Yep, every penny generated by the club.
Did Ashley put a ceiling on this statement, as in a time limit?
For instance, did he say he can have every penny generated by the club in the summer or was it over the season or just in general, as and when it will/can be released to the manager in the right context or by contractual agreement or something.
I'm not personally asking you this, I'm merely pondering what the scenario could be and why issues arise with words and apparent promises.
You see, if Rafa gets money in January of, say, 50 million (just putting a theoretical figure out), would that be every penny the club generates or would it be more or would it be less...and would it be accepted as every penny if things went pear shaped, or would it be keeping money back?
Lot's to ponder.
Sometimes it takes a deeper look into what the actual meaning of the words are coming from Mike Ashley.
People take it that every penny thrown at the club is ripe for player spending.
Anyone knows it's not that simple.
BUT...
Let's look at the whole picture and place ourselves in the same position of promising a manager every penny the club generates. To do that you expect a manager to clarify that with the owner, not leave the fans to ponder the meaning of the entirety of it, even though it appears black and white, so to speak.
The manager refuses to extend a contract even though he's been told he can have every penny. Now this is a massive key issue with me.
It doesn't matter whether people think he's right not to or believe he should walk. You really have to ask yourself why he won't extend his contract if he's been offered it, bearing in mind the offer of every penny the club generates being put to him and us on the basis of him extending.
Clearly Ashley hasn't, as of yet, played his part of the bargain but neither has the manager aided it by refusing to commit.
I put myself in the same position and ask myself if I would hand money to a manager who won't commit. My answer is clearly, no.
Is the manager right not to commit?
In my opinion he's only right not to commit if the owner refuses to commit to a promise made to the manager of the funds available.
Is that the case?
Because if it is then the manager has a duty to the fans to be clear enough to let us know, yet he does not.
He plays cryptic games, saying things like " the fans know" and the likes.
Two to tango in my book in everything.
This is not one way traffic against the owner in my book, regardless of what his wrongs are and have been.