Pardew - Ba and Best are as good as any strike force

I don't care how much was spent. At the minute it looks like it is working. Time will tell.

Pleased we didn't get Bryan Ruiz for £10m. That would've been more money spent but in my opinion unnecessarily so.

I am all about economical purchases of QUALITY. It put less pressure on the player and less expectations from us.

 

I'm happy with not spending a huge amount as long as our squad constantly improves year after year

 

I've never given a toss about the amount that was spent, provided it was spent on top notch players to fill the holes we had in the squad. If we'd spent 5m on the striker equivalent of Cabaye, Tiote, Ben Arfa or Santon (assuming he comes good) I'd have been over the moon. I'm annoyed that we didnt get a striker and another full back but I'm not annoyed simply because we didn't spend more than 20m.

edit - bastard, I just typed all of that **** out while somebody else was posting the exact same

 

yeah boi!

But great minds etc!

 

Ruiz must be ruing his choice to go Fulham, fighting relegation while we're unbeaten at 4th and looking like we don't need him... especially when he hasn't started since being subbed of at half time by Jol

 

You can see where he's coming from, our strikeforce is the Best Ba none.

<run>

 

A month day in day out would be enough for me to assess someones character. Its also a month more than any of us have had with him. He is in the best position to judge how to handle him.

 

Oh dear!

 

You know exactly what I mean. We made a profit during the transfer window so we recieved more than £20m.

Compared to what the clubs around us have spent, no, £20m is not a lot of money.

Some of you are so clueless it's amazing.

 

To be fair, if you remove all of the pedantic ramblings and constant running in circles, there are a lot of good posts on here from both sides of the argument, pretty much summed up by Clarence...

J o K e R - I don't think there are many, if any, on here who would not agree our squad is paper thin at the back and up front and feel we needed strengthening more than we were. At the same time though, I fully support the emphasis on youth development. For example, young lads like Tavernier, Ferguson, Kadar - all of them have been sniffing around the first team, and will have to make their mark in the next couple of seasons if they are to make it at our club.

If we were to bring in senior cover for all positions then where would their opportunities come from? They may not be ready yet, but then again, the same could've been said for Carroll, STaylor and Krul (and indeed Hernandez, Jones and Smalling at Manure). Sometimes situations like this bring about positive knock on effects!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we don't need to strengthen or that our youth lads ARE the answer. I'm just saying, there's always something else to think about.

 

That's the whole point though - i'm not unhappy with the way things are being run. I simply disliked the Pardew comment suggesting the board had spent a lot of money on the squad.

It's a very basic point i've made and many on here have had major problems taking it on board.

Staggering.

 

What teams? Name the teams in the EPL outside of the top 6 this season who have spent £20mill or more.

I'm not saying it's a huge amount, and I'd rather we spent more, but given the situation our club is in, and given that we have Mike Ashley as the owner, I'm just gonna take a 20mill summer spend and be chuffed with it. Hopefully, there is a stash being saved for January.

 

Exactly the point I was going to make Chappaz, none of the teams around where we're aiming for (7th and down) have spent anywhere near that, apart from maybe Stoke who spent loads on tosh. Spurs will have made a profit this summer but filled the gaps they needed and despite a poor start now look a better team.

Staggering how clueless Joker is, or another derogatory comment to make his point seem less nonsensical than it actually is.

 

FFS. The point i'm failing to get across is that £20m is not a lot of money for a PL team to spend, especially when our transfer income was larger than what we spent!

Why do I have to name teams "outside the top 6"? ... The point is that it's not a lot of money and frankly you have bored me rigid with your failure to grasp a very basic point.

 

We're aiming for 7th or down are we? ... "Right Pardew, we're too high up the league in comparison to our spending - lose some games straight away or we'll have to start spending some money!"

Think we're looking to finish as high as possible...

Yeah, Stoke City... but they've bought "tosh", right?

 

You accused someone earlier of being carried away by our start, are you now saying we should be spending like a top 4 team despite the transfer window being shut? Neither we, nor anyone else not named Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea or Liverpool can do that. Since you couldn't be arsed:

Aston Villa spent £16m on 3 players, having brought in more than 'the Carroll money' by selling Young and Downing
Blackburn, around £15m
Everton, loans.
Fulham, £19m
Norwich, peanuts. Undisclosed fees.
QPR. Undisclosed again, but probably a fair chunk with new owners coming in.
Stoke. £20m+ as I said, Jeromes fee undisc but probably £5mish.
Sunderland. £14m+ some undisclosed.
Swansea. £8mish
Tottenham. £5m plus Adebayor on loan.
West Brom. Shane Long.
Wigan. About £8m
Wolves. About £12m

Arsenal spent heavily in a rush following the £60 sales of Nasri and Fabregas, Chelsea, Liverpool and Man City spent because they're stupidly rich and Man Utd filled some gaps using their massive wealth. Apart from that we're what, second highest spenders? Seems to me that in this modern Premier League era with financial fair play on its way £20m is actually quite a lot of money.

Regardless of that, we spent that £20m on strengthening our squad in a way thats seen us climb to 4th at this early stage of the season, while Liverpool spent the same on an average Mackem.

And in reference to the Stoke comment, are you trying to tell me that Crouch and Palacios are in any way better than what we already have?

 

Seriously?

 

Well, he's right.

 

excellent riposte to colly's well thought out points...

 

Considering pretty much nobody agrees with your opinion, it would be useful for you to give reasons as to why you are saying 'Seriously? ' otherwise nobody will have a clue as to why you think it's funny and unserious.