Pez1974

The date the accounts were submitted would mean the note in question would cover transfers in Summer 2012 and January 2013 and these total £21m. The wording in the accounts states players (and not staff) so any compensation for Lambert and co would be excluded. The full cost associated with acquiring an asset (or in some cases a liability) would be included in he acquisition costs, so agents fees and signing on fees would be included, but definitely not wages. I think it is highly unlikely that additional fees from previous transfers (i.e. Bent) would not have been provided in previous accounts so would not be in this figure. I suppose the only question (for those who care) would be whether the lower figures alluded to by Lambert for some players would leave a gap which could be accounted for by agents and signing on fees. For example, if Benteke did 'cost' £7m, would this be an additional couple of million for other upfront costs? Or more? Frankly, **** knows! I have said for a while that football is a prime target for money laundering possibilities (not suggesting we do that, but it seems possible) because of the amount of money going around, and because of the amount of different people in different tax regimes each receiving a bit. This has happened in Italy quite a bit over recent years, especially on the back of loan deals. The solution? Make the home FA of the purchasing club responsible for handling all funds, and make them publish the full details for every transfer. Seems simple to me!

No. No. And no. Personally I like that we are buying bigger players - we need a bit more muscle. However, if you look at Benteke's goals, an awful lot are the result of play between the front 3, particularly on the counter attack. All teams will hoof from time to time, and we have that option. But it is not option #1 - that is based around pace.

Gabby, Gabby, Gabby Agbonlahooooooooooorrrrrrrrr He's fast as fuuucccckkkk; he makes girls chuuuuuucccckkkkkkkk

I feel a bit sorry for the One DIrection guy to be honest. He played in a charity match, and probably helped add a reasonable chunk to the amount raised, so fair play to him. He got hit by a professional athlete, and although puking up as a result is a bit sad (and funny as ****), he now looks like a total wimp. Now, a lot of the reporting is is not having a go at Gabby, so this kinds reflects badly on him. BUT - he should have come out ( ) by now and told his 'fans' that they are acting like morons and taking the gloss off the day. He hasn't to my knowledge, so can I assume he would prefer to allow this stupid situation than criticise a few idiots as the latter may cost him a few quid.

He has a contract, and to my knowledge we are not threatening to not pay him. His contract does not entitle him to a first team lot, nor even a game. We are upholding our end of the bargain. He wants us to take a particular course of action (let him play at a club and place of his choosing, at a level below his current earnings level) but is seemingly not prepared to bring anything to the bargaining table, such as a reduced salary in line with his new performance levels. In short, he seems to be pissed off because we won't do him any favours. I have some sympathy, but players seem happy to screw over clubs when they over perform, but when they under perform, there is nothing the other way. Player power is a problem in the game, and we are taking a stance on it. For me, this is a good thing. To summarise - **** him!

Spot on

I don't think this would be the case Andy. The crux of the 'Bomb Squad' was a load of players who are not doing the job earning a massively disproportionate amount of wages. As much as Enda Stevens was included, he is not really a fully paid member of the bomb squad as I suspect his wages would be less than £10k pw. It is the combination of Ireland, Bent, Hutton and Given - plus Dunne and Warnock last season - who resulted in the creation of this mob (for different reasons). Moving forward, we will not have a player (let alone 5 or 6) contributing nothing on £50k+ a week. It is the massive wages that mean we can't shift them, and despite Bannan earning some £20k per week apparently, that has not meant we couldn't shift him eventually.

I think that we, as fans, always want a bit more. If at the start of the window we were told we would sign this many players, whilst having moved on as many as we have, we would all have been delighted. For me, this window secures last season as the proper transition season we needed 2 years ago; there is a bit more work to do both with the maturity of a couple of our players and finally moving on Bent, Given and Hutton (plus Zog?) for good, but I am not sure we could have expected more. I feel the comparisions to the promoted clubs are unfair. They started with a much smaller cost base than ours and are 'gambling'. We tried that, and with one mis-step were in the shit. What we are doing is right, and I think that a lot of credit needs to be given to Paul Faulkner who is really starting to look like he is getting to grips with his job now. However, most credit remains with Lambert!

He shouldn't get booed. He should be ignored. However, it will be interesting to see how he plays against us. He got so much shit about Hollywood passes will he dare try some? Or will he go into his shell and just play those devastating 3 yard passes in the centre circle?

Today is getting better! I would expect Stoke to pay at least £40k per week for the moron, if there is no loan fee. Bannan on the way (for good); Ireland on the way (for good); Given likely to be on his way for a year. Even allowing for us paying some of their wages - this has to shift at least £5m off our wage bill this year.

I understand the signing, as Benteke is so integral to our play and we don't really have a like-for-like replacement. It's the mooted fee that baffles me - either it's bollocks (which is usually the case) or PL really sees something in this guy. Either way - in Lamber we trust.

James Nursey has blogged that the fee is in the region of £1.75m! Paul Faulkner, take a bow.

If true..... They have the Arse in the Champs League qualifyer. Send 'em a DVD of the game when Bent scored 2 at the Emirates a couple of years ago!

Really optimistic. I think 8th, or even 7th if Everton don't fire, is possible. But gone for about 10th because I still worry about the defence. Lambert keeping Benteke is HUGE!

Get rid. Quickly. Not on the cheap, but £5m - £6m is fair enough considering his age, wages and value at our club. And I am certain he will be gone in the next 10 days (not ITK), but any buying club will need to get him match fit. Keeping him away from the first team squad may actually help in this regard, as any buying club will know he isn't 100% match fit, so will need to give him a few weeks to get up to full speed. As a result, this transfer is boiling up now rather than at the end of August. I truly believe that once we get a bit of money for him, and shift his wages, we will see at least one more transfer in. If we can shift either Ireland/Given (because they earn are paid so much), or the other Bomb Squad members, that will free up another spot or two. I don't believe it's the transfers fees that are the problem, it's the wages.

Shouldn't Bannan control his agent, not vice versa?

If true, this shows Bannan quite badly. He thinks he's good, so go and be good somewhere, and then you'll become a star. Sit on your arse for another season earning more money, then earn less forever. clearing in the woods.

Um. Maybe...? Because they bid £4m and we said "that's too low". So they have now come back with a higher bid (£6m) to see if that is high enough for us. I may just be having a bad morning but I really fail to see any problem with bit of the article at all. I just think it's a bit of a leap in the bid. I would guess that bids would step up in smaller increments than 50%, especally as they know we are a little desparate to sell. Maybe you're right, but it just seemed a little odd to me. It's probably all bollocks though!

James Nursey (Mirror) reported a few weeks ago that both Banna and Delfouneso were on £20k per week. I know, FFS. He has to realise, duirng his more sober moments, that he can rot on £20k per week for a year, and his career will have properly stalled; or he can accept a pay cut and go to a club that want him and if he is half as good as Con says he is, he will bounce back in the future on better contracts and have a very fruitfull career.

Probably BS but.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2381229/Fulham-increase-offer-Aston-Villa-striker-Darren-Bent.html It's says Fulham have bid £6m after we rejected a £4m bid. Problems Why would they bid £6m if £4m was there previosu bid? The article says we paid £24m for Bent, and I think it is generally accepted that we have never had to pay the full potential fee It's the Daily Mail But hey, fingers crossed!

I am pretty sure that Bent and Bannan will go, and quite soon. I am surprised Stevens has not moved on yet. He has played a few times and looked OK, and I wouldn't think we would be asking much, and his wages would be quite low. I think that the club should be able to trade believing these 3 will be gone by September. I really don't see N'Zogbia going anywhere this window because of his injury, which I think rules him out until about Christmas. I would be stunned if anyone came in for Ireland. For me, if we can get someone to pay £5 per week of his wages, that's money saved. Hutton is the same as Ireland for me, although we may be £10k of his wages paid. Delfouneso is apparently on £20k pw, and no-one will pay him that. Our best bet is that he is sensible and will take a longer contract on lower salary and try and work his way back up the ladder. The club should be planning that these clowns will be on the books for another year, at least. Given the wildcard. He earns a lot, and seems willing to move to the right club.It just seems that onbody of a reasonable standard wants him, which is surprising. We might just end up with him going on a short term loan, save a few quid, but be able to recall him if Brad gets injured.

Reports (in the TImes I think) that Fulham's triker target ain't coming, so they are back in for Bent (not ITK). In any case, will someone make a bid and let us all move on!

I understand why people think PL has devalued Bent, but I think any effect will be minimal. Bent is 29(I think) and is paid a huge amount. Any team buying him would factor this in, as Bent has 2 years left on his contract. David Villa went for a low fee because of wages. Another example of player power - the higher the wage, the lower the fee. Probably the same with Benteke and Spuds; we have a high value because of wages: they would have to pay the higher wage so valued him lower.

I'm not too worried. Transfer window isn't over yet and these signings aren't necessarily going to be a success (just look at QPR last season). I also think a lot of our future summer shopping depends on being able to get certain players off the wage bill. I don't know this for sure but my guess would be that Bent, Ireland, N'Zogbia and Given alone rake in around 200k per week between them - that's probably more than what our starting 11 last season were on. I think you're a bit light there - £230k to £250k per week is probably closer to the mark. Add Hutton (30 - 40k per week); Bannan and Fonz (both reported at 20k pw) there is some £15m + a year on that lot!

Not sure moving him to a different piece of grass will help him delivery well timed passes, stop running down blind alleys, and become less lazy (amongst other things).