Happy Face 29 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. NNot sure how that relates to JKs post, but you've got more than twice my posts in this thread and in 2 years you've got half the posts I've managed in 5, so you're posting at a higher rate than I manage 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. NNot sure how that relates to JKs post, but you've got more than twice my posts in this thread and in 2 years you've got half the posts I've managed in 5, so you're posting at a higher rate than I manage Sorry, I just keep making a pyg-my self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 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. No its not. Its an annual cycle of revenue, so each period is one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 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. Other than it doesnt mean anything in practice. I would have thought the fact that the club wouldnt spend £5m when Ben Arfa was fit but would spend it when he was fucked suggests the reason they didnt spend it was because they didnt have it. No? 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. Other than it doesnt mean anything in practice. I would have thought the fact that the club wouldnt spend £5m when Ben Arfa was fit but would spend it when he was fucked suggests the reason they didnt spend it was because they didnt have it. No? the Magpies have agreed to pay a £2 million loan fee and to insert a clause in the deal requiring them to buy Ben Arfa for £5 million if he makes 25 appearances this season. http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/839308-hatem-...r#ixzz1NxlvJEdB So yes, no. 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. No its not. Its an annual cycle of revenue, so each period is one year. Which is why I said it's daft to count Carroll and not Barfa. You said you didn't follow the £47.7million figure though. It's arbitrary whether you choose to go back to the start of last season, 2 seasons ago, 3 seasons or 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 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. Other than it doesnt mean anything in practice. I would have thought the fact that the club wouldnt spend £5m when Ben Arfa was fit but would spend it when he was fucked suggests the reason they didnt spend it was because they didnt have it. No? the Magpies have agreed to pay a £2 million loan fee and to insert a clause in the deal requiring them to buy Ben Arfa for £5 million if he makes 25 appearances this season. http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/839308-hatem-...r#ixzz1NxlvJEdB So yes, no. That clause became irrelevant, the desire to see him perform over 25 games can not have been the reason for asking for it if they just go and buy him 4 months later, with a career threatening injury. The only logical explanation is that they didnt have the money. Not sure how it all works, maybe some of the TV money will get paid once the first part of the Sky schedule is sorted. Sky schedule 3 or 4 times a season, with each part triggering some of the total £40-50m pay out. The first lot of money comes in before January, they paid for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Which is why I said it's daft to count Carroll and not Barfa. You said you didn't follow the £47.7million figure though. It's arbitrary whether you choose to go back to the start of last season, 2 seasons ago, 3 seasons or 4. The 'year' is not an arbitrary reference point for each financial assessment. You have added the net on player sales from previous seasons? Some of that net would have covered 'annual' losses in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 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. Other than it doesnt mean anything in practice. I would have thought the fact that the club wouldnt spend £5m when Ben Arfa was fit but would spend it when he was fucked suggests the reason they didnt spend it was because they didnt have it. No? the Magpies have agreed to pay a £2 million loan fee and to insert a clause in the deal requiring them to buy Ben Arfa for £5 million if he makes 25 appearances this season. http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/839308-hatem-...r#ixzz1NxlvJEdB So yes, no. That clause became irrelevant, the desire to see him perform over 25 games can not have been the reason for asking for it if they just go and buy him 4 months later, with a career threatening injury. The only logical explanation is that they didnt have the money. Not sure how it all works, maybe some of the TV money will get paid once the first part of the Sky schedule is sorted. Sky schedule 3 or 4 times a season, with each part triggering some of the total £40-50m pay out. The first lot of money comes in before January, they paid for him. It became irrelevant, but it was relevant at the time it was put into the contract, surely? Which is all Fish is saying, we had an agreement to buy him and knew we'd have to fund it. It's been suggested that we've stopped playing other members of the squad when it'll trigger an expensive clause, and thatt wouldn't surprise me. It would have been an option here too. If we couldn't justify the £5m, stop playing him on 24. But as that didn't happen, it's fair enough to give the board the benefit of the doubt and assume they always planned to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Which is why I said it's daft to count Carroll and not Barfa. You said you didn't follow the £47.7million figure though. It's arbitrary whether you choose to go back to the start of last season, 2 seasons ago, 3 seasons or 4. The 'year' is not an arbitrary reference point for each financial assessment. You have added the net on player sales from previous seasons? Some of that net would have covered 'annual' losses in the past. Point taken. April 2010 to April 2011 is a relevant financial period. April 2007 to April 2011 is not. But if we are going to use the former to speculate on an unrelated April 2011 to April 2012 net position, then surely the net position of previous financial years are equally informative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I think we should just all be friends, wipe the slate clean and give them one last chance to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) I think we should just all be friends, wipe the slate clean and give them one last chance to get it right. There's 41 "chances" listed if you click the link in my sig. Is 42 the absolute limit Edited June 1, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I think we should just all be friends, wipe the slate clean and give them one last chance to get it right. There's 41 "chances" listed if you click the link in my sig. Is 42 the absolute limit Absolute, honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I'd say two things. Looking at the logical in inconsistency of the Ben Arfa deal and not knowing how the cash flow works, maybe it had fuck all to do with them getting the prem sky money and because they knew they were selling Carroll. You're right about taking previous net positions into account: relegation season was even or a small profit (it may even be a loss but it doesnt matter because of what follows), the championship season was probably a £20m loss, then since then, positive net spend in two windows (£10m for January & summer 2010?) That takes us to January and £30m up. If the club had retained it's same cost base during this time, then the losses and the small spend would have continued to rack up a financial deficit. However since he has cut the wage bill down, we should see closer to that £30m figure in net spend this summer. It won't equal it as that doesn't take account of the financial path we have just taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeForce 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 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. Other than it doesnt mean anything in practice. I would have thought the fact that the club wouldnt spend £5m when Ben Arfa was fit but would spend it when he was fucked suggests the reason they didnt spend it was because they didnt have it. No? the Magpies have agreed to pay a £2 million loan fee and to insert a clause in the deal requiring them to buy Ben Arfa for £5 million if he makes 25 appearances this season. http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/839308-hatem-...r#ixzz1NxlvJEdB So yes, no. That clause became irrelevant, the desire to see him perform over 25 games can not have been the reason for asking for it if they just go and buy him 4 months later, with a career threatening injury. The only logical explanation is that they didnt have the money. Not sure how it all works, maybe some of the TV money will get paid once the first part of the Sky schedule is sorted. Sky schedule 3 or 4 times a season, with each part triggering some of the total £40-50m pay out. The first lot of money comes in before January, they paid for him. Without wanting to sound very simplistic, maybe they paid the loan fee, expecting a good player for a season and knowing that if we looked like going down, not play him towards the end and send him back to his parent club, however, when he got injured he had seemed very good for two season, we were sat in the top half of the table and as we had paid £2m for 4 games maybe the club thought an extra £5m was worth the risk based on his 4 game performances and the fact we had wasted £2m on a loan that could not be completed. The decision was then taken to gamble on him (we all know what ashley is like) we maybe even got a cut price deal in January due to his injury as Marseille may have been reluctant to take him back! We obviously had to wait till january to to purchase due to the transfer window so simply saying we only had the money in the bank to spend in january seems extremley short sighted! Alternatively, maybe Ashley didn't want to gamble everything up front on him, maybe he thought he would be a bad infulence on an otherwise sound dressing room and therefore, a loan with an agreement to buy was a good option as it meant the player could still be purchased relatively cheaply should he perform well, or on the flip side, he could be sent back should he become a failure over the season or be perceived to have a negative effect on the rest of the squad. I think there certainly is more than one logical explanation why they didn't just buy him upfront! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share Posted June 1, 2011 I think we should just all be friends, wipe the slate clean and give them one last chance to get it right. I'd rather be friends with Davey Charlton than you, although you both have one thing in common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I think we should just all be friends, wipe the slate clean and give me one last chance to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 I do like the contortions and guesswork some people make to provide an angle on events. Just read this bit back to yourself. "when he got injured he had seemed very good for two season, we were sat in the top half of the table and as we had paid £2m for 4 games maybe the club thought an extra £5m was worth the risk based on his 4 game performances and the fact we had wasted £2m on a loan that could not be completed. The decision was then taken to gamble on him" Aye ok, thats definitely what happened. The club was not willing to risk it in August but definitely was after he got injured. You are saying their attitude to risk about the player (initially set on basis of wanting to see him for 25 games) changed to only needing to see 4 appearances and not caring anymore about an injury. His 4 appearances led to that huge change in attitude? Really? The deal was set up as wanting to see him play because we didnt have the money to pay for him. Unsurprisingly, since we'd just spent a season with little or no TV revenue. Sounds simpler that way doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 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. disagree with what ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 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?? well, if you are happy to continue selling our best players to the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 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 agreed, this thread has been derailed. I'm off back to Scarborough soon, just for one night, when I come back I hope to see some proper additions to this thread, although I realise if anything is in the "incoming" pile, CT will be wanking himself to death before stopping to realise there is only a few minutes of the window gone and about 88 of the 90 minutes left, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Nice to see this thread hasn't become the exact same as most other threads on here.... Just out of interest, anyone know what will happen with the Carroll money? I don't think it's been mentioned :\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Nice to see this thread hasn't become the exact same as most other threads on here.... Just out of interest, anyone know what will happen with the Carroll money? I don't think it's been mentioned :\ it appears that some people are happy for it not to be re-invested in quality footballers coming in ie the sort of thing small clubs do rather than the ambitious ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted June 1, 2011 Share Posted June 1, 2011 Nice to see this thread hasn't become the exact same as most other threads on here.... Just out of interest, anyone know what will happen with the Carroll money? I don't think it's been mentioned :\ it appears that some people are happy for it not to be re-invested in quality footballers coming in ie the sort of thing small clubs do rather than the ambitious ones. Yes and many want us to finish top every season and spend 100 million. The point is this thread was about signings, not speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted June 1, 2011 Author Share Posted June 1, 2011 Right, no more shit about nothing, signings only lads. Thanks for your co-operation Your Friendly moderator JK 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