But to be even fairer to the original point, if we sell Milner and Young for around $50mill we would then have to buy replacements. Which would cost us how much?
Quote from: Arsey on August 11, 2010, 10:40:37 AMTo be fair to MON If we sold Young and Milner the net spend would be about 30mil which wouldn't be too bad over 5 years. That said I don't want to be fair to him, we couldn't make a profit on almost every signing he's made. But to be even fairer to the original point, if we sell Milner and Young for around $50mill we would then have to buy replacements. Which would cost us how much?
To be fair to MON If we sold Young and Milner the net spend would be about 30mil which wouldn't be too bad over 5 years. That said I don't want to be fair to him, we couldn't make a profit on almost every signing he's made.
A net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.
Anyone know Saggyface's net spend at Tottenham?
Quote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.
Quote from: Fingers on August 11, 2010, 11:52:40 AMAnyone know Saggyface's net spend at Tottenham?In the same 4 year period Spurs have roughly the same net spend as us but were clearly starting from a much higher base as they've been investing at that level for longer.
We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.
Quote from: Risso on August 11, 2010, 11:42:10 AMQuote from: Chris Smith on August 11, 2010, 11:33:43 AMA net spend of £80m over 4 years is not enough to turn a 16th placed team into one who should be assured of a CL place. A good return on that investment would be one that was able to challenge for 4th place and be in with a shout in the cups. Which would also give it a good foundation for pushing on with the right amount of further investment.That's misleading though.We still had players of the class of Barry, Mellberg, Gabby, Laursen, Bouma etc. That team should never have been 16th in the first place.We had some good players but lots of average ones, it was definitely a bottom 8 squad.
Martin O'Neill's persona as the reincarnation of Brian Clough is a media myth spun for the consumption of armchair football watchers. If he is the incarnation of anybody he is the incarnation of Kevin Keegan - always provided that incarnation means the embodiment of somebody not yet dead.