Ashley's Transfer History thread

[peasepud 59]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

[LeazesMag 0]

We should not be selling our best players and using the money to pay wages with the resources we have.

 

What do you do if almost all of your turnover is taken by wages and other costs and that turnover is not expandable to any great degree?

 

That's the sitiation now for nearly all Premier league clubs including us. Given that situation it comes down to generating funds from sales or investment from owners which is our problem as Ashley won't do it.

 

in that case, he isn't ever going to do "better than Fred", exactly as I said years ago, and despite what so many people claimed would happen. And it is still no excuse for competing at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn.

 

I agree but if you spend all your wages on your mortgage etc and the bloke down the road in the shitter house with the shitter job does exactly the same then you're both equally as poor - if there is no money left over how could we outspend Bolton?

 

aren't we outspending Bolton ? Why not ? We should be. What is wrong with the revenues at NUFC if we can't outspend a club like Bolton ? When Mike Ashley took over NUFC we had the 14th biggest revenues in football ?

 

But if all or nearly your revenues go on wages you have nothing left that's my point.

 

When things were at their best previously we were spending 46% on wages so simply put that left 54% for transfers. By 2007 the figure was 86% I think which means 40% less which explains the loss as transfer money was borrowed - that;s just the way football has gone.

 

As I said nearly all clubs now have no money left over and rely on their owners to make up any shortfall. If we have say 10m "left" at the end of the year from 100m and Bolton have 10m left from 60m its still 10m each.

 

If you want to expand the turnover then as Toontoon said, you're talking about £60 match tickets or £1000 STs.

 

I am not interested in what Toontoon says. He said anybody would be better than Fred, when he was quite happy to see the club as one of the best in the country, and he says he is quite happy now "being run like a business" but is not backing the club with his own hard cash anymore. The attraction has gone, yet he is advocating it. They are hypocrites. As soon as someone buys the club and brings these "trophy players" that they scorned, they would be back in their droves.

 

I understand "the way football has gone". But you still don't get my point. The last owners may have made mistakes and took dividends, but put up against their competitors they put the club competing where it ought to be, and gave me as a supporter something fairly close to what I hope the club should do. This is EXACTLY what I mean't when I said it would be very difficult to replace them ie getting a new owner with the desire to compete at those levels again would be very difficult. I am judging the last owners the same as Mike Ashley, basically speaking if he puts this club into the Champions League/europe/top spots/buys top players/backs his managers - and even better top it off with a trophy - then he can walk away with as much money as he can so far as I'm concerned, I'm not interested in his profits at the expense of the team, give me the team and he can make as many millions as he likes which would be the rewards of success.

 

Nothing you say can excuse Newcastle United competing at the levels of Blackburn and Bolton, and selling our best players and the money disappearing down a big black hole. Nothing.

 

And you still don't get my point. Football and debts go together, unfortunately, and NUFC will not go bust simply by competing at higher levels than the likes of Bolton and Blackburn.

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

[Guest alex]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

But the club said they would be.

[ChezGiven 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

Edited June 23, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

But the club said they would be.

 

is that what you think should be happening then ?

[Guest alex]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

But the club said they would be.

 

is that what you think should be happening then ?

I said that because I assume that's why Peasepud is factoring it into his calculations.

[ChezGiven 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

[manc-mag 1]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

 

 

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

how many football clubs are currently in debt and have folded again ?

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

But the club said they would be.

 

is that what you think should be happening then ?

I said that because I assume that's why Peasepud is factoring it into his calculations.

 

has PP changed sides now

[Barney 0]

Well, the Tiote contract came after selling Carroll, so it probably needs to be factored in.

[Guest alex]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

But the club said they would be.

 

is that what you think should be happening then ?

I said that because I assume that's why Peasepud is factoring it into his calculations.

 

has PP changed sides now

Not at all. I think he's just using the criteria set out by the club to guess how much money we've got left for transfers.

[Barney 0]

So you're saying that they got to him?

[ChezGiven 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

how many football clubs are currently in debt and have folded again ?

 

Debt is a highly complex issue, it depends on who it is with, why it was secured, against what, at which rate. Lumping it under one term 'debt' make things easy but ignores the reality that across the PL, the debt structure is vastly different from club to club even if we say they are all 'in debt'.

 

Thats why its best to focus on fundamentals: cash flow in and cash flow out. I hope you can see that spending every single penny of money generated from a transfer creats a cashflow problem if the club is only breaking even (or worse) before the transfer? This sort of cash loss is looked upon as very much an idiotic thing to do by banks, so if we then want to borrow to pay our wages the bank will call us muppets and charge us credit card levels of interest. Its very different to say, lending me money to leverage the ownership, build a stadium etc. These are solid investments.

 

'So we can pay our wages' is the worst reason in the world to create new debt. Saab are trying to sort a loan out today to pay their factory workers and its viewed as a calamity for them. This is basically what Portsmouth did, increased their wage bill beyond their means.

[Toonpack 9463]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

how many football clubs are currently in debt and have folded again ?

 

Debt is a highly complex issue, it depends on who it is with, why it was secured, against what, at which rate. Lumping it under one term 'debt' make things easy but ignores the reality that across the PL, the debt structure is vastly different from club to club even if we say they are all 'in debt'.

 

Thats why its best to focus on fundamentals: cash flow in and cash flow out. I hope you can see that spending every single penny of money generated from a transfer creats a cashflow problem if the club is only breaking even (or worse) before the transfer? This sort of cash loss is looked upon as very much an idiotic thing to do by banks, so if we then want to borrow to pay our wages the bank will call us muppets and charge us credit card levels of interest. Its very different to say, lending me money to leverage the ownership, build a stadium etc. These are solid investments.

 

'So we can pay our wages' is the worst reason in the world to create new debt. Saab are trying to sort a loan out today to pay their factory workers and its viewed as a calamity for them. This is basically what Portsmouth did, increased their wage bill beyond their means.

 

He still won't "get it" man !! you're wasting your time.

 

Wages come from the magic wages tree in the basement biodome at SJP, sadly that bastard Ashley refused to water it and carved his initials in its bark. Wouldn't have happened under the Halls and Shepherd, it got fed miracle grow and baby bio and all sorts in those days (and a good amount of horseshit) ......................

[sammynb 3365]

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Sorry maybe I'm as thick as leaze, sorry steve I know you're not think.

But fuck me is that not a load of shite.

Where in all that are you accounting for wages off the current wage bill?

Just accounting for Carroll and Nolan, there is 80k a week. Plus the rumoured 20k big Sol was on.

 

You guys take every opportunity to beat Leaze with your stick but be fair and account for what is there or not as the case maybe.

[ChezGiven 0]

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Sorry maybe I'm as thick as leaze, sorry steve I know you're not think.

But fuck me is that not a load of shite.

Where in all that are you accounting for wages off the current wage bill?

Just accounting for Carroll and Nolan, there is 80k a week. Plus the rumoured 20k big Sol was on.

 

You guys take every opportunity to beat Leaze with your stick but be fair and account for what is there or not as the case maybe.

I wasnt actually trying to do the NUFC accounts, i was posting on a messageboard trying to illustrate a point. I dont take every opportunity to beat anyone, i'm just trying to keep the discussions grounded in reality. However, just for you, try to ignore the ins and outs and just focus on the numbers as a thought exercise:

 

The club is breaking even (wages + costs = revenue). It gains £30m from a transfer. It spends £30m on a new player. Wages increase by £10m. Revenue stays the same (wages + £10m + costs > revenue). Just trying to make sure everyone gets it.

Edited June 23, 2011 by ChezGiven

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

But the club said they would be.

 

is that what you think should be happening then ?

I said that because I assume that's why Peasepud is factoring it into his calculations.

 

has PP changed sides now

Not at all. I think he's just using the criteria set out by the club to guess how much money we've got left for transfers.

 

yep I see what he is doing

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

how many football clubs are currently in debt and have folded again ?

 

Debt is a highly complex issue, it depends on who it is with, why it was secured, against what, at which rate. Lumping it under one term 'debt' make things easy but ignores the reality that across the PL, the debt structure is vastly different from club to club even if we say they are all 'in debt'.

 

Thats why its best to focus on fundamentals: cash flow in and cash flow out. I hope you can see that spending every single penny of money generated from a transfer creats a cashflow problem if the club is only breaking even (or worse) before the transfer? This sort of cash loss is looked upon as very much an idiotic thing to do by banks, so if we then want to borrow to pay our wages the bank will call us muppets and charge us credit card levels of interest. Its very different to say, lending me money to leverage the ownership, build a stadium etc. These are solid investments.

 

'So we can pay our wages' is the worst reason in the world to create new debt. Saab are trying to sort a loan out today to pay their factory workers and its viewed as a calamity for them. This is basically what Portsmouth did, increased their wage bill beyond their means.

 

He still won't "get it" man !! you're wasting your time.

 

Wages come from the magic wages tree in the basement biodome at SJP, sadly that bastard Ashley refused to water it and carved his initials in its bark. Wouldn't have happened under the Halls and Shepherd, it got fed miracle grow and baby bio and all sorts in those days (and a good amount of horseshit) ......................

 

September 1st isn't that far away, it will be here before you can say "Carroll money disappeared".

 

When exactly is your man Mike going to match the european qualifications and champions league qualifications of the Halls and Shepherd then ? Please enlighten those of us who don't "get it".

[LeazesMag 0]

You got Tiote's wges in with that, Pud?

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye

 

but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ?

If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense.

 

There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases.

 

Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January.

 

we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines.

 

There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards.

 

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

how many football clubs are currently in debt and have folded again ?

 

Debt is a highly complex issue, it depends on who it is with, why it was secured, against what, at which rate. Lumping it under one term 'debt' make things easy but ignores the reality that across the PL, the debt structure is vastly different from club to club even if we say they are all 'in debt'.

 

Thats why its best to focus on fundamentals: cash flow in and cash flow out. I hope you can see that spending every single penny of money generated from a transfer creats a cashflow problem if the club is only breaking even (or worse) before the transfer? This sort of cash loss is looked upon as very much an idiotic thing to do by banks, so if we then want to borrow to pay our wages the bank will call us muppets and charge us credit card levels of interest. Its very different to say, lending me money to leverage the ownership, build a stadium etc. These are solid investments.

 

'So we can pay our wages' is the worst reason in the world to create new debt. Saab are trying to sort a loan out today to pay their factory workers and its viewed as a calamity for them. This is basically what Portsmouth did, increased their wage bill beyond their means.

 

you're sounding more like macbeth with each passing day

[sammynb 3365]

It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

 

I;m not going to argue but just think about this:

 

We are currently breaking even (we hope, at best we break even this season).

 

We currently have a wage bill of £65m which is at the limit since we are breaking even (important to grasp this bit)

 

We have £35m to spend.

 

We spend £35m on 4 players earning £10m a year.

 

We are now losing £10m a year in the first year of their contracts. We have to borrow that money to pay them.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Sorry maybe I'm as thick as leaze, sorry steve I know you're not think.

But fuck me is that not a load of shite.

Where in all that are you accounting for wages off the current wage bill?

Just accounting for Carroll and Nolan, there is 80k a week. Plus the rumoured 20k big Sol was on.

 

You guys take every opportunity to beat Leaze with your stick but be fair and account for what is there or not as the case maybe.

I wasnt actually trying to do the NUFC accounts, i was posting on a messageboard trying to illustrate a point. I dont take every opportunity to beat anyone, i'm just trying to keep the discussions grounded in reality. However, just for you, try to ignore the ins and outs and just focus on the numbers as a thought exercise:

 

The club is breaking even (wages + costs = revenue). It gains £30m from a transfer. It spends £30m on a new player. Wages increase by £10m. Revenue stays the same (wages + £10m + costs > revenue). Just trying to make sure everyone gets it.

 

Oh great. btw, you never mentioned anything about "transfer fees."

 

But it's never that way is it?

Which is what Leaze keeps harping on about.

 

tbf, none of us have a fucking clue what is going on financially at NUFC and to assume otherwise, "while making a point" is complete marde.

[manc-mag 1]

"Leaze"?

 

What have I missed?

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

I gave up replying to L.M.s posts as he just asks the same question over and over, even when its been answered. Ask him something and get a question in response or maybe an answer that has nothing to do with the question.

 

I'm going to wait until the window closes before making any more judgements