Hernandez

I'm sorry but £13.5M? What are you on about?

Mason=£13M, Marshall=£3.5M(Undisclosed), Keane=£1M(Undisclosed), Weir=£1M(Undisclosed), Henriksen=Loan(To be converted in a £5.4M deal).

So the numbers are at £18.5M even without the conversion of Henriksen which is apparently a formality so you really have to class as a nailed on commitment to spend.

So the final number is £18.5 (£23.9M).

 

net transfer , take off the 4.5m for diame and there you are

 

Funny but the last time I did maths at school 18.5(23.9)-4.5=14(19.4).

So either way the comment about £13.5M is wrong.

 

Which is under the 16m that was quoted as our budget originally so the original point that was made that we didn't spend as much as the budget stands, thanks for clarifying it

 

What the hell are you blithering on about?
£14M is more that the £13.5M net outlay that was being talked about that I replied to and that's with me cutting some slack and not included the commitment to spend another £5.4M.

However if you want to go there then Hull City AFC HAVE committed to spend £19.4M which is a lot more than £16M.
Have a nice day.

 

I fear you maybe talking rubbish. Our net spend was under £15m and one must assume that the reason Henriksen is on loan is because the Allams didn't want to pay any more. Had the Chinese taken over, I think it's fair to assume that we would've spent more.

 

Hate to put a wee spoke in things but it was widely suggested that Keane cost us £3m, just an observation.

 

So it was even more than the £13.5M stated earlier then.

 

You an assume what you like. What we do know is that we are committed to spend more that £16M.

 

But some of that is under our new owners and therefore doesn't break the Allams budget

 

Yet the commitment was made whilst the Allams are still in control.

 

But they won't be when the money has to be paid. The Chinese were at the training ground on Deadline Day, they must have been okay with it.

 

Truth be told we are talking about fine line here. Your view is that is that the commitment isn't the key point, mine is that it is. You could argue either way and we are going to go around and around in circles at this rate.

But when I joined this discussion I was making the point that we had spent more than the £13.5M quoted earlier.

 

Jesus Christ, all this arguing when all the fees - I think - were undisclosed. None of you know how much the total outlay was so its an entirely pointless discussion.

 

I think the only one we know for sure is Mason cost more than 9m.

 

Armchair bean counters

 

We can safely say that our midfield and team look miles better than the low point when Daime walked away.

 

WTF, where has it been widely suggested £3 million? It's the first I'm hearing of this, nothing more than £1 million has been the only figures I've seen.
As for City Wall's argument of £14 million over £13.5 million. What the **** does it matter over half a million?
The £13 million for Mason was originally said to be £12.5, so there's your half a million.
All pretty pointless anyway as someone said, they're all undisclosed, so until the accounts come out for this period & Peter dishes the dirt on the spend, I suggest no more arguing over things that can't be proved!
It's like trying to predict the winner of a fight between the Loch Ness Monster & The Abominable Snowman!

 

Nessie would wipe the floor with Bigfoot

 

Whatever the spend was, it wasnt enough. We needed at least two more signings.