Tiote or Hamann?

[LeazesMag 0]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season.

 

He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc

 

If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say.

 

Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh.

 

It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

 

In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be.

 

I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world.

 

not just ManU, but every successful club in the entire history of the game. Absolutely astounding that people still think a new magic formula has been found, which is selling your best players and replacing them with cheaper and free replacements and pocketing the cash, or diverting it to a Sports Company.

[JaMoUsE 0]

Leazes Mag aka Bill Murray, Groundhog day

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

[LeazesMag 0]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

 

ah sustainability. The favourite word of the Ashley apologists.

 

What you say is absolutely correct by the way, and it is just so so obvious, it shouldn't really need to be said.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes Mag aka Bill Murray, Groundhog day

 

unfortunately, I think that you must be referring to those who have been saying for years that you can be successful by selling your best players and pocketing the cash rather than backing your managers.

Edited December 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[JaMoUsE 0]

Leazes Mag aka Bill Murray, Groundhog day

 

unfortunately, I think that you must be referring to those who have been saying for years that you can be successful by selling your best players and pocketing the cash rather than backing your managers.

[ChezGiven 0]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

Incorrect. It involves more risk of failure, that's all. The richest clubs have a different risk environment. If the big money player fails (Torres) they just buy another one because they can. And they will. They have no need to engage in income growth through talent development as they have, in 2 cases, virtually unlimited income. In all other cases (Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, us and Man U if you go back to Ronaldo) players are sold for more than they were bought to push the club forward. The extent to which it's fundamental depends on the overall model employed in each of those clubs but to varying degrees it goes on. How do you think Spurs built a team capable of qualifying for the CL? Arsenal just sold Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy.

 

Having to take these risks is caused by income inequalities between clubs forcing less wealthy ones to develop their incomes to competen on the uneven playing field. Being able to buy Torres or Tevez for insane money and it not be the only roll of the dice you have is a luxury. Liverpool have gambled £70m on getting back into the CL, they'll be be lucky if their owners can absorb that level of failure and invest again. They may well be able to as they have a lot of cash, unlike us.

[Park Life 70]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

Incorrect. It involves more risk of failure, that's all. The richest clubs have a different risk environment. If the big money player fails (Torres) they just buy another one because they can. And they will. They have no need to engage in income growth through talent development as they have, in 2 cases, virtually unlimited income. In all other cases (Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, us and Man U if you go back to Ronaldo) players are sold for more than they were bought to push the club forward. The extent to which it's fundamental depends on the overall model employed in each of those clubs but to varying degrees it goes on. How do you think Spurs built a team capable of qualifying for the CL? Arsenal just sold Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy.

 

Having to take these risks is caused by income inequalities between clubs forcing less wealthy ones to develop their incomes to competen on the uneven playing field. Being able to buy Torres or Tevez for insane money and it not be the only roll of the dice you have is a luxury. Liverpool have gambled £70m on getting back into the CL, they'll be be lucky if their owners can absorb that level of failure and invest again. They may well be able to as they have a lot of cash, unlike us.

 

Don't think Liv have that kind of cash. Think the big dice have already been rolled and it came up Carroll.

[Pacinofan 0]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

Incorrect. It involves more risk of failure, that's all. The richest clubs have a different risk environment. If the big money player fails (Torres) they just buy another one because they can. And they will. They have no need to engage in income growth through talent development as they have, in 2 cases, virtually unlimited income. In all other cases (Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, us and Man U if you go back to Ronaldo) players are sold for more than they were bought to push the club forward. The extent to which it's fundamental depends on the overall model employed in each of those clubs but to varying degrees it goes on. How do you think Spurs built a team capable of qualifying for the CL? Arsenal just sold Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy.

 

Having to take these risks is caused by income inequalities between clubs forcing less wealthy ones to develop their incomes to competen on the uneven playing field. Being able to buy Torres or Tevez for insane money and it not be the only roll of the dice you have is a luxury. Liverpool have gambled £70m on getting back into the CL, they'll be be lucky if their owners can absorb that level of failure and invest again. They may well be able to as they have a lot of cash, unlike us.

 

111m gross, 33 net, not sure where you get your 70m figure from Chez.

 

The owners intend Liverpool to be self sufficient, and to that end have been, and still are, putting in plans to raise the revenue. Standard Chartered are paying 20m a year and the new kit deal will be worth 25m a year. A significant difference which should cover the loss of European football.

 

The Carlsberg deal which ended the season before last was only bringing in 7m a year because of a Parry cock up after Istanbul. The Adidas deal brought in 12m a year.

[Toonpack 6926]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season.

 

He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc

 

If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say.

 

Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh.

 

It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

 

In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be.

 

I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world.

 

And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar.

 

Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw).

 

They all do it, but it's just a question of scale:

 

They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude.

[Toonpack 6926]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

 

They do though, every single one of them (who doesn't have an Arab/Oligarch) it's just the "scale" that hides the truth. ALL the succesfull clubs do NOT go into debt to buy playing staff.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

so we are a selling club ? And you too, don't understand what being a progressive club means and entails ?

 

As per the post from StonecoldStephenIreland, its unbelievable mate, it really is, that what he and I are saying here continues to have to be repeated over and over and over again.

Every player has a price so get used to it

 

If a rich club comes offering mega money plus massive wages to the player they will want to go, not rocket science. We are not a champions league club, we are not and have not been for years, a club that can win the league. Deal with it and move on.

 

Every club sells players, Arsenal,Man U, Dippers, everyone. Its who replaces them that counts

 

its actually, how much backing they give their managers as opposed to how much money is pocketed from sales, that counts.

 

You still consider Newcastle to be a selling club and unable to act bigger than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn etc.

You think the best way to judge the club is by how much they spend and not league position or the quality players they have.

 

Why are you so obsessed Bolton,Blackburn and Stoke?

 

Do you think any of our top players would consider a move to these clubs you keep comparing us to? The answer is NO

 

As I said before all clubs will sell if the price is right and especially if the buying club is more appealing to the player in terms of wages and champions league/league title contenders.

 

Do you think if City offered 100mil for Rooney then Man Utd would turn it down?

[donaldstott 0]

OT

I voted and was expecting to see Hamann romping away with the poll.

 

Am I missing something with Tiote, he makes Batty look progressive. He's very effective at protecting our back 4, but Didi was head and shoulders the better player.

[LeazesMag 0]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

Incorrect. It involves more risk of failure, that's all. The richest clubs have a different risk environment. If the big money player fails (Torres) they just buy another one because they can. And they will. They have no need to engage in income growth through talent development as they have, in 2 cases, virtually unlimited income. In all other cases (Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, us and Man U if you go back to Ronaldo) players are sold for more than they were bought to push the club forward. The extent to which it's fundamental depends on the overall model employed in each of those clubs but to varying degrees it goes on. How do you think Spurs built a team capable of qualifying for the CL? Arsenal just sold Fabregas, Nasri and Clichy.

 

Having to take these risks is caused by income inequalities between clubs forcing less wealthy ones to develop their incomes to competen on the uneven playing field. Being able to buy Torres or Tevez for insane money and it not be the only roll of the dice you have is a luxury. Liverpool have gambled £70m on getting back into the CL, they'll be be lucky if their owners can absorb that level of failure and invest again. They may well be able to as they have a lot of cash, unlike us.

 

selling your best players and pocketing the cash ie not backing your manager and the money disappearing is an altogether different thing entirely.

 

I'm surprised you keep missing this vital point, unless you are doing it deliberately.

[LeazesMag 0]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

so we are a selling club ? And you too, don't understand what being a progressive club means and entails ?

 

As per the post from StonecoldStephenIreland, its unbelievable mate, it really is, that what he and I are saying here continues to have to be repeated over and over and over again.

Every player has a price so get used to it

 

If a rich club comes offering mega money plus massive wages to the player they will want to go, not rocket science. We are not a champions league club, we are not and have not been for years, a club that can win the league. Deal with it and move on.

 

Every club sells players, Arsenal,Man U, Dippers, everyone. Its who replaces them that counts

 

its actually, how much backing they give their managers as opposed to how much money is pocketed from sales, that counts.

 

You still consider Newcastle to be a selling club and unable to act bigger than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn etc.

You think the best way to judge the club is by how much they spend and not league position or the quality players they have.

 

Why are you so obsessed Bolton,Blackburn and Stoke?

 

Do you think any of our top players would consider a move to these clubs you keep comparing us to? The answer is NO

 

As I said before all clubs will sell if the price is right and especially if the buying club is more appealing to the player in terms of wages and champions league/league title contenders.

 

Do you think if City offered 100mil for Rooney then Man Utd would turn it down?

 

errrr.....I hate to remind you but in the last few years, we have sold

 

N'Zogbia to Wigan [now at Villa]

Bassong to Spurs

Duff to Fulham

Carroll to Liverpool

Enrique to Liverpool

Given [who didn't want to leave the club and will settle back here when his career is over and still calls Newcastle "we" and is now at Villa]

Beye to Villa

Milner to Villa

Nolan to West Ham

Barton to QPR on a free transfer

 

 

Do you seriously think we would not now be better off as a team and a squad if we still had most of those players, especially the ones who didn't want to leave, or had backed the managers to replace them with the cash received ?

 

Seriously mate, how old are you ? Are you sure you have learned anything about how successful clubs operate over the years ? This is just not how its done, or ever has been done. I'm not obsessed with Blackburn etc, it's just that you and others appear to think that this is the level of NUFC, when they are half the clubs that we are at best.

Edited December 16, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

If it worked everyone would be selling high and buying low, but no one else does, it's not a sustainable way of performing in the league and it never has.

 

They do though, every single one of them (who doesn't have an Arab/Oligarch) it's just the "scale" that hides the truth. ALL the succesfull clubs do NOT go into debt to buy playing staff.

 

is that so ? Please tell us how many exactly are not in debt , then tell us how many that are have gone out of business

[LeazesMag 0]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season.

 

He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc

 

If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say.

 

Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh.

 

It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

 

In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be.

 

I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world.

 

And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar.

 

Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw).

 

They all do it, but it's just a question of scale:

 

They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude.

 

the point being, you are cherry picking. How many players have they sold for 80m quid

 

And we won't sell Tiote for 25m quid and buy 3 "replacements" for 5/6m each [as is borne out by the Carroll cash disappearing]. The fact is, Tiote will be sold, a replacement will be bought for a fraction of that, the rest will be trousered, and the rest of the players will be wondering - again - what sort of club they are playing for and the best ones will realise - again - that they will have to move if they want to play for progressive clubs.

 

Only a handful of non-matchgoing supporters, who put the balance sheet before results on the pitch as they don't put their own cash into the club, will be idiotic enough to try and make positive vibes from such a direction.

[Toonpack 6926]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season.

 

He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc

 

If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say.

 

Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh.

 

It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

 

In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be.

 

I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world.

 

And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar.

 

Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw).

 

They all do it, but it's just a question of scale:

 

They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude.

 

the point being, you are cherry picking. How many players have they sold for 80m quid

 

And we won't sell Tiote for 25m quid and buy 3 "replacements" for 5/6m each [as is borne out by the Carroll cash disappearing]. The fact is, Tiote will be sold, a replacement will be bought for a fraction of that, the rest will be trousered, and the rest of the players will be wondering - again - what sort of club they are playing for and the best ones will realise - again - that they will have to move if they want to play for progressive clubs.

 

Only a handful of non-matchgoing supporters, who put the balance sheet before results on the pitch as they don't put their own cash into the club, will be idiotic enough to try and make positive vibes from such a direction.

 

They have on average only spent £9 Million a year since 1992, they still make more profit than that (by a mile) they sell and they buy, just at a different level to many of the rest. In their accounts they record annual profits from player sales (every year up until 2010) How is that cherry picking.

[PaddockLad 14655]

Man Utd could afford to get rid of Ronaldo for 80 milllion because they already had his replacement(s) at the club in Nani and to a far lesser extent Obertan. And then they spent nearly 20 mill on Valencia. Thats how you build a squad, not selling the star player and taking a huge risk in attempting to bring in a direct replacement in the same window. Perhaps Toonpack you're happy we haven't got a senior left back at the club. I'm certainly not and theres no guarantee we'll get one next month either.Liverpool needed a left back so they went out and bought one.

 

Yes I'm pleased with our start but it couldve been so much better if Pardew had been properly supported. We're just not giving ourselves the best chance.

Edited December 16, 2011 by PaddockLad

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

so we are a selling club ? And you too, don't understand what being a progressive club means and entails ?

 

As per the post from StonecoldStephenIreland, its unbelievable mate, it really is, that what he and I are saying here continues to have to be repeated over and over and over again.

Every player has a price so get used to it

 

If a rich club comes offering mega money plus massive wages to the player they will want to go, not rocket science. We are not a champions league club, we are not and have not been for years, a club that can win the league. Deal with it and move on.

 

Every club sells players, Arsenal,Man U, Dippers, everyone. Its who replaces them that counts

 

its actually, how much backing they give their managers as opposed to how much money is pocketed from sales, that counts.

 

You still consider Newcastle to be a selling club and unable to act bigger than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn etc.

You think the best way to judge the club is by how much they spend and not league position or the quality players they have.

 

Why are you so obsessed Bolton,Blackburn and Stoke?

 

Do you think any of our top players would consider a move to these clubs you keep comparing us to? The answer is NO

 

As I said before all clubs will sell if the price is right and especially if the buying club is more appealing to the player in terms of wages and champions league/league title contenders.

 

Do you think if City offered 100mil for Rooney then Man Utd would turn it down?

 

errrr.....I hate to remind you but in the last few years, we have sold

 

N'Zogbia to Wigan [now at Villa]

Bassong to Spurs

Duff to Fulham

Carroll to Liverpool

Enrique to Liverpool

Given [who didn't want to leave the club and will settle back here when his career is over and still calls Newcastle "we" and is now at Villa]

Beye to Villa

Milner to Villa

Nolan to West Ham

Barton to QPR on a free transfer

 

 

Do you seriously think we would not now be better off as a team and a squad if we still had most of those players, especially the ones who didn't want to leave, or had backed the managers to replace them with the cash received ?

 

Seriously mate, how old are you ? Are you sure you have learned anything about how successful clubs operate over the years ? This is just not how its done, or ever has been done. I'm not obsessed with Blackburn etc, it's just that you and others appear to think that this is the level of NUFC, when they are half the clubs that we are at best.

How many of those would get into our first 11 now with everyone fit??

 

Some left after relegation (Beye,Bassong,Duff) and Bassong and Beye have done more a less fuck all since leaving

We all know why Barton and Nolan went

Everyone on here, with the exception of you, thinks the deal for Carroll couldnt be turned down

Zoggy had a strop

Enrique wanted to go

 

Out of all the above I would have liked to keep Milner and Enrique who would both be in our first 11

[LeazesMag 0]

Our squad is pitifully thin, and deliberately so. I'm pleased that people think Nolan, in view of his goalscoring record at the club and as captain of the club, wouldn't have came in useful as a squad member. This is what building a team and squad is all about, contrary to the absurd claim that there is no proof that the club is not attempting to build. Nobody is saying he's Peter Beardsley, but if he was sold with the managers agreement and/or knowledge, you have to ask again, where is the money for Carroll, Nolan and Enrique ?

 

For those who appear to have forgotten, Nolan only had 2 years of his contract left, the issue of him wanting a new one was irrelevant for the moment. The question is, where is the money ?

I would say there is a good chunk left. I would also say some has gone on transfer fees,agent fees,wages,general running costs and maybe Ashley has paid himself back some of the money he loaned the club. I don't really give a shit about keeping track of it.

 

If we sell and we get decent replacements does it really matter if they cost £5m or £25m??

 

We shouldnt be selling our main players though thats the thing, but Ashleys got some so well trained that theyre already expecting it and it cant go on forever that we sell a first teamer and get a replacement for a fraction of his selling price and turn out as good, if it did the likes of Man U etc would be doing it every season.

 

He's also got some so well trained that i think we must be the only fans eat up that it goes onto agent fee's etc

 

If a team higher up the pecking order comes in everyone sells their players (unless they can afford not to, a'la Spurs/Modric, but even that one's not played out yet as he hasn't signed his new deal) even more so when the players contract is winding down. The clubs have little say.

 

Man U can pay top dollar because they make top dollar with interest and a cherry on top. Their success and income makes them a bad example to use in comparison to anyone tbh.

 

It's not about "training" it's just good old fashioned realism.

 

In recollection though I'm sure Modric signed a 5 year contract last season, so his contract wasn't running out therefore Spurs weren't pushed into a corner regarding the transfer and because they saw him as vital to where they want their club to go so they refused to let him go. Which is pretty much the same situation in which us and Tiote will be in if a bigger club comes calling having signed a 6 and a half year contract (Could be wrong on the length of the contract) especially if we are to build a team and head in the right direction of building a team to compete and the higher end of the table which is where every fan wants us to be.

 

I used Man U as an example because if the transfer strategy worked and was successful of selling top players and replacing them with cheaper replacements, they along with the other European elite would be doing it even if they did have all the money in the world.

 

And Spurs have offered Modric £100k a week to placate him for them saying no to Chelsea (smashing their wage structure, should he accept, which he hasn't yet) even though, as you say he had recently signed a new deal. We wouldn't (couldn't) pay Tiote similar.

 

Man U buy players at fee's within their means, between 1992 and 2011 their net transfer spend (a meaningless measure btw) averages out at £9 Million per year, considering their profits, that is frankly bugger all. According to their accounts they usually make an annual profit on player sales, so in essence they do sell high, buy cheaper. (Bayern Munich #1 in Deloitte's last year are the same btw).

 

They all do it, but it's just a question of scale:

 

They sell Ronaldo for £80 million and buy 3 replacements for £20 Million each, we "could" sell Tiote for £25 Million (which would be over the odds IMO) and buy 3 replacement players for £5/£6 Million. Same model just different magnitude.

 

the point being, you are cherry picking. How many players have they sold for 80m quid

 

And we won't sell Tiote for 25m quid and buy 3 "replacements" for 5/6m each [as is borne out by the Carroll cash disappearing]. The fact is, Tiote will be sold, a replacement will be bought for a fraction of that, the rest will be trousered, and the rest of the players will be wondering - again - what sort of club they are playing for and the best ones will realise - again - that they will have to move if they want to play for progressive clubs.

 

Only a handful of non-matchgoing supporters, who put the balance sheet before results on the pitch as they don't put their own cash into the club, will be idiotic enough to try and make positive vibes from such a direction.

 

They have on average only spent £9 Million a year since 1992, they still make more profit than that (by a mile) they sell and they buy, just at a different level to many of the rest. In their accounts they record annual profits from player sales (every year up until 2010) How is that cherry picking.

 

I expanded on that comment, stop cherry picking, and reply to it properly. And the rest of the post, rather not taking a particular one-off transfer to attempt to make a rather poor point, as you still don't see the bigger picture and are accepting lower standards from the football club.

 

Man Utd have backed Alex Ferguson, as all successful clubs back their managers, and always have in the entire history of the game. They do not sell their best players and pocket the bulk of the cash, they back their managers. To suggest otherwise is foolishness way beyond even the most total blindness.

[The Fish 9033]

Leazes, do you honestly , honestly believe that the same tactic employed by H&S would have any better success than the model employed by most clubs in the league today?

 

Chez has shown that all but the uber rich (of which we are not one) use this tactic. Why do you believe Newcastle can afford to be any different?

 

We haven't sold our best players and failed to replace them as you insist. Carroll has been replaced by Ba (who so far looks a better all round striker), Nolan has been replaced by Cabaye (who is definitely a better player). Barton and Enrique are different cases as they were both wanting out. I get that you wish that we were supporting a team that was lurching from despondency to champions league in less time than anyone could have dreamt. But frankly that's just never going to happen, for any team. At least not while football is (un)balanced the way it is.

 

You're still looking at football as if it's the late 80s early 90s. The entire landscape of football has changed so much, it's barely the same sport. An impassioned local businessman with a few million cannot, any more, turn the fortunes of a struggling sleeping giant around in 5 years by throwing their now comparatively modest money at it. It takes hundreds of millions. Hundreds of Millions! Man City were already in the Premier League and were looking at survival as their target before their new owners casually spent the GDP of a small country on players. That's what it would take to return us to CL football in the same time frame as before.

 

The best bet we have is to slowly, surely become a well run club, on and off the pitch. There would be no value in spending the kind of money (again comparatively) that we spent under H&S because the price of failure is so great.

 

as an aside, you cite selling Duff as evidence of selling our best players. He never performed, certainly not to a level that would forgive the money we blew on him. I would also remind you that H&S weren't adverse to selling their best players either.

[LeazesMag 0]

who mentioned the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

Are you mad ?

[The Fish 9033]

who mentioned the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

Are you mad ?

Stop cherry picking

[LeazesMag 0]

who mentioned the Halls and Shepherd ?

 

Are you mad ?

Stop cherry picking

 

what I'm posting is nothing to do with our ex owners. You mentioned them not me. You're potty.

 

This is a perfect example of how people make up comments and attribute them to me. I'm explaining how football clubs are successful. If you attribute that to how our football club used to be run, then that is your own comments.

 

I hope certain people are looking.

 

I didn't mention them or even refer to them in any way at all.

 

The way to get success in football is the same as it has been for over 100 years. You keep your best players as much as you can, you buy quality footballers, you pay the going rate, you back your managers and you don't pocket the money from sales or divert it elsewhere, unless you are a selling club, and selling clubs are not successful on the pitch.