Can't stop looking at the premiership league table

[Toonpack 9303]

The Spurs approach sounds a lot like the Shepherd/Hall approach tbh...

 

In 2006 the club (Spurs) was actually in a net cash position to the tune of £24 million, but since then the debt has been rising year after year: 2007 £2 million, 2008 £15 million, 2009 £46 million and 2010 £64 million. If the liability component of the Convertible Redeemable Preference Shares were classified as debt (as the accounts do in the analysis of Total Borrowings), then the net debt could be considered as £79 million.

 

The debt comprises £50 million of bank loans, including a £15 million short-term revolving loan from HSBC and a £33 million facility with the Bank of Scotland at a floating rate linked to LIBOR; plus £25 million of loan notes at an interest rate of 7.29% repayable in equal instalments by September 2023; less £11 million of cash. All the loans are secured on club assets.

 

http://swissramble.b...enham%20Hotspur

 

 

Nowt like it

 

A wee bit further on "with net assets of £71 million, including tangible assets of £124 million"

 

They made a £6 Mill loss I believe last year, their net profits position since 2005 would therefore be £62 Million.

[Toonpack 9303]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

 

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch.

 

We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements.

 

EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed:

 

1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting)

2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions.

3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't.

4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll)

5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base

 

These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2.

 

Going round in circles.

 

Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position.

 

When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means.

 

3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch.

 

That said...Spurs reported a loss last year.

 

Of course it does, but "within their/our means" does not preclude that, their years of profit generation have assisted their spending now.

[Happy Face 29]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

 

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch.

 

We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements.

 

EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed:

 

1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting)

2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions.

3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't.

4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll)

5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base

 

These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2.

 

Going round in circles.

 

Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position.

 

When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means.

 

3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch.

 

That said...Spurs reported a loss last year.

 

Of course it does, but "within their/our means" does not preclude that, their years of profit generation have assisted their spending now.

 

Assisted, but not covered, Gone from £24m in the black to £79m in the red, even with their profits. A £103m switch in circumstances.

 

The important difference is their borrowing hasn't exceeded their assets as yet. The trend is certainly in that direction. Shepherd was only just coming to that little problem himself when Ashley came along.

[Guest alex]

Tell you what TP, if we come back in four or five years and we've gotten into Europe two or three times I'll concede you had a valid point. Deal?

Edited October 12, 2011 by alex

[Park Life 71]

This top 8-10 level is one thing, you can get by with careful spending and nicking end of contract players...But at some point to challenge the top 6 you have to be ready to blow 50odd meeweon. /Plato

[Toonpack 9303]

Alex and Happy Face both deliberately rejecting an analogy because it doesnt absolutely work on every single level. I can take that from HF who clearly has a masters degree in pure geek but come on alex, i expect more of you

 

I thought TP was offering it more as a reference or a benchmark not a carbon copy of some strategy (that no one can agree on what that is anyway!).

 

I thought that was a top post too Brock.

 

I'm not rejecting the analogy at all. I'm rejecting TP's claim (and it was his) that we are doing EVERYTHING Spurs do. I'm happy to appreciate any similarities in approach, but my initial point (which TP used Spurs to counter) was about players on the pitch.

 

We're bringing in new players every 2 years for just about every position on the park. Understandable during transitions between leagues, but thinking of next steps, either we're going to have to start retaining players longer....or spend bigger on their replacements.

 

EDIT: And by "EVERYTHING", I mean only the 5 things I listed:

 

1. low wage cap - Not sure what Spurs cap is, but happy to accept if they have one similar to ours It is evdiently "no single player shall earn mroe tha £80K per week", Modric is currently on £40K (as per press reports - Daily Mirror article on Modric's twisting)

2. low transfer fees - Spurs first 11 was built at a cost of more than twice ours. They spend what they can afford nothing more, they are considerably richer than us just now. They made £68 Million in prfots whilst we were losing tens of millions.

3. selling at profit - All clubs want to do that. Agreed, although as a policy we didn't.

4. retaining our best young players - Spurs manage this better than us at the moment See no 2, we haven't been truly tested yet (and I would STILL have taken £35 Mill for Carroll)

5. finishing in the top ten - Ashley yet to manage this. Spurs doing it year on year at the moment. From a self sustaining base

 

These are fundamentally opposed. Spurs couldn't maintain 5 if they stuck with 2.

 

Going round in circles.

 

Spurs spend what they can afford...so do West Brom. That similarity has no relevance on league position. We can spend what we can afford for another decade without improving our position.

 

When you brought up a comparison with Spurs spending within their means, it was to sugest that a team can reach their position by spending within their means. But the difference is £70m+ is currently within their means, and less than £30m is (apparently) within our means.

 

3 years ago Spurs finished 11th and we were 12th. They pushed on to the Champions League, we got releagted They moved forward with clever investment so now they can afford the team they're maintaining, we sank without trace. Last season we finished 12th again, and we have the opportunity to do now what they did over the last 3 years, like i said though, it needs investment on the pitch.

 

That said...Spurs reported a loss last year.

 

Of course it does, but "within their/our means" does not preclude that, their years of profit generation have assisted their spending now.

 

Assisted, but not covered, Gone from £24m in the black to £79m in the red, even with their profits. A £103m switch in circumstances.

 

The important difference is their borrowing hasn't exceeded their assets as yet. The trend is certainly in that direction. Shepherd was only just coming to that little problem himself when Ashley came along.

 

Even if they have £79 Million liabilities, they still have net assetts of £71 Million it's nowhere near exceeding their assetts, and the "profits" were continued to be made despite the increase in liabilities (until the last complete year and a £6.6 Mill operating loss is inconsequential when you made £30+ mill the year before, I would add in the 6 months to Dec 2010 they made a further profit of £4.2 Mill, what the whole year will show who knows).

 

Of that debt £45 Mill is for their new training complex, they have also spent £61 Mill in property development.

 

From their accounts:

 

The current debt profile continues to reflect the significant property holdings acquired as part of the

Northumberland Development Project. These loans are underpinned by specific property assets and

planning gains. The Board considers this level of debt to be manageable and in line with capital

growth plans.

[Toonpack 9303]

Tell you what TP, if we come back in four or five years and we've gotten into Europe two or three times I'll concede you had a valid point. Deal?

 

It worked for them, no reason it can't work for us

[Toonpack 9303]

he is pocketing huge sums of money WHILE owning the club

 

Anyway, Leazes, how big a sin is this alleged "pocketing WHILE owning the club" (not that MA has yet, as far as we know)

 

On a scale of 1-10 of sin-ishness how would you score it.

 

1 being equal to glancing at your neighbours wife, 10 being equal to shagging her senseless in front of her kids.

 

I'd still also like you to clarify why you think Ibelieve the Halls/Shep should have sold the club for no profit.

[LeazesMag 0]

becoming more and more like the crap on Newcastle Online, to be honest.

 

A site frequented mostly by non-match attendees who have absolutely zero idea about football, and have even less idea how big a club Newcastle United are and should be [which is part of the same problem]

Edited October 12, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

the embarrassing thing about threads like this, which is exactly the same as threads on NO, is that people on the outside will look in and think they are representative of the views of the majority of actual Newcastle supporters that go to games and stump up the money to support the club.

Edited October 12, 2011 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

Fuck off man Leazes, its not that bad. A thread like this gives you all the opportunity you want to put your point of view over and for both sides of the debate to be criticisied. Dont be so didactic.

 

Does anyone want to read an interview i did with a Norwegian journalist on Ashley?

[Guest alex]

No thanks.

[ChezGiven 0]

Thought as much.

[trophyshy 7073]

aye Chez, hoy it up. As long as it's in English.

[ChezGiven 0]

Not sure who the bloke asking the question is tbh, i thought he was just a toon fan at first but then he wished us good luck against the 'mighty spurs' on sunday, i realised that he wasnt Its meant to be for a piece on football ownership and it was just some questions he sent us on pm. I didnt spend a lot of time on the responses but as i made a bit of an effort to make it coherent, i thought someone should read the english version as whatever he uses is going to be in Norwegian. The first question was who are ye? This thread is already knee-deep in the usual shite so, why not...

 

2) What was your impression of Ashley after the first six months of his era? I'm thinking about the mixing with fans, signings and Kevin Keegan mainly..

You’ve mentioned Keegan here so an answer to this touches a lot of issues. I’ll try and cover what I think are the most relevant parts of the Ashley story, how he ended up with Keegan and how it fell apart. The background and the finances play an important role. The takeover was clearly a very exciting event but I was a bit cynical regarding Ashley at first. Drinking down the Bigg market and on the quayside, buying everyone drinks seemed to me like they were trying too hard. It seemed obvious they were doing it for PR with the fans. That didn’t stop me from believing that the club were about to enter a more successful period, nor do I look back on it thinking that Ashley was definitely planning to run the club as he does now and he was trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. I think his intentions were probably genuine at the time for the club but the way he conducted himself should have been more concerning to everyone at the time. Everyone was fairly happy that a so-called Billionaire had taken over the club and a lot of fans were delighted it was anyone but Freddy Shepherd (a view point I hope they subsequently have revised). Personally I had already started to worry about the future of the club and its finances. Souness had been allowed to waste £50m, Michael Owen’s transfer was clearly not working out (plus the huge waste of money on players like Boumsong and Luque) meant that despite Roeder getting us to 7

^th

in 06, it was unclear where additional investment was going to come from. By 2007, the club were trying to raise more finance (to a level of debt that could have been crippling post-financial crisis) and had just sacked Roeder and hired Allardyce, a manager who was known for operating within tight financial constraints. The situation was not dire but it was clear that Newcastle were going to need to tighten their belts and would not be splashing out on any big name signings any time soon. Looking back at the wage/revenue ratio in 2007 now just confirms that we had brought in a lot of players on big wages who were not delivering. Something had to give and fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your view) it did in the form of £138m worth of shares. Newcastle’s financial issues seemingly disappearing overnight. Ha!!

Ashley appeared at first as though he wanted to give running NUFC a proper go. However, he made mistake after mistake in his first 2 seasons that ultimately led to relegation. He backed Allardyce who brought in players like Cacapa, Geremi, Alan Smith but also Jose Enrique, Habib Beye and Faye who were all good defenders (Barton was already in before the change in ownership). The next phase in our history is one of the most complicated, saddening and infuriating of recent times and one which embraces the Keegan episode. What do I think of Ashley the day he appoints Keegan? I was as shocked and surprised as anyone else. I can see why he did it, so many managerial appointments in football are a reaction to what is considered the predominant failure of the previous manager. Its true for the English national side and Newcastle anyway. Keegan was a reaction to the lack of passion in the ground, the lack of belief in what the manager was doing, the abject defensive performances.

One question stays with me after all this time. Did Ashley decide that throwing money at the football club was not the answer before or after he appointed Keegan? He had invested a decent but not spectacular sum in the summer of 2007, was it just an injection of cash to get things moving or part of a more sinister PR campaign. If he decided that throwing money at the club was not going to be part of his long term strategy before he appointed Keegan, then the cynicism of this move means he deserves everything he got from the fans, the press and the good side of the footballing fraternity later in 2008. Or was there a change in strategy in the period of time between appointing Keegan and the summer of 2008 when relationships collapsed. Did he initially have an investment plan and then pull back or was it destined to be this way with Keegan a snide attempt to get things done on the cheap? Only Ashley knows the answer to that but some context is useful.

I am inclined to invoke the financial crisis as a game changer in this instance. US and EU banks lost $1 trillion from toxic assets from January 2007 to 2009, so the crisis was well underway when Ashley took over the club. Lehman brothers didn’t collapse until September 2008 but Northern Rock, the club’s sponsor, was one of the first victims of the global crisis. The highly leveraged nature of Northern Rock’s business led it to seek security from the Bank of England and a run on the bank started in September 2007. Eventually, NUFC’s prestigious sponsor who took pride of place on our shirts, was eventually nationalised in February 2008. It was an embarrassing and symbolic moment. Just a matter of weeks after Keegan’s appointment, the commercial future of the club and Ashley himself was looking a lot bleaker than in those heady days of summer 2007.

I wont dwell too long on what happened next but I think the most forgiving perspective we can take on the following months is that there was a distinct change in strategy from the club and perhaps a weary realisation from Keegan that it was going to take a miracle (or £100m of investment) to take the club back to competing at the top of the league. Just think back to Keegan’s demeanour after the home defeat to Chelsea. Maybe he realised that more money was needed just at the same moment Ashley realised that not only were the club’s finances not getting any better but only a monumental level of investment would guarantee a place at the top table (the only place in football where there is any form of return on investment – ‘5

^th

is nowhere’ to bastardise an American expression). Just look at the size of Man City’s investment to get there. Half a billion? Ashley’s worth was plummeting to around just that level due to the economic malaise generated by the crisis. No wonder the summer led to some differences of financial opinion.

 

3) What do you think about Mike Ashley now?

Not much has changed for me really, I only care about the results of the first team and the quality of the development squad. I never cared about the personalities of previous board’s nor for this one. I think he is a ruthless businessman who plays his own game that seems to be to promote Sports Direct to the world by covering every physical space at the stadium in SD branding and by keeping NUFC in the premier league. How much more ambition he has than that is up for debate and I recommend your reader take a look at some of the lengthy debates on toontastic.net which explore every aspect of this question.

I don’t care for the man and his treatment of the singing section from Level 7 shows how little he cares for the fans. Ultimately though, I will happily ignore all that if he returns some success to the club in the form of a trophy. He has definitely done one good thing for us but am not sure how it was ultimately funded. During our season in the championship, the wage bill at NUFC was £47m. I am only guessing here but I am pretty confident there is no football club in history that has ever carried that level of wage bill in the second tier of a national league. It was unprecedented and the main reason why Newcastle bounced straight back. It was his fault we ended up there but fair play, he got us back at the first attempt. We lost £22m during that season so someone footed the bill. Maybe he lent it to us and we still have to pay it back….

4) what plans do you believe Ashley have for NUFC short term/long term?

The £120m question. Why £120m? That’s what Newcastle United’s revenues could be if it was run properly, if the fans were prepared to fill the stadium, if the commercial revenue could be returned to levels seen around 5 years ago and media income is maintained at current levels. The performance of matchday revenue and commercial is discussed in this thread on toontastic. Some interesting graphs anyway vis a vis our financial (revenue) performance versus Liverpool and Spurs should be enlightening.

http://www.toontasti...topic=31435&hl=

14 questions&st=260

His ambition should be to raise revenue to this level which would put us in line with Spurs financially and with the correct investment in the academy, the development squad and first team affairs, consistently challenging for the top 7 should be his aim. To answer your question is in my opinion impossible. First of all, the plans/ambitions whatever have chopped and changed many times since he bought the club. After Keegan, there was the note to the fans saying ‘you want me out, ok am going’, then he didn’t go, then he appoints Shearer, then we are relegated, then he says he is sorry and he has failed, then the club being sold to Barry Moat, then it wasn’t, then silence, then Hughton starts well … it just goes on and on.

I think we have finally settled on a strategy and I think his short term objective is to get the team finishing in the top 10 this year. I don’t think he wants to sell the club otherwise why is he erecting this week the huge new Sports Direct signs on the OUTSIDE of SJP. He is in it for a good few years yet. We know to support SD’s business objectives, we need to be in the premiership. The £120m question is, how much more than does he want and how much is he prepared to invest to achieve it. I don’t know but I would say he is currently aiming to be between 7

^th

and 10

^th

in the premiership. A bit underwhelming to be honest.

5) Somewhere along the road Ashley clearly lost the supporteres, what are the five biggest mistakes he's done in your opinon?

• Not doing due diligence on the club’s accounts in 2007.
  
• Appointing Dennis Wise, the odious dwarf. Letting Wise gain political power over Keegan and then not sacking him summer 2008
  
• Appointing JFK to replace Keegan, an alcoholic who sat in the manager’s office watching day-time TV. He wasn’t fit to manage a football club nevermind one as proud as ours.
  
• His treatment of the stadium, the very fabric of the club. The dismantling of the L7 singing section and the defacing of the stadium with SD branding. Even if he wins a trophy people will always detest him for this.
  
• Not buying a striker, summer 2011. There are 5000 empty seats at SJP, some of which have been vacated by people who will never come back, some by people who will come back. Having done a decent job in the championship, had a decent first year back in the premiership and having sold Andy Carroll, all he had to do was make a statement that he wants the club to move forward. Having £35m in his pocket and leaving the summer transfer market with essentially a £0 net spend on players was just stupid.
  

 

6) Is there any positives in the four years under his leadership? Any improvments?

Some things have gone well, the championship season turned out to be quite enjoyable as seeing the club win week in week out was something not seen for a while. It forged a tough and strong togetherness on the pitch which carried through to last year and seems (remarkably) to have continued through to this season. The current central midfield is one of the best I have ever seen at this club, Ben Arfa plays for us (I still have to pinch myself), we have a good manager (not popular but my word what a job he has done amongst the incessant chaos at the club), the defence looks fantastic. If you’re going to have a go at being a properly run club that abides by UEFA’s financial fair play and has a chance of being successful in the future, what he has done to the wage bill, how he has recruited players, the decision not to give ageing and slowing players long and lucrative contracts, these are all the things that any club thinking like this should be doing. There is some method in the madness, lets see if that method can lead to some steady improvement before judging it completely.

 

7) Do you believe Mike Ashley runs the club out of ambitions to success for NUFC or is he only driven by making profits?

Profits, like all businessmen. He told Sir John Hall when he bought the club that he wanted to use NUFC to help market his sports business around the globe. He is expanding SD into Europe (opened 3 shops in France funnily enough!) and into the far east. There is a clear commercial tie-in for SD and NUFC if the club is successful and has a profile high enough to register with fans/consumers thousands of miles from these shores. Commercially, the better NUFC do in the global English premiership TV markets, the more exposure SD has. This helps me sleep at night. Seriously.

 

8) Will we ever see Mike Ashley amongst the fans, singing and drinking beer ever again?

If we win the FA cup, aye. Until then, no.

Edited October 13, 2011 by ChezGiven

[manc-mag 1]

Chez, I might have missed something glaringly obvious here, but why the fuck are Norwegian journalists interviewing you?

[manc-mag 1]

I mean don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of your output...

[The Fish 10793]

I mean don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of your output...

That's what she said

[ChezGiven 0]

Chez, I might have missed something glaringly obvious here, but why the fuck are Norwegian journalists interviewing you?

Good question. No idea tbh.

[Park Life 71]

Chez, I might have missed something glaringly obvious here, but why the fuck are Norwegian journalists interviewing you?

 

It's cause he's gone over to the dark side.

[TicTacWoe 0]

Chez, I might have missed something glaringly obvious here, but why the fuck are Norwegian journalists interviewing you?

Good question. No idea tbh.

 

Did the journalist go by the name of Saltwater and look like a bit of a fool?

[TicTacWoe 0]

One thing that people frequently bring up is that we haven't played anyone decent yet. Whilst I would generally agree with that (apart from Arsenal obviously but they were/are in a mess of their own at the time) I would also say that the amount of really "decent" teams is quite low.

Basically, apart from the Manchesters and Chelsea I would at least give us a chance against anyone in the league. Obviously we won't finish higher than the likes of Arsenal, Spurs or Liverpool in out current state but it should not be unthinkable that we could finish at the top of the "best of the rest" pile. That's not to say we will but the fact we could shows we have made some improvements.

Edited October 13, 2011 by TicTacWoe

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Does anyone want to read an interview i did with a Norwegian journalist on Ashley?

 

No, fuck off.

[ChezGiven 0]

Does anyone want to read an interview i did with a Norwegian journalist on Ashley?

 

No, fuck off.

Fair enough

[Gejon 2]

You're obsessed with Newcastle Online Leazes