The 14 questions

[Happy Face 29]

To get around how fiddly it is to choose which teams to include/omit over the years, if you want to see how much similar clubs have pushed on from where we were when we were amongst it, you could just compare the Delloite top 20 list year on year...

 

 

But despite it being accurate, what does it tell you? That there's more money in the game? We all know that.

 

EDIT: NUFC highlighted

Edited September 22, 2011 by Happy Face

[manc-mag 1]

is this how the club "sold itself" to Andy Carroll and Enrique ?

 

No wonder they fucked off.

 

No doubt Tiote will follow suit.....

 

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him.

 

Thing is with the FCB in charge any player will be sold as soon as a decent offer comes in / or they manage to piss him off. That being the case we are destined to be a bottom half side until this lot sell up and fuck off.

Our revenue streams will continue to diminish; Attendances will continue to fall, fewer business will want to advertise at SJP which means more free advertising for the FCB ShiteDirect and we will appear less and less on TV as we will become a pisspoor team that no one wants to watch.

On a bright note Tiote having a bad start to the season should mean no one tries to buy him in the next transfer window.

 

And all things being equal, if we're self-sustaining (as he wants us to be-meaning that that money isn't required to plug holes elsewhere), then if it isn't re-invested in the team, we're having the piss taken out of us. Agreed.

 

 

when you actually say that you agree with this, its difficult to see what you have been disagreeing with and bickering about all this time, because it is what some of us have been saying for a long time now.

 

Edit.

 

For those who continue to harp on putting finance over the football, football is different to a high street store. You can't cut costs like Mike Ashley is doing without revenues decreasing. Top footballers want the wages in return for the shirts, advertising and commercial publicity they generate. Owning a football team full of average players which loses football games effects the "business" in the way Gerald Ratners comments about his "product" did. It's fucked.

 

What part of that do you think people have difficulty understanding btw? It's just a statement of the obvious. Also, for completeness, there's a second part to the statement, which is to say the players want those wages whether the profit and loss dictates it's sustainable to pay them it or not. Thus if we're paying more in percentage terms than the players are actually producing for us, they won't discount their wages accordingly to bring it into line.

 

Which brings us to the only point that's of relevance: FCB isn't prepared to play fantasy football because that comes at too high a personal risk to him in his own eyes. So the only model we should bother discussing is a self-sustaining one. That leaves room to talk about what the top realistic turnover could be and what player we could buy/retain to get it there/sustain it there.

 

If Lambias is able to make the boast in the near future that we've become self sufficient, then when we do sell players, we should be able to reasonably demand that that money has to be re-invested in the team, because it's not needed for anything else. It could be taken as dividends etc (fairly normal practice for most owners), but he doesn't need to do that, so if he wants any credit for a self sustaining model, that's only going to be due if it's efficiencies/surplus are re-invested to take us on.

 

That still begs the question at what level it allows you to compete in the context of other clubs budgets.

 

Tbh Leazes, you're still at the 'just throw more money at it' stage without having answered the question posed by numerous posters 'where should the money come from' and 'how much extra do you mean'? so you have no real currency in the conversation at this point with respect.

[peasepud 59]

You're still cherry picking. What about other Champions League qualifiers Leeds Utd and Blackburn Rovers, or European contenders in the Premier league years, like Norwich City and Nottingham Forest?

 

You've included Manchester City, they were never n the top 20 with us.

 

I don't know what the average would be so I'm not suggesting we've done well in terms of growth comparably...but it's "zombie stats" (painting the picture you want to see rather than the truth) which gives statistics a bad name. "You can prove anything with statistics" they say, well no, you can't, if you do it properly and include ALL the members of a group or a suitably randomised selection, then you'll get the truth to pretty accurate percentage of certainty.

 

Sorry, but it's a bugbear of mine.

You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?"

 

Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes.

[LeazesMag 0]

is this how the club "sold itself" to Andy Carroll and Enrique ?

 

No wonder they fucked off.

 

No doubt Tiote will follow suit.....

 

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him.

 

Thing is with the FCB in charge any player will be sold as soon as a decent offer comes in / or they manage to piss him off. That being the case we are destined to be a bottom half side until this lot sell up and fuck off.

Our revenue streams will continue to diminish; Attendances will continue to fall, fewer business will want to advertise at SJP which means more free advertising for the FCB ShiteDirect and we will appear less and less on TV as we will become a pisspoor team that no one wants to watch.

On a bright note Tiote having a bad start to the season should mean no one tries to buy him in the next transfer window.

 

And all things being equal, if we're self-sustaining (as he wants us to be-meaning that that money isn't required to plug holes elsewhere), then if it isn't re-invested in the team, we're having the piss taken out of us. Agreed.

 

 

when you actually say that you agree with this, its difficult to see what you have been disagreeing with and bickering about all this time, because it is what some of us have been saying for a long time now.

 

Edit.

 

For those who continue to harp on putting finance over the football, football is different to a high street store. You can't cut costs like Mike Ashley is doing without revenues decreasing. Top footballers want the wages in return for the shirts, advertising and commercial publicity they generate. Owning a football team full of average players which loses football games effects the "business" in the way Gerald Ratners comments about his "product" did. It's fucked.

 

What part of that do you think people have difficulty understanding btw? It's just a statement of the obvious. Also, for completeness, there's a second part to the statement, which is to say the players want those wages whether the profit and loss dictates it's sustainable to pay them it or not. Thus if we're paying more in percentage terms than the players are actually producing for us, they won't discount their wages accordingly to bring it into line.

 

Which brings us to the only point that's of relevance: FCB isn't prepared to play fantasy football because that comes at too high a personal risk to him in his own eyes. So the only model we should bother discussing is a self-sustaining one. That leaves room to talk about what the top realistic turnover could be and what player we could buy/retain to get it there/sustain it there.

 

If Lambias is able to make the boast in the near future that we've become self sufficient, then when we do sell players, we should be able to reasonably demand that that money has to be re-invested in the team, because it's not needed for anything else. It could be taken as dividends etc (fairly normal practice for most owners), but he doesn't need to do that, so if he wants any credit for a self sustaining model, that's only going to be due if it's efficiencies/surplus are re-invested to take us on.

 

That still begs the question at what level it allows you to compete in the context of other clubs budgets.

 

Tbh Leazes, you're still at the 'just throw more money at it' stage without having answered the question posed by numerous posters 'where should the money come from' and 'how much extra do you mean'? so you have no real currency in the conversation at this point with respect.

 

you are just blabbing on again in your usual style.

 

You go round in circles man.

 

Deep down, you know what I and others are saying and you agree with it, but waffle on, agreeing in parts, with certain posters, rather than admit it outright.

 

I've NEVER said to "throw unlimited money at it", you will NOT find any post from me saying this. I was one of the few posters who warned that Souness was overspending when others were saying "continue to back him" etc for starters.

 

The section of my post that you have highlighted - well, believe it or not, top footballers want the wages....I'm glad you agree, because there are plenty of people who are saying that we should not be paying these wages "because we can't afford it" [words to that effect] including yourself, the simple fact is that we must find a way to do it, or stop competing, and NUFC is one of the biggest clubs in the country, NOT competing with the other big clubs is NOT an option for a club like NUFC. This is the very point that has been made, for a long time now, which is that Mike Ashley is converting NUFC into a club THAT DOES NOT OR WILL NOT COMPETE AT THE LEVEL IT SHOULD BE. This is what has been said all this time would happen, and this is exactly what is happening, and those who are putting the financial side before the footballing one, are advocating this approach as being "correct".

 

I'm stating a simple fact - which YOU have said you agree with. Footballers want the wages. Either pay them, or give up competing. No amount of hot air from you or anyone else is going to change that, so just admit that its the way it is, whether you like it or not, whoever says it.

 

I have also NEVER said we should be competing with Chelsea either, or Man City since the Arabs bought them. You will NOT find any posts from me saying we should. Everybody knows these 2 clubs are operating on a different level. I'm talking about the other clubs. If we don't attempt to beat the likes of Spurs and Liverpool and settle for the levels of premiership survivors, then we are not competing. As PP's posts have shown, [and on the pitch too by virtue of league positions] we are more than a match for those clubs and can match and beat them, but not when we sell them our best players or worse still, to smaller clubs again who we should be buying their best players from instead.

Edited September 22, 2011 by LeazesMag

[manc-mag 1]

is this how the club "sold itself" to Andy Carroll and Enrique ?

 

No wonder they fucked off.

 

No doubt Tiote will follow suit.....

 

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him.

 

Thing is with the FCB in charge any player will be sold as soon as a decent offer comes in / or they manage to piss him off. That being the case we are destined to be a bottom half side until this lot sell up and fuck off.

Our revenue streams will continue to diminish; Attendances will continue to fall, fewer business will want to advertise at SJP which means more free advertising for the FCB ShiteDirect and we will appear less and less on TV as we will become a pisspoor team that no one wants to watch.

On a bright note Tiote having a bad start to the season should mean no one tries to buy him in the next transfer window.

 

And all things being equal, if we're self-sustaining (as he wants us to be-meaning that that money isn't required to plug holes elsewhere), then if it isn't re-invested in the team, we're having the piss taken out of us. Agreed.

 

 

when you actually say that you agree with this, its difficult to see what you have been disagreeing with and bickering about all this time, because it is what some of us have been saying for a long time now.

 

Edit.

 

For those who continue to harp on putting finance over the football, football is different to a high street store. You can't cut costs like Mike Ashley is doing without revenues decreasing. Top footballers want the wages in return for the shirts, advertising and commercial publicity they generate. Owning a football team full of average players which loses football games effects the "business" in the way Gerald Ratners comments about his "product" did. It's fucked.

 

What part of that do you think people have difficulty understanding btw? It's just a statement of the obvious. Also, for completeness, there's a second part to the statement, which is to say the players want those wages whether the profit and loss dictates it's sustainable to pay them it or not. Thus if we're paying more in percentage terms than the players are actually producing for us, they won't discount their wages accordingly to bring it into line.

 

Which brings us to the only point that's of relevance: FCB isn't prepared to play fantasy football because that comes at too high a personal risk to him in his own eyes. So the only model we should bother discussing is a self-sustaining one. That leaves room to talk about what the top realistic turnover could be and what player we could buy/retain to get it there/sustain it there.

 

If Lambias is able to make the boast in the near future that we've become self sufficient, then when we do sell players, we should be able to reasonably demand that that money has to be re-invested in the team, because it's not needed for anything else. It could be taken as dividends etc (fairly normal practice for most owners), but he doesn't need to do that, so if he wants any credit for a self sustaining model, that's only going to be due if it's efficiencies/surplus are re-invested to take us on.

 

That still begs the question at what level it allows you to compete in the context of other clubs budgets.

 

Tbh Leazes, you're still at the 'just throw more money at it' stage without having answered the question posed by numerous posters 'where should the money come from' and 'how much extra do you mean'? so you have no real currency in the conversation at this point with respect.

 

you are just blabbing on again in your usual style.

 

You go round in circles man.

 

Deep down, you know what I and others are saying and you agree with it, but waffle on, agreeing in parts, with certain posters, rather than admit it outright.

 

I've NEVER said to "throw unlimited money at it", you will NOT find any post from me saying this. I was one of the few posters who warned that Souness was overspending when others were saying "continue to back him" etc for starters.

 

The section of my post that you have highlighted - well, believe it or not, top footballers want the wages....I'm glad you agree, because there are plenty of people who are saying that we should not be paying these wages "because we can't afford it" [words to that effect] including yourself, the simple fact is that we must find a way to do it, or stop competing, and NUFC is one of the biggest clubs in the country, NOT competing with the other big clubs is NOT an option for a club like NUFC. This is the very point that has been made, for a long time now, which is that Mike Ashley is converting NUFC into a club THAT DOES NOT OR WILL NOT COMPETE AT THE LEVEL IT SHOULD BE. This is what has been said all this time would happen, and this is exactly what is happening, and those who are putting the financial side before the footballing one, are advocating this approach as being "correct".

 

I'm stating a simple fact - which YOU have said you agree with. Footballers want the wages. Either pay them, or give up competing. No amount of hot air from you or anyone else is going to change that, so just admit that its the way it is, whether you like it or not, whoever says it.

 

Yes but I'm saying Ashley won't pay top dollar, so that's where we're at. You're asking Ashley to take a risk with his own money. You know that too. It's fair enough, but basically you have to be honest and say that's all your statement amounts to. Not: WE SHOULD BECAUSE WE'RE NUFC! Wigan aren't doing it: BECAUSE THEY'RE WIGAN, they're doing it because of a private individual.

 

Again, it's perfectly fair to say if Ashley's not prepared to take a risk with his own cash then he should just sling the whole idea of football club ownership altogether and sell the thing, but then he'll be wanting a buyer. And they're not queuing up at the minute.

 

As I say, try and deal with the facts as they stand, otherwise it's just shouting slogans (as your caps lock only serves to demonstrate).

[ChezGiven 0]

http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastl...61634-28426458/

 

Luke Edwards from March this year, worth reading again.

 

YOU only need to take a quick glimpse at Newcastle United’s accounts to realise how heavily the club has relied on the financial backing of its owner Mike Ashley. Yet, financial results can only show us what has already happened and everyone knew the huge financial impact relegation had on a club with one of the highest wage bills in English football.

 

What supporters really want to know is what is going to happen next, how far the club can go and how it intends to get there and here, at least, there is far better news hidden behind the gloomy figures released yesterday.In the four years since Ashley replaced Sir John Hall and Freddie Shepherd, it is futile to argue Newcastle United have improved as a football team because they have not.

 

They were a lower mid-table side when he became owner and they remain as such. With eight games left to play, the Magpies are not entirely safe from relegation, but they are not in any immediate danger either.

 

However, as a business, Newcastle look far stronger, leaner and fitter than they have been at any time since he took over. Accountants and balance sheets will never win football games, they do not give the manager an edge on a matchday, or the fans the silverware they crave, but they can help put a club into a position where these ambitions have a better chance of being fulfilled.

 

This is where Newcastle United find themselves this morning under the Ashley regime. He remains unpopular and a section of the club’s support will probably never forgive him or managing director Derek Llambias for their public relations disasters.

 

From the shoddy treatment of club legends like Kevin Keegan and Alan Shearer, to the humiliation of relegation to the Championship in 2009, to the sale of Andy Carroll, a lot of murky water has passed under the bridge since May 2007.

 

If the accounts show Ashley covered an operating loss of more than £17m last season and has now invested a total of £139.8m in the form of interest-free loans, many will simply argue he has paid for his own mistakes, boardroom blunders which did not only contribute to the club’s ills, but in some cases directly caused them. Nevertheless, the importance of that backing cannot be ignored or merely dismissed as some sort of serve-you-right justice, no matter how tempting it is.

 

As a Championship club, Newcastle made an operating loss for the year of £33.5 million. Some of this was covered by player sales, but even after the likes of Sébastien Bassong, Damien Duff, Habib Beye and Obafemi Martins had been sold, Ashley had to pump in his own money to keep things ticking over, as well as fund the signings of Mike Williamson, Danny Simpson, Wayne Routledge and Leon Best. The year before that, even when Newcastle were a top-flight club, the business ran at an operating loss of £37.7m, reduced to £15.2m after player trading. It is also worth noting that Ashley has spent £37m on transfer fees for players signed before he took over as the payments were due in instalments.

 

Newcastle owed more than £74m to the bank four years ago and spent £5.5m a year just to cover the cost of interest repayments. Their only external debt in 2011 is a £10m overdraft facility which gives them working capital for day-to-day running costs.

 

Presuming Alan Pardew can keep his team up this term, financial projections show the business will break even by the time the next set of results are released in 12 months’ time.

 

In two years, managing director Derek Llambias and financial controller John Irving believe it will be making a £10m profit every year, money they promise will be used to top up the manager’s transfer budget, not to repay Ashley any of the £286m he has invested, firstly to buy the club and then to cover its losses.

 

To put this into context, Bolton Wanderers have announced an operating loss of £35m, Sunderland are at a loss of £27m and West Ham are losing £21m. None of those clubs were in the Championship last year.

 

Newcastle have made significant progress and the figures are made more impressive by the fact this would have been done even without the £35m they received from Liverpool for Carroll.

 

This money sits in a separate account and will be reinvested in the club, funding Pardew’s squad rebuilding this summer in the main, both in terms of transfer fees and wages, but also to improve the club’s facilities and infrastructure.

 

There will not be any pats on the back for that. Given the circumstances in which their former number nine left, it would be scandalous if the money was not reinvested and it would be shocking if any of it was used to repay the owner’s loans given United’s current standing in English football.

 

The fact the £35m will not be used solely to cover transfer fees will annoy some, but the reality is, with the wage budget set to increase by 10% in the summer – from around 60% of the club’s turnover to 70% – the money must come from somewhere in the short term.

 

The Magpies are still punching below their weight in the Premier League and Ashley and Llambias admit as much. They believe Newcastle are a top-ten club who should always be aiming for European football, but they argue the progress made as a business will enable them to get them there.

 

Until that happens, of course, nobody will be congratulating them on what they have done to improve cash flows and revenue streams.

 

In 2007, the last time Newcastle played in Europe and the year Ashley took control, the club’s turnover fell just shy of £100m, in the next financial year it will still only be around £86m.

There is still work to be done, on and off the pitch, in the boardroom and on the training ground. As good as everything is starting to look on paper, it is only when that translates to success on the pitch that anyone will start to feel Ashley has something to be proud of at St James’ Park.

Edited September 22, 2011 by ChezGiven

[Happy Face 29]

You're still cherry picking. What about other Champions League qualifiers Leeds Utd and Blackburn Rovers, or European contenders in the Premier league years, like Norwich City and Nottingham Forest?

 

You've included Manchester City, they were never n the top 20 with us.

 

I don't know what the average would be so I'm not suggesting we've done well in terms of growth comparably...but it's "zombie stats" (painting the picture you want to see rather than the truth) which gives statistics a bad name. "You can prove anything with statistics" they say, well no, you can't, if you do it properly and include ALL the members of a group or a suitably randomised selection, then you'll get the truth to pretty accurate percentage of certainty.

 

Sorry, but it's a bugbear of mine.

You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?"

 

Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes.

 

But none of the teams you chose is really comparable data in my opinion. Man U and Liverpool are the 2 most succesful clubs in English history, they have a worldwide support unmatched by anyone else going back decades. Arsenal aren't far behind in terms of long term success. Chelsea and Man City have the wealthiest individual owners in the world too.

 

If you're being realistic and want to compare like for like, as a club without any of the advantages of those listed above, as a club who have only temporarily made a dent on the top 30 without any sustained success and without unlimited funds from our owners, we're more comparable to Tottenham, Villa, Everton, Fulham and West Ham.

 

Of those, only Tottenham have (so far) been able to sustain their position at the top end of the money league.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

I wish people would pay attention the only way to assess the potential revenue is to look at the accounts by its 3 major lines and observe the highest levels each one has acheived and reflect on the condtions at the time to make an assessment of potential.

 

E.g

 

Matchday - full house is a full house and ticket prices are (thankfully) fixed so previous high is best estimate of real potential.

 

TV money, gone up from £37 (previous highest) as better deal, could be more with UEFA or CL football (realistic?). We will benefit from that without effort as all TV money is done through collective agreement.

 

Commercial / Sponsorship has gone way off and is a much tougher climate now so our previous high is a good estimate of potential.

 

If you were talking to the bank manager, thats what you'd be looking at. Nothing else.

Edited September 22, 2011 by ChezGiven

[Happy Face 29]

I wish people would pay attention

 

 

Chez just threw a piece of chalk at us in the back row talking amongst ourselves.

[peasepud 59]

You're still cherry picking. What about other Champions League qualifiers Leeds Utd and Blackburn Rovers, or European contenders in the Premier league years, like Norwich City and Nottingham Forest?

 

You've included Manchester City, they were never n the top 20 with us.

 

I don't know what the average would be so I'm not suggesting we've done well in terms of growth comparably...but it's "zombie stats" (painting the picture you want to see rather than the truth) which gives statistics a bad name. "You can prove anything with statistics" they say, well no, you can't, if you do it properly and include ALL the members of a group or a suitably randomised selection, then you'll get the truth to pretty accurate percentage of certainty.

 

Sorry, but it's a bugbear of mine.

You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?"

 

Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes.

 

But none of the teams you chose is really comparable data in my opinion. Man U and Liverpool are the 2 most succesful clubs in English history, they have a worldwide support unmatched by anyone else going back decades. Arsenal aren't far behind in terms of long term success. Chelsea and Man City have the wealthiest individual owners in the world too.

 

If you're being realistic and want to compare like for like, as a club without any of the advantages of those listed above, as a club who have only temporarily made a dent on the top 30 without any sustained success, and without unlimited funds from our owners, we're more comparable to Tottenham, Villa, Everton, Fulham and West Ham.

 

Of those, only Tottenham have (so far) been able to sustain their position at the top end of the money league.

If Id taken Villa, Everton, West Ham or any other club that wasnt in a comparable position pre-Ashley then you could simply change the argument around. Man U have the biggest potential for dropping turnover, you could argue that at some stage they'll reach a plateau, that theres no more to be got and the only way is down yet they still continue to increase.

 

I took the highest earning clubs, those that frankly would find it harder to increase turnover, the smaller you are, the bigger the potential is for increase. The teams I selected werent random they were those nearest to us in European turnover rankings.

 

Interested to see what you would project what our income could have realistically been had Ashley not screwed it up. Feel free to use Stoke (who we class as a comparable team on the pitch these days) who as we've seen have increased turnover 6 fold in the same time or Blackpool that more than doubled theirs. You could use them but you know fine well that it wouldnt be realistic.

 

If we were comparing how much more I could have been earning if Id changed jobs then I wouldnt use Branson, Ashley, Sugar and Gates as my yardstick, in the same way as I wouldnt take 6 random tramps from Benwell.

[manc-mag 1]

this is more like it!

[ChezGiven 0]

I wish people would pay attention

 

 

Chez just threw a piece of chalk at us in the back row talking amongst ourselves.

 

You dont know how true that description is.

 

"THE ANSWER IS £110M!!!!!"

[Happy Face 29]

You're still cherry picking. What about other Champions League qualifiers Leeds Utd and Blackburn Rovers, or European contenders in the Premier league years, like Norwich City and Nottingham Forest?

 

You've included Manchester City, they were never n the top 20 with us.

 

I don't know what the average would be so I'm not suggesting we've done well in terms of growth comparably...but it's "zombie stats" (painting the picture you want to see rather than the truth) which gives statistics a bad name. "You can prove anything with statistics" they say, well no, you can't, if you do it properly and include ALL the members of a group or a suitably randomised selection, then you'll get the truth to pretty accurate percentage of certainty.

 

Sorry, but it's a bugbear of mine.

You seem to forget why I posted those stats originally, the question I was replying to was "how much should we be able to increase turnover to?"

 

Logically to answer that you need to use comparable data, the fact we were in the Top 20 for previous years told you that there are comparable English teams in terms of size and Turnover ie those that were also up there. If they managed to sustain growth then there's no reason why we shouldn't have done also. Using Stoke, Portsmouth, Mackems or anyone else wouldn't have given a fair comparison because as seen by Stoke, you can have huge jumps for comparatively small differences in fortunes.

 

But none of the teams you chose is really comparable data in my opinion. Man U and Liverpool are the 2 most succesful clubs in English history, they have a worldwide support unmatched by anyone else going back decades. Arsenal aren't far behind in terms of long term success. Chelsea and Man City have the wealthiest individual owners in the world too.

 

If you're being realistic and want to compare like for like, as a club without any of the advantages of those listed above, as a club who have only temporarily made a dent on the top 30 without any sustained success, and without unlimited funds from our owners, we're more comparable to Tottenham, Villa, Everton, Fulham and West Ham.

 

Of those, only Tottenham have (so far) been able to sustain their position at the top end of the money league.

If Id taken Villa, Everton, West Ham or any other club that wasnt in a comparable position pre-Ashley then you could simply change the argument around. Man U have the biggest potential for dropping turnover, you could argue that at some stage they'll reach a plateau, that theres no more to be got and the only way is down yet they still continue to increase.

 

I took the highest earning clubs, those that frankly would find it harder to increase turnover, the smaller you are, the bigger the potential is for increase. The teams I selected werent random they were those nearest to us in European turnover rankings.

 

Interested to see what you would project what our income could have realistically been had Ashley not screwed it up. Feel free to use Stoke (who we class as a comparable team on the pitch these days) who as we've seen have increased turnover 6 fold in the same time or Blackpool that more than doubled theirs. You could use them but you know fine well that it wouldnt be realistic.

 

If we were comparing how much more I could have been earning if Id changed jobs then I wouldnt use Branson, Ashley, Sugar and Gates as my yardstick, in the same way as I wouldnt take 6 random tramps from Benwell.

 

Frankly, I haven't got a clue what we're even talking about here.

 

If we're interested in looking at a specific club, then Chez has had it spot on for 3 posts running. Man U increased turnover over the last 5 years from extra tv money, extra prize money, expanding foreign markets and 10,000 extra seats on their stadium.

 

How much of that could NUFC have realistically pursued without Ashley? In all liklihood, just the TV money, which required no effort beyond survival.

 

Without getting specific, the chart I posted shows on average top clubs could hope for a 20% increase on revenue over 5 years if they managed to retain their position. We are not likely to have been able to match that given we didn't have the streams available as Chez explains. For the first 3 years of the comparison our income is pretty much static. That's prior to the relegation season and disaster. Think that's indicative of us hitting our own plateau at the 125-130m Euro mark.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Happy Face

[wykikitoon 20802]

The main question is.

 

How the fuck is Shola still a professional footballer at Newcastle United?

[ChezGiven 0]

Quick summary post so everyone knows where we are at:

 

For those who wish to know what this all means for their dossier of arguments against the club and the stupidity of its owners, it shows that there is at least £20m in revenue 'on the table' i.e. untapped potential income.

 

For those who wish to know how all of this helps to explain some of our problems and why we are unable to exploit our underlying potential, it shows a realistic potential income (without CL football) is roughly the same as Spurs.

[Happy Face 29]

Turnover from the Ramble....

 

 

Compared to Delloites "income"...

 

2005 - 128m

2006 - 124m

2007 - 129m

2008 - 125m

2009 - 101m

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League

 

Why the discrepancy? What do these numbers represent?

Edited September 22, 2011 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

Deloitte's figures are in euros, SR's in pounds.

[manc-mag 1]

Deloitte's figures are in euros, SR's in pounds.

 

In language I can understand please, Poindexter.

[Happy Face 29]

Deloitte's figures are in euros, SR's in pounds.

 

So they are, so they are.

 

Ta.

[The Fish 10972]

Deloitte's figures are in euros, SR's in pounds.

 

In language I can understand please, Poindexter.

bad money make no senses

[ChezGiven 0]

HF (and Pud) were putting £ signs in front of Deloitte's numbers. Deloitte's numbers are actually in Euros. The Rambler uses £s.

 

Turnover = income.

 

Also, Deloitte's figures look out to me and may reflect the exchange rate issues involved in EU income comparisons.

[peasepud 59]

Quick summary post so everyone knows where we are at:

 

For those who wish to know what this all means for their dossier of arguments against the club and the stupidity of its owners, it shows that there is at least £20m in revenue 'on the table' i.e. untapped potential income.

 

For those who wish to know how all of this helps to explain some of our problems and why we are unable to exploit our underlying potential, it shows a realistic potential income (without CL football) is roughly the same as Spurs.

 

Id agree that, in that its at least £20m and that Spurs are probably the nearest comparable club.

 

Take into account though that we have a bigger local fanbase, larger stadium and a lack of more successful local neighbours and you have to think that if we matched how Spurs do on the pitch then we'd pull in more money. Thats not an emotional "we're a bigger club" statement btw but based on the above.

 

For instance, when it comes to corporate boxes etc, these are often bought by companies with no affiliation to the club, its merely that they are based near to the office and good for entertaining clients. As we only have the Mackems for competion then we can easily command higher prices when we're doing well. Spurs however have to compete with Chelsea and Arsenal, Im fairly confident that the facilities etc within the Emirates probably pisses on White Hart Lane also.

 

I know that matchday tickets arent that massive a deal in the grand scheme of turnover but an extra 16,000 bodies in there with the resulting sales of pies, pints, merchandise and shirts will make a bigger impact on turnover. Id imagine that you could also command higher advertising rates inside the ground on the basis of the audience size.

 

So yeah Id say that Spurs are a good comparison when looking at the minimum we could manage.

[peasepud 59]

HF (and Pud) were putting £ signs in front of Deloitte's numbers. Deloitte's numbers are actually in Euros. The Rambler uses £s.

 

Turnover = income.

 

Also, Deloitte's figures look out to me and may reflect the exchange rate issues involved in EU income comparisons.

I was yes, however my correction post this morning used the Sterling figures, these obviously arent subject to the exchange rate issues.

[ChezGiven 0]

HF (and Pud) were putting £ signs in front of Deloitte's numbers. Deloitte's numbers are actually in Euros. The Rambler uses £s.

 

Turnover = income.

 

Also, Deloitte's figures look out to me and may reflect the exchange rate issues involved in EU income comparisons.

I was yes, however my correction post this morning used the Sterling figures, these obviously arent subject to the exchange rate issues.

And just for anyone wondering.

 

If we had a £100m revenue in 2007, the Deloitte figure would be based on the ex/r at the time e.g. 1:1.4. Therefore, they would estimate it at Euros 140m.

If we had a £100m revenue in 2010, the Deloitte figure would be based on the ex/r at the time e.g. 1:1.2. Therefore, they would estimate it at Euros 120m

 

Same revenue but different absolute figures after conversion.

[Happy Face 29]

Aye.

 

Was gonna say, the changeable exchange rate renders my year by year growth comparison entirely redundant.

 

Unfortunately, I dunno where to find a similar amount of data in £'s on one page.