or two, a "daft" punt on gaining a few places would be repaid in the selling price imo.

 

I suppose if he thinks last year was enjoyable overall then maybe he thinks that's enough - in which case someone should try and explain what it would be like watching a good team.

 

 

And there is the crux of the whole problem. "A daft punt for a few places" means nothing to the money men and probably nowt to the selling price.

 

Ashley has lots of case studies of clubs spending big amounts over the last few years with nothing to show for it be that Villa or Sunderland etc. He will also be watching what happens at Spurs following their loss of CL revenue.

 

There are several levels within the premiership and they are...

 

Relegation scrap

Comfortable survival

European place

Champions league

 

The best chairmen with a solid manager would think twice about taking a "daft punt" to move from 12th to 8th never mind Ashley and Pardew.

 

This is why steady progress makes sense this summer allowing a few things to happen hopefully next season.

 

A performance that can be viewed as having "moved on" by all.

Pardew making the grade

The club making profit

 

This will give everyone connected with NUFC a lot more confidence that "the plan" they are working too is working allowing bolder plans / decisions to be taken.

 

Alternatively it could all turn to shit.

[StevieRoss 0]

don't see the point in owning a club / buying a club in the first place and not doing that a bit. I suspect he now wonders what the point in owner the club / buying the club is though. Beyond making us a sellable asset in a healthier financial climate.

 

This seems so evident in everything that's happening now (and has been) I don't know why anyone would even bother arguing to the contrary...

[LeazesMag 0]

How much of the Carroll cash has the manager been allowed to strengthen the team with so far ?

My calculation (which is prone to huge error!) is £23m of the £35m spent so far.

 

not counting operational costs and wages, only the clubs who need to sell to survive should be doing that.

[Happy Face 29]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

 

Totally agree with both paragraphs.

 

On the second one, I don't think there's any god given right to anything. The delusionals are Ashley/Llambias (who keep saying the plan is to push for Europe year after year without spending any money in the first place) and the people that agree there's is the best way to reach their stated goal. They'll couch it in fiscally responsible terms, but the fact is they're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

I'm still going to the football and enjoying it immensley and don't need to be winning trophies to keep doing that. I've never seen us do it before so it makes no odds to me. But I'm not going to buy into the bullshit and say he's doing a bang-up job of delivering on his empty promioses.

[LeazesMag 0]

"In fact I'll go further and say that last season - unless his transfer policy [aye the subject of this thread] dramatically and unexpectedly changes - may be the highest we ever finish while he owns it. If we ever do better, it will only be a blip and it won't be by much. We will NEVER qualify for europe through league position, nailed on. " LM

 

Agreed. It's obvious that Ashley is never going to go on a Chelsea/Man City (or even Liverpool) type spending spree, so we won't be "buying" our way into Europe. But he has to invest enough into the squad to avoid relegation. So this Summer is all about shoring up a mid-table position while reducing the wages bill and hoping to turn up another Carroll-type windfall to sell on. So older, high earners go. And that's maybe not a bad thing altogether...

 

to a degree. I personally have never said I expect Mike Ashley to bankroll the club like the sugar daddies at Man City and Chelsea, but neither do I expect us to be a selling club and not backing the manager. The truth isn't even in the middle here. However people want to dress it up or make excuses for him, the fact is that NUFC's resources and potential are such that competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn is a total no-brainer and unnaceptable, but that is what he is doing.

 

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have. We should not be selling them full stop, but on the odd occasion you lose one we should be looking to use ALL the money for the player on the team as a whole, with the manager putting his judgement on the line. If he uses it badly, he gets the boot, thats the way it works, or ought to work. These things happen, but the bigger picture is you try again with another manager and continue to use the resources to challenge and compete where you should.

[LeazesMag 0]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

 

not everybody had a hard on when he took over. And what you are saying is a natural change from being a "hard working team with a good spirit" into one with the potential to go higher. You are bound to pick up the odd "erratic personality" etc on the way, these top players come with egos and are often more difficult to manage, it comes with the territory. Even Keegan did it when he bought Asprilla. There is always one [or more than one]

 

I think that if you have the 3rd biggest fanbase/ground etc then it is exactly the sort of level you should be aiming for. I'm not saying you have a God given right to achieve it, but the people who run the club have a responsibility to aim for it.

Edited June 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest alex]

How much of the Carroll cash has the manager been allowed to strengthen the team with so far ?

My calculation (which is prone to huge error!) is £23m of the £35m spent so far.

 

not counting operational costs and wages, only the clubs who need to sell to survive should be doing that.

Just thinking aloud as it were but if you're going to include wages as a deduction, as we clearly are, can we not add on ticket sales, merchandise and TV money?

[NJS 3992]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

[Guest alex]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

 

not everybody had a hard on when he took over. And what you are saying is a natural change from being a "hard working team with a good spirit" into one with the potential to go higher. You are bound to pick up the odd "erratic personality" etc on the way, these top players come with egos and are often more difficult to manage, it comes with the territory. Even Keegan did it when he bought Asprilla. There is always one [or more than one]

 

I think that if you have the 3rd biggest fanbase/ground etc then it is exactly the sort of level you should be aiming for. I'm not saying you have a God given right to achieve it, but the people who run the club have a responsibility to aim for it.

He's on about Ashley.

[LeazesMag 0]

How much of the Carroll cash has the manager been allowed to strengthen the team with so far ?

My calculation (which is prone to huge error!) is £23m of the £35m spent so far.

 

not counting operational costs and wages, only the clubs who need to sell to survive should be doing that.

Just thinking aloud as it were but if you're going to include wages as a deduction, as we clearly are, can we not add on ticket sales, merchandise and TV money?

 

maybe. These are "normal" revenues, aren't they ? From a "football club" point of view, money from sales should be used for purchases, minimum. If you don't do that, you are operating like a club that needs to sell to survive ?

[LeazesMag 0]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

 

not everybody had a hard on when he took over. And what you are saying is a natural change from being a "hard working team with a good spirit" into one with the potential to go higher. You are bound to pick up the odd "erratic personality" etc on the way, these top players come with egos and are often more difficult to manage, it comes with the territory. Even Keegan did it when he bought Asprilla. There is always one [or more than one]

 

I think that if you have the 3rd biggest fanbase/ground etc then it is exactly the sort of level you should be aiming for. I'm not saying you have a God given right to achieve it, but the people who run the club have a responsibility to aim for it.

He's on about Ashley.

 

?

 

I know that ?

[LeazesMag 0]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

 

in that case, he isn't ever going to do "better than Fred", exactly as I said years ago, and despite what so many people claimed would happen. His "cuts" and "downsizing" of the club has put the club into decline. And it is still no excuse for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn.

Edited June 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Christmas Tree 4003]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

 

You look to reduce those costs where possible such as replacing quality high earners with quality low earners. That is the only realistic option left if a sugar daddy aint going to sprinkle the sugar.

 

Problem of course is eventually the low earners get offered the big bucks elsewhere so you have to have a ready production line of replacements coming in.

 

This is where we are.

 

This will get you so far (Probably top 8) but then at some point the "daft punt" is the only thing that will move you on any further.

[Guest alex]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

 

not everybody had a hard on when he took over. And what you are saying is a natural change from being a "hard working team with a good spirit" into one with the potential to go higher. You are bound to pick up the odd "erratic personality" etc on the way, these top players come with egos and are often more difficult to manage, it comes with the territory. Even Keegan did it when he bought Asprilla. There is always one [or more than one]

 

I think that if you have the 3rd biggest fanbase/ground etc then it is exactly the sort of level you should be aiming for. I'm not saying you have a God given right to achieve it, but the people who run the club have a responsibility to aim for it.

He's on about Ashley.

 

?

 

I know that ?

He's on about Ashley 'getting a hard on' about being an owner, not the fans getting one about him taking over. Sorry if you got that, I thought you'd confused what he meant by your comments though.

[NJS 3992]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

 

in that case, he isn't ever going to do "better than Fred", exactly as I said years ago, and despite what so many people claimed would happen. And it is still no excuse for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn.

 

I agree but if you spend all your wages on your mortgage etc and the bloke down the road in the shitter house with the shitter job does exactly the same then you're both equally as poor - if there is no money left over how could we outspend Bolton?

[LeazesMag 0]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

 

in that case, he isn't ever going to do "better than Fred", exactly as I said years ago, and despite what so many people claimed would happen. And it is still no excuse for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn.

 

I agree but if you spend all your wages on your mortgage etc and the bloke down the road in the shitter house with the shitter job does exactly the same then you're both equally as poor - if there is no money left over how could we outspend Bolton?

 

aren't we outspending Bolton ? Why not ? We should be. What is wrong with the revenues at NUFC if we can't outspend a club like Bolton ? When Mike Ashley took over NUFC we had the 14th biggest revenues in football ?

[LeazesMag 0]

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias.

 

I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

 

not everybody had a hard on when he took over. And what you are saying is a natural change from being a "hard working team with a good spirit" into one with the potential to go higher. You are bound to pick up the odd "erratic personality" etc on the way, these top players come with egos and are often more difficult to manage, it comes with the territory. Even Keegan did it when he bought Asprilla. There is always one [or more than one]

 

I think that if you have the 3rd biggest fanbase/ground etc then it is exactly the sort of level you should be aiming for. I'm not saying you have a God given right to achieve it, but the people who run the club have a responsibility to aim for it.

He's on about Ashley.

 

?

 

I know that ?

He's on about Ashley 'getting a hard on' about being an owner, not the fans getting one about him taking over. Sorry if you got that, I thought you'd confused what he meant by your comments though.

 

OK, my mis-interpretation of that remark there. The rest of my post is right though, at least IMO anyway.

[NJS 3992]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

 

in that case, he isn't ever going to do "better than Fred", exactly as I said years ago, and despite what so many people claimed would happen. And it is still no excuse for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn.

 

I agree but if you spend all your wages on your mortgage etc and the bloke down the road in the shitter house with the shitter job does exactly the same then you're both equally as poor - if there is no money left over how could we outspend Bolton?

 

aren't we outspending Bolton ? Why not ? We should be. What is wrong with the revenues at NUFC if we can't outspend a club like Bolton ? When Mike Ashley took over NUFC we had the 14th biggest revenues in football ?

 

But if all or nearly your revenues go on wages you have nothing left that's my point.

 

When things were at their best previously we were spending 46% on wages so simply put that left 54% for transfers. By 2007 the figure was 86% I think which means 40% less which explains the loss as transfer money was borrowed - that;s just the way football has gone.

 

As I said nearly all clubs now have no money left over and rely on their owners to make up any shortfall. If we have say 10m "left" at the end of the year from 100m and Bolton have 10m left from 60m its still 10m each.

 

If you want to expand the turnover then as Toontoon said, you're talking about £60 match tickets or £1000 STs.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Oh well, it was a nice thread while it lasted.