You must log in or register to see images
This about says it all....if anyone is in any doubt that ashley wont spend any money AGAIN this summer ....and sadly looks like were about to sign de jong permanently god knows why or what we saw in him..
An interesting Table
- Thread starter THE LEFT BOOT OF ROBERT
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
This about says it all....if anyone is in any doubt that ashley wont spend any money AGAIN this summer ....and sadly looks like were about to sign de jong permanently god knows why or what we saw in him..
Fck I hate Ashley and Pardew as much as the next guy. But come on - getting £35m for Andy Carroll doesn't make everything rubbish. To finish 9th on those figures and to have had a Europa campaign amongst it speaks volumes for what we COULD achieve, but it's about balance.
Christ knows that no-one should want a return of the Shepherd era.
Christ knows that no-one should want a return of the Shepherd era.
Christ, the Mackems spending £156m
It's sad really they have more ambition than us!
Loving that "interest free loan".
On a side note, De Jong is balls, and if we're going to be cheepos, we should sign Lee Chong-Yong, Ebanks-Blake (free... Yes he's pretty ****, but he's less **** than Ameobi, and we're the Netto of world football, so I wouldn't say no), Scott Loach as a goalkeeping replacement for Rob Elliot and Matt Smith from Leeds for a start. All 4 would cost a combined total of just £8 million at most, and would significantly bolster the squad. De Jong is f***ing useless and will probs cost more than £8 million
On a side note, De Jong is balls, and if we're going to be cheepos, we should sign Lee Chong-Yong, Ebanks-Blake (free... Yes he's pretty ****, but he's less **** than Ameobi, and we're the Netto of world football, so I wouldn't say no), Scott Loach as a goalkeeping replacement for Rob Elliot and Matt Smith from Leeds for a start. All 4 would cost a combined total of just £8 million at most, and would significantly bolster the squad. De Jong is f***ing useless and will probs cost more than £8 million
I like the spirit, but none solve a single problem we have, because we don't have quality players in reserve. None of whom you have mentioned are quality players in reserve. For one, we have to avoid hyphenated surnames, that sh!t's expensive.
Can't say I've ever seen DeJong play a game that makes him look like an £8m player.
Problem is borissia monchengalshbaghoweveryousayitgermanteam payed 15 mil for him so i doubt theyll be willing to take a massive hit on him so 8 mil is probably the cheapest we could espect
Hey, Mike, I wanna sign De Jong for £8m
Hmm, but I can sack you for less you fcking idiot. Win/win.
Well whether Krul leaves or not, we need a decent back-up. We need a winger with Gutierrez like tenacity and work-ethic (and a bit of pace helps), and by **** we need strikers!
I'm afraid we need like 10 players before we even start with replacing outgoings hahahahahaha
Not sure that I would want to copy their "Ambition", awful lot of money to spend for a relegation battle.
There is of course a presentational chicanery about this table, in any financial assessment debt is viewed as bad so really this table should be turned the other way up and Newcastle, Everton and Arsenal's resulting profit should be shown in black and the other clubs loss shown in red and as negative trading. The table is presented this way to fulfil a particular arguement that we are bad in player recruitment even though we are shown to have spent more than 10 other clubs in this and have managed to show the best recoupment of outlay. If you go back down the years you will find that every manager had to sell to raise funds for new players and were expected to show a profit, there were no sugar daddies chucking millions in for this, Sky appeared and changed the finances for good, it is often the case that you can manipulate the figures to present the arguement you want to portray.
Well with FFP so toothless it doesn't seem like there's any chance of this meaning anything in the grand scheme of things. We'll keep saving money and ultimately it will mean nothing
Agree on the presentation of the table.
Manipulation of figures to suit a particular argument.
Same figures could be used as you say in different format for a different end.
As for the figures themselves, where they came from is anyone's guess.
According to this Norwich have received£1.1m in player sales in 5 years, which is absolute c***.
Are the figures for NUFC correct, or is it just a given that they are because there in a table like this.
- Status