NJS

The thing is PP it looks like to some extent they had seen the writing on the wall as they were looking at refinancing/investors/sale so a "blind" faith that they had something up their sleeves is imo going a bit too far. As it stands now as Chez posted, most if not all the premier league clubs only exist as going businesses based on guarantees in one form or another from rich owners. The Halls and Shepherd never had to do that explicitly based on a mixture of timing and I have no problem admitting good times on the pitch. However that was then, this is now. I think the failure of Moat to buy the club based on Barclays bot accepting him as a guarantor (my reading) shows that as it stand its hard to see an alternative mode other than an underwriting owner. The question then becomes what does that owner want? Is he an Abramovitch or an Ashley/any of the others? They have to chose between running the club purely for "fun" or trying to run it "properly". As I've said before, I think the worst thing about Ashley is that he either doesn't know or hasn't decided which one he wants. My real hope is that he still wants to sell but again that depends on the intentions of any new owner.

They were absolute nutters. How can you interpret the Bible literally when it is full of contradictions? No wonder they are mad. There are no contradictions when it comes to homosexuality though.

Im sorry I must have missed the post on this, where does this figure of £30m per year come from? I'd guess the 34m loss in Shepherd's last year repeated.

"Get the football right and all else follows" sounds sensible but there has to be another side to that - you could look at Leeds and Portsmouth as good examples of it crashing and burning badly. fuck me. Two clubs out of how many ? Lets have it your way then. Lets try and win the title or attempt to qualify for the Champions League on a consistent basis while selling our best players to our rivals behind the managers back and replacing them with inferior replacements offered minimal wages. Can you tell us any good examples that have done this ? Or are you accepting that we are no longer contenders and have no chance in the future, as in the likes of Stoke and Bolton ? "Get the football right and all else follows" is EXACTLY how it works in football. This is like banging your head against a brick wall. The teams that take the most shots at goal generally score the most goals. The teams that have the most quality footballers generally generate the most income, the teams with the best quality footballers are generally the ones who get it right on the pitch and increase their income. What is difficult about this ? Whatever way you look at it, you people are letting your blind irrational hatred of an individual or individuals dominate your entire judgement. How sad can you get. Seeing as Toonpack predictably doesn't answer my question about his mans "plan" he so fervently backs, where do YOU think we will be with 5 more years of Mike Ashleys "plan", bearing in mind his long term aim is to finish 10th ? YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. How would you pay for an assault on the top 4? If you say "like we did pre-2007" then the next question is who will lend us the money? In answer to your question - about the same as we are now - as we were in 2007 - in debt with our heads just above water. If Shepherd was still in charge where do you think we;d be now?

"Get the football right and all else follows" sounds sensible but there has to be another side to that - you could look at Leeds and Portsmouth as good examples of it crashing and burning badly.

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off. Will next years gamble be as fortunate? What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's? Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue. Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model. how many times does this need to be explained to these fools ? Coherently, without insults and with facts to back the posts as PP does would be a good start

I thought she was with lamearse? I think its Ashely's daughter - Llambias' bird is the classic mutton dressed as lamb, home counties gold-digger type.

Did the course a few years ago - all well and good till the end when someone asked what happens if you do that and it isn't a heart attack - you'll probably kill them being the answer which makes you wary about stepping up. Like most people I'd hope there was someone there who'd step up.

Im more than happy to include that stat, you do realise that the 2008 figures are Shepherd dont you as these would relate to the 2006/07 financial year, just as 2010 relates to 2008/09 (ie pre relegation) And I cant see how relegation can be ignored as a factor unless you're now seriously stating that on field factors should not be taken into account when talking finances???? This whole argument is based on the chairman/owners abilities to raise revenue. As a football club, the bulk of that revenue would come from the on field activities. The whole point myself, LM and others are making. If Shepherd had got us relegated (which he didnt) then I would have included the figures from that. Income increases with the quality on the pitch, Shepherd knew that and worked towards that, at first he was successful and we hit CL and reaped the rewards, later on he wasnt but he still strived for it. The very thing that many on here are arguing he shouldnt have done. Ashley does the opposite, hopes to stay in the league on a shoestring. Its easy to see who was the most successful at raising income. Fair point on the figures relating to previous years which I accept and apologise for. I don't think I've ever tried to deny that there is a complete link between football and financial performance - in fact what I've been arguing agsinst is the attempt by some (more LM than you) to abstract that to one of pure business competence where I don't accept that Shepherd was somehow "better" then Ashley. By this I mean in day to day activities not directly related to the football like raising sponsorship and/or reducing costs. What I'm also trying to argue against is a polar view where everything Shepherd did was "great" and everything Ashley has done has been "shit". My view is that there has been good and bad elements to both regimes. I think attempting to reign in wages and to rely more on non-credit revenues is a laudible aim - even if it causes me pain to say that given my overall view of him and I think the "unambitious" definition of intent is one I'd call realistic though disappointing. I also think LM's view that "all" we have to do is run the club like Shepherd did to ensure success is fucking stupid in 2011. I think comparing methods not allowing for how football and finance has changed in the last 5 years is daft and isn't as black and white as even you suggest.

PP: As I've said relegation was 100% his fault imo but you can't honestly quote figures which are blatantly down to that and then say they illustrate something else ie something generally different in the business. Quoting any figure for 2010 is pretty "unfair" in that context surely? I think you also ignored the point that on that basis in 2008 the rich list figure (not position) was higher than any previous figure.

Name a club that has borrowed money and spent it on players in the last 3 years.

I went on a few training courses at a place called Learning Tree 3 or 4 years ago - 3/4 day things with an exam at the end on a Friday afternoon - you get a nice certificate which really counts for nowt but the actual courses are pretty decent. Anyway I remember one where a lad didn't bother with the exam as he said that he'd vowed after leaving university never to take another test in his life - pretty weird attitude I thought.

don't be stupid, thats like saying don't criticise Ameobi for not scoring enough goals when you yourself haven't played premiership football ? What a div. Well stop using it as an arguing point then. More finance savvy people than you are I have posted in this thread on both "sides" but you keep cherry picking phrases that "make your point". Its obvious you don't understand what they mean as HF's posts regarding turnover and revenues which gennerally prove that have been completely ignored. So if you say Shephed ran the club from a financial point of view better than Ashley either put up or shut up. Others who think he did have posted and made good points which I accept. You haven't. The FACT is that the club has gone down the football rich list, and its a FACT that they now harbour lower expectations. Its also a FACT that many people said that "anybody would be better than Fred", its now a FACT that this has not proved to be the case, so shut the fuck up yourself unless you can disprove all of the above, especially now he is 4 years into his "plan" [whatever the "plan" was] Explain the basis of the rich list if its so important. You keep forgetting btw - I hate Ashley more than I hate Shepherd - I just don't revere the latter either.

From what source? ask Mike Ashley, he's the expert who would automatically do better than Fred. He's the person who has made the decisions which have led to it, so ask him what decisions he made ? You made the statement, its up to you to justify it.

I'll give you one simple one, he wouldnt have stood by and allowed us to get relegated as Ashley did so there you go £60m. I have no actual figures so I could argue it was 5m plus and you could argue its a tenner however under FS we were moving into the Asian market and creating deals and tie ins with Australasia and the likes. All of which work towards increasing awareness of the brand and the subsequent sales of merchandising that goes with it. Man United do it so well and Im farily sure that a few years ago we were in the top 3 or 4 of recognised names when it came to these markets. You cant go into a public square in Japan without seeing a Man U top and this is one of the things that Shepherd was working on. Another simple proof of it is in the richest clubs list, where are we in that now? 2007 - 13th $260m 2008 - 16th $300m 2009 - 19th $285m 2010 - 20th $198m So since the end of Shepherd (which would be the 2008 figures) we've dropped 4 places and $102m Man U meanwhile have stayed top and upped their worth by a further $35m. I accept relegation - though Shepherd appointed a manager who I think would have relegated us in 2007-2008 - probable money in January or not. The Asian thing is pretty much a non-starter for me - There's no way we would have got anything off the ground to a significant level against Man U and Liverpool in Asia - I'd say peanuts. I don't know the basis of the the rich list but a. I'd assume relegation was a factor which as I said I accepts and b. in absoute terms by that list we were worth more in 2008 - a year after the sale.

From what source?

don't be stupid, thats like saying don't criticise Ameobi for not scoring enough goals when you yourself haven't played premiership football ? What a div. Well stop using it as an arguing point then. More finance savvy people than you are I have posted in this thread on both "sides" but you keep cherry picking phrases that "make your point". Its obvious you don't understand what they mean as HF's posts regarding turnover and revenues which gennerally prove that have been completely ignored. So if you say Shephed ran the club from a financial point of view better than Ashley either put up or shut up. Others who think he did have posted and made good points which I accept. You haven't.

If you can't define what they are and how much they raise then stop using it as an arguing point. You have repeatedly said Shepherd maximised revenues - either put up or shut up - its that simple. If he was doing 10 things that Ashley isnt which amount to more than £5m then I will gladly apologise and concede the point. If you name some things which make a difference of £97 then I'll feel free to tell you where to go.

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me. maybe you don't give Fred enough credit or is Ashley simply a tosspot ? Either way, what you are saying here is that Shepherd [and the Halls] had more about them than Ashley ? Not really what most people predicted is it ie "anybody but Fred" - and I'm not saying YOU personally said that, you may have done, but it doesn't matter, it is what the majority were spouting at the time. Nobody has ever said anybody is a "genius", only that they were a good board and far too many people took the ambition they showed for granted, which looking back was naive although plenty STILL can't bring themselves to admit it. Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why some people don't get this. No - I'm saying that even if he did have clever ways of raising money - which of course you can't define as "exploiting revenue streams" is just one of your magic phrases you quote with no backup - then theres no reason that Ashley wouldn't or couldn't do the same. At the worst it would have been recorded in the accounts even if it was something Ashley hadn't thought of before. Ashley may have failed on many counts but I can't see him ignoring money.

Muscle is healthier than fat - though I think going too far is a waste of time. People should note however that it does weigh more than fat so it is possible to think you've gone a bit wrong if you do tone up a bit.

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me.

I can see a bit of leeway around the edges of things like these but people are suggesting significant amounts which I'm not convinced by.

We were doing an install at work in October after work and had kebabs from a Syrian place at the bottom of Shoreditch high St which was the best kebab I've ever had. Voted Indians.

Can someone (PP?) define the revenue streams which Shepherd exploited that Ashley hasn't?

So the club figures prove that the only way to survive is to have owners who guarantee loans or running costs with their own money - something Hall & Shepherd never did apart from one very early stage when I remember Hall guaranteeing an overdraft with Barclays briefly. In fact I'd say the motivation to sell was probably advice that that's the way clubs were heading and they didn't fancy it. Of course you can spend beyond your means as LM advocates but the results can be summed up by Portsmouth and Leeds who never seem to get a mention in LM's take on football finances. I wonder why that is?