Unconfirmed reports are linking Saints to Manchester United striker Javier Hernandez

Javier Hernandez celebrates scoring for Manchester United

Javier Hernandez celebrates scoring for Manchester United

First published in Sport
Last updated

SAINTS are chasing Manchester United striker Javier Hernandez, according to unconfirmed reports.

It appears Ronald Koeman could be targeting the Mexican two time Premier League-winner to bolster his strikeforce.

If the deal, rumoured to be around £15m, goes ahead it will come as a relief to Saints fans who have seen the club sell several first-team stars over the past few weeks.

Basingstoke Gazette:

Javier Hernandez scores for Mexico against Croatia in the 2014 World Cup

Rickie Lambert, Adam Lallana and Dejan Lovren have all joined Liverpool while left-back Luke Shaw left for Manchester United.

Academy graduate Calum Chambers, 19, was the latest to leave with the right-back signing for Arsenal for a deal worth up to £16m despite making just 21 league appearances for Saints.

It means the St Mary’s-based club has raked in more than £90m this summer but fans have been calling for that cash to be reinvested.

Left-back Ryan Bertrand was signed on a season-long loan from Chelsea earlier this week while Dusan Tadic and Graziano Pelle were brought in as replacements for Lallana and Lambert respectively.

Now Hernandez could be another part of Koeman’s plan to build on last season’s success, although Saints could face competition from Champions League runners-up Atletico Madrid who have also been linked with the Mexican.

Who is Javier Hernandez?

  • Mexican Javier Hernandez Balcazar joined Manchester United in summer 2010 and has gone on to make more than 150 appearances for the club, scoring 59 goals.
  • He broke into the Man Utd first-team as a regular in early 2011, starting against Barcelona in the 2011 Champions League final, but has earned a reputation as a ‘super-sub’.
  • The 26-year-old is nicknamed Chicharito, or the ‘Little Pea’, in honour of his father Javier Hernandez Gutierrez, also a Mexican international striker, who was nicknamed ‘The Pea’ because of his green eyes.
  • Despite only making his debut for Mexico in 2009 he is already the top third highest scorer in the country’s history with 36 goals, having scored at both the 2010 and 2014 World Cups.
  • Hernandez earned his place in the record books on the last day of the 2012/2013 Premier League season when he scored the last-ever goal under the Sir Alex Ferguson-era in a 5-5 draw with West Bromwich Albion.

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:09pm Sat 2 Aug 14

montecristosaint says...

cant see it , wages will surely be a problem
cant see it , wages will surely be a problem montecristosaint
  • Score: 14

3:09pm Sat 2 Aug 14

miltonarcher says...

He's already said he wouldn't consider Saints.
He's already said he wouldn't consider Saints. miltonarcher
  • Score: 9

3:22pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Bushsaint says...

Agree would rather have Guidetti.
Agree would rather have Guidetti. Bushsaint
  • Score: 7

3:23pm Sat 2 Aug 14

worried of n e hampshire says...

"Unconfirmed"
Says it all really!
"Unconfirmed" Says it all really! worried of n e hampshire
  • Score: 16

3:32pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Steve_N says...

Not gonna happen. Inter, Atletico or Saints? Much as I love Saints, having been a supporter for over 40 years, this is a no - brainer from the player's point of view.
Not gonna happen. Inter, Atletico or Saints? Much as I love Saints, having been a supporter for over 40 years, this is a no - brainer from the player's point of view. Steve_N
  • Score: 11

3:39pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

Some don't fancy him but to be honest I don't think we can do better at the moment. We were already desperate for a striker last season and since then we've sold Rickie and Jay Rod injured with only Pelle coming in. We need two more and Hernandez would be a start.
Some don't fancy him but to be honest I don't think we can do better at the moment. We were already desperate for a striker last season and since then we've sold Rickie and Jay Rod injured with only Pelle coming in. We need two more and Hernandez would be a start. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: 9

3:41pm Sat 2 Aug 14

mickey01 says...

No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again
No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again mickey01
  • Score: -43

3:42pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Norwegian Saint says...

Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider
Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched
Definately need one or two central defenders.
Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there)
Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good.
Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying.

Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield

Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!!
Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched Definately need one or two central defenders. Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there) Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good. Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying. Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!! Norwegian Saint
  • Score: 24

3:42pm Sat 2 Aug 14

de Heiligen paard 101 says...

cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would. de Heiligen paard 101
  • Score: 14

3:44pm Sat 2 Aug 14

mickey01 says...

To be honest if i had the choice between working here and working in Madrid i know which one i would choose , and as much as i like this area i reckon Spain is a better bet.
To be honest if i had the choice between working here and working in Madrid i know which one i would choose , and as much as i like this area i reckon Spain is a better bet. mickey01
  • Score: 8

3:47pm Sat 2 Aug 14

thinklikealocal says...

Would love it if we signed him, only niggle for me is if he arrives and gets a big wage agreement will this upset and unsettle the likes of MS, JC, JR etc.
Would love it if we signed him, only niggle for me is if he arrives and gets a big wage agreement will this upset and unsettle the likes of MS, JC, JR etc. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 14

3:58pm Sat 2 Aug 14

one in the crowd says...

mickey01 wrote:
No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again
Why would he surely welcome a move down south, all the really stunning scenery starts north of Birmingham and the locals are all very friendly.
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again[/p][/quote]Why would he surely welcome a move down south, all the really stunning scenery starts north of Birmingham and the locals are all very friendly. one in the crowd
  • Score: -35

4:02pm Sat 2 Aug 14

boilerman says...

I think he is a bit of a mercenary.
He will be expected to play every week for us not just 1 game in 3 or 4.
We have bought this sort of player before with no great success.
He is probably more concerned about playing in one of the two highest wage leagues in the world rather than actually the football.
Just because we have all this money , lets not buy in haste.
If we can still be in the premiere league at the end of next season and the players we have bought have been a success and we still have a large transfer kitty I for one will regard that as a good result regardless of our position.
If this happens it will allow RK time to build a good team and squad.
I think he is a bit of a mercenary. He will be expected to play every week for us not just 1 game in 3 or 4. We have bought this sort of player before with no great success. He is probably more concerned about playing in one of the two highest wage leagues in the world rather than actually the football. Just because we have all this money , lets not buy in haste. If we can still be in the premiere league at the end of next season and the players we have bought have been a success and we still have a large transfer kitty I for one will regard that as a good result regardless of our position. If this happens it will allow RK time to build a good team and squad. boilerman
  • Score: 7

4:04pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Invidia says...

I always rated him and could never understand why he was hardly in the Manu starting eleven, but what do I know I always believed our Les was telling the truth.
I always rated him and could never understand why he was hardly in the Manu starting eleven, but what do I know I always believed our Les was telling the truth. Invidia
  • Score: 4

4:04pm Sat 2 Aug 14

one in the crowd says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider
Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched
Definately need one or two central defenders.
Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there)
Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good.
Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying.

Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield

Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!!
You might well LOVE IT if it happened, but I'm sorry , it won't be happening !
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched Definately need one or two central defenders. Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there) Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good. Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying. Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!![/p][/quote]You might well LOVE IT if it happened, but I'm sorry , it won't be happening ! one in the crowd
  • Score: -36

4:11pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Graham, North of Watford says...

mickey01 wrote:
No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again
I agree about the wages. Just can't see that we could get near what MU have paid him.

Peter Crouch, rock solid and always liked him in our Team but has he still got it?
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again[/p][/quote]I agree about the wages. Just can't see that we could get near what MU have paid him. Peter Crouch, rock solid and always liked him in our Team but has he still got it? Graham, North of Watford
  • Score: -3

4:30pm Sat 2 Aug 14

bigfella777 says...

There's plenty of strikers in the polish ecstraklasa who could do a job
There's plenty of strikers in the polish ecstraklasa who could do a job bigfella777
  • Score: -14

4:32pm Sat 2 Aug 14

saintgibbo says...

Is it really necessary to mention the departed players in every story?
Everyone, unless they've been on Mars all summer knows who went where.
Just updates on who has been linked will suit me fine. I realise it fills column inches but it is very repetitive and very boring now.
But back to the topic.
If he has said already that joining saints will be a backward step then why should he think differently a week later? Can't see it happening myself
Is it really necessary to mention the departed players in every story? Everyone, unless they've been on Mars all summer knows who went where. Just updates on who has been linked will suit me fine. I realise it fills column inches but it is very repetitive and very boring now. But back to the topic. If he has said already that joining saints will be a backward step then why should he think differently a week later? Can't see it happening myself saintgibbo
  • Score: 27

4:34pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Should of knocked off Master Shaw fee surely!
Should of knocked off Master Shaw fee surely! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: -13

4:42pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Enrico Palazzo says...

Just put this on another thread if anybody's interested. Surprised DE not running it.

http://www1.skysport
s.com/football/news/
11700/9403863/transf
er-news-ronald-koema
n-confirms-deal-for-
saphir-taider
Just put this on another thread if anybody's interested. Surprised DE not running it. http://www1.skysport s.com/football/news/ 11700/9403863/transf er-news-ronald-koema n-confirms-deal-for- saphir-taider Enrico Palazzo
  • Score: 1

4:45pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Frankie Bennett says...

miltonarcher wrote:
He's already said he wouldn't consider Saints.
Yep, as I understand it he was part of the Shawdeal but turned us down as it was 'too big of a drop.'
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: He's already said he wouldn't consider Saints.[/p][/quote]Yep, as I understand it he was part of the Shawdeal but turned us down as it was 'too big of a drop.' Frankie Bennett
  • Score: 4

4:45pm Sat 2 Aug 14

COYRlukeCOYR says...

Get him and crouch, crouch as a back up. No doubt if we pull this transfer off, it would be a superb signing and positive statement to all our mockers.
Get him and crouch, crouch as a back up. No doubt if we pull this transfer off, it would be a superb signing and positive statement to all our mockers. COYRlukeCOYR
  • Score: -10

5:00pm Sat 2 Aug 14

techsture says...

I told you she was at Stapleford in January and was laughed at.

Just remember I'm always right
I told you she was at Stapleford in January and was laughed at. Just remember I'm always right techsture
  • Score: -16

5:07pm Sat 2 Aug 14

saintgibbo says...

Except when it comes to the name of the training ground
Except when it comes to the name of the training ground saintgibbo
  • Score: 16

5:23pm Sat 2 Aug 14

zurichboy says...

Graham, North of Watford wrote:
mickey01 wrote:
No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again
I agree about the wages. Just can't see that we could get near what MU have paid him.

Peter Crouch, rock solid and always liked him in our Team but has he still got it?
Sorry, he never had it. Grossly overrated, at least half a meter taller than most on the ground but strangely shorter than all in the air.
I still blame him for our relegation from the premier league way back. I remember watching the match against Everton,
I think it was. We were leading with not long to go and he took the ball on his own and rather than heading for the corner flag and running down the clock, he tried a hugely ambitious shot on goal, from which resulted a goal kick, quickly taken and..... goal for Everton. I don't remember whether we drew or finally lost the game but the loss of points were crucial.....
He's a lovely guy I believe..... but no thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Graham, North of Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again[/p][/quote]I agree about the wages. Just can't see that we could get near what MU have paid him. Peter Crouch, rock solid and always liked him in our Team but has he still got it?[/p][/quote]Sorry, he never had it. Grossly overrated, at least half a meter taller than most on the ground but strangely shorter than all in the air. I still blame him for our relegation from the premier league way back. I remember watching the match against Everton, I think it was. We were leading with not long to go and he took the ball on his own and rather than heading for the corner flag and running down the clock, he tried a hugely ambitious shot on goal, from which resulted a goal kick, quickly taken and..... goal for Everton. I don't remember whether we drew or finally lost the game but the loss of points were crucial..... He's a lovely guy I believe..... but no thanks. zurichboy
  • Score: 11

5:50pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Harold K Steptoe says...

If this was. Going to happen it would of been part of the Luke "fatty" Shaw deal. Wages= no deal.
If this was. Going to happen it would of been part of the Luke "fatty" Shaw deal. Wages= no deal. Harold K Steptoe
  • Score: 6

5:54pm Sat 2 Aug 14

mickey01 says...

zurichboy wrote:
Graham, North of Watford wrote:
mickey01 wrote:
No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again
I agree about the wages. Just can't see that we could get near what MU have paid him.

Peter Crouch, rock solid and always liked him in our Team but has he still got it?
Sorry, he never had it. Grossly overrated, at least half a meter taller than most on the ground but strangely shorter than all in the air.
I still blame him for our relegation from the premier league way back. I remember watching the match against Everton,
I think it was. We were leading with not long to go and he took the ball on his own and rather than heading for the corner flag and running down the clock, he tried a hugely ambitious shot on goal, from which resulted a goal kick, quickly taken and..... goal for Everton. I don't remember whether we drew or finally lost the game but the loss of points were crucial.....
He's a lovely guy I believe..... but no thanks.
always handy for a goal in the last qtr of the match to bring on to head the crosses in , and i reckon his wife would love it here too
[quote][p][bold]zurichboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham, North of Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: No way will we be able to afford his wages this is a harry redknapp type of signing , just a thought but what about peter crouch he could be available on the cheap and would surely welcome a move down south again[/p][/quote]I agree about the wages. Just can't see that we could get near what MU have paid him. Peter Crouch, rock solid and always liked him in our Team but has he still got it?[/p][/quote]Sorry, he never had it. Grossly overrated, at least half a meter taller than most on the ground but strangely shorter than all in the air. I still blame him for our relegation from the premier league way back. I remember watching the match against Everton, I think it was. We were leading with not long to go and he took the ball on his own and rather than heading for the corner flag and running down the clock, he tried a hugely ambitious shot on goal, from which resulted a goal kick, quickly taken and..... goal for Everton. I don't remember whether we drew or finally lost the game but the loss of points were crucial..... He's a lovely guy I believe..... but no thanks.[/p][/quote]always handy for a goal in the last qtr of the match to bring on to head the crosses in , and i reckon his wife would love it here too mickey01
  • Score: -1

5:55pm Sat 2 Aug 14

mickey01 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
There's plenty of strikers in the polish ecstraklasa who could do a job
no more pleeeeeeeeese too many in tesco as it is
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: There's plenty of strikers in the polish ecstraklasa who could do a job[/p][/quote]no more pleeeeeeeeese too many in tesco as it is mickey01
  • Score: -11

6:02pm Sat 2 Aug 14

SaintJD says...

Norwegian Saint wrote:
Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider
Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched
Definately need one or two central defenders.
Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there)
Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good.
Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying.

Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield

Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!!
Before today's game I suggested we get sonogo on loan from arsenal, as well as spending big on a nailed on striker - benteke, bony or similar. Four goals vs Benfica may make that less likely, but let's enquire early - Wenger clearly sees us as a good place for player development.

Keeper wise I'm in two minds now - while I'd like forster I can't help feeling it isn't top priority. While we had the old players, yes, a better keeper would have taken us up a level, but artur now looks like a key senior player, a bit like Fonte. In fact, Boruc may provide priceless continuity, which we dearly need. A centre back of top quality and striker of equal quality please.
[quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched Definately need one or two central defenders. Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there) Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good. Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying. Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!![/p][/quote]Before today's game I suggested we get sonogo on loan from arsenal, as well as spending big on a nailed on striker - benteke, bony or similar. Four goals vs Benfica may make that less likely, but let's enquire early - Wenger clearly sees us as a good place for player development. Keeper wise I'm in two minds now - while I'd like forster I can't help feeling it isn't top priority. While we had the old players, yes, a better keeper would have taken us up a level, but artur now looks like a key senior player, a bit like Fonte. In fact, Boruc may provide priceless continuity, which we dearly need. A centre back of top quality and striker of equal quality please. SaintJD
  • Score: 2

6:04pm Sat 2 Aug 14

BarnetSaint says...

Not a chance in hell of H coming to us.
We need quality signings ASAP and not journeymen or loans, Hernandez would be good but ain't gonna happen.
Not a chance in hell of H coming to us. We need quality signings ASAP and not journeymen or loans, Hernandez would be good but ain't gonna happen. BarnetSaint
  • Score: 3

6:05pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Bazz1955 says...

I'm getting fed up with saints being linked with players, I want to read that Saints have SIGNED players, at the moment I think we are more likely to be linked with the club being sold until signings take place....
I'm getting fed up with saints being linked with players, I want to read that Saints have SIGNED players, at the moment I think we are more likely to be linked with the club being sold until signings take place.... Bazz1955
  • Score: 1

6:16pm Sat 2 Aug 14

steekeemcglue says...

£15M for him !?!? whilst Manure are reportedly about to pay £20M for Hummels... is someone having a laugh ?
£15M for him !?!? whilst Manure are reportedly about to pay £20M for Hummels... is someone having a laugh ? steekeemcglue
  • Score: 2

6:25pm Sat 2 Aug 14

SaintJD says...

Enrico Palazzo wrote:
Just put this on another thread if anybody's interested. Surprised DE not running it.

http://www1.skysport

s.com/football/news/

11700/9403863/transf

er-news-ronald-koema

n-confirms-deal-for-

saphir-taider
I think it is based on koeman's interview from last night, which wasn't conclusive. I think he confirmed it was likely, but not 100% done.
By the way, bolasie from palace wouldn't be a bad signing, although we already look strong in attacking midfield. Isgrove has a shout this season, or should do.
[quote][p][bold]Enrico Palazzo[/bold] wrote: Just put this on another thread if anybody's interested. Surprised DE not running it. http://www1.skysport s.com/football/news/ 11700/9403863/transf er-news-ronald-koema n-confirms-deal-for- saphir-taider[/p][/quote]I think it is based on koeman's interview from last night, which wasn't conclusive. I think he confirmed it was likely, but not 100% done. By the way, bolasie from palace wouldn't be a bad signing, although we already look strong in attacking midfield. Isgrove has a shout this season, or should do. SaintJD
  • Score: 3

6:28pm Sat 2 Aug 14

SaintJD says...

steekeemcglue wrote:
£15M for him !?!? whilst Manure are reportedly about to pay £20M for Hummels... is someone having a laugh ?
Well Luke Shaw was £28M and Remy is apparently 8M so there is clearly no real logic in fees.
[quote][p][bold]steekeemcglue[/bold] wrote: £15M for him !?!? whilst Manure are reportedly about to pay £20M for Hummels... is someone having a laugh ?[/p][/quote]Well Luke Shaw was £28M and Remy is apparently 8M so there is clearly no real logic in fees. SaintJD
  • Score: 4

6:34pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Block 42 says...

This is the player we need.jay hernandez is absolutely quality and proven in the prem..he is super quick and would be great with jay rod..we easily have the cash to get him.I actually cant believe some retards on here dont want him.if he signs I will eat himble pie bout saying we not going to sign quality because pelle does not look as good as jay hernandez.
This is the player we need.jay hernandez is absolutely quality and proven in the prem..he is super quick and would be great with jay rod..we easily have the cash to get him.I actually cant believe some retards on here dont want him.if he signs I will eat himble pie bout saying we not going to sign quality because pelle does not look as good as jay hernandez. Block 42
  • Score: -6

7:00pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Redslo says...

I believe that the incoming loans players are actually good for the team in the long run. I discuss it in my blog.

redsloscf.blogspot.c
om
I believe that the incoming loans players are actually good for the team in the long run. I discuss it in my blog. redsloscf.blogspot.c om Redslo
  • Score: -7

7:10pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Frankie Bennett says...

SaintJD wrote:
Norwegian Saint wrote:
Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider
Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched
Definately need one or two central defenders.
Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there)
Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good.
Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying.

Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield

Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!!
Before today's game I suggested we get sonogo on loan from arsenal, as well as spending big on a nailed on striker - benteke, bony or similar. Four goals vs Benfica may make that less likely, but let's enquire early - Wenger clearly sees us as a good place for player development.

Keeper wise I'm in two minds now - while I'd like forster I can't help feeling it isn't top priority. While we had the old players, yes, a better keeper would have taken us up a level, but artur now looks like a key senior player, a bit like Fonte. In fact, Boruc may provide priceless continuity, which we dearly need. A centre back of top quality and striker of equal quality please.
Good shout on Bony. Interesting that Boruc is now heavily linked with Bayern Muich!
[quote][p][bold]SaintJD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Norwegian Saint[/bold] wrote: Like our current midfield. Davis, Cork, Morgan, Victor, JWP, Tadic, Reed and now Taider Looking ok up front but one more at least, if Pelle gets injured we could be stretched Definately need one or two central defenders. Right back should have cover (although Cork can fit in there) Finally we need a keeper. I hope we get Marshall but Forster is also good. Keep hearing about this Schelotto, bit worried that he's a dud after hearing what the inter fans are saying. Things look brighter than this time last month.... I would just love it... LOVE IT if we win at StAnfield Come on youuuu Saaaaaaints!!![/p][/quote]Before today's game I suggested we get sonogo on loan from arsenal, as well as spending big on a nailed on striker - benteke, bony or similar. Four goals vs Benfica may make that less likely, but let's enquire early - Wenger clearly sees us as a good place for player development. Keeper wise I'm in two minds now - while I'd like forster I can't help feeling it isn't top priority. While we had the old players, yes, a better keeper would have taken us up a level, but artur now looks like a key senior player, a bit like Fonte. In fact, Boruc may provide priceless continuity, which we dearly need. A centre back of top quality and striker of equal quality please.[/p][/quote]Good shout on Bony. Interesting that Boruc is now heavily linked with Bayern Muich! Frankie Bennett
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Costa Baz says...

Wages may not be as big a deal as some think.

By bringing in loan players, transfer money could be diverted to pay wages of marque signings. Not saying that's a good thing as it would deplete future transfer budgets, and the loan players obviously won't have a sell on fee.

Plus, nextvseason's squad could be quite depleted if players return to clubs and academy players aren't ready to fill the gaps.
Wages may not be as big a deal as some think. By bringing in loan players, transfer money could be diverted to pay wages of marque signings. Not saying that's a good thing as it would deplete future transfer budgets, and the loan players obviously won't have a sell on fee. Plus, nextvseason's squad could be quite depleted if players return to clubs and academy players aren't ready to fill the gaps. Costa Baz
  • Score: 2

8:10pm Sat 2 Aug 14

saintsfan76 says...

We kept reading reports on players leaving that none of us wanted to believe. I am sure we don't believe this bit of news about a player coming in but if it happens it will be similar to Kevin Keegan signing for us many years ago. Crossing my fingers.
We kept reading reports on players leaving that none of us wanted to believe. I am sure we don't believe this bit of news about a player coming in but if it happens it will be similar to Kevin Keegan signing for us many years ago. Crossing my fingers. saintsfan76
  • Score: 3

8:11pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Block 42 says...

Costa Baz wrote:
Wages may not be as big a deal as some think.

By bringing in loan players, transfer money could be diverted to pay wages of marque signings. Not saying that's a good thing as it would deplete future transfer budgets, and the loan players obviously won't have a sell on fee.

Plus, nextvseason's squad could be quite depleted if players return to clubs and academy players aren't ready to fill the gaps.
To get in the big guns you gots to pay the wages..its hiw it works.hernandez is a great player and his signing would take pressure off the board from the fans.we need a statement of intent.he is quality.and better still a proven scorer in a top league
[quote][p][bold]Costa Baz[/bold] wrote: Wages may not be as big a deal as some think. By bringing in loan players, transfer money could be diverted to pay wages of marque signings. Not saying that's a good thing as it would deplete future transfer budgets, and the loan players obviously won't have a sell on fee. Plus, nextvseason's squad could be quite depleted if players return to clubs and academy players aren't ready to fill the gaps.[/p][/quote]To get in the big guns you gots to pay the wages..its hiw it works.hernandez is a great player and his signing would take pressure off the board from the fans.we need a statement of intent.he is quality.and better still a proven scorer in a top league Block 42
  • Score: 2

8:24pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
[quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: -52

8:27pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Frankie Bennett says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window. Frankie Bennett
  • Score: -2

8:28pm Sat 2 Aug 14

allstar says...

As a palace supporter I do wish you well but time is getting short before the season starts and you need the new guys to get settled soon .
The way things are looking we may stand a chance of beating you this season .
I live in Southampton and having a club in the premiership brings cash in to the city.
All the best for the future what ever it brings.
As a palace supporter I do wish you well but time is getting short before the season starts and you need the new guys to get settled soon . The way things are looking we may stand a chance of beating you this season . I live in Southampton and having a club in the premiership brings cash in to the city. All the best for the future what ever it brings. allstar
  • Score: 11

8:30pm Sat 2 Aug 14

BarnetSaint says...

Cheers allstar
We certainly do appreciate the need to bring in new players pdq.
All the best to palace too
Cheers allstar We certainly do appreciate the need to bring in new players pdq. All the best to palace too BarnetSaint
  • Score: 7

8:31pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Frankie Bennett says...

Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.
[quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.[/p][/quote]I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way. Frankie Bennett
  • Score: 1

8:32pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Crossley Place Saint says...

This has been on the cards for some time, though we are not favourites to sign him:
http://www.oddscheck
er.com/football/foot
ball-specials/javier
-hernandez/club-afte
r-summer-transfer-wi
ndow

The most likely prospect is that he'll be loaned to us,
using the Dutch manager connection.

Other odds::
Morgan 2/17 to sign for Spurs (Ralph? Comment please?)

Fraser Forster 1/3 to sign for us (splendid! With Kelvin and Gazza in reserve, Boruc can go to Munich for £££)

Jordie Clasy 7/2 to sign for us (who?)

Leroy Fer evens favourite (who??)

Ron Vlaar evens favourite (not impressed; so he had a couple of good games at the World Cup, but he had a poor season at Villa last year)

Ronaldinho 6/1 3rd favourite (!!?)

That's the odds tonight.
http://www.oddscheck
er.com/football/foot
ball-specials
This has been on the cards for some time, though we are not favourites to sign him: http://www.oddscheck er.com/football/foot ball-specials/javier -hernandez/club-afte r-summer-transfer-wi ndow The most likely prospect is that he'll be loaned to us, using the Dutch manager connection. Other odds:: Morgan 2/17 to sign for Spurs (Ralph? Comment please?) Fraser Forster 1/3 to sign for us (splendid! With Kelvin and Gazza in reserve, Boruc can go to Munich for £££) Jordie Clasy 7/2 to sign for us (who?) Leroy Fer evens favourite (who??) Ron Vlaar evens favourite (not impressed; so he had a couple of good games at the World Cup, but he had a poor season at Villa last year) Ronaldinho 6/1 3rd favourite (!!?) That's the odds tonight. http://www.oddscheck er.com/football/foot ball-specials Crossley Place Saint
  • Score: -3

8:41pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Crossley Place Saint says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
Come on Seed, lots of us spotted that as soon as he said it. What Ralph actually said was that all the money from player sales will be spent (or "is available to be spent") on "transfer fees and wages". In other words, he can fulfil his promise by using the £90 million to bankroll this season's wage bill, without buying many (any?) more players outright. It's quite possible that ManUre will loan Hernandez to us for a season for a nominal fee, we have to pay 75%-90% of his wages, and what they get out of it is a season's match experience for him before he comes back into their squad next year.
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]Come on Seed, lots of us spotted that as soon as he said it. What Ralph actually said was that all the money from player sales will be spent (or "is available to be spent") on "transfer fees and wages". In other words, he can fulfil his promise by using the £90 million to bankroll this season's wage bill, without buying many (any?) more players outright. It's quite possible that ManUre will loan Hernandez to us for a season for a nominal fee, we have to pay 75%-90% of his wages, and what they get out of it is a season's match experience for him before he comes back into their squad next year. Crossley Place Saint
  • Score: 8

8:42pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

Frankie Bennett wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.
[quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.[/p][/quote]I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.[/p][/quote]I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: -5

8:52pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Frankie Bennett says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.
It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.[/p][/quote]I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.[/p][/quote]I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.[/p][/quote]It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels.... Frankie Bennett
  • Score: 2

8:54pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.
It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....
We all have to use dishonesty from time to time. What we don't do is use it when it so obviously is.
[quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.[/p][/quote]I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.[/p][/quote]I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.[/p][/quote]It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....[/p][/quote]We all have to use dishonesty from time to time. What we don't do is use it when it so obviously is. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: -10

9:08pm Sat 2 Aug 14

loosehead says...

Teletext said a foreign teams after Boruc?
Teletext said a foreign teams after Boruc? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Tony in Liberia says...

I think Hernandez, when it was first talked of that he might come here in the Shaw deal, thought "no way", and that's not an overly surprising initial reaction.

However, now he's had a chance to think about it, has seen more of how the wind is blowing at United, at 26 not really wanting to sit on the bench any more but to play some football, and drawn by the idea of being the 'big name' at a club and not just a super-sub, is thinking it might be a good move. And I think it would be, for us both.

If he wants to be the big man at one of the Champion's League clubs, he's got to deliver on a more regular basis, playing the whole game, and showing that he can handle that responsibility, and he's not going to do that at United. Ok, he may not stay here long if he does do well, but it would have a Keegan-like effect on us all, players, fans and the wider football world, and that can only be good for us. To be honest, although we are looking at players who are quite exciting, this guy is right at the top of our range, so if we get him that's the end of the 'no ambition' malarkey!

And with all that in prospect, maybe he won't feel the need to demand Rooney-like wages, which is even better!
I think Hernandez, when it was first talked of that he might come here in the Shaw deal, thought "no way", and that's not an overly surprising initial reaction. However, now he's had a chance to think about it, has seen more of how the wind is blowing at United, at 26 not really wanting to sit on the bench any more but to play some football, and drawn by the idea of being the 'big name' at a club and not just a super-sub, is thinking it might be a good move. And I think it would be, for us both. If he wants to be the big man at one of the Champion's League clubs, he's got to deliver on a more regular basis, playing the whole game, and showing that he can handle that responsibility, and he's not going to do that at United. Ok, he may not stay here long if he does do well, but it would have a Keegan-like effect on us all, players, fans and the wider football world, and that can only be good for us. To be honest, although we are looking at players who are quite exciting, this guy is right at the top of our range, so if we get him that's the end of the 'no ambition' malarkey! And with all that in prospect, maybe he won't feel the need to demand Rooney-like wages, which is even better! Tony in Liberia
  • Score: 11

9:30pm Sat 2 Aug 14

SaintJD says...

Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.
It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....
The debt is tiny by Prem standards and is being paid off slowly. Also, it is surely a side effect of getting to this league and appears irrelevant when tv money is taken into account. As I see it, the club should have had at least a reasonable transfer budget in place before player sales and will have wages covered off in its budgets without player sales. Surely having to service wages by selling is risky and unsustainable and I don't buy it. If anything all the funds should be available for transfer fees, plus the original warchest I assume they planned. Of course they don't need to spend it in one go, but it should be there.
[quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.[/p][/quote]I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.[/p][/quote]I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.[/p][/quote]It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....[/p][/quote]The debt is tiny by Prem standards and is being paid off slowly. Also, it is surely a side effect of getting to this league and appears irrelevant when tv money is taken into account. As I see it, the club should have had at least a reasonable transfer budget in place before player sales and will have wages covered off in its budgets without player sales. Surely having to service wages by selling is risky and unsustainable and I don't buy it. If anything all the funds should be available for transfer fees, plus the original warchest I assume they planned. Of course they don't need to spend it in one go, but it should be there. SaintJD
  • Score: 1

9:35pm Sat 2 Aug 14

Frankie Bennett says...

SaintJD wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Frankie Bennett wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.
I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.
I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.
It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....
The debt is tiny by Prem standards and is being paid off slowly. Also, it is surely a side effect of getting to this league and appears irrelevant when tv money is taken into account. As I see it, the club should have had at least a reasonable transfer budget in place before player sales and will have wages covered off in its budgets without player sales. Surely having to service wages by selling is risky and unsustainable and I don't buy it. If anything all the funds should be available for transfer fees, plus the original warchest I assume they planned. Of course they don't need to spend it in one go, but it should be there.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think the TV money this year should cover it all and I really hope it does. We will look at the totaliser at the end!
[quote][p][bold]SaintJD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frankie Bennett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]That was a good spot - I also noted that, but 'm going to hold judgement till the end of the window.[/p][/quote]I also think that some of this money could be used to pay off the 27m transfer debt we have. I am not necessarily against that because I want us to be stable going forward but it shouldn't surprise us if it is used that way.[/p][/quote]I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the dishonesty.[/p][/quote]It's all politics - club chairman, especially those who are under wealthy owners, are playing games at so many levels....[/p][/quote]The debt is tiny by Prem standards and is being paid off slowly. Also, it is surely a side effect of getting to this league and appears irrelevant when tv money is taken into account. As I see it, the club should have had at least a reasonable transfer budget in place before player sales and will have wages covered off in its budgets without player sales. Surely having to service wages by selling is risky and unsustainable and I don't buy it. If anything all the funds should be available for transfer fees, plus the original warchest I assume they planned. Of course they don't need to spend it in one go, but it should be there.[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree with you more. I think the TV money this year should cover it all and I really hope it does. We will look at the totaliser at the end! Frankie Bennett
  • Score: 0

9:36pm Sat 2 Aug 14

TheTom says...

At the end of the day, no matter how much I love our club, I would rather we were relegated with 11 players who wore the shirt with pride, just like we all would; unlike the sh1tes who have betrayed us. They are all worse than Skates in my book & will get the welcome they deserve. However, I truly believe we have a better manager than before and ROKO will rebuild and we will finish higher than last season-u red it here first. Have faith coz we r the Saints & will prevail. COYR!!!!
At the end of the day, no matter how much I love our club, I would rather we were relegated with 11 players who wore the shirt with pride, just like we all would; unlike the sh1tes who have betrayed us. They are all worse than Skates in my book & will get the welcome they deserve. However, I truly believe we have a better manager than before and ROKO will rebuild and we will finish higher than last season-u red it here first. Have faith coz we r the Saints & will prevail. COYR!!!! TheTom
  • Score: 3

9:38pm Sat 2 Aug 14

saintmac says...

Buy the Celtic keeper and sell Boruc means we are back to square one.
Hernandez has already said he does not want to come to us.
Buy the Celtic keeper and sell Boruc means we are back to square one. Hernandez has already said he does not want to come to us. saintmac
  • Score: 6

1:29am Sun 3 Aug 14

Block 42 says...

Tony in Liberia wrote:
I think Hernandez, when it was first talked of that he might come here in the Shaw deal, thought "no way", and that's not an overly surprising initial reaction.

However, now he's had a chance to think about it, has seen more of how the wind is blowing at United, at 26 not really wanting to sit on the bench any more but to play some football, and drawn by the idea of being the 'big name' at a club and not just a super-sub, is thinking it might be a good move. And I think it would be, for us both.

If he wants to be the big man at one of the Champion's League clubs, he's got to deliver on a more regular basis, playing the whole game, and showing that he can handle that responsibility, and he's not going to do that at United. Ok, he may not stay here long if he does do well, but it would have a Keegan-like effect on us all, players, fans and the wider football world, and that can only be good for us. To be honest, although we are looking at players who are quite exciting, this guy is right at the top of our range, so if we get him that's the end of the 'no ambition' malarkey!

And with all that in prospect, maybe he won't feel the need to demand Rooney-like wages, which is even better!
Good shout..stay out the way of that ebola thing out there man.
[quote][p][bold]Tony in Liberia[/bold] wrote: I think Hernandez, when it was first talked of that he might come here in the Shaw deal, thought "no way", and that's not an overly surprising initial reaction. However, now he's had a chance to think about it, has seen more of how the wind is blowing at United, at 26 not really wanting to sit on the bench any more but to play some football, and drawn by the idea of being the 'big name' at a club and not just a super-sub, is thinking it might be a good move. And I think it would be, for us both. If he wants to be the big man at one of the Champion's League clubs, he's got to deliver on a more regular basis, playing the whole game, and showing that he can handle that responsibility, and he's not going to do that at United. Ok, he may not stay here long if he does do well, but it would have a Keegan-like effect on us all, players, fans and the wider football world, and that can only be good for us. To be honest, although we are looking at players who are quite exciting, this guy is right at the top of our range, so if we get him that's the end of the 'no ambition' malarkey! And with all that in prospect, maybe he won't feel the need to demand Rooney-like wages, which is even better![/p][/quote]Good shout..stay out the way of that ebola thing out there man. Block 42
  • Score: 0

2:11am Sun 3 Aug 14

Rising_Son says...

TheTom wrote:
At the end of the day, no matter how much I love our club, I would rather we were relegated with 11 players who wore the shirt with pride, just like we all would; unlike the sh1tes who have betrayed us. They are all worse than Skates in my book & will get the welcome they deserve. However, I truly believe we have a better manager than before and ROKO will rebuild and we will finish higher than last season-u red it here first. Have faith coz we r the Saints & will prevail. COYR!!!!
So, are you unhappy about us finishing eighth last season?
[quote][p][bold]TheTom[/bold] wrote: At the end of the day, no matter how much I love our club, I would rather we were relegated with 11 players who wore the shirt with pride, just like we all would; unlike the sh1tes who have betrayed us. They are all worse than Skates in my book & will get the welcome they deserve. However, I truly believe we have a better manager than before and ROKO will rebuild and we will finish higher than last season-u red it here first. Have faith coz we r the Saints & will prevail. COYR!!!![/p][/quote]So, are you unhappy about us finishing eighth last season? Rising_Son
  • Score: -1

7:48am Sun 3 Aug 14

the cowman says...

Vlaar now on Juve's radar.I think this is why the transfers are taking so long, we are up against some big clubs when we are looking to bring in players.I think Hernadez would be a tremendous signing, I have always liked the big 'un/little 'un combo up front. Hernandez will score goals.Think Forster will be tied up this week when the Jocks get knocked out of the Champions League. I would love to see Rojos and Vlaar come in.
Plus if Artur is off to warm the bench as Bayern then we need to buy an understudy keeper, get Gazza out on loan although perhaps our new goalkeeping coach can sort him out.
So Hernadez,Forster,Vla
ar and Rojos as permanent signings, and the couple of lads from Inter on season long loans and hopefully Morgan fetching his toys back into his pram , and Gaston showing he can apply his undoubted talent to the Premiership and we will be stronger than last season. I think the competition for the midfield will be immense. Also I know some have been anti loans, but I think it gives us a chance to see if the players can adapt to the Premiership and it also means that if we have lads coming through from the academy we can ditch the loanees. So I think its a win/win.
Vlaar now on Juve's radar.I think this is why the transfers are taking so long, we are up against some big clubs when we are looking to bring in players.I think Hernadez would be a tremendous signing, I have always liked the big 'un/little 'un combo up front. Hernandez will score goals.Think Forster will be tied up this week when the Jocks get knocked out of the Champions League. I would love to see Rojos and Vlaar come in. Plus if Artur is off to warm the bench as Bayern then we need to buy an understudy keeper, get Gazza out on loan although perhaps our new goalkeeping coach can sort him out. So Hernadez,Forster,Vla ar and Rojos as permanent signings, and the couple of lads from Inter on season long loans and hopefully Morgan fetching his toys back into his pram , and Gaston showing he can apply his undoubted talent to the Premiership and we will be stronger than last season. I think the competition for the midfield will be immense. Also I know some have been anti loans, but I think it gives us a chance to see if the players can adapt to the Premiership and it also means that if we have lads coming through from the academy we can ditch the loanees. So I think its a win/win. the cowman
  • Score: 2

7:49am Sun 3 Aug 14

Redslo says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
Given the way the BPL salary cap works, it was never possible that transfer income would not be used to pay wages. To put it another way, if all the transfer income were used to buy new players, those new players would have to accept an annual salary (combined) of no more than approximiately 14 million pounds per year and that includes whatever raises are offered to current players in new contracts. I know that sounds like a lot but it really isn't for players that cost 90 million pounds of transfer fees.

I discuss this in my blog

redsloscf.blogspot.c
om
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]Given the way the BPL salary cap works, it was never possible that transfer income would not be used to pay wages. To put it another way, if all the transfer income were used to buy new players, those new players would have to accept an annual salary (combined) of no more than approximiately 14 million pounds per year and that includes whatever raises are offered to current players in new contracts. I know that sounds like a lot but it really isn't for players that cost 90 million pounds of transfer fees. I discuss this in my blog redsloscf.blogspot.c om Redslo
  • Score: -1

8:13am Sun 3 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

Redslo wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
Given the way the BPL salary cap works, it was never possible that transfer income would not be used to pay wages. To put it another way, if all the transfer income were used to buy new players, those new players would have to accept an annual salary (combined) of no more than approximiately 14 million pounds per year and that includes whatever raises are offered to current players in new contracts. I know that sounds like a lot but it really isn't for players that cost 90 million pounds of transfer fees.

I discuss this in my blog

redsloscf.blogspot.c

om
What are you on about? It is deemed sensible to spend about 60% of income on wages. Some spend far more of course. Our income, excluding transfer fees from player sales, is about £100m so wages should be about £60m.
[quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]Given the way the BPL salary cap works, it was never possible that transfer income would not be used to pay wages. To put it another way, if all the transfer income were used to buy new players, those new players would have to accept an annual salary (combined) of no more than approximiately 14 million pounds per year and that includes whatever raises are offered to current players in new contracts. I know that sounds like a lot but it really isn't for players that cost 90 million pounds of transfer fees. I discuss this in my blog redsloscf.blogspot.c om[/p][/quote]What are you on about? It is deemed sensible to spend about 60% of income on wages. Some spend far more of course. Our income, excluding transfer fees from player sales, is about £100m so wages should be about £60m. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: -8

9:03am Sun 3 Aug 14

Alicesdad says...

Not going to happen. Unconfirmed reports means someone heard it at their bus stop.
Not going to happen. Unconfirmed reports means someone heard it at their bus stop. Alicesdad
  • Score: 0

9:22am Sun 3 Aug 14

Alicesdad says...

King Ron has already sunk the billionaires boat.. And Nicola's background mischief has come unstuck. The greedy gang have gone. We simply wouldnt be buying players at all if we were for sale.

So let this be the end of the saga.
We are not for sale. Bless you Katarina. Xxx
We are building a new team.
Ron is taking us forward. ! A truly big name leading a truly big club.

Now ****ing cheer up everybody !!!
King Ron has already sunk the billionaires boat.. And Nicola's background mischief has come unstuck. The greedy gang have gone. We simply wouldnt be buying players at all if we were for sale. So let this be the end of the saga. We are not for sale. Bless you Katarina. Xxx We are building a new team. Ron is taking us forward. ! A truly big name leading a truly big club. Now ****ing cheer up everybody !!! Alicesdad
  • Score: 7

9:24am Sun 3 Aug 14

de Heiligen paard 101 says...

Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our de Heiligen paard 101
  • Score: 6

9:28am Sun 3 Aug 14

de Heiligen paard 101 says...

de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
[quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK. de Heiligen paard 101
  • Score: 6

9:42am Sun 3 Aug 14

lovegrove65 says...

Ha ha wish I could click "thumbs up". Not for the comment above, but for the ammount of "thumbs DOWN"
Ha ha wish I could click "thumbs up". Not for the comment above, but for the ammount of "thumbs DOWN" lovegrove65
  • Score: -2

10:04am Sun 3 Aug 14

lovegrove65 says...

This was meant to be in the comment about the polish division!!
My phone is crap on this site
This was meant to be in the comment about the polish division!! My phone is crap on this site lovegrove65
  • Score: -2

10:04am Sun 3 Aug 14

Redslo says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Redslo wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
cant see it happening, would be good though.
wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages.
so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him?
I think yes it would.
No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.
Given the way the BPL salary cap works, it was never possible that transfer income would not be used to pay wages. To put it another way, if all the transfer income were used to buy new players, those new players would have to accept an annual salary (combined) of no more than approximiately 14 million pounds per year and that includes whatever raises are offered to current players in new contracts. I know that sounds like a lot but it really isn't for players that cost 90 million pounds of transfer fees.

I discuss this in my blog

redsloscf.blogspot.c


om
What are you on about? It is deemed sensible to spend about 60% of income on wages. Some spend far more of course. Our income, excluding transfer fees from player sales, is about £100m so wages should be about £60m.
What I am saying is that the league salary cap rules limit the amount we can increase our total player wages this year. Absent profits from player sales the limit was 56 million pounds. (The issue is somewhat more complicated than that as I explain in my blog.) Simply declaring that 60% of 100 million pounds is 60 million pounds and that seems right doesn't do the job.

Also, our total revenue for 2012-2013 was 71.8 million pounds and wages used 65% of that. Both revenue and wages were higher in 2013-2014 of course but that information hasn't been compiled and published yet.
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: cant see it happening, would be good though. wages wont be the problem though as ralph said the money will be spent on fees and wages. so what does everyone think, would this be a statement if we did sign him? I think yes it would.[/p][/quote]No one has picked up on this subtle but massive change. Originally they said all transfer money would be reinvested on player purchases but Ralph did say in his latest statement that it would be spent on 'players and players wages' - wages should come out of regular income and form about 60% of that. That was very naughty of Ralph as usual.[/p][/quote]Given the way the BPL salary cap works, it was never possible that transfer income would not be used to pay wages. To put it another way, if all the transfer income were used to buy new players, those new players would have to accept an annual salary (combined) of no more than approximiately 14 million pounds per year and that includes whatever raises are offered to current players in new contracts. I know that sounds like a lot but it really isn't for players that cost 90 million pounds of transfer fees. I discuss this in my blog redsloscf.blogspot.c om[/p][/quote]What are you on about? It is deemed sensible to spend about 60% of income on wages. Some spend far more of course. Our income, excluding transfer fees from player sales, is about £100m so wages should be about £60m.[/p][/quote]What I am saying is that the league salary cap rules limit the amount we can increase our total player wages this year. Absent profits from player sales the limit was 56 million pounds. (The issue is somewhat more complicated than that as I explain in my blog.) Simply declaring that 60% of 100 million pounds is 60 million pounds and that seems right doesn't do the job. Also, our total revenue for 2012-2013 was 71.8 million pounds and wages used 65% of that. Both revenue and wages were higher in 2013-2014 of course but that information hasn't been compiled and published yet. Redslo
  • Score: 3

10:06am Sun 3 Aug 14

Redslo says...

de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
The details of this is what I cover in my blog at redsloscf.blogspot.c
om.
[quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]The details of this is what I cover in my blog at redsloscf.blogspot.c om. Redslo
  • Score: 1

10:08am Sun 3 Aug 14

Redslo says...

Anyone know why the system always puts a line break between the "c" and the "o" in redsloscf.blogspot.c
om?
Anyone know why the system always puts a line break between the "c" and the "o" in redsloscf.blogspot.c om? Redslo
  • Score: -1

11:12am Sun 3 Aug 14

ACTSaint says...

the cowman wrote:
Vlaar now on Juve's radar.I think this is why the transfers are taking so long, we are up against some big clubs when we are looking to bring in players.I think Hernadez would be a tremendous signing, I have always liked the big 'un/little 'un combo up front. Hernandez will score goals.Think Forster will be tied up this week when the Jocks get knocked out of the Champions League. I would love to see Rojos and Vlaar come in.
Plus if Artur is off to warm the bench as Bayern then we need to buy an understudy keeper, get Gazza out on loan although perhaps our new goalkeeping coach can sort him out.
So Hernadez,Forster,Vla

ar and Rojos as permanent signings, and the couple of lads from Inter on season long loans and hopefully Morgan fetching his toys back into his pram , and Gaston showing he can apply his undoubted talent to the Premiership and we will be stronger than last season. I think the competition for the midfield will be immense. Also I know some have been anti loans, but I think it gives us a chance to see if the players can adapt to the Premiership and it also means that if we have lads coming through from the academy we can ditch the loanees. So I think its a win/win.
Saints midfield has so much potential... My prediction is that by the end of the season JWP will be twice the player that Lallana is, and will be one of the most sought after players in the PL. I really don't know what the fuss is about with the players we lost. None of them are world class. Saints can do so much better. Top 6 here we come.
[quote][p][bold]the cowman[/bold] wrote: Vlaar now on Juve's radar.I think this is why the transfers are taking so long, we are up against some big clubs when we are looking to bring in players.I think Hernadez would be a tremendous signing, I have always liked the big 'un/little 'un combo up front. Hernandez will score goals.Think Forster will be tied up this week when the Jocks get knocked out of the Champions League. I would love to see Rojos and Vlaar come in. Plus if Artur is off to warm the bench as Bayern then we need to buy an understudy keeper, get Gazza out on loan although perhaps our new goalkeeping coach can sort him out. So Hernadez,Forster,Vla ar and Rojos as permanent signings, and the couple of lads from Inter on season long loans and hopefully Morgan fetching his toys back into his pram , and Gaston showing he can apply his undoubted talent to the Premiership and we will be stronger than last season. I think the competition for the midfield will be immense. Also I know some have been anti loans, but I think it gives us a chance to see if the players can adapt to the Premiership and it also means that if we have lads coming through from the academy we can ditch the loanees. So I think its a win/win.[/p][/quote]Saints midfield has so much potential... My prediction is that by the end of the season JWP will be twice the player that Lallana is, and will be one of the most sought after players in the PL. I really don't know what the fuss is about with the players we lost. None of them are world class. Saints can do so much better. Top 6 here we come. ACTSaint
  • Score: 0

11:40am Sun 3 Aug 14

saintgibbo says...

Alicesdad wrote:
King Ron has already sunk the billionaires boat.. And Nicola's background mischief has come unstuck. The greedy gang have gone. We simply wouldnt be buying players at all if we were for sale. So let this be the end of the saga. We are not for sale. Bless you Katarina. Xxx We are building a new team. Ron is taking us forward. ! A truly big name leading a truly big club. Now ****ing cheer up everybody !!!
Hurrah!! The voice of sanity!!! Now can we move forward instead of bleating about the past?
[quote][p][bold]Alicesdad[/bold] wrote: King Ron has already sunk the billionaires boat.. And Nicola's background mischief has come unstuck. The greedy gang have gone. We simply wouldnt be buying players at all if we were for sale. So let this be the end of the saga. We are not for sale. Bless you Katarina. Xxx We are building a new team. Ron is taking us forward. ! A truly big name leading a truly big club. Now ****ing cheer up everybody !!![/p][/quote]Hurrah!! The voice of sanity!!! Now can we move forward instead of bleating about the past? saintgibbo
  • Score: 3

11:42am Sun 3 Aug 14

wrypop says...

TheTom wrote:
At the end of the day, no matter how much I love our club, I would rather we were relegated with 11 players who wore the shirt with pride, just like we all would; unlike the sh1tes who have betrayed us. They are all worse than Skates in my book & will get the welcome they deserve. However, I truly believe we have a better manager than before and ROKO will rebuild and we will finish higher than last season-u red it here first. Have faith coz we r the Saints & will prevail. COYR!!!!
Thank you for your comment made on behalf of the Under 12's .
[quote][p][bold]TheTom[/bold] wrote: At the end of the day, no matter how much I love our club, I would rather we were relegated with 11 players who wore the shirt with pride, just like we all would; unlike the sh1tes who have betrayed us. They are all worse than Skates in my book & will get the welcome they deserve. However, I truly believe we have a better manager than before and ROKO will rebuild and we will finish higher than last season-u red it here first. Have faith coz we r the Saints & will prevail. COYR!!!![/p][/quote]Thank you for your comment made on behalf of the Under 12's . wrypop
  • Score: 4

11:43am Sun 3 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
Ok.

So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.
[quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]Ok. So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Sun 3 Aug 14

de Heiligen paard 101 says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
Ok.

So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.
problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published.
you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate!
is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas.
we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]Ok. So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.[/p][/quote]problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published. you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate! is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas. we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge. de Heiligen paard 101
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
Ok.

So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.
problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published.
you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate!
is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas.
we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.
I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?
[quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]Ok. So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.[/p][/quote]problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published. you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate! is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas. we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.[/p][/quote]I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%? Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Sun 3 Aug 14

lowe esteem says...

miltonarcher wrote:
He's already said he wouldn't consider Saints.
What, a footballer going back on his word, never?
How very dare you.
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: He's already said he wouldn't consider Saints.[/p][/quote]What, a footballer going back on his word, never? How very dare you. lowe esteem
  • Score: 1

2:59pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Rising_Son says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
Ok.

So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.
problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published.
you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate!
is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas.
we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.
I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?
Who did we turn down down in order to get Veho sponsorship? Until we know that, this discussion seems to me to be going absolutely nowhere.
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]Ok. So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.[/p][/quote]problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published. you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate! is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas. we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.[/p][/quote]I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?[/p][/quote]Who did we turn down down in order to get Veho sponsorship? Until we know that, this discussion seems to me to be going absolutely nowhere. Rising_Son
  • Score: 1

3:07pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

Rising_Son wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
Ok.

So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.
problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published.
you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate!
is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas.
we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.
I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?
Who did we turn down down in order to get Veho sponsorship? Until we know that, this discussion seems to me to be going absolutely nowhere.
It's not about turning down is it? it's about presenting to and persuading.
[quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]Ok. So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.[/p][/quote]problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published. you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate! is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas. we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.[/p][/quote]I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?[/p][/quote]Who did we turn down down in order to get Veho sponsorship? Until we know that, this discussion seems to me to be going absolutely nowhere.[/p][/quote]It's not about turning down is it? it's about presenting to and persuading. Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Sun 3 Aug 14

Rising_Son says...

Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seedhouse the Unrepentant wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
de Heiligen paard 101 wrote:
Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle.
We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money.
If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages.
So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players.
I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules!
Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our
*wow cut the end of my post off*
Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.
Ok.

So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.
problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published.
you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate!
is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas.
we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.
I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?
Who did we turn down down in order to get Veho sponsorship? Until we know that, this discussion seems to me to be going absolutely nowhere.
It's not about turning down is it? it's about presenting to and persuading.
And how is Veho worse than most Premier League teams' shirt sponsors? Perhaps experience has shown potential sponsors that only a few teams' shirts are worth sponsoring and they are not persuadable.
[quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seedhouse the Unrepentant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]de Heiligen paard 101[/bold] wrote: Seed that would be an ideal world without the ffp rules. The ffp regs are limiting the total amount of TV money can spend on players’ wages to £60million by 2016, and longer-term measures that will restrict losses to £105m over a rolling three-year cycle. We were only allowed to spend £56mill this season and £60mill next season. Clubs that already spend more than that are only allowed to increase their wage bill by £4mill a year. These restrictions apply to clubs share of TV money. If clubs can increase their income from sponsorship deals and matchday revenues that can also be spent on wages. So manure have just signed 2 New deals, shirt sponsorship and kit deal, which both bring in £75mill a year each which gives them a huge advantage over clubs that cant get deals like that. Add to that their matchday income and any other sponsorship deals they have and you can see why most clubs are falling behind the big 4/6 and cant compete with them over wages. You can understand why fans are calling them a cartel and why they are able to cherry pick other teams best players. I think we can now increase our wage bill because of our huge increase in income from the player sales. This will enable us to offer more wages to players who we want to bring in as well as big pay rises for spider J-rod etc. That the reason Ralph included wages when he said all the income would be spent on fees and wages, he wasn't being 'naughty' he was stating that they want to increase our wage bill under the ffp rules! Its also why he mentioned that we need to increase our[/p][/quote]*wow cut the end of my post off* Income from our commercial deals, thats why Ralph has been brought in and also why we nabbed an expert in that field from Apple UK.[/p][/quote]Ok. So why do you think a trival deal with Vewho is good business then? From what you're saying this would be one of the areas that would enable us to increase our wages spend.[/p][/quote]problem with that is seed is that we don't know the details of that deal, and wont until the accounts for this season are published. you are comparing the deal with the one we had with aap3. its not, that deal was done when we were in the lower leagues and under NC, who you must admit mucked up the final year by trying to do deals that would have changed the clubs name, in the end he had to run back to aap3 to get them to agree to the 3rd year option, they did but at a reduced rate! is this another reason that we had a `template` shirt last season and why KL wanted more input? NC thought he could do it all himself and do no wrong, well he did get caught out on the shirt sponsors and the deal with adidas. we will see what veho are paying but not quite yet, in the meantime we have to accept that ralph is trying his best. he isn't going to get deals that manure etc get, we don't sell enough shirts for that. that's why I was saying about building on our academy name in the states is a good thing, more supporters more shirts sold higher fee we can charge.[/p][/quote]I'm not comparing it to aap3, as you say that was done in the lower leagues. Shirt sales aren't the real essence of shirt sponsorship it's the massive media coverage of games that give the exposure. We are not going to achieve what a 'bigger' club can but obviously we get a lot of exposure too so have a lot to offer. What would you say in relation to a Man U deal, 10%? 20%?[/p][/quote]Who did we turn down down in order to get Veho sponsorship? Until we know that, this discussion seems to me to be going absolutely nowhere.[/p][/quote]It's not about turning down is it? it's about presenting to and persuading.[/p][/quote]And how is Veho worse than most Premier League teams' shirt sponsors? Perhaps experience has shown potential sponsors that only a few teams' shirts are worth sponsoring and they are not persuadable. Rising_Son
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Sun 3 Aug 14

mickey01 says...

Go for peter crouch i say get him relatively on the cheap and he will get a few goals in when needed when he comes off the subs bench
Go for peter crouch i say get him relatively on the cheap and he will get a few goals in when needed when he comes off the subs bench mickey01
  • Score: -1

12:31pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lowe esteem says...

mickey01 wrote:
Go for peter crouch i say get him relatively on the cheap and he will get a few goals in when needed when he comes off the subs bench
Not where I'd have looked if we're aiming higher, but then maybe with our wage strategy?
I know we're going backwards and more importantly, he didn't sell many shirts did he?
So, meanwhile, it's back to Seed and Riser sorting out the financial fabric.....at least Seed's got some answers to Riser's many questions.
[quote][p][bold]mickey01[/bold] wrote: Go for peter crouch i say get him relatively on the cheap and he will get a few goals in when needed when he comes off the subs bench[/p][/quote]Not where I'd have looked if we're aiming higher, but then maybe with our wage strategy? I know we're going backwards and more importantly, he didn't sell many shirts did he? So, meanwhile, it's back to Seed and Riser sorting out the financial fabric.....at least Seed's got some answers to Riser's many questions. lowe esteem
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree