Our finances

[Kitman 2204]

Just suppose Ashley has these Qataris lined up and it's nailed on they will buy the club for a ridiculous price.

As with Man City, it's highly likely they'd want their own high profile manager in when they take over. As money isn't a problem, Pardew would be due a big pay off i.e 5 x annual salary. But this wouldn't deter the new owners from buying the club or paying him off.

 

Against this backdrop, the length of Pardew's contract makes perfect sense. He'd only be a caretaker manager pending the sale, but they'd have taken the opportunity to put a big lump of cash into his pocket at the arabs' expense for doing very little, basically because he's a mate. In the meantime if he does a good job it boosts his reputation and if he doesn't, it's not his fault.

 

I may be being unduly cynical......

 

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.

 

Oh well, it was just a theory

[Christmas Tree 4711]

I think most people don't care about the finances as long as the club isn't going to go bust. I don't see any satisfaction in running at break even or better, I'd rather we were in debt, buying players and competing for trophies. It's not up to me to decide what is financially prudent, I don't give a toss about it frankly. What Ashley's done at our club baffles me and I don't trust him one iota with its future.

Unfortunately, that doesnt make any sense. You cant expect the club not to go bust and be in debt.

 

Aren't all the other PL clubs in debt though (and loss making too)? They aren't about to go bust unless their benefactors put them under, are they? It's totally obvious Ashley is subsidising the club and without his support it would go under, I get that. But so what? There can't be many clubs that make profits and the situation must have been obvious when he bought the club. I know the Shepherd and the Halls left a financial mess when he bought the club, again he should have known this.

 

My frustration is that he seems to be applying financial strictures to the club that no-one else is adopting. That might be prudent business, we might be ahead of the curve and other clubs may have to fall into line, or whatever. However I can see that with more investment, we would do significantly better. I want more ambition - I say that as a fan, not their financial director.

 

Chez, I understand the economics don't make sense, but in my view, if he couldn't afford to put the money in, he shouldn't have bought the club in the first place. My view isn't driven by business logic or analysis, I'm just a fan who wants the club to do well. I really haven't bothered to go into the detail of the finances, so I'm talking from the heart not the head.

 

There are some clubs who have spent loads and have either gone bust or are now seriously reigning in the spend and there are a raft of clubs who are about to. Bolton being a good example of what is coming, we arent much different to anyone else in terms of spending power. When you add in our spend in January and the summer and set it against other clubs in the prem we arent the 3rd bottom spenders any more. I doubt many will spend in January but i reckon we will do another £5m, which would take us to about £15m in 12 months.

 

My view is that apart from lacking investment (no more than £10m would be realistic) in 08/09 he hasnt done much wrong financially. Its not this which is the problem with Ashley. The year he took over our revenue was £99m but our spend was £107m, to balance that year out, spend has to be £91m the following year if revenue stays the same. As revenue dropped £13m he had to find £21m in savings to sort out the problem. We sold £23m worth of players.

 

The debt/loss thing is just like the debt/deficit issue for countries. Debt is not the problem, its the deficit (loss) that affects your ability to raise finance. If you have a huge loss, no-one will lend as you are a risk. If you have a huge debt but break even, people will lend to you.

 

Our finances were about as bad as it can get when he took over as we were at the end of our credit line. Whether a plan was in place to re-finance in June 2007 or not is irrelevant because by 2008 the world of 'finance' had changed forever. Me knowing what happened next makes me think that we would have been fucked. Shepherd cant be held to blame for not fore-seeing the crisis either, i want to be clear on that.

 

Anyway, my point is one of optimism (where i came in on this) because once the rules change, we have to break even or limit losses anyway. My hope is that we are getting the financial side sorted out in preparation for this. Being 8th when no-one dared to hope for more than 17th whilst doing this, lets me see the glass half full. I'm not trying to defend him, the facts are the club was not healthy financially when he came in, £45m of debt had to be paid off there and then, the banks would not lend NUFC a penny more with him as the new owner and the club was stuffed with overpaid, poor footballer taking up more wages than was viable. It got worse from there because of his idiocy but it could have been a lot worse as finance basically disappeared.

 

Good post.

 

I think the problem is that many fans, myself included, expected a rich man coming in to finance the club from his own pocket. Ashley encouraged this image, saying he just wanted to have a bit of fun and the appointment of Keegan etc did nothing to dispel that myth. Then all of a sudden the shutters came down,

 

Said it before and I'll say it again. Ashley gets far more stick than he deserves.

 

His biggest mistake was the lack of due dilligence. Even so he backed Allardyce and but a good chairman in place who started to do some good stuff behind the scenes.

 

Even after Mort had left (start of the problems for me), Ashley, not being immersed in day to day running, probably thought he was putting a fairly decent structure in place to take the club forward on lots of different levels. He was also still investing money.

 

Keegan quitting left him in the position of either backing Keegan or The rest of the management team he had in place, including his most trusted aide, LLambias. Keegan was never going to win, despite meetings in London to try and resolve it.

 

We are now in Late 2008, The world economy stops, Boycotts and protests at St. James, a management plan in tatters, the black hole in the finances and a club losing money. This to me is when the investment really stopped.

 

Hughton then JFK then Shearer. Ashley didnt want to trust any of these caretakers with transfer millions and hoped they had enough quality to whether the storm. We did have enough quality, just not enough back bone.

 

For me, his actions since relegation have been in the interests of turning the club around his way. We now sit 8th so I at this point in time, the proof is in the pudding.

 

We had the window we needed last January and the window we needed last summer and again I think we will again move forward this January.

 

I also expect a top half finish and with this team and spirit, there is absolutely no reason why we cant chase a european spot.

 

No matter how much we liked Hughton, the people who deal with him on a day to day basis thought him to light weight for the road ahead.

 

I have no idea why they think Pardew is the man, but what matters is they think that so will back him, more than they would Chris.

 

Ashley will always have a good deal of haters but for me it started out well, went tits up and is now recovering. In hindsight I dont put that down to malice, just a series off bad choices in very difficult circumstances.

 

I hope he stays and continues this gradual build for years to come because I dread the thought of the club falling into the hands of Arabs, chinese or Indian chicken farmers.

 

Long term substainibility is better than short term boom and bust.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Since taking over the club three years ago he has poured in more than £250m of his own money to invest in transfer, re-pay debts and loans and working capital. The accounts are expected to show another £30m-plus loss following relegation to the Championship.

 

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.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Lee Ryder

I understand there is no truth whatsoever in the talk of an NUFC takeover by Qatari investors despite reports this morning

[Guest alex]

Lee Ryder knows his shit.

[Happy Face 29]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Since taking over the club three years ago he has poured in more than £250m of his own money to invest in transfer, re-pay debts and loans and working capital. The accounts are expected to show another £30m-plus loss following relegation to the Championship.

 

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....

 

Details of transfer activity over the last decade show the changing approach quite clearly. In the six years since the turn of the millennium Newcastle had net spend of £82 million, but in the last four years there has been a surplus of £18 million. Even when the new board sanctioned higher spending of £30 million in 2008/09, this was matched by sales of £32 million.

[Park Life 71]

Buy gold sell monkey nuts.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Since taking over the club three years ago he has poured in more than £250m of his own money to invest in transfer, re-pay debts and loans and working capital. The accounts are expected to show another £30m-plus loss following relegation to the Championship.

 

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....

 

Details of transfer activity over the last decade show the changing approach quite clearly. In the six years since the turn of the millennium Newcastle had net spend of £82 million, but in the last four years there has been a surplus of £18 million. Even when the new board sanctioned higher spending of £30 million in 2008/09, this was matched by sales of £32 million.

 

 

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.

[Happy Face 29]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Since taking over the club three years ago he has poured in more than £250m of his own money to invest in transfer, re-pay debts and loans and working capital. The accounts are expected to show another £30m-plus loss following relegation to the Championship.

 

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....

 

Details of transfer activity over the last decade show the changing approach quite clearly. In the six years since the turn of the millennium Newcastle had net spend of £82 million, but in the last four years there has been a surplus of £18 million. Even when the new board sanctioned higher spending of £30 million in 2008/09, this was matched by sales of £32 million.

 

 

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.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Since taking over the club three years ago he has poured in more than £250m of his own money to invest in transfer, re-pay debts and loans and working capital. The accounts are expected to show another £30m-plus loss following relegation to the Championship.

 

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....

 

Details of transfer activity over the last decade show the changing approach quite clearly. In the six years since the turn of the millennium Newcastle had net spend of £82 million, but in the last four years there has been a surplus of £18 million. Even when the new board sanctioned higher spending of £30 million in 2008/09, this was matched by sales of £32 million.

 

 

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.

[Happy Face 29]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

 

Since taking over the club three years ago he has poured in more than £250m of his own money to invest in transfer, re-pay debts and loans and working capital. The accounts are expected to show another £30m-plus loss following relegation to the Championship.

 

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....

 

Details of transfer activity over the last decade show the changing approach quite clearly. In the six years since the turn of the millennium Newcastle had net spend of £82 million, but in the last four years there has been a surplus of £18 million. Even when the new board sanctioned higher spending of £30 million in 2008/09, this was matched by sales of £32 million.

 

 

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.

[LeazesMag 0]

Maybe he is just preparing us to be sold? Getting the wages down is a means to that too.

 

The Hughton decision certainly shows he hasnt learned much from his mistakes. If he invests in January then it might be clearer what his intentions are. With Gosling, Ben Arfa and 2 new recruits we might do alright second half of the season. A lot depends on Pardew too who has yet to convince me he isnt a cunt.

 

this.

[LeazesMag 0]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

Happy New Year.

 

Who says the Daily Mail prints shit ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Good thread lads.

 

Mike Ashley is a fat cunt.

 

 

No ambitions though. Cost cutting is ludicrous. Idiot with ambition and certain bankruptcy FTW

 

u-turn of the decade

 

 

Comprehension issues.

 

u-turn of the decade

[Happy Face 29]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

Happy New Year.

 

Who says the Daily Mail prints shit ?

 

I did a couple of posts up

 

the journalist hasn't done the most basic fact checking?

 

[U_V 0]

My view is that apart from lacking investment (no more than £10m would be realistic) in 08/09 he hasnt done much wrong financially. Its not this which is the problem with Ashley. The year he took over our revenue was £99m but our spend was £107m, to balance that year out, spend has to be £91m the following year if revenue stays the same. As revenue dropped £13m he had to find £21m in savings to sort out the problem. We sold £23m worth of players.

 

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?

 

The debt/loss thing is just like the debt/deficit issue for countries. Debt is not the problem, its the deficit (loss) that affects your ability to raise finance. If you have a huge loss, no-one will lend as you are a risk. If you have a huge debt but break even, people will lend to you.

 

Our finances were about as bad as it can get when he took over as we were at the end of our credit line. Whether a plan was in place to re-finance in June 2007 or not is irrelevant because by 2008 the world of 'finance' had changed forever. Me knowing what happened next makes me think that we would have been fucked. Shepherd cant be held to blame for not fore-seeing the crisis either, i want to be clear on that.

 

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.

 

Anyway, my point is one of optimism (where i came in on this) because once the rules change, we have to break even or limit losses anyway. My hope is that we are getting the financial side sorted out in preparation for this. Being 8th when no-one dared to hope for more than 17th whilst doing this, lets me see the glass half full. I'm not trying to defend him, the facts are the club was not healthy financially when he came in, £45m of debt had to be paid off there and then, the banks would not lend NUFC a penny more with him as the new owner and the club was stuffed with overpaid, poor footballer taking up more wages than was viable. It got worse from there because of his idiocy but it could have been a lot worse as finance basically disappeared.

 

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.

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

nailed.

[Christmas Tree 4711]

My view is that apart from lacking investment (no more than £10m would be realistic) in 08/09 he hasnt done much wrong financially. Its not this which is the problem with Ashley. The year he took over our revenue was £99m but our spend was £107m, to balance that year out, spend has to be £91m the following year if revenue stays the same. As revenue dropped £13m he had to find £21m in savings to sort out the problem. We sold £23m worth of players.

 

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?

 

The debt/loss thing is just like the debt/deficit issue for countries. Debt is not the problem, its the deficit (loss) that affects your ability to raise finance. If you have a huge loss, no-one will lend as you are a risk. If you have a huge debt but break even, people will lend to you.

 

Our finances were about as bad as it can get when he took over as we were at the end of our credit line. Whether a plan was in place to re-finance in June 2007 or not is irrelevant because by 2008 the world of 'finance' had changed forever. Me knowing what happened next makes me think that we would have been fucked. Shepherd cant be held to blame for not fore-seeing the crisis either, i want to be clear on that.

 

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.

 

Anyway, my point is one of optimism (where i came in on this) because once the rules change, we have to break even or limit losses anyway. My hope is that we are getting the financial side sorted out in preparation for this. Being 8th when no-one dared to hope for more than 17th whilst doing this, lets me see the glass half full. I'm not trying to defend him, the facts are the club was not healthy financially when he came in, £45m of debt had to be paid off there and then, the banks would not lend NUFC a penny more with him as the new owner and the club was stuffed with overpaid, poor footballer taking up more wages than was viable. It got worse from there because of his idiocy but it could have been a lot worse as finance basically disappeared.

 

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?

[LeazesMag 0]

Be nice if true:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...-EXCLUSIVE.html

 

Happy New Year.

 

Who says the Daily Mail prints shit ?

 

I did a couple of posts up

 

the journalist hasn't done the most basic fact checking?

 

 

no paper prints shit ALL the time man.

 

Except the Guardian

[LeazesMag 0]

My view is that apart from lacking investment (no more than £10m would be realistic) in 08/09 he hasnt done much wrong financially. Its not this which is the problem with Ashley. The year he took over our revenue was £99m but our spend was £107m, to balance that year out, spend has to be £91m the following year if revenue stays the same. As revenue dropped £13m he had to find £21m in savings to sort out the problem. We sold £23m worth of players.

 

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?

 

The debt/loss thing is just like the debt/deficit issue for countries. Debt is not the problem, its the deficit (loss) that affects your ability to raise finance. If you have a huge loss, no-one will lend as you are a risk. If you have a huge debt but break even, people will lend to you.

 

Our finances were about as bad as it can get when he took over as we were at the end of our credit line. Whether a plan was in place to re-finance in June 2007 or not is irrelevant because by 2008 the world of 'finance' had changed forever. Me knowing what happened next makes me think that we would have been fucked. Shepherd cant be held to blame for not fore-seeing the crisis either, i want to be clear on that.

 

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.

 

Anyway, my point is one of optimism (where i came in on this) because once the rules change, we have to break even or limit losses anyway. My hope is that we are getting the financial side sorted out in preparation for this. Being 8th when no-one dared to hope for more than 17th whilst doing this, lets me see the glass half full. I'm not trying to defend him, the facts are the club was not healthy financially when he came in, £45m of debt had to be paid off there and then, the banks would not lend NUFC a penny more with him as the new owner and the club was stuffed with overpaid, poor footballer taking up more wages than was viable. It got worse from there because of his idiocy but it could have been a lot worse as finance basically disappeared.

 

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 ?

[Happy Face 29]

My view is that apart from lacking investment (no more than £10m would be realistic) in 08/09 he hasnt done much wrong financially. Its not this which is the problem with Ashley. The year he took over our revenue was £99m but our spend was £107m, to balance that year out, spend has to be £91m the following year if revenue stays the same. As revenue dropped £13m he had to find £21m in savings to sort out the problem. We sold £23m worth of players.

 

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?

 

The debt/loss thing is just like the debt/deficit issue for countries. Debt is not the problem, its the deficit (loss) that affects your ability to raise finance. If you have a huge loss, no-one will lend as you are a risk. If you have a huge debt but break even, people will lend to you.

 

Our finances were about as bad as it can get when he took over as we were at the end of our credit line. Whether a plan was in place to re-finance in June 2007 or not is irrelevant because by 2008 the world of 'finance' had changed forever. Me knowing what happened next makes me think that we would have been fucked. Shepherd cant be held to blame for not fore-seeing the crisis either, i want to be clear on that.

 

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.

 

Anyway, my point is one of optimism (where i came in on this) because once the rules change, we have to break even or limit losses anyway. My hope is that we are getting the financial side sorted out in preparation for this. Being 8th when no-one dared to hope for more than 17th whilst doing this, lets me see the glass half full. I'm not trying to defend him, the facts are the club was not healthy financially when he came in, £45m of debt had to be paid off there and then, the banks would not lend NUFC a penny more with him as the new owner and the club was stuffed with overpaid, poor footballer taking up more wages than was viable. It got worse from there because of his idiocy but it could have been a lot worse as finance basically disappeared.

 

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

[LeazesMag 0]

My view is that apart from lacking investment (no more than £10m would be realistic) in 08/09 he hasnt done much wrong financially. Its not this which is the problem with Ashley. The year he took over our revenue was £99m but our spend was £107m, to balance that year out, spend has to be £91m the following year if revenue stays the same. As revenue dropped £13m he had to find £21m in savings to sort out the problem. We sold £23m worth of players.

 

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?

 

The debt/loss thing is just like the debt/deficit issue for countries. Debt is not the problem, its the deficit (loss) that affects your ability to raise finance. If you have a huge loss, no-one will lend as you are a risk. If you have a huge debt but break even, people will lend to you.

 

Our finances were about as bad as it can get when he took over as we were at the end of our credit line. Whether a plan was in place to re-finance in June 2007 or not is irrelevant because by 2008 the world of 'finance' had changed forever. Me knowing what happened next makes me think that we would have been fucked. Shepherd cant be held to blame for not fore-seeing the crisis either, i want to be clear on that.

 

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.

 

Anyway, my point is one of optimism (where i came in on this) because once the rules change, we have to break even or limit losses anyway. My hope is that we are getting the financial side sorted out in preparation for this. Being 8th when no-one dared to hope for more than 17th whilst doing this, lets me see the glass half full. I'm not trying to defend him, the facts are the club was not healthy financially when he came in, £45m of debt had to be paid off there and then, the banks would not lend NUFC a penny more with him as the new owner and the club was stuffed with overpaid, poor footballer taking up more wages than was viable. It got worse from there because of his idiocy but it could have been a lot worse as finance basically disappeared.

 

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

 

The finance situation is being discussed. Anybody who thinks the financial position is such that the club will push on and aim for success is quite firmly on drugs. We will not finish 8th or consolidate it on a long term basis under Ashley.

 

Oh, and a small matter, but only one new player signed since Keegan left the club would get into the team at the expense of the players he had available to him at that time.

Edited December 16, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

Oh, and a small matter, but only one new player signed since Keegan left the club would get into the current team at the expense of the players he had available to him at that time.

 

Tiote I assume.

 

Or Nolan?

 

Or Simpson?

 

Or Routledge?

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Oh, and a small matter, but only one new player signed since Keegan left the club would get into the current team at the expense of the players he had available to him at that time.

 

Tiote I assume.

 

Or Nolan?

 

Or Simpson?

 

Or Routledge?

 

 

Tiote. Of course.

 

Routledge ? haha, you're fuckin joking.

[Happy Face 29]

Oh, and a small matter, but only one new player signed since Keegan left the club would get into the current team at the expense of the players he had available to him at that time.

 

Tiote I assume.

 

Or Nolan?

 

Or Simpson?

 

Or Routledge?

 

Or Williamson?