Henderson to Liverpool

[JawD 99]

LM, you are going on about Liverpools transfer style being the right way (while I would argue they are taking massive risks spending £35M on Carroll and £20M on Henderson - too risky a gamble for me).

 

But have you looked at Arsenal? They spend £10-£14M on the odd occasion and often spend £4-5M on players as well. More often than not though they have net surplus after the window closes having sold players.

 

Here is the list

 

Here is also a net spend table which makes interesting reading. What you would expect to see is the higher the transfer fees the more success?

 

Table

 

and another one, since 2006 a table of net spend. Again, would you expect to see higher payers at the top and visa versa? To support your argument, we are bottom, 20th in net spend. Despite being a current mid table side. But Arsenal are 2nd bottom? Man City waaaaay out in first yet havent won the league.

 

Net spend table

 

Stats eh

 

I realise you are trying to be more sensible than the fuckwits/others [or some of them] but where do you find another Arsene Wenger ? And to say Arsenal haven't backed their manager when he thinks he's seen a quality player is also a myth too.

 

Do you think NUFC should be competing with clubs such as Bolton and Blackburn, selling our best players to clubs like Spurs and Liverpool and replacing them with inferior players who in turn will not stay at the club long term even if they are the one player in 6 or 7 from this "bargain" basement who comes good ?

 

Yes or no.

 

On the first part, kinda backs up what I said somewhere else. It's not the amount spent but the manager who identifies a player and then the club back the manager and buy him. Arsenal have backed AW, hence spending £15M on Arshavin. Point is though, they have spent very wisely and off-loaded players as needed. My point here really referred back to your "penny pinching" point. If we are going for £5M players, Arsenal have brought in some fantastic players for that value and under. Finding another AW though? I agree its damn hard. But like I say, my point is that it is possible to build a solid team without always spending silly money. But, Id like to think (well ok, I hope) that when we finally get a team worthy of a top 7 finish, we may need to add one £15M player a season, backed up by one or two £5M players.

 

To your second point, No.

 

But I'll add to it rather than just meeting your yes or no requirement

 

Selling our best players to Spurs and Liverpool. Which transfers did you have in mind? Carroll? Id have sold him for £35M, that was stupid money for an unproven kid. If they didnt have the Torres money no way would he have been valued at that. We had to take it. Who else though? I can't honestly think of another of our top players we have sold. In the same circumstance, I think Spurs and Liverpool would have sold as well. As for replacing with inferior players, again I can only look at Carroll as that is all we have sold? That is a question I can only answer at the end of this window (fucking stupid idea selling him when we did, we should have tried to hold on till this summer so we could replace. As it happens, it didnt harm us in the end as we stayed up. big risk though).

 

I honestly dont think we are competing with Bolton and Blackburn and I think we'll finish above both next season?

 

This said, I dont think we are competing with Spurs or Liverpool either. But we should be building towards that. Should be.

 

 

 

Let's see. Alan Kennedy, Terry MacDermott, Peter Beardsley, Chris Waddle, Paul Gascoigne, David Ginola, Sebastian Bassong. Hmm.

 

You knew what I meant.

[LeazesMag 0]

Give my head a shake, you are asking the owners to spend money the club doesnt have. We have made losses in the last four years so even a net profit on transfers does not condone buying new players. You can't look at a business in separate sections it must be as a whole and if the result is a loss then this must be rectified.

 

I would hate Ashley much more if we had no club than us having a below average team and I am willing to accept that until the club is sold. Ashley has made mistakes but we are ahead of most clubs when it comes to financial fair play when that is finally implemented and that includes many clubs above us in the league. The transfer window has started off quite promising and for some reason to me it feels like he will actually keep his word and spend the money, on players and wages which I am fine with for the reason given above or close to it at least.

 

As I have said to you previously your point of view re: finances is what is wrong with the world, spend it now and worry later when others will bail us out. It gives a good indication as to the type of person you are really and it is extremely worrying that know matter how many people tell you the same you can't see the wood for the trees so to speak!

 

unfortunately, a character assassination is not in keeping with the thread, simply because I hold a different opinion to you. I will revert back to sticking to the facts, you had your chance to engage a sensible debate. Mike Ashley is running the club like a 2nd rate football club, it is now in decline, he has sown the seeds of decline, this club is one of the biggest in europe, it should not be accepting standards and expectations like those held by clubs such as Bolton and Blackburn. He will NEVER match the league positions and european/champions League qualifications of his predecessors. As the seasons go by, support towards a team which views survival as the aim will tail off, the longer he stays, the lower it will go. We will sell any good player that we find, and we will attempt to replace him with some young French or African player and hope he will come good, which about one in 7 or 8 actually will, but when they realise the club is going nowhere will move to someone like Spurs or Liverpool, with less support than us, but prepared to make themselves attractive to top footballers.

 

Not everybody disagrees with me, you should look around you and open your eyes, quite a few people are now realising this. In a few years time, the folly of Mike Ashleys selling club will become more apparent, although I doubt that a lot of people will admit it, they will find some way of moving the goalposts instead, like Toonpack is doing now, because in 2005-06 he was happy with the way the club was being run when it was doing well.

 

There are lots of people who appear to be happy to tell the club exactly where it is going wrong that don't go to games, what a shame their "expertise" isn't tailored and based on the clubs in football who have actually been successful, or even our own club and the best 15 years of the last 50 by a million miles and the methods they used to achieve it.

 

This is yet another post which could be bumped on September 1st and beyond, as time goes by.

 

Pay peanut wages and you get monkeys. Any half decent player we sign under this man will only see us as a stepping stone towards teams we used to be challening and in most cases beating not so long ago, with one of the biggest support, fanbases and stadiums in europe, slap bang in the middle of a big city which is the commercial capital of its area and not another city like it for over 100 miles.

 

Please tell me that you or someone else said everything you say above is the reason why people wanted the Halls and Shepherd out , at the time, because I don't recall a single person saying anything like this.

Edited June 13, 2011 by LeazesMag

[manc-mag 1]

[GeeForce 0]

Your argument is all well and good. Everyone else would agree also we want the best players at the club and that is not the issue here. You are choosing to ignore the most salient point of all and that it we can't afford it.

 

Let me phrase it slightly differently then, rather than telling you that you are wrong as you point out you are fully entitled to your own opinion how do you think we should finance the the visions you have. Where are we to get the money from and who realistically do you think we could attract with the club as is (my point here is mistakes have been made in the past! They have now gone and cannot be changed so how would you from this point finance success and stop the club from going in to administration as it is obvious you are happy to run on debt as long as the club does not go under)

 

Answer me that with a sensible response which is plausible and could yield results and you never know I may, just may be won over. I am not here to as you claim lay down personal assassinations, it is simply an observation made based on your way of thinking which personally I find completely and utterly immoral, however, I will keep these opinions to myself and allow you to try and get your point across by way of a reasonable plan for the club without further prejudice to your personality!

[LeazesMag 0]

Your argument is all well and good. Everyone else would agree also we want the best players at the club and that is not the issue here. You are choosing to ignore the most salient point of all and that it we can't afford it.

 

Let me phrase it slightly differently then, rather than telling you that you are wrong as you point out you are fully entitled to your own opinion how do you think we should finance the the visions you have. Where are we to get the money from and who realistically do you think we could attract with the club as is (my point here is mistakes have been made in the past! They have now gone and cannot be changed so how would you from this point finance success and stop the club from going in to administration as it is obvious you are happy to run on debt as long as the club does not go under)

 

Answer me that with a sensible response which is plausible and could yield results and you never know I may, just may be won over. I am not here to as you claim lay down personal assassinations, it is simply an observation made based on your way of thinking which personally I find completely and utterly immoral, however, I will keep these opinions to myself and allow you to try and get your point across by way of a reasonable plan for the club without further prejudice to your personality!

 

my answer is you speculate to accumulate. Nobody in football "saves the money up to buy footballers or only spends their profits on new signings". Is this what you mean ? This is not the "real" footballing world. EVery club has debts. Having debts in football is the way it is, its a shit industry and completely different to the "normal" financial rules and scenarios.

 

People like you can preach on about your idealistic views, which is a successful club that spends its profits on footballers, and the profits are large enough to constantly buy the best footballers, but in football, it doesn't work like that.

 

Debt is the name of the game I'm afraid.

 

The alternative is selling your best clubs to others who are smaller than you but recognise how success is achieved, rather than sitting in an ivory tower and putting the football world to rights and claiming the higher ground. The basic starting point is supporters, sponsors, advertisers, TV, the best footballers etc etc are not attracted to a club which makes a profit, they are attracted to a team which is winning on the pitch and competing at the top levels.

 

Illogical and different it may be, but that is the name of the game and how it is. There is no point in people like you pointing at the idealistic dream, football is the way it is, its a loss making "industry", accept it and deal with it.

 

If you disagree, name me clubs that succeed by only spending profits, and name me any NUFC team you like of any period who has challenged the top teams by only spending profits and nothing else.

 

The other major point also is this. These message boards, and in real life, produce plenty of people who are quite happy to say "if Ashley wasn't here we would have gone bust and out of existence". Apart from that being absolute shit, the fact also is they wanted rid of the last owners because they thought "anyone would do better than Fred" [with the revenues] but were too stupid to realise it was the Halls and Shepherd and the policies they adopted who built up these revenues. Now we have an owner who is not speculating, so the revenues have changed, leading to a "more efficient business", and people are latching onto this because it is the opposite of what the old owners did, who they "hate", so they want to justify it. So stop moving the goalposts. Not one single person who is now harping on about the finance, said at the time, using some sort of miraculous foresight, that this is why we needed a new owner to compete with Man City because they were going to be taken over by a bunch of Arabs. Not one.

 

This scouting around for cheaper players to replace the quality ones you sell is just an idealistic dream too, it just doesn't work, it won't work. Sell your best players and you go downwards, in the vast majority of cases. That's the way it is.

 

I don't know what "mistakes in the past" you are referring to [another cliche which always makes me smile] but from where I'm sitting, taking a club from one foot in the 3rd division, with a cow shed of a stadium, into one of the biggest clubs in europe, with one of the best grounds, filling it every week, qualifying for europe regularly, attracting top footballers including a world record transfer, doesn't suggest to me that they made too many "mistakes". Some maybe, of course, but not many.

 

I just know that you won't take this on board, but give me flak for posting the "same old nonsense" or however you want to label it, but unfortunately it is right and although at the moment you don't want to see it, in time you will realise the truth. The club is in decline, stand still, don't pay the going rate for wages, sell your best players, and you are in decline.

 

Take heed sunshine, because this is something you should take note of, before branding me "the sort of person that I am" or whatever you were trying to say. I've been there, done it, got the t-shirt, I'm not trying to "wind you up" or any other childish accusation, I'm saying what over 40 years of supporting this football club has shown me. Ignore it if you choose, but eventually, one day, you will realise that I am right.

Edited June 13, 2011 by LeazesMag

[JawD 99]

Something I'm not getting LM, what best players are you on about we have sold to teams lesser than us? I can think of maybe Milner to Villa?

 

I agree every club has debts. It's how those debts are managed. I had no problem with how FS was running the club. I didnt think about finances (who did then?). But, my understanding is we are running in debt?

 

I think of this window differently. I think MA without the sale of Carroll would have still given cash for transfers. Maybe £10M + any sales. I think he has actually SAVED his £10M and just let Pardew have the Carroll money (including wages and new contracts etc). I'd have liked to see him also give him the £10M (assuming it existed). Anyway, thats getting off the point a bit.

 

There is a shit load MA has got wrong, I dont like him and I like his puppet (DL) even less. I think he will fuck the fans over without a blink of the eye. But, I dont think he will run the club into the ground and it's his investment. It has to work or he loses out.

[LeazesMag 0]

Something I'm not getting LM, what best players are you on about we have sold to teams lesser than us? I can think of maybe Milner to Villa?

 

I agree every club has debts. It's how those debts are managed. I had no problem with how FS was running the club. I didnt think about finances (who did then?). But, my understanding is we are running in debt?

 

I think of this window differently. I think MA without the sale of Carroll would have still given cash for transfers. Maybe £10M + any sales. I think he has actually SAVED his £10M and just let Pardew have the Carroll money (including wages and new contracts etc). I'd have liked to see him also give him the £10M (assuming it existed). Anyway, thats getting off the point a bit.

 

There is a shit load MA has got wrong, I dont like him and I like his puppet (DL) even less. I think he will fuck the fans over without a blink of the eye. But, I dont think he will run the club into the ground and it's his investment. It has to work or he loses out.

 

I apologise JawD, I meant to reply to what you said earlier. I'll have another look tomorrow. Was the stadium a badly managed debt ? Most financial experts didn't seem to think so, most of us on here have a mortgage and make repayments based on revenues, earnings etc, so why do amateur football wannabe accountants make out it was some sort of deal with the Devil. What is their alternative ? Save the money up first ? I've asked people like Toonpack and Mad Jock [in response to what he asked me] this very question, and the result is neither of them answer and Toonpack has put me on ignore probably because he realises that he can't.

 

Nobody on here is a football accountant, it would seem. If someone, anywhere, knew how to run a football club that is a success on the pitch and make massive profits to constantly buy the best footballers, how much would they be worth ?

 

Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do.

Edited June 13, 2011 by LeazesMag

[The Fish 10972]

Leazes, what do you think of Arsenal's transfer philosophy?

[Deano 0]

Give my head a shake, you are asking the owners to spend money the club doesnt have. We have made losses in the last four years so even a net profit on transfers does not condone buying new players. You can't look at a business in separate sections it must be as a whole and if the result is a loss then this must be rectified.

 

I would hate Ashley much more if we had no club than us having a below average team and I am willing to accept that until the club is sold. Ashley has made mistakes but we are ahead of most clubs when it comes to financial fair play when that is finally implemented and that includes many clubs above us in the league. The transfer window has started off quite promising and for some reason to me it feels like he will actually keep his word and spend the money, on players and wages which I am fine with for the reason given above or close to it at least.

 

As I have said to you previously your point of view re: finances is what is wrong with the world, spend it now and worry later when others will bail us out. It gives a good indication as to the type of person you are really and it is extremely worrying that know matter how many people tell you the same you can't see the wood for the trees so to speak!

 

Absolutely spot on.

 

Something I'm not getting LM, what best players are you on about we have sold to teams lesser than us? I can think of maybe Milner to Villa?

 

I agree every club has debts. It's how those debts are managed. I had no problem with how FS was running the club. I didnt think about finances (who did then?). But, my understanding is we are running in debt?

 

I think of this window differently. I think MA without the sale of Carroll would have still given cash for transfers. Maybe £10M + any sales. I think he has actually SAVED his £10M and just let Pardew have the Carroll money (including wages and new contracts etc). I'd have liked to see him also give him the £10M (assuming it existed). Anyway, thats getting off the point a bit.

 

There is a shit load MA has got wrong, I dont like him and I like his puppet (DL) even less. I think he will fuck the fans over without a blink of the eye. But, I dont think he will run the club into the ground and it's his investment. It has to work or he loses out.

 

Another quality post.

 

Both your opinions are pretty much how i see it as well.

[StevieRoss 0]

"Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do." LM

 

Putting aside the pros and cons of Ashley v Shepherd, for me this sums up the current situation pretty well. The fun and novelty of owning a football club is long gone for Ashley, and with it any real ambition or passion to win trophies etc. I suspect he may even prefer to NOT win anything to stick it up the fans who turned on him - as he would see it. He'll be running this purely as a businessman now, not as a "fan", and that makes all the difference...

Edited June 14, 2011 by StevieRoss

[Kitman 2207]

"Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do." LM

 

Putting aside the pros and cons of Ashley v Shepherd, for me this sums up the current situation pretty well. The fun and novelty of owning a football club is long gone for Ashley, and with it any real ambition or passion to win trophies etc. I suspect he may even prefer to NOT win anything to stick it up the fans who turned on him - as he would see it. He'll be running this purely as a businessman now, not as a "fan", and that makes all the difference...

 

I don't believe he's ever run the club as anything other than a business. I suspect he didn't appreciate the economics of football when he took over, and trusted the advice of other people.....now he's pulling the strings personally.

 

I also think he would be delighted to win something as he'll make more money that way. I don't think Ashley and businessmen of his ilk give a rat's arse what people think unless it hits them in the pocket. Winning something would also appeal to his ego I reckon.

[JawD 99]

Something I'm not getting LM, what best players are you on about we have sold to teams lesser than us? I can think of maybe Milner to Villa?

 

I agree every club has debts. It's how those debts are managed. I had no problem with how FS was running the club. I didnt think about finances (who did then?). But, my understanding is we are running in debt?

 

I think of this window differently. I think MA without the sale of Carroll would have still given cash for transfers. Maybe £10M + any sales. I think he has actually SAVED his £10M and just let Pardew have the Carroll money (including wages and new contracts etc). I'd have liked to see him also give him the £10M (assuming it existed). Anyway, thats getting off the point a bit.

 

There is a shit load MA has got wrong, I dont like him and I like his puppet (DL) even less. I think he will fuck the fans over without a blink of the eye. But, I dont think he will run the club into the ground and it's his investment. It has to work or he loses out.

 

I apologise JawD, I meant to reply to what you said earlier. I'll have another look tomorrow. Was the stadium a badly managed debt ? Most financial experts didn't seem to think so, most of us on here have a mortgage and make repayments based on revenues, earnings etc, so why do amateur football wannabe accountants make out it was some sort of deal with the Devil. What is their alternative ? Save the money up first ? I've asked people like Toonpack and Mad Jock [in response to what he asked me] this very question, and the result is neither of them answer and Toonpack has put me on ignore probably because he realises that he can't.

 

Nobody on here is a football accountant, it would seem. If someone, anywhere, knew how to run a football club that is a success on the pitch and make massive profits to constantly buy the best footballers, how much would they be worth ?

 

Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do.

 

Well, I dont think the finances were spiralling us into a black hole. Seemed ok back them the way it was being done despite what others will say now. But, that said, many are saying a lot of football clubs were pushing too far with debt and wages. The problem was more that if banks pulled the plug on their debt if they got nervous. I wonder how we would of faired if we were in the same boat when the banking crisis hit? I'd have been a little less comfortable. But, fact is we didnt go bust or whatever, we didnt collapse under FS so I agree with you here. It's just speculation and I'm looking at what has actually happened. So, while I agree with your (more or less) on this point, I've still seen little evidence (remember I'm looking at whats actually happened) to say we are a selling club supplying lesser teams as you said earlier.

 

I also agree that I dont think MA has aspirations for the champions league. That was pretty much confirmed by pardew when he said he hoped that by us getting into Europe, it might make MA thirst for more. I kinda agree with that. I hope he does. I think at the moment thye want a top half finish. I still have in my mind (the young team, the managed debt, the lower wage ratio) is all to set the club up as a good prospect to be sold. MA will then be in an ideal place. If he is enjoying it he can keep it and if not, sell it. But he had to sort things out first to try and make it more attractive. I think he'll struggle currently because of his price. He wont want to lower his price and lose out, so the only other way is to increase it's worth.

 

On my previous point though, I still dont really see evidence of us being a Bolton or Blackburn? Im not sure where you get that from.

[Toonpack 9978]

Something I'm not getting LM, what best players are you on about we have sold to teams lesser than us? I can think of maybe Milner to Villa?

 

I agree every club has debts. It's how those debts are managed. I had no problem with how FS was running the club. I didnt think about finances (who did then?). But, my understanding is we are running in debt?

 

I think of this window differently. I think MA without the sale of Carroll would have still given cash for transfers. Maybe £10M + any sales. I think he has actually SAVED his £10M and just let Pardew have the Carroll money (including wages and new contracts etc). I'd have liked to see him also give him the £10M (assuming it existed). Anyway, thats getting off the point a bit.

 

There is a shit load MA has got wrong, I dont like him and I like his puppet (DL) even less. I think he will fuck the fans over without a blink of the eye. But, I dont think he will run the club into the ground and it's his investment. It has to work or he loses out.

 

I apologise JawD, I meant to reply to what you said earlier. I'll have another look tomorrow. Was the stadium a badly managed debt ? Most financial experts didn't seem to think so, most of us on here have a mortgage and make repayments based on revenues, earnings etc, so why do amateur football wannabe accountants make out it was some sort of deal with the Devil. What is their alternative ? Save the money up first ? I've asked people like Toonpack and Mad Jock [in response to what he asked me] this very question, and the result is neither of them answer and Toonpack has put me on ignore probably because he realises that he can't.

 

Nobody on here is a football accountant, it would seem. If someone, anywhere, knew how to run a football club that is a success on the pitch and make massive profits to constantly buy the best footballers, how much would they be worth ?

 

Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do.

 

Well, I dont think the finances were spiralling us into a black hole. Seemed ok back them the way it was being done despite what others will say now. But, that said, many are saying a lot of football clubs were pushing too far with debt and wages. The problem was more that if banks pulled the plug on their debt if they got nervous. I wonder how we would of faired if we were in the same boat when the banking crisis hit? I'd have been a little less comfortable. But, fact is we didnt go bust or whatever, we didnt collapse under FS so I agree with you here. It's just speculation and I'm looking at what has actually happened. So, while I agree with your (more or less) on this point, I've still seen little evidence (remember I'm looking at whats actually happened) to say we are a selling club supplying lesser teams as you said earlier.

 

I also agree that I dont think MA has aspirations for the champions league. That was pretty much confirmed by pardew when he said he hoped that by us getting into Europe, it might make MA thirst for more. I kinda agree with that. I hope he does. I think at the moment thye want a top half finish. I still have in my mind (the young team, the managed debt, the lower wage ratio) is all to set the club up as a good prospect to be sold. MA will then be in an ideal place. If he is enjoying it he can keep it and if not, sell it. But he had to sort things out first to try and make it more attractive. I think he'll struggle currently because of his price. He wont want to lower his price and lose out, so the only other way is to increase it's worth.

 

On my previous point though, I still dont really see evidence of us being a Bolton or Blackburn? Im not sure where you get that from.

 

I would add one comment, which is the basis for my "blacker side" of the speculation.

 

Outside of the leveraged buy outs, no other significant football club debt is or was like ours, ours was all with banks and was 100% secured against club assets and income streams to the point of saturation. All other debt (certainly in the Prem League) is/was guaranteed or underwritten by club ownership/benefactor so that the clubs are to a point "insured".

 

Despite the assertion in certain quarters that I "hate" the previous ownership, the simple point is that they were not rich enough to cover the club exposure, even if they had the will to.

 

Of the succesfull clubs (to this point) not one of them goes into significant debt to buy players or pay wages (outside of the obvious two). Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have all operated a transfer policy within their means, they do go into debt, but for capital projects like the Emirates or in Spurs case their training ground. They speculate to accumulate but always within their means.

 

Of course it is, to an extent, a self fullfilling prophecy due to the Champions League cash. Liverpool will be an interesting story to watch, they've had little success of late (by their standards), they have historically made profits which has supported their relative success. Now they have no Europe and no Champions league cash, and they, I believe, made a small loss last year, their approach will be interesting when the sums are done at the end of the window, and again if they continue to miss out of the Champions League.

 

P.S. Leazes, on the bit I've bolded in your post (because you were quoted and you're making stuff up again). I have answered that many times. The Stadium debt was "good debt" but it was just over half of what we owed.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Toonpack

[NJS 4411]

The difference is that in the past if a club wanted to speculate to accumulate they could do it via credit. As that's now no longer a possibility in general the only way is for personal investment.

 

Ashley won't do it to a great degree beyond a modest amount which is a pisser if other owners do do that- and that could include "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" unfortunately.

[Toonpack 9978]

The difference is that in the past if a club wanted to speculate to accumulate they could do it via credit. As that's now no longer a possibility in general the only way is for personal investment.

 

Ashley won't do it to a great degree beyond a modest amount which is a pisser if other owners do do that- and that could include "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" unfortunately.

 

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course).

 

That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means.

 

Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Toonpack

[NJS 4411]

The difference is that in the past if a club wanted to speculate to accumulate they could do it via credit. As that's now no longer a possibility in general the only way is for personal investment.

 

Ashley won't do it to a great degree beyond a modest amount which is a pisser if other owners do do that- and that could include "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" unfortunately.

 

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course).

 

That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means.

 

Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up.

 

But if the that turnover includes a higher percentage of wages then there's still less "spare" cash for transfers which is how we operated in the past. It's the rise from a wages/turnover ration of 46% (I remember seeing quoted) to 86% that really fucked us imo.

 

There's also a lion/antelope analogy where if the people who own QPR or Bolton wake up today and decide to spend £100m then you could say we "should" spend £120m to keep ahead then of course there's nothing to stop them chucking another £50m into the mix. That's why I think the turnover argument is almost pointless.

[Toonpack 9978]

The difference is that in the past if a club wanted to speculate to accumulate they could do it via credit. As that's now no longer a possibility in general the only way is for personal investment.

 

Ashley won't do it to a great degree beyond a modest amount which is a pisser if other owners do do that- and that could include "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" unfortunately.

 

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course).

 

That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means.

 

Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up.

 

But if the that turnover includes a higher percentage of wages then there's still less "spare" cash for transfers which is how we operated in the past. It's the rise from a wages/turnover ration of 46% (I remember seeing quoted) to 86% that really fucked us imo.

 

There's also a lion/antelope analogy where if the people who own QPR or Bolton wake up today and decide to spend £100m then you could say we "should" spend £120m to keep ahead then of course there's nothing to stop them chucking another £50m into the mix. That's why I think the turnover argument is almost pointless.

 

Nothing apart from Platini's rules that is (if they want to play in Europe). The turnover argument was pointless, but it shouldn't be now. If of course the rules genuinely work.

 

60% of £100Mill is a lot better than 60% of £62Mill (Bolton)

 

btw (and I appreciate you chose them as an illustrative example) Bolton's debt of circa £93Mill comrises £8Mill to banks and £85Mill to the owner as a loan for which he charges 5% interest, hardly a philanthropic footing from which it would lead you to think he'll throw significant further sums in.

 

If QPR (or anyone) decides to go go all Man City, there's not much you can do about it. In truth it's no more a pisser now than it was when Abramovich showed up, it might even be getting better.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Toonpack

[NJS 4411]

btw (and I appreciate you chose them as an illustrative example) Bolton's debt of circa £93Mill comrises £8Mill to banks and £85Mill to the owner as a loan for which he charges 5% interest, hardly a philanthropic footing from which it would lead you to think he'll throw significant further sums in.

 

If QPR (or anyone) decides to go go all Man City, there's not much you can do about it. In truth it's no more a pisser now than it was when Abramovich showed up, it might even be getting better.

 

I think now we have a few clubs like Stoke and Bolton where "fans" are living their dream by just owning the clubs without regard to any desire to make money as such which could be argued was the intention of people like Shiniwatra(?) at Man City or the various Pompey shady owners who thought buying and selling clubs would be a "market".

 

Maybe that was Ashley's original idea but I've never had a strong idea of what he ever intended. I agree its unlikely that they (Bolton etc) will chuck more money in but there's always the spectre of them underwriting wages for someone like Barton or Nolan.

 

What I dread is clubs like ours embracing the UEFA rules with the idea of fairness but the usual suspects refusing to play ball.

[LeazesMag 0]

The difference is that in the past if a club wanted to speculate to accumulate they could do it via credit. As that's now no longer a possibility in general the only way is for personal investment.

 

Ashley won't do it to a great degree beyond a modest amount which is a pisser if other owners do do that- and that could include "the likes of Bolton and Blackburn" unfortunately.

 

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course).

 

That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means.

 

Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up.

 

But if the that turnover includes a higher percentage of wages then there's still less "spare" cash for transfers which is how we operated in the past. It's the rise from a wages/turnover ration of 46% (I remember seeing quoted) to 86% that really fucked us imo.

 

There's also a lion/antelope analogy where if the people who own QPR or Bolton wake up today and decide to spend £100m then you could say we "should" spend £120m to keep ahead then of course there's nothing to stop them chucking another £50m into the mix. That's why I think the turnover argument is almost pointless.

 

Nothing apart from Platini's rules that is (if they want to play in Europe). The turnover argument was pointless, but it shouldn't be now. If of course the rules genuinely work.

 

60% of £100Mill is a lot better than 60% of £62Mill (Bolton)

 

btw (and I appreciate you chose them as an illustrative example) Bolton's debt of circa £93Mill comrises £8Mill to banks and £85Mill to the owner as a loan for which he charges 5% interest, hardly a philanthropic footing from which it would lead you to think he'll throw significant further sums in.

 

If QPR (or anyone) decides to go go all Man City, there's not much you can do about it. In truth it's no more a pisser now than it was when Abramovich showed up, it might even be getting better.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

"Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do." LM

 

Putting aside the pros and cons of Ashley v Shepherd, for me this sums up the current situation pretty well. The fun and novelty of owning a football club is long gone for Ashley, and with it any real ambition or passion to win trophies etc. I suspect he may even prefer to NOT win anything to stick it up the fans who turned on him - as he would see it. He'll be running this purely as a businessman now, not as a "fan", and that makes all the difference...

 

I don't believe he's ever run the club as anything other than a business. I suspect he didn't appreciate the economics of football when he took over, and trusted the advice of other people.....now he's pulling the strings personally.

 

 

StevieRoss, my own comments and Kitman, is the position of the club now.

[JawD 99]

To cut through all the crap I'll highlight that what will be interesting is to track our progress v Liverpool. Numbers suggest they are spending well beyond their means. In other words as LM says they are speculating to accumulate. But it's a big risk. They are backing their new manager where it counts in a push to get back into the CL. If they do then their investment should pay for itself. They obviously seen enough of KD to suggest they think he can.

 

We on the other hand dont have that confidence in Pardew and rightly so. Even when Liverpool were struggling last season they had a better base to launch from than we did. I do think you need to build slowly (I know you disagree LM). I'd rather we added the blocks on one by one. I run my own business and this is what I have done. Any time I have tried to push too hard it has usually bit me in the arse. I know football is different but a lot of principles remain. What should happen with us is that we bring players in that will improve the starting 11. If that happens we should reasonably expect and improvement next season over this. IE a top 10 finish. This largely depends on what happens the rest of this window.

 

Two different approaches by us and Liverpool so will be good to see how it turns out. But if we dont progress there isnt a great deal of harm done (proving we are not relegated!). But if Liverpool fail the impact will be worse.

[LeazesMag 0]

Something I'm not getting LM, what best players are you on about we have sold to teams lesser than us? I can think of maybe Milner to Villa?

 

I agree every club has debts. It's how those debts are managed. I had no problem with how FS was running the club. I didnt think about finances (who did then?). But, my understanding is we are running in debt?

 

I think of this window differently. I think MA without the sale of Carroll would have still given cash for transfers. Maybe £10M + any sales. I think he has actually SAVED his £10M and just let Pardew have the Carroll money (including wages and new contracts etc). I'd have liked to see him also give him the £10M (assuming it existed). Anyway, thats getting off the point a bit.

 

There is a shit load MA has got wrong, I dont like him and I like his puppet (DL) even less. I think he will fuck the fans over without a blink of the eye. But, I dont think he will run the club into the ground and it's his investment. It has to work or he loses out.

 

I apologise JawD, I meant to reply to what you said earlier. I'll have another look tomorrow. Was the stadium a badly managed debt ? Most financial experts didn't seem to think so, most of us on here have a mortgage and make repayments based on revenues, earnings etc, so why do amateur football wannabe accountants make out it was some sort of deal with the Devil. What is their alternative ? Save the money up first ? I've asked people like Toonpack and Mad Jock [in response to what he asked me] this very question, and the result is neither of them answer and Toonpack has put me on ignore probably because he realises that he can't.

 

Nobody on here is a football accountant, it would seem. If someone, anywhere, knew how to run a football club that is a success on the pitch and make massive profits to constantly buy the best footballers, how much would they be worth ?

 

Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do.

 

Well, I dont think the finances were spiralling us into a black hole. Seemed ok back them the way it was being done despite what others will say now. But, that said, many are saying a lot of football clubs were pushing too far with debt and wages. The problem was more that if banks pulled the plug on their debt if they got nervous. I wonder how we would of faired if we were in the same boat when the banking crisis hit? I'd have been a little less comfortable. But, fact is we didnt go bust or whatever, we didnt collapse under FS so I agree with you here. It's just speculation and I'm looking at what has actually happened. So, while I agree with your (more or less) on this point, I've still seen little evidence (remember I'm looking at whats actually happened) to say we are a selling club supplying lesser teams as you said earlier.

 

I also agree that I dont think MA has aspirations for the champions league. That was pretty much confirmed by pardew when he said he hoped that by us getting into Europe, it might make MA thirst for more. I kinda agree with that. I hope he does. I think at the moment thye want a top half finish. I still have in my mind (the young team, the managed debt, the lower wage ratio) is all to set the club up as a good prospect to be sold. MA will then be in an ideal place. If he is enjoying it he can keep it and if not, sell it. But he had to sort things out first to try and make it more attractive. I think he'll struggle currently because of his price. He wont want to lower his price and lose out, so the only other way is to increase it's worth.

 

On my previous point though, I still dont really see evidence of us being a Bolton or Blackburn? Im not sure where you get that from.

 

All the first paragraph I agree, wild speculation ie we would have done this, we would have done that, we didn't go bust, we didn't get relegated and we were an established top club who on the occasions we weren't in europe people were waiting for corrective action to be taken etc.

 

Ashleys mouthpiece has said they will be happy with a top 10 finish, see my sig. Is this really good enough for a club like NUFC ? This is the goal of the smaller, selling clubs, that is my point when I talk about Bolton and Blackburn, who also sell their best players and replace with cheaper without giving their managers the money and freedom to replace properly and manage their own football teams and build a good football team by keeping players and improving what they already have.

 

As KK said, the best day will be when he sells, although scarily there are people out there who could be a lot worse yet.

[Toonpack 9978]

btw (and I appreciate you chose them as an illustrative example) Bolton's debt of circa £93Mill comrises £8Mill to banks and £85Mill to the owner as a loan for which he charges 5% interest, hardly a philanthropic footing from which it would lead you to think he'll throw significant further sums in.

 

If QPR (or anyone) decides to go go all Man City, there's not much you can do about it. In truth it's no more a pisser now than it was when Abramovich showed up, it might even be getting better.

 

I think now we have a few clubs like Stoke and Bolton where "fans" are living their dream by just owning the clubs without regard to any desire to make money as such which could be argued was the intention of people like Shiniwatra(?) at Man City or the various Pompey shady owners who thought buying and selling clubs would be a "market".

 

Maybe that was Ashley's original idea but I've never had a strong idea of what he ever intended. I agree its unlikely that they (Bolton etc) will chuck more money in but there's always the spectre of them underwriting wages for someone like Barton or Nolan.

 

What I dread is clubs like ours embracing the UEFA rules with the idea of fairness but the usual suspects refusing to play ball.

 

Well if the hyperbole is to be believed, many of the usual suspects are behind the drive for the rule. They know, because of their lofty positions, that their turnover is such that they will likely remain at the pinacle whilst ceasing to have to flush their cash down the drain (into players pockets). They might even be able to start making a decent wedge from the game or a return of their investment.

 

These billionaire types play a very long game. Saw an interesting snippet about Kroenke, as well as uplifting his shareholding in the club itself he bought 59% of Arsenal Broadband (which I never knew even existed) as these guys think the media revolution is just starting, the example was quoted that the NY Yankees media company is actually worth three times what the team is.

 

We have NFL and US sports team owners in the Prem, the NFL owners are currently prepared to sacrifice a whole season to win a bigger share of the pot from the players (it's good leverage as players get the majority of their income from game-cheques, no play, no pay). The owners'll likely take a huge hit initially but they'll recoup it longer term.

 

The UEFA rules play into the hands of the real billionaires as in providing a platform to actually make money. The "we are rich-ish and love the club" crew are not going to cut it, long term.

[Toonpack 9978]

To cut through all the crap I'll highlight that what will be interesting is to track our progress v Liverpool. Numbers suggest they are spending well beyond their means. In other words as LM says they are speculating to accumulate. But it's a big risk. They are backing their new manager where it counts in a push to get back into the CL. If they do then their investment should pay for itself. They obviously seen enough of KD to suggest they think he can.

 

Not yet they don't. Historically they have not, January they didn't, but by 1st September we'll see what they're up to but they do have a long list of players they'll likely ship out yet.

[NJS 4411]

To cut through all the crap I'll highlight that what will be interesting is to track our progress v Liverpool. Numbers suggest they are spending well beyond their means. In other words as LM says they are speculating to accumulate. But it's a big risk. They are backing their new manager where it counts in a push to get back into the CL. If they do then their investment should pay for itself. They obviously seen enough of KD to suggest they think he can.

 

Not yet they don't. Historically they have not, January they didn't, but by 1st September we'll see what they're up to but they do have a long list of players they'll likely ship out yet.

 

The January numbers "add-up" due to Torres/Babel but this window will tell us whether the new owner is going SOB.

 

Of course I expect some of the Benitez/Hodson deadwood will be shipped out as well. so headlines about spending say 50m will need to be netted.