peasepud

In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. Again though, you are putting non relevant data into a statistical argument. Its irrelevant for this argument (ie potential turnover) whether we are able to attract the players to get us to that league position. If we performed to the same level and achieved the same league positions as Spurs have then we should have a higher turnover than Spurs would. Those extra seats with the extra merchandising plus the other factors I highlighted earlier, lack of better local competition, location of ground etc etc should see us increase on Spurs turnover.

Surely if we wanted to we could quite easily come up with the missing data collectively ie take a club each and research the missing values?

Unless i've misunderstood, would the swiss rambler table not give you that? I thought so, otherwise is this site not worth using? Anyone have any experience of it and how reliable the info is? www.footballeconomy.com might look to see if its possible to scrape the data from there to build up a database of the figures across the board. That is as long as theyre reputable.

I was yes, however my correction post this morning used the Sterling figures, these obviously arent subject to the exchange rate issues. And just for anyone wondering. If we had a £100m revenue in 2007, the Deloitte figure would be based on the ex/r at the time e.g. 1:1.4. Therefore, they would estimate it at Euros 140m. If we had a £100m revenue in 2010, the Deloitte figure would be based on the ex/r at the time e.g. 1:1.2. Therefore, they would estimate it at Euros 120m Same revenue but different absolute figures after conversion. However the only time you'd need to use the Euro figures would be to compare to other European clubs which I think is completely irrelevant in this argument as they are subject to completely different outside influences. If we're just talking about the English clubs then the Sterling figures Deloittes quotes are perfectly legitimate.

I was yes, however my correction post this morning used the Sterling figures, these obviously arent subject to the exchange rate issues.

Id agree that, in that its at least £20m and that Spurs are probably the nearest comparable club. Take into account though that we have a bigger local fanbase, larger stadium and a lack of more successful local neighbours and you have to think that if we matched how Spurs do on the pitch then we'd pull in more money. Thats not an emotional "we're a bigger club" statement btw but based on the above. For instance, when it comes to corporate boxes etc, these are often bought by companies with no affiliation to the club, its merely that they are based near to the office and good for entertaining clients. As we only have the Mackems for competion then we can easily command higher prices when we're doing well. Spurs however have to compete with Chelsea and Arsenal, Im fairly confident that the facilities etc within the Emirates probably pisses on White Hart Lane also. I know that matchday tickets arent that massive a deal in the grand scheme of turnover but an extra 16,000 bodies in there with the resulting sales of pies, pints, merchandise and shirts will make a bigger impact on turnover. Id imagine that you could also command higher advertising rates inside the ground on the basis of the audience size. So yeah Id say that Spurs are a good comparison when looking at the minimum we could manage.

You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?" Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes. But none of the teams you chose is really comparable data in my opinion. Man U and Liverpool are the 2 most succesful clubs in English history, they have a worldwide support unmatched by anyone else going back decades. Arsenal aren't far behind in terms of long term success. Chelsea and Man City have the wealthiest individual owners in the world too. If you're being realistic and want to compare like for like, as a club without any of the advantages of those listed above, as a club who have only temporarily made a dent on the top 30 without any sustained success, and without unlimited funds from our owners, we're more comparable to Tottenham, Villa, Everton, Fulham and West Ham. Of those, only Tottenham have (so far) been able to sustain their position at the top end of the money league. If Id taken Villa, Everton, West Ham or any other club that wasnt in a comparable position pre-Ashley then you could simply change the argument around. Man U have the biggest potential for dropping turnover, you could argue that at some stage they'll reach a plateau, that theres no more to be got and the only way is down yet they still continue to increase. I took the highest earning clubs, those that frankly would find it harder to increase turnover, the smaller you are, the bigger the potential is for increase. The teams I selected werent random they were those nearest to us in European turnover rankings. Interested to see what you would project what our income could have realistically been had Ashley not screwed it up. Feel free to use Stoke (who we class as a comparable team on the pitch these days) who as we've seen have increased turnover 6 fold in the same time or Blackpool that more than doubled theirs. You could use them but you know fine well that it wouldnt be realistic. If we were comparing how much more I could have been earning if Id changed jobs then I wouldnt use Branson, Ashley, Sugar and Gates as my yardstick, in the same way as I wouldnt take 6 random tramps from Benwell.

You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?" Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes.

Went from £58.12m to £80m, increase of 37.64%

I havent cherry picked though, Ive taken the English teams who were close to us in terms of Earnings ie those in the top 20 Rich List. Its better to compare the fortunes of those like teams than others because you can argue they all had the same chances ie had excellent income therefore its how its used that matters. We could take Stoke, Blackpool, West Brom, Birmingham if you want...... Blackpool: Increased from £3.92m to £9m (129.59%) West Brom: 35.54m to 47m (32.24%) Birmingham: 40.11m increased to 56.4m (40.61%) Stoke...........seriously, are you ready for this...........£7.59m to £53.5m (604.87%) So using those 4 as the yardstick instead then the average is 201.82% increase... meaning we should be on £259.26m I havent done it yet but Id be willing to bet that across the whole PL we're in the bottom 3 for turnover increase over that time period.

Apologies you are correct, problem with trusting newspaper sites that incorrectly show Euro figures as Sterling! Redone the figures, using the actual Sterling amounts in the Deloitte pdfs to get: So as can be seen, the minimum increase in the UK for the other "UK Rich clubs" was just over 35% since 2007, we are on 0.01% Using the average increase (as I did previously) would give an average increase since 2007 of 52.42% Applying that to our £85.9m from 2007 should have seen us on £130.94m turnover for 2010. Spookily and I assume totally luckily this is virtually exactly the same answer as before

2007 4 (2) Man United £242.6m 6 (5) Chelsea £221m 9 (10) Arsenal £192.4m 10 (8) Liverpool £176m 13 (12) Newcastle £124.3m 15 (13) Tottenham £107.2m 17 (17) Man City £89.4m 18 (n/a) Rangers £88.5 19 (n/a) West Ham £60.1m 2008 2 (4) Manchester United £212.1m 4 (6) Chelsea £190.5m 5 (9) Arsenal £177.6m 8 (10) Liverpool £133.9m 11 (15) Tottenham Hotspur £103.1m 14 (13) Newcastle United £87.1m 17 (-) Celtic £75.2m 2009 2 (2) Manchester United £257.1m 5 (4) Chelsea £212.9m 6 (5) Arsenal £209.3m 7 (8) Liverpool £167.0m 14 (10) Tottenham £114.8m 17 (14) Newcastle £99.4m 20 (-) Manchester City £82.3m 2010 3 (2) Man Utd £278.5m 5 (6) Arsenal £224.0m 6 (5) Chelsea £206.4m 7 (8) Liverpool £184.8m 15 (14) Tottenham £113.0m 19 (n/a) Man City £87.0m 20 (17) Newcastle £86.0m Man U 242.6 > 278.5 = +14.79% Arsenal 192.4 > 224.0 = +16.42% Chelsea 221 > 206 = -6.79% Liverpool > 176 > 184.8 = +5% Spurs 107.2 > 113 = +5.41% Man C > 89.4 > 87 = -2.69% Toon 124.3 > 86 = -30.82% On average, the highest Earnings clubs in England have seen an increase of 5.35% in turnover so I dont think its unrealistic to think that we could have done the same. So to answer your question. We should have been looking at £130m turnover not the current £86m.

The question shouldn't really be 'should you stick your cock in the Italian' more so 'Would sticking your cock in the Italian be worth hearing your kid call someone else Dad every time you took him to McDonalds for your fortnightly access visit?

He hate's Keegan and admitted he isn't even a football fan.

Does your place of employment have a swearword filter or have you just worn out your the * on your keyboard? Not sure...but why don't you suck my fucking cock you faggot knob sucking prick of a cunting nonce?

You're right, best not to bother trying

we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? It gets paid, these loans arent usually a case of heres £20m I'll give you a shout when I want it and the interest back. Its a case of heres £20m and we want £100k per month back for the next few years. You dont go into that lightly, you calculate what you can afford to borrow and how much it will be worth to you. Its fairly straight forward really, you borrow money to ensure you have a team that can compete, by competing you entertain and as a result you sell tickets, shirts, pies, pints. You appear on TV more often and hopefully manage to get into Europe, getting additional TV revenue and further ticket, shirts, pies, pints and novelty "NUFC went to Italy and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirts. Part of that additional income is used to repay the debt each month.

banned

Mackem at work was trying to wind me up about having black cats on the stadium (if there's a puma logo going up) the other day. Said i didn't give a fuck about their manufactured identity. He got really defensive and started pulling out fanzines that had old programmes from the 30's in them referring to the Black Cats. Proper raw nerve with them that one. Aye, that's the thing about it. I know it was their nickname in years gone by but it had completely fallen out of usage. Whoever heard of a poll to determine an official nickname for a club anyway? As you say, completely manufactured. I've heard my old man (sunlun fan btw) talk about The Bank of England Club but never The Black Cats. I'll try and remember to ask him the next time I see him. Your old man said "be a Sunderland fan" you said "fuck off fatha you're a cunt"

Llambias does however have a black and white stair carpet in his home, not sure if it was already that colour before he took the job like

9 - 5 = 4 You may well consider them that way however for sake of clarity and applying a strict logical, common sense approach Ive replaced last years relegation teams with the ones that came up ie. 3rd bottom: Birmingham > winners QPR, 2nd bottom: Blackpool > 2nd placed Norwich Bottom: West Ham > 3rd placed Swansea Using your logic wed have to change the corresponding teams as the new boys change their style and results

After 5 games 4 places, 4 points better off but now 2 worse on GD.

Can you give an example of Hughton's reluctance to toe the party line? He played hell when Carroll was sold and not replaced and was sacked soon after. Pardew has had Barton, Enrique and Nolan flogged and has barely grumbled. Let's not pretend Pardew wasn't solely employed as a YES man just because Joey Barton said something nice about him. ermmmmm Pardew was manager when Carroll went, "Andy Carroll is going nowhere, 100%" *sound of chopper starting up in background