Happy Face

An A-level in theology makes you a revered scholar nowadays?

As it's been resurrected by others and I'll not be accused of being obsessed ..... http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...eaks/index.html

All the Best TR. Hope you don't get gypped on combined birthday/crimbo prezzies.

Which I have to say was pretty fucking spot on once you put back in the £4m I left off of Emre's reported fee.

It's nailed...it's in the accounts...he's £18m up on transfer dealings. Think this is turning into urban myth without the facts. I just want to see two lists. One with outgoing p[layers and fee, one with incoming players and fee. Thought this would have been readily available, especially for the anti ashley brigade, but Im struggling to source it. Smells a fish away. Those lists are all over. You can see our transfer history going back years on NUFC.com or on Soccerbase or a number of other places....I compiled this list following relegation... http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...mp;#entry659979 The actual amount only comes out in the accounts though...that's the truth of it, anything reported on the internet is best guesses because we don't disclose fees anymore...until a year or 2 later as a combined total in the accounts....which gives the £18m profit figure.

Gemmill's idiotic for doing it. Shepherd was a visionary chairman for doing it. I fucking love you leazes.

It's nailed...it's in the accounts...he's £18m up on transfer dealings.

Nolan wouldn't have to, injury would do the job. Sir Alex Ferguson should be signing Kevin Nolan then ! Like AlanShearer, we won the race to sign him ahead of Fergie..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Nolan#Bolton_Wanderers I don't quite see what you are disagreeing with me about/for here ? You do have more footballing sense than some of the others ? We signed Alan Shearer, yes, we did. We wouldn't now though, despite the club being portrayed as being under "better ownership" While we'll agree on lots, I'll always disagree with you on just as much, stranger to nuance that you are.

Nolan wouldn't have to, injury would do the job. Sir Alex Ferguson should be signing Kevin Nolan then ! Like AlanShearer, we won the race to sign him ahead of Fergie..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Nolan#Bolton_Wanderers

Nolan wouldn't have to, injury would do the job.

Tiote I assume. Or Nolan? Or Simpson? Or Routledge? Tiote. Of course. Routledge ? haha, you're fuckin joking. Who did we have playing on the right when Keegan went? he had N'Zogbia, Duff, Milner and Jonas to choose from. Keegan would never have bought a mediocre player like Routlede in a million years, he's just like Franz Carr. A fast runner and headless chicken. He'd sold Milner. Rare to see the others start on the right. I'd have gone with Barton Nolan's scored as many already this season as Owen and Martins scored all season when Keegan went. Williamson's kept Taylor on the bench when available. Simpson wouldn't get on ahead of Beye. But Edgar was getting games at the time, and he was gash.

Tiote I assume. Or Nolan? Or Simpson? Or Routledge? Tiote. Of course. Routledge ? haha, you're fuckin joking. Who did we have playing on the right when Keegan went?

Tiote I assume. Or Nolan? Or Simpson? Or Routledge? Or Williamson?

Tiote I assume. Or Nolan? Or Simpson? Or Routledge?

I can't pick out the £107m spend from that article but it looks about right (looks like it should be 98.2 expenses + 6.4 interest + net cash spent on transfers) so I guess you've got that figure straight from the accounts (I've not seen the 2008 accounts myself). If that's right though, have you any idea why the net debt jumped from £67m to £107m (according to that article). Where's the money gone to account for that debt? Why did it not just rise by the overspend amount, ie £8m? Was our debt any worse than most other clubs though? The stadium debt was secure and it was only the £25m or so remaining debt which we would have had to refinance at some point. If the worst came to the worst, a couple of years of cutting back (or just maintaining expenditure rather than increasing it) and we could pay off that £25m in a couple of seasons if absolutely necessary - it would not surprise me in the slightest if Ashley is able to pay of £25m of his loan this season alone in spite of the revenue drop, although I'd never have recommended cutting back this far. With our turnover, I'd have thought relatively speaking we'd be one of the better risks in the premiership, and only those who went majorly OTT like Portsmouth got into trouble they couldn't get out of. We were NOTHING LIKE Portsmouth in how far we stretched ourselves beyond our means. As one comparative example of a club with no sugar daddy, Everton have a debt of £41m with a turnover of £80m, wages £50m (May 2009). From an outside viewpoint without looking into it in too much detail, they're managing to get through the financial crisis okay. All other things being equal we should easily be able to achieve at least £10m more turnover than Everton, so a £10m higher wage bill is sustainable. I wouldn't say Everton are particularly well run financially, but you would not say finances were "about as bad as it can get" there would you, and their loans aren't at threat of being foreclosed and forcing them into administration are they? Or should they be worried? How do you know we were at the end of our credit line? I have a mortgage on my house, but it doesn't mean I can't loan any more money. It depends on the value of the house and the amount of the current mortgage. The stadium loan is secured against gate receipts, did we have anything secured against the TV income? Even if we did the value of this has risen significantly. Note, I am not saying we should have or needed to increase the debt from what it was, just addressing the point that we were at the end of the line with nowhere left to turn if extra debt was required. I'm not saying the club was healthy when he bought it, but it was no more sick than most of the rest of the league, bar a few lucky teams. Personally I have no confidence that Ashley is looking to run this club at a level anything other than to do enough to survive in the Premiership year-on-year as he pays back his debt. Players brought in will be cheap, some will do well and some will be poor. The "success" rate will probably be quite good, as you're not expecting much from a cheap player, whereas it seems anyone over £5m has to be a world beater to justify their cost, however the overall quality of the team will diminish even further. The ones that do poorly will add to the depth of the squad, but also to it's mediocrity, the ones that do well will be out the door as soon as someone offers a pot of cash for them (the disloyal bastard has been touting himself around for ages) or if they dare to ask for a wage they could get elsewhere (the mercenary cunt - it was in the paper he wants £60k a week!). Support and interest in the club will dwindle, some of that will be fickle and would come straight back with results, but some will be lost forever and will take years of (relative) success to build back up. IMO every year Ashley owns this club it will be harder and harder for us even to get back to where we were as a club when he bought it let alone surpass that. I hope he proves me wrong, but he hasn't so far, and to do so he'd have to completely go against his nature and previous business practices. Arnt we in a better position than when he bought it already? don't be daft man. How is that ? 8TH

Happy New Year. Who says the Daily Mail prints shit ? I did a couple of posts up

Why trust a story where the journalist hasn't done the most basic fact checking? He's made a £20m+ profit on the transfer market It's basically an Ashley propaganda piece. Same line as 2 years ago.... “Just print that we paid £250 Million for the club”. Is that true? I understood that having paid off monies owed on the likes of Luque etc, that wasnt the case. That's what the books say.... Not doubting "the book", but I would like to see those figures in two columns ins and outs and see if they really include the transfer fees outstanding from Shepherd time that Ashley paid off. I think the ins and outs leave Ashley over £20m in profit, I guess the accountants figure of £18m includes those outstanding payments on Shepherd signings. Not that it alters the factual inaccuracy. Whatever was left to pay, Ashley remains in profit on transfers. Still like to see the two columns if anyones got them to hand. Don't think the published accounts are required to go into that detail...ie "Luque - £2m installment", I've never seen anything but an an overall total.....but then I never paid the few quid to see the actual accounts, I've only ever relied on reports of it.

Why trust a story where the journalist hasn't done the most basic fact checking? He's made a £20m+ profit on the transfer market It's basically an Ashley propaganda piece. Same line as 2 years ago.... “Just print that we paid £250 Million for the club”. Is that true? I understood that having paid off monies owed on the likes of Luque etc, that wasnt the case. That's what the books say.... Not doubting "the book", but I would like to see those figures in two columns ins and outs and see if they really include the transfer fees outstanding from Shepherd time that Ashley paid off. I think the ins and outs leave Ashley over £20m in profit, I guess the accountants figure of £18m includes those outstanding payments on Shepherd signings. Not that it alters the factual inaccuracy. Whatever was left to pay, Ashley remains in profit on transfers.

Why trust a story where the journalist hasn't done the most basic fact checking? He's made a £20m+ profit on the transfer market It's basically an Ashley propaganda piece. Same line as 2 years ago.... “Just print that we paid £250 Million for the club”. Is that true? I understood that having paid off monies owed on the likes of Luque etc, that wasnt the case. That's what the books say....

Wonder if they'll both go straight back in. No clean sheet since they were banned.....but only one each conceded to Chelsea and liverpool isn't bad compared to 5 at Bolton. Four points from those games makes up for the WBA horror show.

Why trust a story where the journalist hasn't done the most basic fact checking? He's made a £20m+ profit on the transfer market It's basically an Ashley propaganda piece. Same line as 2 years ago.... “Just print that we paid £250 Million for the club”.

giving Pardew £500k a year rather than giving hughton what he's worth (£1m+ a year at least) will save Ashley a minimum of £2.5m over the length of his contract. Minimising wages is the only lesson Ashley has learned. I think people are fitting the facts around a sale they're hoping for, rather than looking at it for what it is. Love your avatar by the way, pissed myself when i saw that sign at the match.

It's another gamble, but giving Pardew £500k a year rather than giving hughton what he's worth (£1m+ a year at least) will save Ashley a minimum of £2.5m over the length of his contract. Minimising wages is the only lesson Ashley has learned.

I'm not by the way. I'm saying "line go down, Ashley bad". Shepherd raised costs and raised revenue. The former was prohibitive. Ashley's mistake wasn't increasing costs but reducing revenue. He's lowered costs, but the loss of income has taken away our competitive advantage over smaller clubs with a lesser fanbase. That's a lot harder to get back on track than spending is. Spending decisions are made in an instant. It takes years to build the profile that people are willing to invest in. Ashley's stupidity dropped 9000 people off the gate. Halved our sponsorship deal. Significantly reduced TV earnings. Outsourced catering has lost a wedge. All commercial sales are down. His contempt for the club, players, managers and fans has done this. Costs could have been brought under control without the level of alienation that caused such a drop in revenue.

Wages will be about 60%...about what it was the season before Ashley took over. Don't blame Ashley totally for the high wages when he took over. I want to make that clear. I blame FSA partly. In that first period he could have had little clue what was going on with silly wages for Collo, Smith and the like. Not to mention Geremi and Viduka who were paid the gdp of a small banana republic. All signed by fat fucking sam. Fairy nuff with Geremi, Smith and Viduka. He was sanctioning moves without having done his due diligence....idiotic, but he'd have been mullered if his first move was to say "we aren't signing anyone". Collo came in a year after Ashley though, so if he didn't know the wage issues by then he really wasn't paying enough attention. He can't blame Shepherd for ANY of the players not having relegation clauses either....cos he signed every player that showed for us in the championship. EDIT: That's a mistake in the article where they say "The cut might have been deeper if the club had inserted relegation clauses into the players’ contracts, but apparently the previous owners did not consider this a possibility." The previous owners couldn't put clauses in contracts for the current owner.