The Andy Carroll Con

[Happy Face 29]

Football Clubs don't have transfer budgets?

Ok.

 

I'm sure the transfer policies of Arsenal and Manchester United cause you alot of confusion in the world you live in so I let you get back to that.

 

Take it easy. You've made my night. fwiw.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day.

 

nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ?

No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second.

 

They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there.

 

I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment.

 

I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place.

 

There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time.

 

Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money.

 

Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted.

 

To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams.

 

If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said.

[LeazesMag 0]

Football Clubs don't have transfer budgets?

Ok.

 

I'm sure the transfer policies of Arsenal and Manchester United cause you alot of confusion in the world you live in so I let you get back to that.

 

Take it easy. You've made my night. fwiw.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day.

 

nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ?

No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second.

 

They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there.

 

I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment.

 

I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place.

 

There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time.

 

Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money.

 

Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted.

 

To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams.

 

If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said.

 

that's right really, it's the absolute minimum and should be expected as a matter of course. Washing it down so people will be pleased with a spend of say 20m of that money on outright transfer fees is nothing short of a disgrace, and only typifies the fall in expectations.

[Toonpack 6861]

Glad I've cocered my arse for if we do spend the £35m

 

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case.

 

Glad I chose to un-ignore this post.

 

Still making stuff up I see.

 

Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

 

 

good job "Fred" bought Laurent Robert and Craig Bellamy then, instead of doing it the Mike Ashley way ie selling someone like Alan Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books, or we would have wrapped ourselves in bottom half of the league splendour with a terrific bank balance instead of going to the Nou Camp [again] and the San Siro etc. Who the fuck wants to do things like that eh ?

What would the club need to do from now until the end of the summer to make you think again? I dont mean change your mind completely, one good summer doesnt make an ambitious owner of course but what would be acceptable for you?

 

Be sold to an owner that gives a fuck?

 

That's another thing that puzzles me about the bloke.

 

Why does he go to the games, I can't work that one out at all, especially if he "doesn't give a fuck".

 

He's a bazillionaire, he's put his team in place to run the thing, he gets dogs abuse when he goes, so why, there is no need ?? I doubt he visits his stores that often, certainly not them 200+ miles from his home.

 

That just doesn't stack up.

[LeazesMag 0]

Glad I've cocered my arse for if we do spend the £35m

 

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case.

 

Glad I chose to un-ignore this post.

 

Still making stuff up I see.

 

Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

 

 

good job "Fred" bought Laurent Robert and Craig Bellamy then, instead of doing it the Mike Ashley way ie selling someone like Alan Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books, or we would have wrapped ourselves in bottom half of the league splendour with a terrific bank balance instead of going to the Nou Camp [again] and the San Siro etc. Who the fuck wants to do things like that eh ?

What would the club need to do from now until the end of the summer to make you think again? I dont mean change your mind completely, one good summer doesnt make an ambitious owner of course but what would be acceptable for you?

 

Be sold to an owner that gives a fuck?

 

That's another thing that puzzles me about the bloke.

 

Why does he go to the games, I can't work that one out at all, especially if he "doesn't give a fuck".

 

He's a bazillionaire, he's put his team in place to run the thing, he gets dogs abuse when he goes, so why, there is no need ?? I doubt he visits his stores that often, certainly not them 200+ miles from his home.

 

That just doesn't stack up.

 

lost the plot

[Toonpack 6861]

Football Clubs don't have transfer budgets?

Ok.

 

I'm sure the transfer policies of Arsenal and Manchester United cause you alot of confusion in the world you live in so I let you get back to that.

 

Take it easy. You've made my night. fwiw.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day.

 

nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ?

No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second.

 

They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there.

 

I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment.

 

I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place.

 

There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time.

 

Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money.

 

Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted.

 

To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams.

 

If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said.

 

Your getting Loonatic LM syndrome, there are no Ashley supporters man, there are those of us who can see some method in the madness (I even see some necessity in it). There are simply some of us who refuse to believe that everything he does is a zany personal vendetta against NUFC and it's fans.

 

IF we have a decent sized transfer deficit it means he is "building the team" and not recouping or reducing his exposure, or lining his pockets as the eejits say. IF there is another transfer profit, then he is recouping and the extent of that will not be known until the accounts come out, as you originally said. BUT there'll be enough evidence to suggest a direction change, if there is one.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Glad I've cocered my arse for if we do spend the £35m

 

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case.

 

Glad I chose to un-ignore this post.

 

Still making stuff up I see.

 

Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

 

Got to laugh at these people who make a big thing about putting someone on ignore yet still peep at every post that person makes.

 

Either ignore or dont ignore ffs.

[LeazesMag 0]

Glad I've cocered my arse for if we do spend the £35m

 

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case.

 

Glad I chose to un-ignore this post.

 

Still making stuff up I see.

 

Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

 

Got to laugh at these people who make a big thing about putting someone on ignore yet still peep at every post that person makes.

 

Either ignore or dont ignore ffs.

 

 

Education is for all ....

[sniffer 0]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

[LeazesMag 0]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

exactly

[Happy Face 29]

Football Clubs don't have transfer budgets?

Ok.

 

I'm sure the transfer policies of Arsenal and Manchester United cause you alot of confusion in the world you live in so I let you get back to that.

 

Take it easy. You've made my night. fwiw.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day.

 

nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ?

No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second.

 

They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there.

 

I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment.

 

I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place.

 

There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time.

 

Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money.

 

Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted.

 

To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams.

 

If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said.

 

Your getting Loonatic LM syndrome, there are no Ashley supporters man, there are those of us who can see some method in the madness (I even see some necessity in it). There are simply some of us who refuse to believe that everything he does is a zany personal vendetta against NUFC and it's fans.

 

IF we have a decent sized transfer deficit it means he is "building the team" and not recouping or reducing his exposure, or lining his pockets as the eejits say. IF there is another transfer profit, then he is recouping and the extent of that will not be known until the accounts come out, as you originally said. BUT there'll be enough evidence to suggest a direction change, if there is one.

 

I've never suggested there's anything zany, mad or vendetta fuelled in what he does. I don't think I've seen any of the regular posters do that either. I've always pointed to incompetence.

 

Whatever you say about doing the right thing, fiscal responsibility and however much anyone agrees with it (and I might, to a certain extent)...the incompetent fuckwits come aout and spout shite like "Carroll's going nowhere" when it's very likely he's going somewhere, or "we'll reinvest the full amount." when it's most unlikely that they will.

 

There won't be enough evidence in September will there? We tend to do our most profit seeking business in the January.

[Toonpack 6861]

Glad I've cocered my arse for if we do spend the £35m

 

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case.

 

Glad I chose to un-ignore this post.

 

Still making stuff up I see.

 

Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

 

Got to laugh at these people who make a big thing about putting someone on ignore yet still peep at every post that person makes.

 

Either ignore or dont ignore ffs.

 

Please provide links to all of leazes' posts where I have responded directly, is it all of them dimwit eh?

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

I would say at first he was when he had to put a lot of money in but the club is now more or less self sufficient. Not many clubs are in that position and if he invests on 3 or 4 more good players I reckon we could get a top 7 or 8 finish next season, which in our second season would be a good result

 

As for the 35m from Carroll being spent I guess we can judge on 1st Sept, I would be surprised if the whole lot is spent solely on transfers tho

[Toonpack 6861]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

 

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc

 

Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle.

 

I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!!

Edited June 24, 2011 by Toonpack

[Gemmill 34462]

Wait til the end of the window for threads like this man. There'll be a certain few posters with a shitload of egg on their faces when the window closes, but there's no need to try and win the argument now.

[LeazesMag 0]

Wait til the end of the window for threads like this man. There'll be a certain few posters with a shitload of egg on their faces when the window closes, but there's no need to try and win the argument now.

 

for those who still haven't worked it out after 4 years............keep digging

[toonotl 2415]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

I don't see any need to speculate with regards to club finances when we can turn to Chez for the cold hard facts that exist only in his imagination.

 

Last I heard the club were waiting until they sell some NUFC mugs so they can put some petrol in the lawnmower and give the pitch a good once over.

[manc-mag 1]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

 

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc

 

Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle.

 

I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!!

 

I hesitate to say it as know I'm wasting my breath, but Leazes' argument that football clubs never go 'bust' because someone always comes in to save them (and he does genuinely advocate that approach) does have the intrinsic weakness that the personality of the person who arrives as 'saviour' becomes a key factor. So if you like, ironically, despite everything he says about Ashley, the person who has really got his man is Leazes. You can't have it both ways after all.

 

Ok yeah, it could have been an Arab. But it wasn't.

 

As to sniffer, I imagine it is worth Ashley 'keeping it going' as long theres nobody currently willing to buy it off him. What would be your alternative suggestion for him, like?

[Toonpack 6861]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

I don't see any need to speculate with regards to club finances when we can turn to Chez for the cold hard facts that exist only in his imagination.

 

Last I heard the club were waiting until they sell some NUFC mugs so they can put some petrol in the lawnmower and give the pitch a good once over.

 

 

What do you do for a living, as a matter of interest ???

[Toonpack 6861]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

 

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc

 

Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle.

 

I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!!

 

I hesitate to say it as know I'm wasting my breath, but Leazes' argument that football clubs never go 'bust' because someone always comes in to save them (and he does genuinely advocate that approach) does have the intrinsic weakness that the personality of the person who arrives as 'saviour' becomes a key factor. So if you like, ironically, despite everything he says about Ashley, the person who has really got his man is Leazes. You can't have it both ways after all.

 

Ok yeah, it could have been an Arab. But it wasn't.

 

As to sniffer, I imagine it is worth Ashley 'keeping it going' as long theres nobody currently willing to buy it off him. What would be your alternative suggestion for him, like?

 

 

You make a decent point.

[sniffer 0]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

 

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc

 

Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle.

 

I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!!

 

I hesitate to say it as know I'm wasting my breath, but Leazes' argument that football clubs never go 'bust' because someone always comes in to save them (and he does genuinely advocate that approach) does have the intrinsic weakness that the personality of the person who arrives as 'saviour' becomes a key factor. So if you like, ironically, despite everything he says about Ashley, the person who has really got his man is Leazes. You can't have it both ways after all.

 

Ok yeah, it could have been an Arab. But it wasn't.

 

As to sniffer, I imagine it is worth Ashley 'keeping it going' as long theres nobody currently willing to buy it off him. What would be your alternative suggestion for him, like?

 

I have no idea.

I don't know Ashley, same as everybody on here, other than what I read about him but he doesn't appear to be the type who'll just continue to lose money in an investment. He doesn't appear to have any great love for football, has no connections with the area, doesn't live here and and employs a cunt like lambias who is hated by everybody. I don't have the confidence that you seem to have in everything being above board in the finances because I don't believe he'd still be here if he wasn't making money somehow.

[manc-mag 1]

I can only assume that, even though the financial wizards on here will argue that Ashley is losing money hand over fist, he isn't. Somehow, it's worth his while to keep this going and it certainly is not down to interest in Newcastle or a love of the game.

 

 

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc

 

Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle.

 

I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!!

 

I hesitate to say it as know I'm wasting my breath, but Leazes' argument that football clubs never go 'bust' because someone always comes in to save them (and he does genuinely advocate that approach) does have the intrinsic weakness that the personality of the person who arrives as 'saviour' becomes a key factor. So if you like, ironically, despite everything he says about Ashley, the person who has really got his man is Leazes. You can't have it both ways after all.

 

Ok yeah, it could have been an Arab. But it wasn't.

 

As to sniffer, I imagine it is worth Ashley 'keeping it going' as long theres nobody currently willing to buy it off him. What would be your alternative suggestion for him, like?

 

I have no idea.

I don't know Ashley, same as everybody on here, other than what I read about him but he doesn't appear to be the type who'll just continue to lose money in an investment. He doesn't appear to have any great love for football, has no connections with the area, doesn't live here and and employs a cunt like lambias who is hated by everybody. I don't have the confidence that you seem to have in everything being above board in the finances because I don't believe he'd still be here if he wasn't making money somehow.

 

I reckon he'd sell if he could find a buyer but he can't. That's why I think he's staying.

 

If he honestly has made any money out of the club (ie drawings and/or capital gain (appreciation of the asset) being greater than what he's spent (cost of acquisition and additional finances put in (even if they are 'loans')) I would be utterly astonished.

[TicTacWoe 0]

Wait til the end of the window for threads like this man. There'll be a certain few posters with a shitload of egg on their faces when the window closes, but there's no need to try and win the argument now.

 

Exactly. Although I imagine that if we only bought one more senior player (which I don't think is an impossible scenario) that some of the Ashley apologists would still say we had a good summer of business.

[peasepud 59]

http://www.stuffbypaulbrown.com/the-mike-a...sfer-totaliser/

[trophyshy 6434]

http://www.stuffbypaulbrown.com/the-mike-a...sfer-totaliser/

 

 

worth hoying this up directly, though it'll put HF's nose out.

 

 

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.stuffbypaulbrown.com/the-mike-a...sfer-totaliser/

Basically shows we're even apart from the Carroll money.