If Rafa stays

[waalsendmick]

Net spend is a necessity...

You need to progress.

You need to buy at least equal if not better than you sell.

You cannot rely on bargains or luck.

Eventually it tells when investment is poor....


That is why under this owner, we have suffered 2 relegations.

[ghostrider]

I did not say we only had a muddy field with a few bibs n cones. I said... that would serve a purpose...


As a premier league club... we NEED to be doing far far more than serving a purpose and too many people (within the game who know far far more than you or i) have commented on our facilities NOT being fit for purpose.

Like I said earlier, I haven't seen anyone say they weren't fit for purpose or seen evidence of the facilities being unfit for purpose.
I could well imagine someone who's seen Man City or some other clubs new/revamped facilities may use that as some kind of yardstick against what we have but we seem to do fine as it stands...unless Rafa or the present or past coaches under Ashey have mentioned them not being fit for purpose.

I think they may need a revamp but not fit for purpose? I'd say that i'd need more convincing than a few so called views from outsiders on it....unless, like I said, we do have legitimate insiders who have bemoaned it all. I just haven't seen anything on it. Do you know who's been having a pop at the facilities?

[Derek57]

He's swimming against the tide lads! We should know that by now.
Rafa has spent enough enough time in and around some of the top clubs in England and Europe, and if he feels that the facilities are not on a par i'm inclined to believe him.

[ghostrider]

Net spend is a necessity...

You need to progress.

You need to buy at least equal if not better than you sell.

You cannot rely on bargains or luck.

Eventually it tells when investment is poor....


That is why under this owner, we have suffered 2 relegations.

If you buy badly and cannot offload for larger margins then I totally agree that net spend has to be a priority.
Up to now we've managed to keep within the realms of minor net spend or evens, or even profit.
It doesn't mean it's all good or all bad in whatever terms. It means you have to try and replace with like or better, overall and taking into account that you win some you lose some and then you have to juggle.


So let's speculate and say we offload some of our players for biggish money. Let's say, for the sake of it 5 or 6 players gaining us 80 million or so.
We add 50 million to the pot and recruit 6 or 7 players for 130 million.
A 50 million net spend and a wage bill likely doubled.

Would that be fair to fans?
I'd be happy with it and I believe we will likely get something like that.

But let's say we simply spend the 80 million. No net spend but potential larger profit on the outgoing players who many would be happy to see gone.
Players like Perez and Shelvey, plus Yedlin and Manquillo...but maybe a shocker involved who fans would like to stay, in Lascelles or whoever, yet we gain 80 million with him being the massive profit maker.

If we spend all of that it means a zero net spend but an investment regardless because profit was reinvested.
It's a fine line between what investment actually entails in situations like this.

[waalsendmick]

Phuck me

[ex_pat_magpie]

If you buy badly and cannot offload for larger margins then I totally agree that net spend has to be a priority.
Up to now we've managed to keep within the realms of minor net spend or evens, or even profit.
It doesn't mean it's all good or all bad in whatever terms. It means you have to try and replace with like or better, overall and taking into account that you win some you lose some and then you have to juggle.


So let's speculate and say we offload some of our players for biggish money. Let's say, for the sake of it 5 or 6 players gaining us 80 million or so.
We add 50 million to the pot and recruit 6 or 7 players for 130 million.
A 50 million net spend and a wage bill likely doubled.

Would that be fair to fans?
I'd be happy with it and I believe we will likely get something like that.

But let's say we simply spend the 80 million. No net spend but potential larger profit on the outgoing players who many would be happy to see gone.
Players like Perez and Shelvey, plus Yedlin and Manquillo...but maybe a shocker involved who fans would like to stay, in Lascelles or whoever, yet we gain 80 million with him being the massive profit maker.

If we spend all of that it means a zero net spend but an investment regardless because profit was reinvested.
It's a fine line between what investment actually entails in situations like this.

And which 5 or six players could we sell for £80 million without decimating the team and having to rebuild from scratch.

[Geordie1974]

If you buy badly and cannot offload for larger margins then I totally agree that net spend has to be a priority.
Up to now we've managed to keep within the realms of minor net spend or evens, or even profit.
It doesn't mean it's all good or all bad in whatever terms. It means you have to try and replace with like or better, overall and taking into account that you win some you lose some and then you have to juggle.


So let's speculate and say we offload some of our players for biggish money. Let's say, for the sake of it 5 or 6 players gaining us 80 million or so.
We add 50 million to the pot and recruit 6 or 7 players for 130 million.
A 50 million net spend and a wage bill likely doubled.

Would that be fair to fans?
I'd be happy with it and I believe we will likely get something like that.

But let's say we simply spend the 80 million. No net spend but potential larger profit on the outgoing players who many would be happy to see gone.
Players like Perez and Shelvey, plus Yedlin and Manquillo...but maybe a shocker involved who fans would like to stay, in Lascelles or whoever, yet we gain 80 million with him being the massive profit maker.

If we spend all of that it means a zero net spend but an investment regardless because profit was reinvested.
It's a fine line between what investment actually entails in situations like this.

Okay Mike.

[Jammy89]

Okay Mike.

Mind boggles doesn't it.

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

No sources for this but according to the "If Rafa Goes We Go" twitter, Rafa said what it would take to keep him here and sign the contract 3 weeks ago and since then nothing from the club.

As i said, no source but it is something that I could see the club doing.

And as Zip said on another thread, they'll piss Rafa off doing this then said with puppy dog eyes "we made an offer and we wanted him to stay but he chose to leave".