• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Blue & Yellow ITK Bonanza Thread

spending 70 mil in one transfer window doesn't mean we'll be outlaying 70m in cash right now - it will be spread out over a number of years, id be surprised if any more than 30m shows up on this years accounts

with the new tv money and what not i don't think it's out of the question for us to be spending that amount at all.
 
how much have we made in sales then, so far?

i posted in the Bale thread that over two seasons (07/08 - 08/09) we had a net spend of negative 100m (more or less) - no reason why we can't do the same again (spend big over one or two windows building a squad and pay it off over time)
 
And as a net spend it's only £38m.

Indeed. Other than Soldado, it's been a pretty standard window. Chadli in for Dempsey (net spend c.£2m), ??? CB in for Caulker (net spend probably minus a few million), Paulinho and Capoue in for Hudd and Parker (net spend £16m)
 
how much have we made in sales then, so far?

i posted in the Bale thread that over two seasons (07/08 - 08/09) we had a net spend of negative 100m (more or less) - no reason why we can't do the same again (spend big over one or two windows building a squad and pay it off over time)

£20,000,000 odd without the official sale of Parker yet.
 
Yes but its quite clear we aren't finished spending. The type of players we are strongly linked with we could easily spend another £50m although we will recover some in sales Im sure.....


still think we could manage a one off net spend in the 70m region
 
We already know we are increasing our revenues though, the TV deal is massive.

Then why has no one but City and us been spending? United and Arsenal have spent nothing. Chelsea have scaled back relatively. The lower teams haven't ramped things up that much compared to other years.
 
Then why has no one but City and us been spending? United and Arsenal have spent nothing. Chelsea have scaled back relatively. The lower teams haven't ramped things up that much compared to other years.


Chelsea are trying to meet FFP. United and Arsenal have hardly not been trying to spend.


The lower teams have been spending massive amounts, and the majority of the business will be as always in the final week of the window.
 
Then why has no one but City and us been spending? United and Arsenal have spent nothing. Chelsea have scaled back relatively. The lower teams haven't ramped things up that much compared to other years.


planning things in a different way to ourselves? we have a good set up behind the scenes, with little room for improvement - where we can grow is on the field, becoming a title challenging side will in turn kick on the stadium development no doubt as it would attract the attention of the businesses who can finance it. for smaller clubs, blowing money on strengthening their team is probably not as beneficially, long term speaking as strengthening off the field.

as for Arsenal? i guess it would highlight the fact the people at the top and possibly Wenger himself are too afraid to spend big bucks and are content to plod along making money with little risk
 
The whole point of the £50 million loan is to cover initial outlays. A huge net spend this window just means very little spending over the next 3-4 years.
 
The whole point of the £50 million loan is to cover initial outlays. A huge net spend this window just means very little spending over the next 3-4 years.

Agree, we spent around £80m five or so years ago. First to get closer to the top 4 under Ramos, then to secure our Premier League spot under Redknapp.
Those transfers have been paid down over time, and are done with this summer. Hence given us the opportunity to invest as we did back then + add the extra tv money 20-30m.
In fact if we want to spend the extra tv money we're going to get over the next three years, we could potentially spend up to 90m on top of the 80m we've proven we can afford in the past 5 years.
That's a bit extreme obviously and something we're not likely to do, but it does show we have the financial muscle to invest at the moment.

Of course, if we spend that much this year we'll again have hardly anything to use in coming years.
But we'll have a very valuable squad, and whenever we want to sign someone new we'll also have players we can sell on to compensate.
Very similiar to our recent years transfer activity.

The danger with spending a lot on new signings though, is that the wage budget is likely to increase as well.
 
The whole point of the £50 million loan is to cover initial outlays. A huge net spend this window just means very little spending over the next 3-4 years.

You'd hope that was the case anyway, after this massive investment with the quality and age of players we have got in we would only need one or two additions per year anyway.....
 
spending 70 mil in one transfer window doesn't mean we'll be outlaying 70m in cash right now - it will be spread out over a number of years, id be surprised if any more than 30m shows up on this years accounts

with the new tv money and what not i don't think it's out of the question for us to be spending that amount at all.

Whilst the cash balance will show for arguments sake 30m the accounts overall will still show we spent 50-60m. Its accruals based, so you will need to recognise the economic event regardless of whether the cash has changed hands. You cant say we only spent 30m and we have another 30m to spend if you had a 60m budget, because you still need to pay that 30m and it would be a dangerous game to spend the 30m because you have 30m cash forgetting the fact you will need to pay that 30m at a future date.

Its what got this country in a mess buying stuff with money that you dont have or forgetting that you have a brickload of buy now pay later stuff yet still spending the money

I can see where have got the money from although I wont put a figure on it - in the past we have got rid of a few players, got players off the wage bill through loans etc, tv money, this alleged Joe Lewis money and the players we are and have gotten rid of. Net spend, in totality, would be around the 40m mark which is more than feasible (im hazarding a guess on all this)
 
Who: JJetset
When: 16th August
Where: SC

JJetset said: ↑

Just been told to expect some movement on the Gareth Bale situation today. It wasn't good news.

Truckload of salt obviously.

Also the Parker hold up is down to him but I can't elaborate in public yet what the hold up is.

No problem if its bad news as in we've accepted an offer - think we all expect it TBH - just really hope its not bad news as in we are accepting a low offer!

Jetset:
No it was not a low offer.

I honestly have no idea why we would consider selling Townsend when he has shown for both QPR and us in pre-season, he can score goals! We cannot be too reliant on 1 player e.g. Bale last year and probably to an extent Soldado this year.

I understand if he has to be sold to buy other top players, but imo this would be a huge shame to sell him!

Jetset:
He wants to go.

----------------------

Who: SpecialBlend
When: 16/08/13
Where: COYS

Solo training, imposed by AVB.

Will not be in the squad on Sunday.

Looking hard to offload him.
 
Back