Lack of summer activity due to the wage bill?

The problem with swapping is the wages. I'd love to load off Cole and Konchesky to Aston Villa in order to lower the Downing price, for example, but it isn't practical as odds are they both probably make more than Downing.

Why the f**k would we want other clubs flops? In my opinion we should still be looking to buy players with or without the sales of the deadwood.

We need CL qualification at very least next season, and the only way to do that is to improve the playing squad a lot more than we have already.

I would certainly hope that we have a strategy which covers us not selling the deadwood, and I sincerely hope that that strategy isn't "business closed".

Let me put it this way ... Admittedly, we could use a couple of new wingers/wide attacking midfielders ... However, we still have Joe Cole on our wage bill, earning £90,000 per week ... Based on last season's performances and fitness record, it is fairly safe to say that no-one would buy him outright, and offer him anything near the same wages ... Therefore, we could arrange a swap deal with a team that has expressed an interest in Joe Cole before ... That team would be Tottenham ... At the same time, they have David Bentley on their wage bill ... A player who (like Joe Cole) has a very good level of footballing talent and ability, yet has failed to perform at Spurs, mostly because of off-the-filed issues ... Now, I know that people would say that he's been sh*te at Spurs, but you can't really expect to get a world beater in exchange for our overpaid sh*te ... The good side of this gamble would be that David Bentley is 3 years younger than Joe Cole, earns £40,000 per week less, and his playing style would suit Carroll much better, as he has proved in his Blackburn days, providing all those quality crosses for Roque Santa Cruz ... In the worst case scenario, we get a flop who is younger and earns much less than Cole ... In the best case scenario, we get Bentley from his Blackburn days ...

The good side of this gamble would be that David Bentley is 3 years younger than Joe Cole, earns £40,000 per week less, and his playing style would suit Carroll much better, as he has proved in his Blackburn days, providing all those quality crosses for Roque Santa Cruz ... In the worst case scenario, we get a flop who is younger and earns much less than Cole ... In the best case scenario, we get Bentley from his Blackburn days ...

Sounds good as far as it goes on the surface. However in this case I suspect, as is often the case with high profile/wage earning loan deals, the club who owns the player will continue to pay all/most of his wages when is off on loan at another club. So in this case we would effectively be paying £90K a week for Bentley, while spuds have Cole for £40k per week.

Sounds good as far as it goes on the surface. However in this case I suspect, as is often the case with high profile/wage earning loan deals, the club who owns the player will continue to pay all/most of his wages when is off on loan at another club. So in this case we would effectively be paying £90K a week for Bentley, while spuds have Cole for £40k per week.

Not if we negotiate for Spurs to pay Cole's wages, and LFC to pay Bentley's wages ...

Not if we negotiate for Spurs to pay Cole's wages, and LFC to pay Bentley's wages ...

Possible but I can't see dodgy ole 'Arry taking that one. All really boils down to who wants the loan more. If we go asking for it then it immediately puts them in the driving seat in terms of negotiations, as they have what we want so can dig their heels in. Also with Cole's appearance record over the last 3 years and on/off niggling little injuries would you pay an extra £50k for someone who might just end up as a fringe squad player just like the lad you're loaning out?

Possible but I can't see dodgy ole 'Arry taking that one. All really boils down to who wants the loan more. If we go asking for it then it immediately puts them in the driving seat in terms of negotiations, as they have what we want so can dig their heels in. Also with Cole's appearance record over the last 3 years and on/off niggling little injuries would you pay an extra £50k for someone who might just end up as a fringe squad player just like the lad you're loaning out?

I'd say that 'Arry would want the deal more ... He has already clashed with Bentley ...

Listening to Commolli, he said there would be a lot of activity going out of the club.

Well Clichy said we offered him the same wage as city so maybe the wage bill is overrated and just issues without CL football and our club still having new owners..

Let me put it this way ... Admittedly, we could use a couple of new wingers/wide attacking midfielders ... However, we still have Joe Cole on our wage bill, earning £90,000 per week ... Based on last season's performances and fitness record, it is fairly safe to say that no-one would buy him outright, and offer him anything near the same wages ... Therefore, we could arrange a swap deal with a team that has expressed an interest in Joe Cole before ... That team would be Tottenham ... At the same time, they have David Bentley on their wage bill ... A player who (like Joe Cole) has a very good level of footballing talent and ability, yet has failed to perform at Spurs, mostly because of off-the-filed issues ... Now, I know that people would say that he's been sh*te at Spurs, but you can't really expect to get a world beater in exchange for our overpaid sh*te ... The good side of this gamble would be that David Bentley is 3 years younger than Joe Cole, earns £40,000 per week less, and his playing style would suit Carroll much better, as he has proved in his Blackburn days, providing all those quality crosses for Roque Santa Cruz ... In the worst case scenario, we get a flop who is younger and earns much less than Cole ... In the best case scenario, we get Bentley from his Blackburn days ...

I'll have some of that as he will be very hungry to take his chance.  this is a player that refused to for U21's because he didn't want to jeapordise his fitness for the new season.  Has he played 90 minutes since then. 

After seeing this mornings raul thread i think this thread should be lack of summer activity due to the owners not having enough funds to invest???

They keep beating the FFP drum like itll make other clubs as poor as us but city have already shown with their renaming deal it means nothing. So its either get new investors in fast or sell up cos once we have 300m of stadium debt our sell to buy policy will go back to what rafa had to put up with.

After seeing this mornings raul thread I think this thread should be lack of summer activity due to the owners not having enough funds to invest???

They keep beating the FFP drum like itll make other clubs as poor as us but city have already shown with their renaming deal it means nothing. So its either get new investors in fast or sell up cos once we have 300m of stadium debt our sell to buy policy will go back to what rafa had to put up with.

What are you saying exactly?

Pretty clear if we are selling raul for peanuts to get money together to sign other players there is a budget and it aint that big. We currently have a net spend of 19.5 million. In hicks and gillettes first summer we had a net spend of 30 million and had im extremely interested to see what our net spend will be by the end of this window

Pretty clear if we are selling raul for peanuts to get money together to sign other players there is a budget and it aint that big. We currently have a net spend of 19.5 million. In hicks and gillettes first summer we had a net spend of 30 million and had im extremely interested to see what our net spend will be by the end of this window

Don't you want a long term strategy in place rather than a spending spree to appease the short term?
Firstly we have to get back into the C.L. to attract the top players who'' should'' be coming to us. It's not a wage thing.
Do you not think that whatever signings Kenny makes in this window will, added to what he achieved since he came back will,
be enough to get us to the C.L. this season and push on for the next?As for H&G they're long gone and no comparison should be made to those fcukwits.

What are you saying exactly?

Pretty clear if we are selling raul for peanuts to get money together to sign other players there is a budget and it aint that big. We currently have a net spend of 19.5 million. In hicks and gillettes first summer we had a net spend of 30 million and had im extremely interested to see what our net spend will be by the end of this window

Thats what im saying.. for new owners to come in to club in a tough position that it was obvious needed serious investment in every aspect Im not overwhelmed that we are into their second transfer window and we are less than 20m net spend.

We are being positioned into selling not just deadwood but also some of our better players in order to buy new ones. SO we still end up with a small squad no matter what and like rafa we hope we can bring in better for the same money or less.

My problem is I have never seen a club reach the successes of LFC with this policy in the last 20 years. The game is too financially competitive nowadays for this policy. My problem with the owners is that they bought the club knowing this full well so they have good intentions but not the means to follow them up.

Lastly we could end up with a net spend of about 25m after two transfer windows. Is that good enough to compete with europes best?? And when we add the stadium debt onto this does sell to buy with a small net spend become sell to buy and make a profit like rafas last days bcos we've all seen how that ended..

Thats what im saying.. for new owners to come in to club in a tough position that it was obvious needed serious investment in every aspect Im not overwhelmed that we are into their second transfer window and we are less than 20m net spend.

There's a month and a half left of this window. Fairly certain we'll see more spent than we bring in.

We are being positioned into selling not just deadwood but also some of our better players in order to buy new ones. SO we still end up with a small squad no matter what and like rafa we hope we can bring in better for the same money or less.

We're linked with selling Meireles. Which certainly isn't guaranteed. And I don't think we're going to end up with a small squad. We'd have to see a substantial exodus for that to happen, our squad is massive currently.

My problem is I have never seen a club reach the successes of LFC with this policy in the last 20 years. The game is too financially competitive nowadays for this policy. My problem with the owners is that they bought the club knowing this full well so they have good intentions but not the means to follow them up.

Lastly we could end up with a net spend of about 25m after two transfer windows. Is that good enough to compete with europes best?? And when we add the stadium debt onto this does sell to buy with a small net spend become sell to buy and make a profit like rafas last days bcos we've all seen how that ended..

The current policy we're seeing is completely different to the one Rafa endured under H&G. You complain about a net spend of £25m after putting up with a net spend of around £11m a season? A statistic only dragged up by an initially large spend in their first summer. Seperately, the rest were nearing zero or more money brought in than spent. I'm sorry but that sounds reasonably spoilt to me. What more do you want?

Also, I find the stadium debt being dragged in to this quite strange too. On the assumption it is a new stadium, it will be a necessary debt offset by a fairly large naming rights deal. Plus the fact that the loan will actually pay for the stadium this time around, and not for a pair of lecherous tw*ts to buy the club. This will also mean that the equity against the loan will be the stadium and not our football club, so we won't be seeing the same cancerous debt repayment we saw previously.

You are writing these owners off already, despite there being another month and a half of transfer window. We're all more cautious these days but FSG certainly don't give off the same vibes H&G did. Red Sox fans adore them for their approach, which has made them winners, and they want to do the same here.

If I'm wrong, then please come back to me and I will gladly hold my hands up. But in this instance, I think you're being slightly too hasty in writing them off.

There's a month and a half left of this window. Fairly certain we'll see more spent than we bring in.

We're linked with selling Meireles. Which certainly isn't guaranteed. And I don't think we're going to end up with a small squad. We'd have to see a substantial exodus for that to happen, our squad is massive currently.

The current policy we're seeing is completely different to the one Rafa endured under H&G. You complain about a net spend of £25m after putting up with a net spend of around £11m a season? A statistic only dragged up by an initially large spend in their first summer. Seperately, the rest were nearing zero or more money brought in than spent. I'm sorry but that sounds reasonably spoilt to me. What more do you want?

Also, I find the stadium debt being dragged in to this quite strange too. On the assumption it is a new stadium, it will be a necessary debt offset by a fairly large naming rights deal. Plus the fact that the loan will actually pay for the stadium this time around, and not for a pair of lecherous tw*ts to buy the club. This will also mean that the equity against the loan will be the stadium and not our football club, so we won't be seeing the same cancerous debt repayment we saw previously.

You are writing these owners off already, despite there being another month and a half of transfer window. We're all more cautious these days but FSG certainly don't give off the same vibes H&G did. Red Sox fans adore them for their approach, which has made them winners, and they want to do the same here.

If I'm wrong, then please come back to me and I will gladly hold my hands up. But in this instance, I think you're being slightly too hasty in writing them off.

^^^agree with you on all of that. best just ignore his post. look at other threads he's posted on. stirring it up.

The lack of signings this window I think is due to the wage bill. This summer should see us cut it with the likes of Fay, Simo and Salif's contracts ending and .... I don't think the lack of activity was Stoke-specific.

The lack of signings this window I think is due to the wage bill. This summer should see us cut it with the likes of Fay, Simo and Salif's contracts ending and .... I don't think the lack of activity was Stoke-specific.

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about?

Haven't got a clue personally

Just read the last 2 pages and it had a lot of crap, but Enriqgills really goes for it

The lack of signings this window I think is due to the wage bill. This summer should see us cut it with the likes of Fay, Simo and Salif's contracts ending and .... I don't think the lack of activity was Stoke-specific.

Completely agree.

The lack of signings this window I think is due to the wage bill. This summer should see us cut it with the likes of Fay, Simo and Salif's contracts ending and .... I don't think the lack of activity was Stoke-specific.

I for one think we should extend Shawcross' contract and I hope we get an even better season from Jones myself. Not worried about our transfers. ITPWT.

ITPWT.