With 31st August rapidly approaching, it’s a good time to take a look at the Newcastle United transfer activity to date.

At first glance, we have signed 6 players at a reported cost of around £38 million with (as I type) a report emerging of an alleged bid of around £13 million accepted for Dennis Praet, so everything’s ok, right?

Maybe not..

Rafa said after pre-season discussions with Mike Ashley:

“Mike  told me ‘We have this money, it is available, it’s OK’, so, fine, we were happy with that. Mike said the budget is mine and I can do what I want with the numbers he has given me. It is the same with wages.”

So, a budget has been shown to Rafa and he was “happy with that” and the future was looking bright, we could move onto the next level with Rafa given control of who comes and goes. We’ve been busy in the transfer market but why all the discontent?

After Sunday’s game Rafa didn’t even try to hide his emotions following United’s second-successive defeat, stating the momentum gained from promotion was lost “a long time ago”.

The budget has been provided, so is it still the figures Mike Ashley put on the table during that meeting or has it been trimmed to cater for Ashley’s plan to make the club ‘self-sufficient’. The promise was that Rafa and Charnley “can have every last penny that the club generates through promotion, player sales and other means” but what does that mean?

Ashley is operating an ‘actuals’ not ‘projected’ financial plan, so he will only make available what has been made (not what we WILL get from the Premiership TV deal in the future). So money made through promotion equates to £7.2 million from promotion and TV appearances while in the Championship (ED: As well as £41m parachute payments) and due to the high wages commanded by players surplus to Rafa’s requirements we can’t sell them. Even if we did, the first instalment would only be available in this window. Slim pickings, yet we’ve spent £38 million which could have financed two, maybe three, proven Premiership players, so what’s the reason for Rafa’s discontent?

He now states:

“When I decided to stay I was expecting another thing. Now we are where we are. We missed some targets at the beginning and we are paying for that, but hopefully we can find some solutions.”

That hardly says things are going the way he was expecting. The players brought in haven’t vastly improved the team that won the Championship, so his quotes lead me to suspect the players he wanted haven’t been brought in. Given our need for a striker who is capable of scoring in the Premiership, I doubt Joselu at £5 million would be his first choice (it’s glaringly obvious we need a prolific striker or we are in big trouble), and Manquillo, who’s last three moves were loan deals, would not be first choice for a right back. It makes me wonder how the squad would look if Rafa got the players he wanted?

If we believe he has been given control over players in and out, and Charnley is responsible for transfer negotiations (once Rafa passes the list to Charnley that is his last involvement until Charnley reports back to Rafa that a deal has been done), I can only assume that the list of first choice players Rafa gave to him has not been acquired.

When Mike Ashley decided the size of the transfer kitty he couldn’t have known the market would go crazy, once this became evident he should have amended the budget if it wasn’t enough. Eight of our early games are scheduled to be televised which brings in another £8million, this could be made available to Rafa now but could it be the way the money is being spent is the real problem? £38 million spent and Rafa states he is unhappy with transfer activity, for which Charnley has complete control, in terms of getting the player deals done. Has Charnley delivered in terms of getting Rafa’s choice of players over the line?

The one thing Ashley has done right for the club was to secure the services of Rafa and following positive discussions, he stayed on. Now however, instead of stability, there’s a bun fight between the two, the likes of which I have never seen, with Ashley even coming out in an interview to put over his side of the story.

I know we can’t compete with Man City but a club this size should be able to compete with the other teams who came up with us. It’s a situation which needs to be resolved before the inevitable happens and Rafa walks away.

I understand the self-sufficient stance but Ashley needs to understand it’s a result driven business and lack of support at this stage will end up with a squad not fit for purpose and the risk of losing both our Premiership status and the manager, which could completely ruin the club.

If the budget is not the problem, and the way it is being spent is, it’s about time the three of them sit down and sort it out before it is too late.

(All contributions from Newcastle fans welcome, send articles (as well as ideas/suggestions) to [email protected])



  • Guest 2

    And let’s not forget the almost 40 million transfer surplus.

    • Clarko

      Newcastle 07/08 – 17/18 (transfermarkt)

      17/18: £38.07m spent, £26.10m net spend
      16/17: £57.38m spent, -£33.39m net spend
      15/16: £97.43m spent, £93.26m net spend
      14/15: £40.52m spent, £19.27m net spend
      13/14: £3.42m spent, -£19.86m net spend
      12/13: £28.77m spent, £15.45m net spend
      11/12: £23.45m spent, £9.01m net spend
      10/11: £12.58m spent, -£25.00m net spend
      09/10: £5.64m spent, -£18.71m net spend
      08/09: £31.66m spent, -£5.60m net spend
      07/08: £34.07m spent, £6.03m net spend

      Total spent: £372.99m
      Total net spend: £66.68m

      • MichaelMaximusMoose

        Clarko i don`t know what we`d do without you

      • glassjawsh-got-banned

        This still doesn’t prove anything. ESPECIALLY after your comparisons with other sides over the same time frame. Newcastle have spent less (as a matter of course). Stop defending planned mediocrity.

        • Clarko

          Everton 07/08 – 17/18 (last 3 finishes: 11th, 11th, 7th)
          Total Spend: £423.83m
          Net Spend: £120.73m

          West Ham 07/08 – 17/18 (12th, 7th, 11th)
          Total Spend: £339.36m
          Net Spend: £104.82m

          Stoke 07/08 – 17/18 (9th, 9th, 13th)
          Total Spend: £220.71m
          Net Spend: £141.96m

          West Brom 07/08 – 17/18 (13th, 14th, 10th)
          Total Spend: £202.87m
          Net Spend: £95.34m

          Newcastle 07/08 – 17/18 (15th, 18th, 21st)
          Total Spend: £372.99m
          Net Spend: £66.68m

          • MichaelMaximusMoose

            you must take into account we had idiots in charge of the team

          • Clarko

            That is not the point, the point is Newcastle have spent an acceptable amount of money on transfers.

          • Guest 2

            Its entirely the point – plus some was spent in one go while at others we watched tumbleweeds blow through the ground.
            Idiot owner, idiot model, idiot appointments resulting in relegations and 2, almost 3 near misses.
            Factor that in to what was spent, by who and on what.

          • Clarko

            It’s not the point. Your initial comment was about a “40 million transfer surplus” and I provided the individual amounts spent each season showing there is no £40m surplus.

          • Guest 2

            Last season, aye. What about all the other club income you numpty?

          • Clarko

            15/16 accounts:

            “Net debt increased from £80.7m at 30 June 2015 to £127.3m in June 2016, representing the reduction in the company’s cash position at the year end.”

            Newcastle do not have any cash in the bank as of June 2016.

          • Gallowgate Dave

            Clarko, assuming we can trust those figures you posted from transfermarkt, and fair play to you for posting them as they do make interesting reading (and yet somehow I still think I may regret engaging with you?), but surely all you’ve proved is that when you factor in both transfer spend and player sales in the last 10 years we’ve spent less than Everton, West Ham, Stoke and West Brom despite having significantly higher match attendance than all 4 and this should in theory also translate to higher commercial income had this market been tapped into correctly. Yet instead our debt has increased dramatically and all we have in Ashley’s defence is 2 relegations have stripped us of valuable income. Given Ashley was chiefly responsible for both relegations by woeful appointments/treatment of Keegan it’s very hard to have sympathy with your viewpoint? Ultimately due to other people more astute and with greater vision than Ashley he has still increased the value of his asset due to the bumper TV deal and global popularity of the Premier League. So why shouldn’t we hope he may speculate to accumulate and now wish to invest to push the club on and grow revenue further through increased cup attendance, higher ticket prices (as unpalatable as these are, the fact is people would pay more to see a successful side or even one where we still had hope!), qualification for Europe, greater commercial revenue, greater TV exposure, higher league placing? He won’t do this so we have the worst of both worlds, a penny pinching owner who won’t invest in the club coupled with his propensity to make idiotic decisions (Kinnear x 2, Wise, Carver, McClaren, Charnley, Pardew, sacking of Houghton, treatment of Keegan, the list could go on and on).

          • Clarko

            I appreciate your words about my posts. You have touched upon many different topics in your post, I will try to provide an answer to all your questions.

            We have a higher total spend then 3 of the 4 teams listed, we have a lower net spend then all 4 teams listed, that lower net spend would only be a cause for concern if our total spend was also low, which it is not.

            Revenue from attendances is small when comparing the teams, it’s an insignificant amount.

            As of 2015 our commercial revenue was £25m, that is a £3m decrease from when Ashley took over in 2007. However when comparing our commercial revenue with the likes of Everton (£26m), West Ham (£22m), Aston Villa (£28m) it is not an alarmingly low, it’s at an acceptable value for where we find ourselves as a club (in 2015).

            Our gross debt has not increased, it still stands at £129m (as of 2016). Net debt was used in the previous comment as a way to indicate how much actual cash Newcastle have in the bank.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Also consider that aspects of commercial income have now been outsourced. Catering income may be lower but there is no cost so it’s all profit.

            As you say debt is the same, it was the loan to fix the balance sheet. Net assets have increased significantly as the club was theoretically bankrupt in 2007.

          • Danimal

            Hope you enjoy watching your theoretical balance sheet on the pitch this season. Just to warn you, the likely relegation will be real, not theoretical. As will the loss (for the third time) of tens of millions of pounds.

          • Danimal

            It is “acceptable” that we have gone from having regularly the second highest turnover in the country to having a club with long- term diminishing commercial revenue? I think the figures you mention indicate “alarming” incompetence on the part of those running the club. Any other business in any other field would be sh*tting its pants at such a decline. It would be like Tesco getting overtaken by Mr B’s 24 hour off license.

          • Gallowgate Dave

            Clarko surely we can agree net spend is a far more relevant figure as it factors in what we recouped on player sales? It’s misleading to say we spent more than West Ham, West Brom and Stoke when our net spend is lower, whilst it is may be factually correct that we spent more, it doesn’t give the full picture. To be fair you supplied the figures for both but then in subsequent posts just focused on spend when everyone else is who is replying to you is, rightly in my opinion, focused more on net spend.

            TV money may have surpassed gate receipts as main source of income for clubs but it is by no means “an insignificant amount”. If our average attendance is approximately 20,000 more per match than those clubs you listed over the last 10 years and each match-goer pays £30 per ticket that’s £600,000 extra per game or £11,400,000 extra per season, £114,000,000 extra over 10 years. Hardly “insignificant”.

            Again good stats on commercial revenue but as you say we are still 3 million lower than 10 years ago and this is the only aspect of our finance that Ashley can have a direct influence over and in this regard I’d class him as a failure. I’d wager West Ham and Everton will significantly improve this revenue in the coming years under ambitious ownership and as for Villa they had a fellow absentee landlord owner in Randy Lerner (in 2015) who I’d hardly aspire to.

            As for the debt I was referring to our debt when Ashley took over the club compared to our “debt” now in the form of his “interest free” loan as you are comparing everything else over a 10 year period.

            You can refute some of the more outlandish or ill thought out claims on here about Ashley but you can’t defend him without coming across deliberately contrarian at best or delusional at worst. You’re clearly not daft having read some of your posts but I wonder what your motivations are in your stoic defence of Ashley.

          • Clarko

            You and others like to focus on net spend, but you don’t provide an argument, why is Newcastle being successful in receiving large fees for players like Carroll, Sisssoko ,Cabaye and Wijnaldum a problem? It is not a negative, it has allowed us to spend £170.12m more than the likes of West Brom. It’s worth to note that the Sissoko transfer fee is staggered, taking that into consideration Newcastle’s actual net spend is £86.18m.

            In 15/16 West ham had a matchday revenue of £26.9m, this compares to Newcastle who has a matchday revenue £26.8m in 14/15. You’re calculations ignore season ticket sales and varying ticket prices. It’s insignificant.

            I don’t know how much effect Ashley has over commercial revenue, is it a failure that it has decreased in his time as owner? Yes. The question is why has it not increased? Could it just not be that poor results on the field equate to poor commercial revenue.

            Newcastle had a gross debt of £76.6m when Ashley took over, that debt now stands at £129m. However the £76.6m gross debt was external debt, the switch from external to owner debt has saved a lot of money in annual interest payments (which were as high as £8 million in 2008).

          • Geordiegiants

            It doesn’t matter how you put your point across you will regret it.

          • mactoon

            Guest 2 has hit it. We have spent a good amount on transfers but on what? None of the players bought since promotion have really improved the first team squad enough for us to compete in the Premiership

          • Clarko

            Not my point.

          • mactoon

            I’ve agreed with your point, we have spent an acceptable amount on transfers.. but gotten the wrong players in

          • Clarko

            Then lets get that point across, the majority of complaining on this site, and with Newcastle fans in general is “Ashley/Newcastle haven’t spent enough”, that is just not true. After we get rid of that fallacy we can talk about signing the “wrong players”. I appreciate that you can see that we have spent money, correct people who say otherwise.

          • mactoon

            Rafa was “happy with the figures” given to him and if that figure has been made available, who are we to argue. He is unhappy with the transfer activity which indicates the money hasn’t been spent on the right players. £38 million seems to be an amount to get players in to improve the squad. I’m not convinced that has happened.

          • Clarko

            Speaking specifically on this transfer window I would argue we have improved the squad:

            Murphy > Gouffran
            Lejeune > Hanley
            Merino > Colback
            Joselu > Murphy
            Manquillo > Anita
            Atsu = Atsu

            That’s not me saying we have improved the squad enough, but for the first time in a long time I believe every signing has improved the squad.

          • mactoon

            The point of improving the squad following promotion is building a squad capable of performing in the Premiership against your opposition and how they have improved their squad. None of the players we have brought in will allow us to compete with teams around us. The squad just isn’t good enough. We may have marginally improved player v player but the acquisitions are nowhere near what Rafa wanted to bring in.

          • Clarko

            What is that judgement based on? Our defeat to the best team in the league over the last two seasons while playing with 10 men or our defeat playing away from home with three of our starting players injured/suspended. It’s only two games.

            Benitez is in control of the transfers, he has brought the players in, we have spent enough money to compete with the bottom half teams, if the squad is not good enough it is his fault, if we get relegated it is his fault.

            I don’t see how missing out on Abraham, Delph, Caballero and Mangala is the be-all and end-all to survival in the Premier League.

          • mactoon

            Based on the fact that rafa is unhappy with the transfer activity. He hasn’t got his first choice targets in and we have spent £38 million on getting players way down on his shopping list. It’s not his fault if we haven’t brought in the players he wanted.. it is charnleys for not getting the plays in. If Rafa was honest he would say the players bought are not the first choices he wanted.

          • Clarko

            Benitez has been quoted as saying Newcastle failed to get their top 4 targets earlier in the summer (Abraham, Caballero and two others). Are those 4 players, the only 4 players that are capable of allowing Newcastle/Benitez to succeed this season? No, they’re not.

          • mactoon

            No but they are his choices and he hasn’t been allowed to get them. The further down the list he goes the less effective the players will be. I would have thought that was pretty obvious and on current performances is being proven to be true.

          • Clarko

            This is now becoming circular.

            The current performances meaning against Tottenham with 10 men and away at Huddersfield with three first team players missing.

            Again, do you think that Tammy Abraham is the best striker Newcastle could’ve possibly signed this summer? I don’t.

            The missed targets are a setback, nothing more, it does not mean Newcastle are incapable of signings targets who are as good as/better then the initial targets and it does not mean that Newcastle cannot achieve their original goals.

            This comment is just a repeat of what I have previously stated, you are not countering the points I am making.

          • mactoon

            The point is it doesn’t matter who we think will be good or not. It is rafas choice that counts and he is not being allowed to get the players HE wants to play for him. That’s the point of the article and the one I am addressing

          • Clarko

            Benitez chose to sign Murphy, Merino, Manquillo, Joselu, Atsu and Lejeune. If they are not good enough that is his fault, there is a significant pool of players to choose from, Huddersfield chose Mounie, Burnley chose Wood, Watford chose Gray, West Brom chose Rodriguez and so on. Benitez had the option to sign those players, he didn’t, if the signings made by the other teams are more successful than the signings made by Newcastle, that is on Benitez.

            Every team is competing in the same market, every team has setbacks, every team loses out on targets. It’s not a valid excuse.

          • mactoon

            I wouldnt aportion bame to Benitez if he is being prevented from signing his first choices. I aportion blame to Charnley for not getting the job done.

          • Clarko

            It’s just delusional, so if Newcastle win the Premier League that would be all down to Charnley the same way it would be his fault if Newcastle got relegated? I can’t debate with delusion. This is where the “Benitez can do no wrong” stigma comes from.

          • mactoon

            Youre taking the debate so far out of context it’s not worth carrying on with it! So one last comment to bring it back to the original topic. Charnley is only responsible for getting the players rafa wants. This does not appear to be happening. That is the problem and the team is struggling because of this in my opinion.

          • Clarko

            “The team is losing because of Charnley”, that is exactly what you’re saying and it is delusional.

            This was never a debate, you had your “opinion” and proceeded to ignore any counter points/arguments made.

          • mactoon

            I don’t see anywhere that I said what you “quote” above. I am simply asking if Charnley has done enough to get Rafa’s first choices over the line. And as for ignoring any counter points, I agree with you that good money has been spent, I just doubt it has been spent on the players Rafa initially wanted.

          • Clarko

            “Charnley is only responsible for getting the players rafa wants. This does not appear to be happening. That is the problem and the team is struggling because of this”

            You’re being incredibly silly.

          • mactoon

            That’s my interpretation based on quotes coming from Rafa but to be honest my article is merely asking whether Charnley has done enough. In my opinion they should be sitting down and ironing out any problems before the opportunity is lost.

          • Clarko

            Again, your “interpretation” is silly. I can’t debate with silliness, have fun.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            We missed out because of player preferences or player demands. Otherwise it’s a case of being blown away by big money, Olarenwaju Kayode was the one I was most disappointed by but City just threw in more money.

          • Danimal

            You think he had “the option” to sign those?

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Not allowed to get them? Abraham? Rafa said he was not prepared to meet demands of player and club, simple.

          • mactoon

            Agree with that one, Rafa did say “we made some mistakes in the beginning” that could mean they wasted their time going for a player who was never going to come for whatever reason

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            The editor of this fanzine may be able to tell the whole story on Abrahams. If he was in the hotel cafe of the team hotel in Mainz with Rafa, the reason for not signing him Abrahams was explained.

          • mactoon

            I seem to remember Abrahams saying the Swansea manager went the extra mile to get to know him and his parents and that played a big part in his decision to move there

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            If Mark Jensen wasn’t there, almost certainly Biffa &/or Niall from the bible can tell the story. Perhaps Mark wasn’t there as he’d never allow comments about the Abrahams deal go unchecked if he knew the facts said otherwise.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Yes, Swansea went the extra mile. It all depends what you consider to be acceptable as an extra mile. For a loanee, demands went way beyond a mile.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            City, man yoo, Chelsea aside, There is not a manager in the league that has not missed out on first choice players or found the asking price / wages too high

          • Damon Horner

            Even Man Utd haven’t found it so easy to acquire Perisic.

          • Danimal

            Huddersfield signed a striker who, presumably, the manager wanted, for £13m. He scored two goals on his Premier League debut. He may turn out to be rubbish but at least they backed their manager. So have other smaller clubs like Stoke over the years, although you and Clarko insist that £141m is less than £66m. Oh yes, Stoke, whose unwanted striker we had to resort to to get the numbers up. Stoke, who were a Championship team when we beat them 4-1 with ten men the night Keegan arrived for his second spell as manager. Why is it that all these other clubs are doing so much better than us? Do you still believe it is something to do with bad luck, bad weather or the horoscopes or God knows what?

          • Geordiegiants

            Stats and statistics is all they know, they don’t see the real things happening, just what behind a computer screen.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Yes, funny that Huddersfield player was on the much Maligned Graham Carr recommended list.

            I’m not saying it’s bad luck or horoscopes, last time we had the wrong manager, the time before we badly managed the right manager and the replacement had a heart attack, his replacement didn;t have the authority and his replacement was a little too late (but lost Barton’s clique in the dressing room).

            So who did Rafa not get that he wanted? What were the reasons?

          • Albert Stubbins

            Manquillo is Pony- I know you like dealing in facts- he is pony- there’s a fact for you. The jury is out on Joselu- I suspect most fans would take Murphy back but you’re right about the rest- carry on.

          • Desree

            Clarko are you an actuary?

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            I am name 4 as definite improvements, one was always cover for a player due to come back.

            The quality is subjective, you are claiming to know better than the manager which is fine but Clarko is undeniably correct.

          • glassjawsh-got-banned

            You’ve basically proven that Newcastle had one panic buy season. Other than that the net is well into the black.

          • Clarko

            Newcastle have a significantly higher spend then Stoke and West Brom (more established Premier League teams then Newcastle), a higher spend then West Ham and a lower spend (but comparable) then Everton over the course of eleven seasons (not one “panic” season) despite multiple relegations, one costing Newcastle the £100m+ TV money, despite poorer league finishes in the last three seasons.

            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

          • Danimal

            West Brom joined the Premier League in 2010 at the same time as us. How did that make them more established during the period when your figures show they outspent us. All the smaller clubs you mentioned outspent us according to your figures. By between 50 and 100 percent. Net. They all got better league performance in return. And avoided financially catastrophic relegations. I don’t understand why you’re so pleased with whatever point you think you’re making.

          • Clarko

            Newcastle were relegated in the 15/16 season and competed in the Championship in the 16/17 season during the time frame 07/08 – 17/18 mentioned. West Brom have maintained their Premier League status since their promotion in 09/10, they are a more established Premier League team.

            My point is that Newcastle have spent an acceptable amount of money on transfers during the Ashley era.

          • Danimal

            According to your own figures we have spent considerably less than equivalent (or arguably less than equivalent based on supporter base etc) clubs. Am I misreading it? NUFC £66m, West Brom £95m, Stoke £141m, West Ham (who also spent time out during this period) £104m. They have all massively outspent us according to your figures.

          • Clarko

            Yes you are misreading it.

          • Danimal

            If we both have £200 in our pockets now (I don’t by the way, or I’d be getting the drinks in). I make a net spend of £65 tomorrow and you make a net spend of £141. I have less money left than you? I think I’ve got more money left over but you’ve probably had a better time.

          • Clarko

            You don’t know what net spend means.

            This is irrelevant.

            Newcastle have spent more than West Ham, Stoke and West Brom. Fact.

          • Danimal

            Don’t I? Educate me please. I buy a car for £2,000. I sell my old one for £800. I think I’ve made a net spend of £1,200.

          • Clarko

            You *have a net spend of £1200.

            “I make a net spend of £65 tomorrow and you make a net spend of £141”, doesn’t make sense. That suggests that you have spent £265 an I have spent £341.

            Again it’s all irrelevant, I am not spending any more time on hypotheticals, you’re talking about cars and pocket money, it’s pathetic.

          • Danimal

            Are you Donald Trump?

          • Clarko

            Well that’s the last time I waste time on you. Stupidity at its peak.

          • Danimal

            Lighten up man. And while you’re at it, you and Fleckman have a good think about why our club is doing it right and all those other clubs are doing it wrong.

          • Danimal

            Have a look in the mirror

          • Geordiegiants

            You know how long it takes him to copy and paste?

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            He’s one of the brighter ones!

          • Geordiegiants

            Still no answer to what you called me, Clarko what’s a stage five cling on?

          • Leazes Ender

            No he’s Kevin Lee.

          • Damon Horner

            it suggests prior to the “horse before the cart” summer that we had made a £20mil approx. net profit in transfer business.

          • Leazes Ender

            Now Add it to the starting Squad Value….and you get?

      • Damon Horner

        Looking at the total net spend over the period you specified and averaging it out over the number of years, do you consider £6mil net spend a season on average to be fine?

        • Clarko

          Yes that is fine, because our total spend is (extremely) high (£33.91m average spend per season). If both our total and net spend were low that would be a problem but that is not the case.

          • Damon Horner

            I think what would be upsetting most fans is with the net spend being low yet the overall spend being “extremely high” it is a mix that has seen little competitive benefit on the pitch. The main reason we’re spending so much overall is because we’re selling our stronger players, further weakening our competitiveness.

            If the discussion is “are Newcastle spending enough” then based on overall spend you can’t argue that point but to sound a bit like Leazes Ender, why has that level of spend resulted in our current squad’s market value being comparatively low? it points to mismanagement rather than constantly withhold funds (which was the case based on your figures prior to our high spend in 15/16)

          • Clarko

            It’s genuinely stupid to criticise Newcastle’s net spend, you’re criticising the club for selling Sissoko, Cabaye, Carroll and Wijnaldum, you’re criticising a club for spending £170.12m more then a more established club, it’s silly. It’s worth to note that the Sissoko transfer fee is staggered, taking that into consideration Newcastle’s actual net spend is £86.18m. Nevertheless, the point is that Newcastle have spent money on transfers and that cannot be disputed.

            I have a question, what is Newcastle’s squad value?

          • Damon Horner

            It’s not a criticism, it’s an observation and anybody with an ounce of initiative will offer questions rather than accept the status quo. None of your last comments though is relevant to my previous post where I had accepted your argument on spend but questioned the impact our financial habits have had on our competitiveness as a sporting team, the criticism from me is not as much levelled at the sales of the players or the clubs net/overall spends but the failure to re-invest adequately either through a mis-judgment of player’s ability or suitability or simply a lack of tactical understanding from within the coaching team. Compare the finances of Southampton and their loss of managers and players yet still retain sound finances and a solid Premier League placing.
            Our squad value according to Transfermarkt is 55% of that of Southampton’s and beneath all of your aforementioned teams despite a higher overall spend than all of those teams, proving our decrease in sporting competitiveness.

          • Clarko

            None of your comment is relevant to my previous post(s), I was strictly arguing on spend. I agree there has been some problems with scouting, recruitment and management, but that is a different argument (many different arguments).

            On the transfermarkt squad valuation, it’s not valid, it does not give an accurate representation of player value. Examples include Colback (£4.50m) being valued more than Hayden (£3.60m), Hanley (£4.05m) being valued more than Dummett (£3.15m), Gayle being valued at £9.00m, Shelvey valued at £9.90m, Aarons valued at £0.68m and so on. An argument using those valuations is invalid.

      • Oooh bobbi fleckman

        Don’t tell them facts, they get angry when you tell them facts.

        • Leazes Ender

          Kevin is a chip off the old block there David…. he’s as thick as a congealed custard as well.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Oh Wayne, you are just too clever for me, you are always right. I’ve even given you a

  • MichaelMaximusMoose

    The only thing that Fatso knows about football is how to move the Goal posts
    😁

    • Oval85

      I’m not so sure…

  • Paul Patterson

    Go through every transfer window and the surplus will be huge. Always a profit in the end.

    • glassjawsh-got-banned

      that’s true only if you discount the panic buying from 2 seasons ago

  • mactoon

    You need to understand that it doesn’t matter how much profit is made from past transfers, the money is absorbed into the overall income of the club’s account the same as ticket sales, sponsorship money and so on. Ashley will then look at the overall position of the club’s finances and allocate an amount for transfers that he feels appropriate. That’s the way he works. And the parachute payments wont be included in the transfer budget as that was made from relegation, not promotion.

  • Steve Pearce

    The American pundit on NBC sports said before the match on Sunday “Mike Ashley is running Newcastle United like one of his sporting goods stores”. A very astute comment which is unfortunately perfectly true. So he doesn’t care about the club, its manager or its fans and he only wants bargain basement players as he knows the fans will turn up regardless and he gets free advertising. Well – if this goes on and we keep losing, will his policy change when SJP is devoid of 50,000 plus home fans? Well that’s up to you lot isn’t it. The only way to hit him where it hurts is to stop attending matches and treat him with the same contempt that he treats us with.

    • mactoon

      Problem is that will never happen. The fans will turn up regardless as this is their club, they will protest but it won’t make a difference. I’ve thrown in my season ticket I have had since the 70’s as I won’t give this man any more of my money but I am in the minority

      • Steve Pearce

        mactoon – wait until we haven’t won a game by Christmas….

        • mactoon

          there will be protests from people who have already paid for their season tickets. See what I mean?

  • Peaky Magpie

    Rafa has too much dignity to sit down with someone who pukes in the fireplace at his meetings !

  • Leazes Ender

    Ah now was that what the Sky Interview was for….. Ashley wont face Benitez in person?