Don't think we got any money of sky mate.I agree. Stones for me needed to go. The owners said no. That means they then provide the cash for signings then doesn't it?...out of the cash they receive off the tv deal.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't think we got any money of sky mate.I agree. Stones for me needed to go. The owners said no. That means they then provide the cash for signings then doesn't it?...out of the cash they receive off the tv deal.
With 2 days to go time is running out. If he fails with yarmolenko and leaves us with no one there can be no excuses.
Oh come on. If Stones had of been sold the board would be blamed. Now he's stayed the board are still blamed. It's nonsense and you know it.I agree. Stones for me needed to go. The owners said no. That means they then provide the cash for signings then doesn't it?...out of the cash they receive off the tv deal.
Both U.S. and Spurs down near the bottom. I wonder what else we have in common.Not sure how accurate this is (it's from a guy on a wrestling board if you care) but i'd assume it's not too far wrong :
MANCHESTER CITY SPENT:94m RECEIVED:8m NET:-86m
NEWCASTLE UNITED SPENT:48.3m RECEIVED:0.42m NET:-47.88m
WBA SPENT:32.4m RECEIVED:2m NET:-30.4m
CHELSEA SPENT:61.95m RECEIVED:34.05m NET:-27.9m
CRYSTAL PALACE SPENT:22.5m RECEIVED:0m NET:-22.5m
LIVERPOOL SPENT:77.5m RECEIVED:55.9m NET:-21.6m
MANCHESTER UNITED SPENT:83.1m RECEIVED:61.8m NET:-21.3m
LEICESTER CITY SPENT:26.9m RECEIVED:7m NET:-19.9m
WEST HAM UNITED SPENT:26.7m RECEIVED:7m NET:-19.7m
AFC BOURNEMOUTH SPENT:19.5m RECEIVED:0m NET:-19.5m
ASTON VILLA SPENT:50.5m RECEIVED:36.8m NET:-13.7m
WATFORD SPENT:14.8m RECEIVED:3.55m NET:-11.25m
NORWICH CITY SPENT:9m RECEIVED:0.1m NET:-8.9m
ARSENAL SPENT:10.1m RECEIVED:1.8m NET:-8.3m
SWANSEA CITY SPENT:8.8m RECEIVED:0.5m NET:-8.3m
SUNDERLAND SPENT:17m RECEIVED:9m NET:-8m
EVERTON SPENT:5.2m RECEIVED:1m NET:-4.2m
TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR SPENT:40m RECEIVED:36.05m NET:-3.95m
STOKE CITY SPENT:21.55m RECEIVED:18.7m NET:-2.85m
SOUTHAMPTON SPENT:23.8m RECEIVED:37.5m NET:13.7m
We have the lowest spend on incoming players, the lowest amount of new players in and 4th lowest net spend and 6th lowest monies recieved.
http://footydvd.x10.mx/transfers.htm
It's not great. Could be worse but should be better.
Who said anything about deliberately. I think we missed our targets but that's still Martinez's fault.Yeah mate. The manager is deliberately not signing a playmaker when he clearly stated he wanted one.
We've obviously got targets, whether or not the money is there (without sales) for them, is the real issue.
Who said anything about deliberately. I think we missed our targets but that's still Martinez's fault.
Yes. Who else's fault would it be?Is it?
Yes. Who else's fault would it be?
Shall we leave out the Martinez/board bashing until the deadline has passed? This is all a bit pointless.
When have we ever left all our transfer dealings until the last day of the transfer window? Never, that's when. If we haven't signed someone by now, we'll never sign anyone and that's never been different. I can't even think of one time that's happened. Not one. Martinez OUT.
Hold on. The owners didn't want to sell Stones. We know that because they said so.Oh come on. If Stones had of been sold the board would be blamed. Now he's stayed the board are still blamed. It's nonsense and you know it.
It was Martinez's decision. Personally I'm glad he stayed however if he needed to sell to buy I would have sold someone else. I forgot about Pione Sisto. There's still a chance we are after him.
Well the budget doesn't make it easy but he could have sold if that was the issue. I'm not 100% sure it was. I think he gambled all or nothing on yarmolenko.His big round mush has been posted on this forum for years.
Well the budget doesn't make it easy but he could have sold if that was the issue. I'm not 100% sure it was. I think he gambled all or nothing on yarmolenko.