CHW

I think that's wrong. I think you can make an allowance for the lost revenue due to the redev, so the impact on FFP revenue would be de minimus. So it's absolutely the right time to do it, if indeed a North Stand redev is what we plan to do.

It's hardly a decrease in revenue as FFP takes account of a stand being redeveloped in the calculations. The North doesn't bring in much anyway. But the result is any redev is probably pushed back so far that the eventual benefit will now be post Emery. So instead of having 50k+ in 2 seasons time, with massively increased corporate facilities we'll end up with below par fudged GA+ facilities and stadium income significantly lower than Everton, let alone the teams we are hoping to compete with. If the delay is for anything other than looking at a wider project, then it's madness.

It didn't make perfect sense though. And further delaying the timescale for when we can start bridging the income gap by another couple of years seems absolutely daft.

We have a generational manager for a finite period of time. Delaying our ability to back him better financially by 2-3 years is hardly the most sensible and obvious thing imaginable. There are allowances for closing a stand for redev in FFP rules, so losing the North Stand income in the interim build period would not have been a major issue.

Much prefer your simplified version

I hope you're taking the piss.

And Rashica of course. If only...

excellent!

Taylor is shit and Ayew is worth far more than £6m.

I think 40k is more than reasonable. We tell him do what you did last season again and we'll review your wages again next season increasing it further still. We've just about got the wagebill to a manageable level, Lambert is doing a brilliant job in that respect. The likes of Westwood, Lowton are all very modest guys given where weve taken them from, they're not gonna be on much in todays terms but they're not even thinking about it, you can tell they just want to knuckle down and play football. we are building a togetherness with near enough everyone on an even keel. So giving someone in excess of 60k pw after having 1 very good season would cause unrest I feel and sends out the wrong message to the rest of the squad. £40k is reasonable. But it is a figure that any interested club will blow out of the water. Disagree, I'd begrudgingly offer him 100k a week, however that would be the max I'd gladly offer 60-80k a week. We have Ireland, Bent, Given on huge money, yet as I said yesterday we've been quick to throw big money at players we have signed in the past such as Beye 40k a week for a back up right back, Ireland 70k a week, Bent & Given, however we have been very slow to reward the players who have come here and become very very good players, I ultimately think that had we been more rewarding with the players who had done well here and gave them the big bucks that we would have been able to hang onto the Barrys & co, however I do realize that at the time the wages were congested with a lot of players who had little or no value to the first team. We see a similar situation today but our revenue has been increased and our wage budget is a lot lower, if we can shift Bent, that money should go to Benteke in my eyes, if the club see him as a £25m asset they need to pay him like one. I don't see much point in offering him a payrise now. If he stays it's going to be against his will anyway and he'll certainly go after the World Cup payrise or not. We all assume he'll still do his best next season anyway to secure his WC place, so what exactly is the point of rewarding him financially if Spurs fail to come up with the money? The way I see it, the pay rise offered was to ensure he knuckled down for another year with no unsettling transfer speculation to disrupt & unsettle the squad. He's blown that now, whatever the outcome so balls to a pay rise, if you do stay, do your job or sit in the reserves and risk your WC place. On the other hand, if there had been a prospect of keeping him long term I do think £40k is very low compared to what he'd get almost anywhere else and if that was the offer we should probably look at ourselves a bit here.

It's all very well us fans setting a fixed price and date, but we're not putting our own balls on the line on a 20-30m asset. Much as that stance sounds appealing to us, it's not the way it works and has never been the way it works. Whether we like it or not there will be compromises, probably both on price and date. I'd prepare to be dissapointed.

I agree with this. I think the rationale for some (to hate him) was that as City weren't in the top 4 at the time so he was just a money grabber. It didn't take Nostradamus to predict he would win stuff there and he's done ok hasn't he? Frankly the way we treat some ex players who have been great sertvants to the club is terrible - Southgate also springs to mind - ok he didn't win stuff at Middlesborough but was shat on by Chelsea and we all hated Dougs lack of ambition at the time. Young gave us some great years and we made a tidy profit too.

I'm not going to get involved in a long winded debate searching through old posts for the often demanded 'evidence,' but I can't believe you don't think Bannan has been a scapegoat this season? The amount of times I've seen him slated, sometimes justifiably but many times not. Someone called him a useless word removed just two pages ago.

Notwithstanding my earlier posts I think this is stretching it a bit (lot). He could well end up at a Championship side, but like you I think he may do ok elsewhere.

I think you'll find 40,000 of us normally meet up in the flesh at Villa Park. Also, it is not childish to have an opinion on Bannan, whether that opinion is good, bad or indifferent. An opinion is an opinion. Is your opinion going to change peoples minds about Bannan? It certainly won't be changing mine. It's not about having an opinion. It's the constant picking on a Villa player (who is bound to read this forum) and the remorseless ganging up on anyone who has the audacity to defend him.