Besty 4 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Don't think he is the number one, that Stekelenburg is afaik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Kitman, Enrique doesn't fit the model either. Sold for £5.5m despite the figure reported on here so that's a loss. Neither does Nolan, BBC reported the fee at £1.5m rising on appearances and probably promotion for W'Ham. Quite a few different narratives are spun are here with some facts that don't add up. The most likely one is Sammymb's view that NUFC is now just an advertising vehicle for SD. This poorly backed up view does make some sense. However, this doesn't address the 100% liability problem. Giving SD things for free on one hand (which he doesn't benefit from 100%) and making losses on the other (which he covers 100%) is poor financial management. It may be though that he wants NUFC to wipe it's own nose except for dealings with SD, where he is prepared to play a long term promotional game whilst facing short term cash losses from the club. If this is the case, then the best that can be said about it is that income from stadium branding was never an enormous income stream. However, it would also have made more sense to charge SD until NUFC was breaking even, then give it away for free. Only this would perfectly fit the narrative of NUFC as promotional tool for SD. As I've said before, trying to find one narrative that fits all of Ashley's actions is near impossible as he has chopped and changed his strategies so many times. It's hard to know which narrative currently applies, I suspect he sees it as an evolving piece dependent on results and events. This weekend's result certainly didn't provide evidence against whatever current direction is being followed. Just a note on this post and others like it, my main interest is in understanding what's going on rather than supporting it. When you try and see the logic in something it doesnt mean you would want to do it that way yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Kitman, Enrique doesn't fit the model either. Sold for £5.5m despite the figure reported on here so that's a loss. Neither does Nolan, BBC reported the fee at £1.5m rising on appearances and probably promotion for W'Ham. Quite a few different narratives are spun are here with some facts that don't add up. The most likely one is Sammymb's view that NUFC is now just an advertising vehicle for SD. This poorly backed up view does make some sense. However, this doesn't address the 100% liability problem. Giving SD things for free on one hand (which he doesn't benefit from 100%) and making losses on the other (which he covers 100%) is poor financial management. It may be though that he wants NUFC to wipe it's own nose except for dealings with SD, where he is prepared to play a long term promotional game whilst facing short term cash losses from the club. If this is the case, then the best that can be said about it is that income from stadium branding was never an enormous income stream. However, it would also have made more sense to charge SD until NUFC was breaking even, then give it away for free. Only this would perfectly fit the narrative of NUFC as promotional tool for SD. As I've said before, trying to find one narrative that fits all of Ashley's actions is near impossible as he has chopped and changed his strategies so many times. It's hard to know which narrative currently applies, I suspect he sees it as an evolving piece dependent on results and events. This weekend's result certainly didn't provide evidence against whatever current direction is being followed. Just a note on this post and others like it, my main interest is in understanding what's going on rather than supporting it. When you try and see the logic in something it doesnt mean you would want to do it that way yourself. The Enrique and Nolan sales were done purely because the alternative was to let them go on a free, I don't think any of us would have wanted to see that. The only players we have/had that appear to fit the Ashley model of getting in cheap and actually managing to improve appear to be Carroll and Tiote. We've sold Carroll, if we sell Tiote (provided we get a decent offer) then it will confirm that Ashley values sales profit over success on the pitch. And Ashley's reason for ownership is nothing to do with promoting Sports Direct, yes he has taken advantage of it but if it is his primary motive for retaining ownership of the club then it's one hell of an expensive advertising campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3161 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Kitman, Enrique doesn't fit the model either. Sold for £5.5m despite the figure reported on here so that's a loss. Neither does Nolan, BBC reported the fee at £1.5m rising on appearances and probably promotion for W'Ham. Quite a few different narratives are spun are here with some facts that don't add up. The most likely one is Sammymb's view that NUFC is now just an advertising vehicle for SD. This poorly backed up view does make some sense. However, this doesn't address the 100% liability problem. Giving SD things for free on one hand (which he doesn't benefit from 100%) and making losses on the other (which he covers 100%) is poor financial management. It may be though that he wants NUFC to wipe it's own nose except for dealings with SD, where he is prepared to play a long term promotional game whilst facing short term cash losses from the club. If this is the case, then the best that can be said about it is that income from stadium branding was never an enormous income stream. However, it would also have made more sense to charge SD until NUFC was breaking even, then give it away for free. Only this would perfectly fit the narrative of NUFC as promotional tool for SD. As I've said before, trying to find one narrative that fits all of Ashley's actions is near impossible as he has chopped and changed his strategies so many times. It's hard to know which narrative currently applies, I suspect he sees it as an evolving piece dependent on results and events. This weekend's result certainly didn't provide evidence against whatever current direction is being followed. Just a note on this post and others like it, my main interest is in understanding what's going on rather than supporting it. When you try and see the logic in something it doesnt mean you would want to do it that way yourself. Nice one chez, be a wanker and not read any of the recent discussion on it. NUFC doesn't own/control SJP or any other property used by NUFC, St James Holdings does, so NUFC's accounts won't reflect any sponsorship moneys for SJP and I doubt he's giving the advertising away for free. And then you should probably ask yourself what is MASH Holdings and how does it fit into the equation? tbh everything you write reads like you support the cunt, just so you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Kitman, Enrique doesn't fit the model either. Sold for £5.5m despite the figure reported on here so that's a loss. Neither does Nolan, BBC reported the fee at £1.5m rising on appearances and probably promotion for W'Ham. Quite a few different narratives are spun are here with some facts that don't add up. The most likely one is Sammymb's view that NUFC is now just an advertising vehicle for SD. This poorly backed up view does make some sense. However, this doesn't address the 100% liability problem. Giving SD things for free on one hand (which he doesn't benefit from 100%) and making losses on the other (which he covers 100%) is poor financial management. It may be though that he wants NUFC to wipe it's own nose except for dealings with SD, where he is prepared to play a long term promotional game whilst facing short term cash losses from the club. If this is the case, then the best that can be said about it is that income from stadium branding was never an enormous income stream. However, it would also have made more sense to charge SD until NUFC was breaking even, then give it away for free. Only this would perfectly fit the narrative of NUFC as promotional tool for SD. As I've said before, trying to find one narrative that fits all of Ashley's actions is near impossible as he has chopped and changed his strategies so many times. It's hard to know which narrative currently applies, I suspect he sees it as an evolving piece dependent on results and events. This weekend's result certainly didn't provide evidence against whatever current direction is being followed. Just a note on this post and others like it, my main interest is in understanding what's going on rather than supporting it. When you try and see the logic in something it doesnt mean you would want to do it that way yourself. Enrique and Nolan were bought a few years ago, when I think Ashley had a different mindset. We've let Nolan go because he's too old and would have a relatively small re-sale value in 2 or 3 years time given his legs have aged already, and we don't want him hanging around on a big wedge like Smith. And I think the plan would have been to re-sign Enrique but we left it too late and he was determined to leave. Barton's in a similar position but seems determined to see out his contract unless a CL club comes in for him, I'm sure we'd sell him if we could rather than let him leave for nothing. But I'm not trying to shoe-horn every transfer into my theory anyway.....I'm talking about what I think he's up to, going forward. However like you say, maybe there's no strategy at all, just opportunism laced with penny pinching or financial realism depending on your view. A different interpretation of recent purchases is that they're just good value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Where did this idea come from that the club no longer owns any land or property? It's simply not true. As at 30/06/2010 the club owned in excess of £98m in land and property. Edited August 16, 2011 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Enrique was bought when he had a different mindset. Nolan was a panic buy when Barton (and Owen) got injured just before the window shut in January 2009. On that basis they were both probably on a canny bit more than Ashley is prepared to offer any new signings (although perhaps in line with improved contracts - see Tiote and Carroll). I agree with Chez and we've discussed it before about Ashley being difficult to read in terms of a strategy with my personal view being he changes his mind on a whim a lot of the time. Edited August 16, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 I agree ewerk, it's a narrative that is full of holes but it's possible he is writing off some income whilst reducing other costs / wages to compensate. It's daft but possible. Sammymb, don't know what prompted that as I have reflected on what UV and YNH said in that thread. The evidence does suggest that no income is gained from SD but the evidence is very slim. It's a suggestion from the statement that can be read that way, not proof. Nor does it account for lots of other factors. Seeing as we bring in £50m in TV money, fees of around £0.5m are not exactly driving the club strategy are they? As for your point about club sponsorship not going to NUFC but to the holding company, from where have you pulled this nugget from? Do Northern Rock pay the holding company too? All the shops and local business which also display adverts in the ground, that money goes to the holding company too then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3161 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) As for your point about club sponsorship not going to NUFC but to the holding company, from where have you pulled this nugget from? Do Northern Rock pay the holding company too? All the shops and local business which also display adverts in the ground, that money goes to the holding company too then? I'm talking purely about stadium naming rights sponsorship, which SJP is now covered in. Shirts sponsorship is the property of NUFC but as discussed here in 2010, all NUFC related property is controlled by SJP Holdings not NUFC. As for "fees of around £0.5m" who you kidding? Bolton get 1.2m a year for the naming rights on the Reebok and there is a fraction of the signage that SJP now has. What's Arsenal getting from Emirites, 100m over 15 years, so approx 6.6m per annum - so let's consider SJP to be somewhere in the middle of those two. Edited August 16, 2011 by sammynb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 If you've been to SJP you'd know Northern Rock's presence is not just on the shirts, I am referring to advertising spaces used in the ground, like the back of the dugout seats etc. It is the SD branding around the ground that might generate £0.5 to 1m per year if another company was to use this space, not the naming rights of the ground. The assertion made is that all of this physical advertising is given for free to SD. Your argument is that the ground is not owned by NUFC so this money goes to the holding company. Therefore all other monies from physical advertising at the ground would go to the holding company. This is clearly bollocks. Your argument means that all the local shops and business who have advertising slots around the ground pay money to the holding company and this money does not appear on the commercial sponsorshp line of the club's accounts. As for the naming rights, that's a slightly dfferent issue as it was not a source of commercial income before Ashley and was never described as a source of commercial income for the club when he set it up to 'showcase' it or whatever phrase they used. Maybe Puma would be willing to pay us £5m a year to have our ground named after them but my understanding was that this is what the club is trying to do. Not that I agree with them doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3161 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Your argument means that all the local shops and business who have advertising slots around the ground pay money to the holding company and this money does not appear on the commercial sponsorshp line of the club's accounts. Well does it??? Are there specifics in the accounts? Regardless the discussion/questioning has always been about SD's advertising in the ground (nothing to do with the local shops/business), which includes verbal naming rights (which he knows no one will ever call the ground) so he's done the next best thing and filled it with SD signage, including dugout seats, electronic signs above said seats, the electronic boards pitch side, the roof and any surface he can deface, even on the interview area placards/cyc for post game TV - something normally covered in sponsors logos (ours includes Puma, Northern Rock & SD). So is he giving it to SD or as I propose, is it being charged to SD through another company, like NUFC's parent company SJP Holdings? You claim it's "clearly bollocks" so what's the answer? Where's the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 42665 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 You claim it's "clearly bollocks" so what's the answer? Where's the money? Where the cheddar at, yo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 42665 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Sent you a pm, chez. If you received it and ignored it, that is acceptable, just making sure you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 As for your point about club sponsorship not going to NUFC but to the holding company, from where have you pulled this nugget from? Do Northern Rock pay the holding company too? All the shops and local business which also display adverts in the ground, that money goes to the holding company too then? I'm talking purely about stadium naming rights sponsorship, which SJP is now covered in. Shirts sponsorship is the property of NUFC but as discussed here in 2010, all NUFC related property is controlled by SJP Holdings not NUFC. As for "fees of around £0.5m" who you kidding? Bolton get 1.2m a year for the naming rights on the Reebok and there is a fraction of the signage that SJP now has. What's Arsenal getting from Emirites, 100m over 15 years, so approx 6.6m per annum - so let's consider SJP to be somewhere in the middle of those two. Your link doesn't work, I'd be interested in seeing any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 19314 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 The Red card has been upheld according to 5Live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Sent you a pm, chez. If you received it and ignored it, that is acceptable, just making sure you know. The truth about NR sponsorship???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMoog 0 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Lol, angry Rod from Luton the 'Liverpool' fan for 25 years... just listened to the Robbie Savage and Chappers interview with Joey barton, classic entertainment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3161 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Your link doesn't work, I'd be interested in seeing any evidence. Sorry ewerk, I though it did. It's from a thread in 2009 about administration. http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...ic=25128&hl Do the club own any land? The old training ground at Benwell belonged to the club I think. Does the club even own the academy? (Have a feeling it's another long-term lease. Makes the other stuff seem relatively worthless. None at all. Now St James' Holdings well thats a different matter, they've acquired quite a bit of land in the last couple of years.... *allegedly Edited August 17, 2011 by sammynb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Okay, well in that case the 2010 accounts dispel that myth. Edited August 17, 2011 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3161 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Okay, well in that case the 2010 accounts dispel that myth. Fair enough, so looks like we're giving it away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Jusoda sKidmark... We recieved 35mil + 4mil Nolan + 2mil Routledge......add that too the 15mil Ashley should of put into the club aswell? Wow....imagine a 50mil+ transfer budget??? Now, i agree that we should have spent more than we have. However, 50mil+ is european club spending and we are not there....YET. I dont beleive in splashing the cash and then moaning because we still didnt make europe, which is probably the type of guy you are. Those days are gone, but i am sure they will return. Probably not under FMA but if we gradually progress financially and on the pitch then we are a more likely option for consortia who are probably monitoring our situation. Accept how things are now, see the positives, stay hopeful that the good times will come back around...be patient. I want FMA out as much as you.....just trying to enjoy supporting my club as much as i can whilst he is here. There's supporting the club then theres living in a dream world, you're in the latter I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 See the positives? Fucking hell. Aye, we could have sold Colo and Tiote as well.... Thats one I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 There's a good Einstein quote which seems fitting in reference to Deano. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac-Toon 1 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 There's a good Einstein quote which seems fitting in reference to Deano. "Imagination is more important than knowledge." I assume it'd be this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Was thinking about the 'insanity' one but that'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now