The slippery slope

[manc-mag 1]

It's extremely difficult to make football clubs profitable.

 

The REAL issue around the health of football is the astronomical rise in player wages over the last decade. This has basically eaten up more or less most of the larger TV money.

 

Spurs managed to keep wages in check (around 60%) at a time when we were hovering around (90%).

 

At this point there is no alternative but to address this issue head on.

 

BUT not replacing a front line striker is idiocy of the highest calibre regardless of side arguments as to why.

 

And these are the hard cold facts of football today.

 

Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money.

 

Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short?

 

The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager.

 

But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game.

But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4.

 

You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley.

 

You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still.

 

Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry.

 

You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit.

 

When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more.

 

Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14%

 

How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football.

 

Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues.

 

In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.

 

Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%).

 

You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull.

 

I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy.

 

The point about "just increase turnover" needs specifically addressing and I think if Pud and other proponents make the point in this thread it'd be helpful to hear how exactly that's proposed, just in terms of moving the debate along as I think TP makes some fair points there. What we can say with confidence is that he has no intention whatever of trying to compete with the top four as that would absolutely require his own money. Below that for me it's about how ambitious a club like NUFC can and should be given it's natural (potential) resources and I think the answer there is obviously higher than the 10th place that's often cited-but then is that sufficiently motivating to Ashley given the difference in income it would mean to the club? I suspect not personally and I think the striker saga is good evidence of that.

 

I have to say though, I don't really get the point about NUFC 'now being in more debt than ever'. If it is, it's debt owed to Ashley and realistically it'll have to be cleared if Ashley sells the club. He won't write it off (obviously), he'll want it paying off by a buyer, but then that buyer is simply going to put a lower purchase valuation on the club given it's level of debt. This bit is a totally minor issue for me.

[Christmas Tree 4851]

It keeps coming back to the same old bottom line.

 

The top four is out of reach and from an owners view point there is very little point in throwing money at moving q few places up the league. If take that as a given, you should then ask yourselves how can we improve?

 

When you do that it is pretty straightforward that Ashleys business plan is a very good one. Buy good foreign players cheaply, get a few seasons out of them and sell them on all the while repeating this process.

 

While this won't get you in the top four, it should get you around a European place and ultimately in a position where your best players can stay, unless they are top four candidates.

 

"our" problem is execution of this plan which failed so badly on the striker front. But I do think it is the only plan in town and we will get better at it.

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

It keeps coming back to the same old bottom line.

 

The top four is out of reach and from an owners view point there is very little point in throwing money at moving q few places up the league. If take that as a given, you should then ask yourselves how can we improve?

 

When you do that it is pretty straightforward that Ashleys business plan is a very good one. Buy good foreign players cheaply, get a few seasons out of them and sell them on all the while repeating this process.

 

While this won't get you in the top four, it should get you around a European place and ultimately in a position where your best players can stay, unless they are top four candidates.

 

"our" problem is execution of this plan which failed so badly on the striker front. But I do think it is the only plan in town and we will get better at it.

 

Wigan do that and in 7 years always flirt with relegation

 

Thats what we'll do if we keep going with this business model and the best players wont stay they'll get sold or want out. Eg Barton/Enrique

[Christmas Tree 4851]

Seriously, it's pretty hard to argue against without putting forward a better business model.

 

Develop youth --- everyone tries that.

 

Buy from lower divisions ---- gets you in lower divisions

 

Buy the journey men / hasbeens --- doesn't work

[snakehips 0]

It keeps coming back to the same old bottom line.

 

The top four is out of reach and from an owners view point there is very little point in throwing money at moving q few places up the league. If take that as a given, you should then ask yourselves how can we improve?

 

When you do that it is pretty straightforward that Ashleys business plan is a very good one. Buy good foreign players cheaply, get a few seasons out of them and sell them on all the while repeating this process.

 

While this won't get you in the top four, it should get you around a European place and ultimately in a position where your best players can stay, unless they are top four candidates.

 

"our" problem is execution of this plan which failed so badly on the striker front. But I do think it is the only plan in town and we will get better at it.

 

The problem with 'buy cheap and sell at a profit' policy is the team will have virtually no continuity - there will always be players being sold at every transfer window. Any player who shows improvement will be sold after three years, hence the reason for giving five-year contracts. In order for a 'hidden gem' to stay he will want bigger bucks - something I doubt he would get.

[Park Life 71]

The key to all this is to have a good manager in place who is tactically sound and knowledgable. That is basically where it all starts. The good managers tend to have a wide knowledge base and an informal scouting network of their own built over the years with contacts across Europe. They also tend to get that extra magic ten percent out of players performance wise and set up teams to the best of their assets. A guy like this left to his own devices can really build a club from the inside. They also have the ability to close the gap on the bigger spenders and players want to play for them.

 

 

A good manager is where it all starts. But alas they come with a price tag and tend to want to do things their own way, which won't happen under the current regime.

[Christmas Tree 4851]

It keeps coming back to the same old bottom line.

 

The top four is out of reach and from an owners view point there is very little point in throwing money at moving q few places up the league. If take that as a given, you should then ask yourselves how can we improve?

 

When you do that it is pretty straightforward that Ashleys business plan is a very good one. Buy good foreign players cheaply, get a few seasons out of them and sell them on all the while repeating this process.

 

While this won't get you in the top four, it should get you around a European place and ultimately in a position where your best players can stay, unless they are top four candidates.

 

"our" problem is execution of this plan which failed so badly on the striker front. But I do think it is the only plan in town and we will get better at it.

 

The problem with 'buy cheap and sell at a profit' policy is the team will have virtually no continuity - there will always be players being sold at every transfer window. Any player who shows improvement will be sold after three years, hence the reason for giving five-year contracts. In order for a 'hidden gem' to stay he will want bigger bucks - something I doubt he would get.

 

I didn't say it was ideal, just the best for our circumstances.

 

The ideal plan would be for fatty to put aside £200 million to get us into the champions league and then live'ish within our means. But as that's as unlikely as Toonraider visiting Whitley Bay anytime soon, it's not worth discussing.

[Guest Your Name Here]

It's extremely difficult to make football clubs profitable.

 

The REAL issue around the health of football is the astronomical rise in player wages over the last decade. This has basically eaten up more or less most of the larger TV money.

 

Spurs managed to keep wages in check (around 60%) at a time when we were hovering around (90%).

 

At this point there is no alternative but to address this issue head on.

 

BUT not replacing a front line striker is idiocy of the highest calibre regardless of side arguments as to why.

 

And these are the hard cold facts of football today.

 

Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money.

 

Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short?

 

The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager.

 

But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game.

But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4.

 

You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley.

 

You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still.

 

Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry.

 

You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit.

 

When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more.

 

Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14%

 

How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football.

 

Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues.

 

In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.

 

Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%).

 

You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull.

 

I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy.

 

The point about "just increase turnover" needs specifically addressing and I think if Pud and other proponents make the point in this thread it'd be helpful to hear how exactly that's proposed, just in terms of moving the debate along as I think TP makes some fair points there. What we can say with confidence is that he has no intention whatever of trying to compete with the top four as that would absolutely require his own money. Below that for me it's about how ambitious a club like NUFC can and should be given it's natural (potential) resources and I think the answer there is obviously higher than the 10th place that's often cited-but then is that sufficiently motivating to Ashley given the difference in income it would mean to the club? I suspect not personally and I think the striker saga is good evidence of that.

 

I have to say though, I don't really get the point about NUFC 'now being in more debt than ever'. If it is, it's debt owed to Ashley and realistically it'll have to be cleared if Ashley sells the club. He won't write it off (obviously), he'll want it paying off by a buyer, but then that buyer is simply going to put a lower purchase valuation on the club given it's level of debt. This bit is a totally minor issue for me.

It’s a shame that isn’t what happened when FMA bought the club. The current debts exceed the price FMA paid for the club. He’d be very lucky to get £70m for NUFC if the debts aren’t reduced dramatically. The idea the debts will just sit there until a buyer comes along and offers him a chance to lose £150m seems highly unlikely.

 

Turnover tracks the quality of the product. A better team attracts more supporters, more sponsorship, more coporate hospitality, more TV money and sells more merchandise. For some of these it may more about price/supply/demand than new business but it’s not rocket science. Obviously European qualification represents a major threshold of income generation but it isn’t the be all and end all.

 

What I find interesting about this debate is the unspoken assumption we can’t operate a more ambitious transfer strategy on our current turnover. I have no idea what this assumption is based on apart from the campaign to lower supporter expectations, which boils down to unsubstantiated hot air.

 

The accounts for last year and this will make very interesting reading.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Your Name Here

[Christmas Tree 4851]

It's extremely difficult to make football clubs profitable.

 

The REAL issue around the health of football is the astronomical rise in player wages over the last decade. This has basically eaten up more or less most of the larger TV money.

 

Spurs managed to keep wages in check (around 60%) at a time when we were hovering around (90%).

 

At this point there is no alternative but to address this issue head on.

 

BUT not replacing a front line striker is idiocy of the highest calibre regardless of side arguments as to why.

 

And these are the hard cold facts of football today.

 

Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money.

 

Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short?

 

The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager.

 

But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game.

But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4.

 

You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley.

 

You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still.

 

Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry.

 

You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit.

 

When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more.

 

Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14%

 

How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football.

 

Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues.

 

In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.

 

Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%).

 

You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull.

 

I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy.

 

The point about "just increase turnover" needs specifically addressing and I think if Pud and other proponents make the point in this thread it'd be helpful to hear how exactly that's proposed, just in terms of moving the debate along as I think TP makes some fair points there. What we can say with confidence is that he has no intention whatever of trying to compete with the top four as that would absolutely require his own money. Below that for me it's about how ambitious a club like NUFC can and should be given it's natural (potential) resources and I think the answer there is obviously higher than the 10th place that's often cited-but then is that sufficiently motivating to Ashley given the difference in income it would mean to the club? I suspect not personally and I think the striker saga is good evidence of that.

 

I have to say though, I don't really get the point about NUFC 'now being in more debt than ever'. If it is, it's debt owed to Ashley and realistically it'll have to be cleared if Ashley sells the club. He won't write it off (obviously), he'll want it paying off by a buyer, but then that buyer is simply going to put a lower purchase valuation on the club given it's level of debt. This bit is a totally minor issue for me.

It’s a shame that isn’t what happened when FMA bought the club. The current debts exceed the price FMA paid for the club. He’d be very lucky to get £70m for NUFC if the debts aren’t reduced dramatically. The idea the debts will just sit there until a buyer comes along and offers him a chance to lose £150m seems highly unlikely.

 

Turnover tracks the quality of the product. A better team attracts more supporters, more sponsorship, more coporate hospitality, more TV money and sells more merchandise. For some of these it may more about price/supply/demand than new business but it’s not rocket science. Obviously European qualification represents a major threshold of income generation but it isn’t the be all and end all.

 

What I find interesting about this debate is the unspoken assumption we can’t operate a more ambitious transfer strategy on our current turnover. I have no idea what this assumption is based on apart from the campaign to lower supporter expectations, which boils down to unsubstantiated hot air.

 

The accounts for last year and this will make very interesting reading.

 

As we are currently losing money and heading towards break even, what does this phrase actually mean in real terms.

[Dr Gloom 22185]

Seriously, it's pretty hard to argue against without putting forward a better business model.

 

Develop youth --- everyone tries that.

 

Buy from lower divisions ---- gets you in lower divisions

 

Buy the journey men / hasbeens --- doesn't work

 

The basis of the strategy is sound but in practice it hasn't worked. I don't think there would be too many complaints if he'd banked most of the 35m but made a modest investment of say 10m on transfer fees. All he really had to do was sign a couple of loan players for where we're short if he couldn't agree transfer fees to fit into his budget. We're really not asking for a lot. Just something.

[Christmas Tree 4851]

Tbf though, had a striker been brought in then going by the comments on here, most would have thought it a succesful window.

[Brock Manson 0]

It's pretty pathetic how Ben Arfa and Santon get written off because no 'big' clubs have come in for them.

 

Ben Arfa is a gifted footballer, and is continentally renowned as such.

 

Santon is a kid who has shown great potential, and broke into a very strong Inter side under one of the most prestigious managers in world football.

 

But both are shit because NUFC signed them.

 

It's such a piss poor argument Pud, and you're just using it as an excuse stick to beat Ashley with.

 

Using your logic, Tiote is shit because none of the big boys were after him either. Fact is we've signed two very gifted footballers who have wanted to join us. That's the bottom line regardless of the club's structure. We're still an attractive name - it's not that long ago we were a team in european contention.

 

Ashley is a prick. NUFC is a perfect vehicle for him to make money off and he's a shrewd (if unethical) businessman who took the gamble in buying us and it's now paying off spectacularly. He'll be hard to prise away from the club as there is stilll plenty of money to be made, and with signing of the aforementioned calibre, there are future assests to strip.

 

I only hold out hope that we're bought by a consortium or owner who genuinely want to take the club forward and turn it into a competitive force again. The base is there; we have one of the best grounds and fanbases in the country, in the best league in the world. The city is beautiful and unique. Ashely won't be around forever; one can only hope the club can get through these dark times as unscathed as possible.

[Guest Your Name Here]

It’s a shame that isn’t what happened when FMA bought the club. The current debts exceed the price FMA paid for the club. He’d be very lucky to get £70m for NUFC if the debts aren’t reduced dramatically. The idea the debts will just sit there until a buyer comes along and offers him a chance to lose £150m seems highly unlikely.

 

Turnover tracks the quality of the product. A better team attracts more supporters, more sponsorship, more coporate hospitality, more TV money and sells more merchandise. For some of these it may more about price/supply/demand than new business but it’s not rocket science. Obviously European qualification represents a major threshold of income generation but it isn’t the be all and end all.

 

What I find interesting about this debate is the unspoken assumption we can’t operate a more ambitious transfer strategy on our current turnover. I have no idea what this assumption is based on apart from the campaign to lower supporter expectations, which boils down to unsubstantiated hot air.

 

The accounts for last year and this will make very interesting reading.

 

As we are currently losing money and heading towards break even, what does this phrase actually mean in real terms.

Are we? How do you know we're not already breaking even, or even operating at a profit? Have you seen last year’s accounts?

Edited September 4, 2011 by Your Name Here

[Christmas Tree 4851]

So your point is we might be making money now so might have more to spend.

 

That is still living within your means though.

[Park Life 71]

Seriously, it's pretty hard to argue against without putting forward a better business model.

 

Develop youth --- everyone tries that.

 

Buy from lower divisions ---- gets you in lower divisions

 

Buy the journey men / hasbeens --- doesn't work

 

The basis of the strategy is sound but in practice it hasn't worked. I don't think there would be too many complaints if he'd banked most of the 35m but made a modest investment of say 10m on transfer fees. All he really had to do was sign a couple of loan players for where we're short if he couldn't agree transfer fees to fit into his budget. We're really not asking for a lot. Just something.

 

Spot on.

[Park Life 71]

It's pretty pathetic how Ben Arfa and Santon get written off because no 'big' clubs have come in for them.

 

Ben Arfa is a gifted footballer, and is continentally renowned as such.

 

Santon is a kid who has shown great potential, and broke into a very strong Inter side under one of the most prestigious managers in world football.

 

But both are shit because NUFC signed them.

 

It's such a piss poor argument Pud, and you're just using it as an excuse stick to beat Ashley with.

 

Using your logic, Tiote is shit because none of the big boys were after him either. Fact is we've signed two very gifted footballers who have wanted to join us. That's the bottom line regardless of the club's structure. We're still an attractive name - it's not that long ago we were a team in european contention.

 

Ashley is a prick. NUFC is a perfect vehicle for him to make money off and he's a shrewd (if unethical) businessman who took the gamble in buying us and it's now paying off spectacularly. He'll be hard to prise away from the club as there is stilll plenty of money to be made, and with signing of the aforementioned calibre, there are future assests to strip.

 

I only hold out hope that we're bought by a consortium or owner who genuinely want to take the club forward and turn it into a competitive force again. The base is there; we have one of the best grounds and fanbases in the country, in the best league in the world. The city is beautiful and unique. Ashely won't be around forever; one can only hope the club can get through these dark times as unscathed as possible.

 

As I posted somewhere Man U wanted Bafra in 2008 but couldn't agree a price.

[manc-mag 1]

It's extremely difficult to make football clubs profitable.

 

The REAL issue around the health of football is the astronomical rise in player wages over the last decade. This has basically eaten up more or less most of the larger TV money.

 

Spurs managed to keep wages in check (around 60%) at a time when we were hovering around (90%).

 

At this point there is no alternative but to address this issue head on.

 

BUT not replacing a front line striker is idiocy of the highest calibre regardless of side arguments as to why.

 

And these are the hard cold facts of football today.

 

Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money.

 

Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short?

 

The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager.

 

But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game.

But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4.

 

You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley.

 

You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still.

 

Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry.

 

You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit.

 

When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more.

 

Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14%

 

How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football.

 

Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues.

 

In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.

 

Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%).

 

You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull.

 

I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy.

 

The point about "just increase turnover" needs specifically addressing and I think if Pud and other proponents make the point in this thread it'd be helpful to hear how exactly that's proposed, just in terms of moving the debate along as I think TP makes some fair points there. What we can say with confidence is that he has no intention whatever of trying to compete with the top four as that would absolutely require his own money. Below that for me it's about how ambitious a club like NUFC can and should be given it's natural (potential) resources and I think the answer there is obviously higher than the 10th place that's often cited-but then is that sufficiently motivating to Ashley given the difference in income it would mean to the club? I suspect not personally and I think the striker saga is good evidence of that.

 

I have to say though, I don't really get the point about NUFC 'now being in more debt than ever'. If it is, it's debt owed to Ashley and realistically it'll have to be cleared if Ashley sells the club. He won't write it off (obviously), he'll want it paying off by a buyer, but then that buyer is simply going to put a lower purchase valuation on the club given it's level of debt. This bit is a totally minor issue for me.

It’s a shame that isn’t what happened when FMA bought the club. The current debts exceed the price FMA paid for the club. He’d be very lucky to get £70m for NUFC if the debts aren’t reduced dramatically. The idea the debts will just sit there until a buyer comes along and offers him a chance to lose £150m seems highly unlikely.

 

Turnover tracks the quality of the product. A better team attracts more supporters, more sponsorship, more coporate hospitality, more TV money and sells more merchandise. For some of these it may more about price/supply/demand than new business but it’s not rocket science. Obviously European qualification represents a major threshold of income generation but it isn’t the be all and end all.

 

What I find interesting about this debate is the unspoken assumption we can’t operate a more ambitious transfer strategy on our current turnover. I have no idea what this assumption is based on apart from the campaign to lower supporter expectations, which boils down to unsubstantiated hot air.

 

The accounts for last year and this will make very interesting reading.

 

I'm not saying he'll do one thing or the other really, it was more just a comment on the repayability of the loan. ie we're more in debt but it's all to him (if it is indeed as a result of personal funds he's pumped in), so it's not an issue of that becoming an almighty pressure unlike if say it was to a bank or 3rd party lender.

 

And ref: more ambitious, you'll note I say I think we should be more ambitious than 10th (ie the current 'target'), and simply that it's unrealistic to think we could be top 4. I think you have to be looking towards the head of the pack in between those places on our turnover, and as I say, I think the failure to sign a striker indicates quite forcefully that Ashley isn't bothered to do that - the reason being it wouldn't make a massive difference to him from a financial point of view.

[peasepud 59]

It's extremely difficult to make football clubs profitable.

 

The REAL issue around the health of football is the astronomical rise in player wages over the last decade. This has basically eaten up more or less most of the larger TV money.

 

Spurs managed to keep wages in check (around 60%) at a time when we were hovering around (90%).

 

At this point there is no alternative but to address this issue head on.

 

BUT not replacing a front line striker is idiocy of the highest calibre regardless of side arguments as to why.

 

And these are the hard cold facts of football today.

 

Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money.

 

Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short?

 

The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager.

 

But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game.

But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4.

 

You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley.

 

You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still.

 

Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry.

 

You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit.

 

When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more.

 

Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14%

 

How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football.

 

Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues.

 

In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool.

 

Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%).

 

You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull.

 

I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy.

You're missing the simple revenue, only looking at the one massive hit, a massive hit that all Premiership clubs have.

 

Take this plan of Ashleys and present it to Warner Brothers, will they take is as the way to make movies?

 

will they shite

 

Its entertainment, entertain people and they'll want to watch you again and again, they'll want to buy the shirts, mugs, bags and novely Y-Fronts. Get into other markets, Asia, Autralia, North America etc, all big potential fanbases and all with money to burn.

 

Its no secret that all of our past turnover etc is off the back of when we were "the entertainers". A good investment sensibly spent, be that from Ashley or the banks, in the team will lead to better performance on the pitch which in turn leads to higher gates, higher gates lead to more pies, pints and shirt sales. Better performance leads to more corporate boxes etc. Better performance on the pitch ultimately leads to higher advertising revenue.

 

This concept of "you cant touch the top 4 so lets not bother attempting to" is a disgraceful way to look at things. Aim for top 4 and get 6th is way preferable to aim to survive and rejoice at 16th.

[Happy Face 29]

Watching Dragons Den the other day and Peter Jones was bang on. He said he'd never seen a business start thriving after 5 years of deterioration. Anyone that thinks Ashley will start throwing money in once It's stabilized is daft, otherwise why stabilize it in the first place.

[Christmas Tree 4851]

An interesting question would be is NUFC in a better position today than when he bought it?

[Guest Your Name Here]

An interesting question would be is NUFC in a better position today than when he bought it?

In 07/08 we finished 12th. In 10/11 we finished 12th. So that’s debts up, attendances down and no progress at all on the pitch. So, based on facts not soothsaying.... no.

[PaddockLad 17698]

All anyone has to do if they want to see a big-ish premier league club ran on "business lines" then just look at Spurs under Alan Sugar in the 90s. Made a tiny profit most years, shite for the turnover though. Stayed mid table fuckin wank all the way through our KK years when we finsihed second twice and had a 20k+ waiting list for season tickets. Spurs crowds fell in the 90s though, when almost every other club's went through the roof.....now its Spurs with the waiting list and us haemorraging support, and some of those who do go have been set against each other by those in charge of the club at the first two home games this season so that is likely to continue if you ask me.

 

We're going to be fucked by the sort of poverty of ambition being displayed by Ashley and co, all we can do is either wait for him to sell (unlikely with all his free advetising at SJP) or force him out. Fuck knows how to do that though, for many of the reasons listed in this and other threads. Mags don't seem to have much heart for it nowadays though....different times now from 89-92. Maybe the club doesnt matter as much to as many anymore?...tbh I'm pretty apathetic about the whole thing myself. Enjoy awaydays far more than going to SJP nowadays. And, sad to say, I'm not completley unhappy with that situation.

[Christmas Tree 4851]

An interesting question would be is NUFC in a better position today than when he bought it?

In 07/08 we finished 12th. In 10/11 we finished 12th. So that’s debts up, attendances down and no progress at all on the pitch. So, based on facts not soothsaying.... no.

 

Hold on cowboy, iirc, when he bought the club we had just finished 13th. The question was compared to when he bought it, not compared to his first full year in charge. (if I am wrong I will humbly apologise).

[Guest Your Name Here]

An interesting question would be is NUFC in a better position today than when he bought it?

In 07/08 we finished 12th. In 10/11 we finished 12th. So that’s debts up, attendances down and no progress at all on the pitch. So, based on facts not soothsaying.... no.

 

Hold on cowboy, iirc, when he bought the club we had just finished 13th. The question was compared to when he bought it, not compared to his first full year in charge. (if I am wrong I will humbly apologise).

It’s a fair cop but makes little difference.

 

Thinking about it another way – are supporters happier today than they were the day before FMA took over?

It’s safe to assume the lost 10,000 aren’t and probably not the 3000 who got kicked out the LC.

[peasepud 59]

An interesting question would be is NUFC in a better position today than when he bought it?

In 07/08 we finished 12th. In 10/11 we finished 12th. So that’s debts up, attendances down and no progress at all on the pitch. So, based on facts not soothsaying.... no.

 

Hold on cowboy, iirc, when he bought the club we had just finished 13th. The question was compared to when he bought it, not compared to his first full year in charge. (if I am wrong I will humbly apologise).

We had attendances over 50k

Our squad included Owen, Duff, Emre, Martins, Butt, Dyer, N'Zog, Parker, Solano, Given & Milner among others.

We had won the Intertoto

Regardless of how well/shite we did, we had been in Europe.

We were the 14th highest earning club in the world

 

 

 

so ermmm no