NobbySol 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think if you're including the carroll money as net spend you should include the Ben Arfa buy as that was the January transfer window too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think if you're including the carroll money as net spend you should include the Ben Arfa buy as that was the January transfer window too. Piss on tinys chips why dont you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9017 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think if you're including the carroll money as net spend you should include the Ben Arfa buy as that was the January transfer window too. Can do, I wasn't including it as I'd assumed the money would have been allocated from the previous window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobbySol 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think if you're including the carroll money as net spend you should include the Ben Arfa buy as that was the January transfer window too. Can do, I wasn't including it as I'd assumed the money would have been allocated from the previous window. Could work either way and I guess you're right in the sense we were intent on the purchase in November. Regardless, 30m or 35.5m I can't see it all being reinvested transfer and signing on fee wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13883 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 The Ben Arfa money is inconsequential. They are obliged to spend the Carroll money because they robbed the fans of a potential legend and they apparently forced him out. (As much as he's a massive dickhead too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NobbySol 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 The Ben Arfa money is inconsequential. They are obliged to spend the Carroll money because they robbed the fans of a potential legend and they apparently forced him out. (As much as he's a massive dickhead too) I don't think obliged is the right choice of words there tbh but I see your point. The Carroll sale only becomes a good deal if it's reinvested with a positive outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabit71 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 said carroll money was going on contracts as well didn;t they? tiote has a new 6 year one ferguson just got a 5 year one couple of chunks taken out of it right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 31 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 the little fella wont be happy in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Re: the net spend. If you are in financial debt at home and your boss gives you a £10k bonus, do you spend the full £10k? A net spend of £15m plus and an extra £8m in wages would be a good proportion of that money for a club dealing with the finances from relegation. Its 23/30ths of the money. Ben Arfa's fee comes off even if Dave tries to persuade you that "allocated from the previous window" is a football accountancy term As it stands i expected about £10m but we are halfway there already, could mean anything though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneColdStephenIreland 74 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The Ben Arfa deal was done before Carroll was sold, so i wouldn't count that (Ashley will though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Some of you lot are off your tits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Re: the net spend. If you are in financial debt at home and your boss gives you a £10k bonus, do you spend the full £10k? A net spend of £15m plus and an extra £8m in wages would be a good proportion of that money for a club dealing with the finances from relegation. Its 23/30ths of the money. Ben Arfa's fee comes off even if Dave tries to persuade you that "allocated from the previous window" is a football accountancy term As it stands i expected about £10m but we are halfway there already, could mean anything though. 23/47.7ths of his £47.7m altogether net inflow like. Or less than half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9017 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Re: the net spend. If you are in financial debt at home and your boss gives you a £10k bonus, do you spend the full £10k? A net spend of £15m plus and an extra £8m in wages would be a good proportion of that money for a club dealing with the finances from relegation. Its 23/30ths of the money. Ben Arfa's fee comes off even if Dave tries to persuade you that "allocated from the previous window" is a football accountancy term As it stands i expected about £10m but we are halfway there already, could mean anything though. Don't be daft Chez, I'm not saying it's a "footballing accountancy term" as you put it, I'm saying that the money spent on Ben Arfa would surely have been ear-marked when we made the loan-with-a-view-to-buy deal and given that the club and the manager have said that the Carroll money would be reinvested, I wanted to see if it was close to being true. Neither am I saying that the entirety of the £35m will be spent on transfer fees and not allocated towards wages. All I'm doing is the same thing every Newspaper, every fanzine every fan does; I look at the amount spent and the amount recouped at face value and see if they're close to parity. Of course it's pointless, but so are 99% of the "discussions" on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) however anybody wants to dress it up, the complete fee for carroll and any other sales should be given to the manager and not used to fund wages and any other operational costs of the club. This is what selling clubs do, with small crowds and limited potential do. Its bad enough selling players above his head, but its only compounding the long term decline by not backing him to replace our best players adequately or better. Not acceptable for a club like NUFC I'm afraid. Edited May 31, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Again Dave using terms like 'ear marked' without any clue as to what that might actually mean. How would you ear mark £5m? Do you stick it in a savings account? Or do you just agree to make sure you've got £5m kicking about in january? Which would be dependent on the cash position at that moment, which would be impacted by the Carroll money. I'm taking the piss because the money got spent in January and the financial year runs from April to April. Notwithstanding that, it would assume there is a pot of money marked transfers into which £5m was placed in august. It's such a fucking stupid thing to say tbh. £5m went outthe business in janaury, £35m came in. The net change is £30m, unarguably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Re: the net spend. If you are in financial debt at home and your boss gives you a £10k bonus, do you spend the full £10k? A net spend of £15m plus and an extra £8m in wages would be a good proportion of that money for a club dealing with the finances from relegation. Its 23/30ths of the money. Ben Arfa's fee comes off even if Dave tries to persuade you that "allocated from the previous window" is a football accountancy term As it stands i expected about £10m but we are halfway there already, could mean anything though. 23/47.7ths of his £47.7m altogether net inflow like. Or less than half. I dont follow. We are £30m up financially since the start of last season, following a season in which we made a loss. What am I missing? Edited May 31, 2011 by ChezGiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 however anybody wants to dress it up, the complete fee for carroll and any other sales should be given to the manager and not used to fund wages and any other operational costs of the club. This is what selling clubs do, with small crowds and limited potential do. Its bad enough selling players above his head, but its only compounding the long term decline by not backing him to replace our best players adequately or better. Not acceptable for a club like NUFC I'm afraid. I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Again Dave using terms like 'ear marked' without any clue as to what that might actually mean. How would you ear mark £5m? Do you stick it in a savings account? Or do you just agree to make sure you've got £5m kicking about in january? Which would be dependent on the cash position at that moment, which would be impacted by the Carroll money. I'm taking the piss because the money got spent in January and the financial year runs from April to April. Notwithstanding that, it would assume there is a pot of money marked transfers into which £5m was placed in august. It's such a fucking stupid thing to say tbh. £5m went outthe business in janaury, £35m came in. The net change is £30m, unarguably. Cant seriously believe anybody could try and argue anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Re: the net spend. If you are in financial debt at home and your boss gives you a £10k bonus, do you spend the full £10k? A net spend of £15m plus and an extra £8m in wages would be a good proportion of that money for a club dealing with the finances from relegation. Its 23/30ths of the money. Ben Arfa's fee comes off even if Dave tries to persuade you that "allocated from the previous window" is a football accountancy term As it stands i expected about £10m but we are halfway there already, could mean anything though. 23/47.7ths of his £47.7m altogether net inflow like. Or less than half. I dont follow. We are £30m up financially since the start of last season, following a season in which we made a loss. What am I missing? We are $47.7m up financially since Ashley arrived....it's all arbitrary points on the timeline. Not sure why anyone would think it makes sense to include the Carroll sale and not the Ben Arfa purchase in any totaliser like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9017 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Again Dave using terms like 'ear marked' without any clue as to what that might actually mean. How would you ear mark £5m? Do you stick it in a savings account? Or do you just agree to make sure you've got £5m kicking about in january? Which would be dependent on the cash position at that moment, which would be impacted by the Carroll money. I'm taking the piss because the money got spent in January and the financial year runs from April to April. Notwithstanding that, it would assume there is a pot of money marked transfers into which £5m was placed in august. It's such a fucking stupid thing to say tbh. £5m went outthe business in janaury, £35m came in. The net change is £30m, unarguably. Mind When the papers do a transfer window round up I'm sure you can write to them and complain that they're not they're not taking wages into account, or they're using profit in the wrong sense, or whatever. If you weren't being such an arse you'd see I'm just wanting to see how close to that £35m (or £30m) we actually do reinvest. It's not going to be precise, now is it? I am just responding to Llambias and co stating the money from the Carroll transfer would be reinvested, if you want to include BArfa in that, feel free. I can't believe you're making such a big deal of it. Fucks sake Adam, I'm a fan who is bothered by the owner and his executives making claims that I believe will soon be watered down; we'll reinvest the Carroll money in players... We'll put it towards the next few years, players and their wages... we'll use it to fatten out the parachute payment...we're paying off debts... we're buying new shoes, we've allowed to build interest in Ashley's account and as he's the owner this will benefit the club in the long term.... I don't think Carroll will be the last "star" we sell before this window closes and if we get £8m for Enrique, £3m for Jonas, £3m for Barton when will we reinvest those funds? Next time I want to have a go at Ashley because I don't trust a fucking word that comes from him (or his mouth pieces) I'll be sure to go through an economics degree and ask you to proof read my internet message board posts first. Look, I might not be as au fait with the terms as you'd like, but you know fine well what I meant and for whatever reason you're looking to take the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6892 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 however anybody wants to dress it up, the complete fee for carroll and any other sales should be given to the manager and not used to fund wages and any other operational costs of the club. This is what selling clubs do, with small crowds and limited potential do. Its bad enough selling players above his head, but its only compounding the long term decline by not backing him to replace our best players adequately or better. Not acceptable for a club like NUFC I'm afraid. Madness You are joking surely?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 I think Chez is just on the rag Fish. Nowt wrong with saying they had the Barfa money "ear-marked". It certainly should have been budgeted for without assuming we'd get £35m for a stiker with hardly any Premier League games to his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 Who gives a fuck, I just want to see some names appearing in this thread not people being pedantic arseholes. Christmas Tree will do his best to derail this thread as he knows he's out of his comfort zone in here i.e. dealing in facts Run for the sun little one................in the land of make believe, lah, lah, lah etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Who gives a fuck, I just want to see some names appearing in this thread not people being pedantic arseholes. Christmas Tree will do his best to derail this thread as he knows he's out of his comfort zone in here i.e. dealing in facts Run for the sun little one................in the land of make believe, lah, lah, lah etc etc I think you'll find Fish, Happy Face and Chez's post dwarf my posts. 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