Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

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.

 

Silly Season January 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
quite frankly we can't afford to buy 3 players for every single position. it's unfortunate what happened to oviedo but if baines ever does gets injured we still have barry or distin to resort to, which isn't ideal, but there we go, having both left backs injured isn't ideal.

baines will probably need a rest somewhere along the line, but i can understand why we wouldn't be willing to buy a LB. we'd end up with 3 left backs next season if that were the case. an attacking central midfielder is a must imo. Only position we really need a player i feel. we just have to accept it's unfortunate to have the amount of injuries we have atm, but a lot will be back soon and it really is a good enough squad atm and we have coped in games this season where we've been pretty depleated.

like all on here, if we're holding money back for a perm for lukaku, i'd be happy with that, however, like AF says, you can't trust this board one jot to keep to that promise, guess we'll have to wait and see.
 
the esk said:
I think you've answered your own question re Elstone's quote - pay down debt.

They can say what they want, present or spin as positively as possible but in this climate the bank (Barclays in this case) will want debt reduced - turn the balance sheet positive.

Forget investing in the team, until we show an operating profit, debt repayment is the name of the game.
Click to expand...

In that case when the accounts come out we should see a reduction in the debt?

I look forward to that.
 
the esk said:
I think you've answered your own question re Elstone's quote - pay down debt.

They can say what they want, present or spin as positively as possible but in this climate the bank (Barclays in this case) will want debt reduced - turn the balance sheet positive.

Forget investing in the team, until we show an operating profit, debt repayment is the name of the game.
Click to expand...
No. According to Elstone the bank is very relaxed about the level of debt. They have the cash coming in now and it's entirely a matter of choice what they do with it.

I'd like to know in what world an extra £25m per year presents us with GREATER operating problems than before we had it?

Remarkable bit of flannel!
 

the esk said:
I think you've answered your own question re Elstone's quote - pay down debt.

They can say what they want, present or spin as positively as possible but in this climate the bank (Barclays in this case) will want debt reduced - turn the balance sheet positive.

Forget investing in the team, until we show an operating profit, debt repayment is the name of the game.
Click to expand...

selling players and paying off debt increases the value of the equity, even if the overall value of the company stays the same.

So it could be a short term strategy to boost the value of the shares.
 

davek said:
No. According to Elstone the bank is very relaxed about the level of debt. They have the cash coming in now and it's entirely a matter of choice what they do with it.

I'd like to know in what world an extra £25m per year presents us with GREATER operating problems than before we had it?

Remarkable bit of flannel!
Click to expand...

Dave - I have no inside knowledge of what is happening at Goodison, but I do know how banks behave. Yes they can see higher revenues in the future, and their argument will be pay down debt now and spend your increased revenues when you receive them.

Gone have the days of increasing debt based on future revenues - it's no longer of a case of spend now, pay later, it's reduce debt now, and spend later....
 
davek said:
No. According to Elstone the bank is very relaxed about the level of debt. They have the cash coming in now and it's entirely a matter of choice what they do with it.

I'd like to know in what world an extra £25m per year presents us with GREATER operating problems than before we had it?

Remarkable bit of flannel!
Click to expand...

indeed, We've struck a new formula, sell every asset and scav other peoples for a few months.

It's like cancelling your sky and watching the footy on your neighbour's telly.

It's what we do
 
I was under the impression that the desperate situation of a couple of years ago when the banks were demanding downpayments of £10m to reduce the debt was no longer the case, and that the debt had been reduced to a manageable level; i.e. 1) we don't have to sell our best players any more, and 2) any money generated from player sales will be re-invested in the squad. It is worrying that some are saying that this is not the case, because it could mean we will have to sell Barkley as soon as the price is right. All of which would mean that we are in exactly the same position financially as 10 years ago when Rooney was sold. What a depressing thought.
 
davek said:
If we're waiting on the practically unused Heitinga to be bought to sign a new player.

Does that suggest we have money to spend this window as has been suggested?
Click to expand...

Now Dave, bear in mind I'm only suggesting this....I'm not stating a fact or looking for a torrent of negative defiance, but couldn't it possibly be that yes...we do have money but Bobby prefers to spend in the summer, but that also as a not so well off club we have strict rules on the wage bill. So basically, transfer funds or not, we don't allow our wage bill to get above a certain level without checking and double-checking, and in this instance Johnnys gotta go before we take another wage on board.

I mean we all assume and expect money to be available, but I imagine we also assume and expect diligence with control of our wage bill vs income?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top