***Official Mike Ashley Euro express thread***

[LeazesMag 0]

While KD is in charge I think our transfer policy will be better and more productive. He's clueless.

 

what if Liverpool approach Pardew to replace him ?

[The Fish 10857]

While KD is in charge I think our transfer policy will be better and more productive. He's clueless.

 

what if Liverpool approach Pardew to replace him ?

now now Leazes, if you won't entertain hypothetical situations being part of questions levelled at you, you can't make them part of questions you level at others.

[LeazesMag 0]

While KD is in charge I think our transfer policy will be better and more productive. He's clueless.

 

what if Liverpool approach Pardew to replace him ?

now now Leazes, if you won't entertain hypothetical situations being part of questions levelled at you, you can't make them part of questions you level at others.

 

Pardew will go to a club that backs their managers, or will be sacked for not getting into europe for peanuts. It's more than possible.

 

Good job Keegan never left NUFC for Liverpool first time round eh, oh I forgot, why would he, when his board backed him.

Edited January 25, 2012 by LeazesMag

[brummiemag1 0]

Maybe this should be posted in the FA Cup thread but its another indication of the small time penny pinching attitude of Ashley.

 

Basically we have sold our initial allocation of 2,500 tickets for Brighton (quite amazing and a demonstration of how big this club is) but we have declined an additional allocation of 800 tickets. Thats quite disgraceful from Ashley, he regularly accepts reduced allocations for away games and he is depriving a further 800 fans of getting the chance to see their club play in the FA Cup.

 

Is this sort of penny pinching the actions of a man who has great ambitions to drive the club forward and challenge for a top 4 place?

[NJS 4385]

Keegan left because they stopped backing him.

[Gemmill 44879]

There's a phrase in business, 'making hay while the sun shines'.

That's a phrase in farming, Chez.

 

[The Fish 10857]

If only the previous regime had backed Robson when it mattereed most, instead of treating a hero of the North East and a footballing legend the world over, like trash...

 

If only this regime wouldback their men by supplying the funds to sign; the 2nd best central midfield partnership in the Premier League, the 2nd most prolific striker in the league, arugably the best left back in the country, another £10m striker, an incredibly gifted attacking midfielder, and so on and so forth.

 

This owner is a cunt, you know it, I know it, we all know it. He doesn't love the club as H&S did, but he's what we've got. He has backed this manager by providing funds for transfers. One thing you don't seem to get the hang of is that there isn't a seperate bank account for transfers. You harp on about the £27m from the Carroll transfer, but you've ignored the funds spent on all the other players we've brought into the club and the funds required to run the club. That £35m has gone into the same pocket from which the heating is paid for, the coaches are paid from, the debt incurred by your beloved H&S is paid down and so on and so forth. Say what you like about Ashley, but he has dealt with the debt of the last ownership and made secure NUFC's financial future. H&S's strategy of borrow and gamble would have lead us to the brink of ruin and given you're not a complete idiot, you must be able to see that?

 

Your parameters for success are so narrow and malleable it begs the question, what would have to happen for you to change your mind or admit you're wrong? I know you'll reel out "5th top in the league, 14th highest revenue etc. etc." but given they mean fuck all in the game as it is today, I'd like you provide a full and frank answer, no misdirection, no obfuscation, just an honest answer. What would have to happen for you to stop banging on about the way things used to be?

[trophyshy 7083]

Maybe this should be posted in the FA Cup thread but its another indication of the small time penny pinching attitude of Ashley.

 

Basically we have sold our initial allocation of 2,500 tickets for Brighton (quite amazing and a demonstration of how big this club is) but we have declined an additional allocation of 800 tickets. Thats quite disgraceful from Ashley, he regularly accepts reduced allocations for away games and he is depriving a further 800 fans of getting the chance to see their club play in the FA Cup.

 

Is this sort of penny pinching the actions of a man who has great ambitions to drive the club forward and challenge for a top 4 place?

 

Given that gate receipts are shared (barring what is pooled) could you, or anyone else, please explain how this saves Ashley money? Agree it is shabby, and could even be spiteful but I don't understand the cost cutting. 400-600 stamps, printing, card, envelopes and maybe 2 days office staff time? Maybe £500? Is the belt-tightening really that intense? I must be missing something.

Edited January 26, 2012 by trophyshy

[Kitman 2207]

Maybe this should be posted in the FA Cup thread but its another indication of the small time penny pinching attitude of Ashley.

 

Basically we have sold our initial allocation of 2,500 tickets for Brighton (quite amazing and a demonstration of how big this club is) but we have declined an additional allocation of 800 tickets. Thats quite disgraceful from Ashley, he regularly accepts reduced allocations for away games and he is depriving a further 800 fans of getting the chance to see their club play in the FA Cup.

 

Is this sort of penny pinching the actions of a man who has great ambitions to drive the club forward and challenge for a top 4 place?

 

Given that gate receipts are shared (barring what is pooled) could you, or anyone else, please explain how this saves Ashley money? Agree it is shabby, and could even be spiteful but I don't understand the cost cutting. 400-600 stamps, printing, card, envelopes and maybe 2 days office staff time? Maybe £500? Is the belt-tightening really that intense? I must be missing something.

 

I doubt Ashley gets involved in this kind of issue anyway.

[ewerk 30610]

Maybe this should be posted in the FA Cup thread but its another indication of the small time penny pinching attitude of Ashley.

 

Basically we have sold our initial allocation of 2,500 tickets for Brighton (quite amazing and a demonstration of how big this club is) but we have declined an additional allocation of 800 tickets. Thats quite disgraceful from Ashley, he regularly accepts reduced allocations for away games and he is depriving a further 800 fans of getting the chance to see their club play in the FA Cup.

 

Is this sort of penny pinching the actions of a man who has great ambitions to drive the club forward and challenge for a top 4 place?

 

Given that gate receipts are shared (barring what is pooled) could you, or anyone else, please explain how this saves Ashley money? Agree it is shabby, and could even be spiteful but I don't understand the cost cutting. 400-600 stamps, printing, card, envelopes and maybe 2 days office staff time? Maybe £500? Is the belt-tightening really that intense? I must be missing something.

 

He wouldn't let us take an extra 800 to Brighton, there'll be no top 4 for us again.

 

It's an interesting argument.

[ChezGiven 0]

Don't we have to pay for any tickets not bought from the allocation? 800 £30 tickets is £24k.

[LeazesMag 0]

If only the previous regime had backed Robson when it mattereed most, instead of treating a hero of the North East and a footballing legend the world over, like trash...

 

If only this regime wouldback their men by supplying the funds to sign; the 2nd best central midfield partnership in the Premier League, the 2nd most prolific striker in the league, arugably the best left back in the country, another £10m striker, an incredibly gifted attacking midfielder, and so on and so forth.

 

This owner is a cunt, you know it, I know it, we all know it. He doesn't love the club as H&S did, but he's what we've got. He has backed this manager by providing funds for transfers. One thing you don't seem to get the hang of is that there isn't a seperate bank account for transfers. You harp on about the £27m from the Carroll transfer, but you've ignored the funds spent on all the other players we've brought into the club and the funds required to run the club. That £35m has gone into the same pocket from which the heating is paid for, the coaches are paid from, the debt incurred by your beloved H&S is paid down and so on and so forth. Say what you like about Ashley, but he has dealt with the debt of the last ownership and made secure NUFC's financial future. H&S's strategy of borrow and gamble would have lead us to the brink of ruin and given you're not a complete idiot, you must be able to see that?

 

Your parameters for success are so narrow and malleable it begs the question, what would have to happen for you to change your mind or admit you're wrong? I know you'll reel out "5th top in the league, 14th highest revenue etc. etc." but given they mean fuck all in the game as it is today, I'd like you provide a full and frank answer, no misdirection, no obfuscation, just an honest answer. What would have to happen for you to stop banging on about the way things used to be?

 

the last regime backed Bobby Robson completely, he knew they would when he came to the club, likewise he knew the McKeags etc wouldn't which is why he never showed any interest in the job during their time.

 

Not knocking him for that, just stating the facts.

 

You are deliberately over-stating the point when you talk about the players that should be signed. I've never said it was a bottomless pit of money, unlike some during the time of Souness - who then complained about the "debts" when his time was all over. It's about backing the manager like the other big progressive clubs do that are ambitious, to lift you above the also rans and challenge the 2 bankrolled clubs, in the same way as the Halls and Shepherd put up a challenge to the one bankrolled club at their time. If you are prepared to accept we have no chance of challenging the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, despite being superior to Spurs during the vast majority of the previous regime who left the club with the 14th biggest revenues in football, and getting above Liverpool on a few occasions for the first time in 40 years, then that is of course up to you, but not everybody is so negative, and some people do understand the size and potential of NUFC.

 

If you really don't understand all of this by now, fair enough, but it is kids stuff to grasp, I hope you aren't going to portray yourself as some sort of Einstein [but you aren't the only one] when you can;t grasp a fairly basic point like this.

[ewerk 30610]

Selling players without your manager's knowledge, that's backing him?

[LeazesMag 0]

Maybe this should be posted in the FA Cup thread but its another indication of the small time penny pinching attitude of Ashley.

 

Basically we have sold our initial allocation of 2,500 tickets for Brighton (quite amazing and a demonstration of how big this club is) but we have declined an additional allocation of 800 tickets. Thats quite disgraceful from Ashley, he regularly accepts reduced allocations for away games and he is depriving a further 800 fans of getting the chance to see their club play in the FA Cup.

 

Is this sort of penny pinching the actions of a man who has great ambitions to drive the club forward and challenge for a top 4 place?

 

Given that gate receipts are shared (barring what is pooled) could you, or anyone else, please explain how this saves Ashley money? Agree it is shabby, and could even be spiteful but I don't understand the cost cutting. 400-600 stamps, printing, card, envelopes and maybe 2 days office staff time? Maybe £500? Is the belt-tightening really that intense? I must be missing something.

 

He wouldn't let us take an extra 800 to Brighton, there'll be no top 4 for us again.

 

It's an interesting argument.

 

you have to actually go to games to understand this point of view.

[LeazesMag 0]

Selling players without your manager's knowledge, that's backing him?

 

God you're dumb.

[Happy Face 29]

There's a phrase in business, 'making hay while the sun shines'.

That's a phrase in farming, Chez.

 

 

 

Reminds me of "Makin' Hay", the best episode of Tell 'em Steve Dave. When Walt says "hay" is another word for "money".

 

...that's not the funny bit, the funny bit is them ripping the piss out of weirdos at a flea market.

[ChezGiven 0]

Does anyone know what it actually means?

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Does anyone know what it actually means?

 

 

Meaning

 

Make the most of one's opportunities while you have the chance.

 

Origin

 

This proverb is first recorded in John Heywood's A dialogue conteinyng the nomber in effect of all the prouerbes in the Englishe tongue, 1546:

 

Whan the sunne shinth make hay. Whiche is to say.

Take time whan time cometh, lest time steale away.

 

Many proverbs exist in other languages, but this one doesn't and it's a reasonable surmise that the phrase is of English Tudor origin.

 

Of course, mediaeval farmers would be as well aware of the wisdom of not leaving it too late to gather one's hay. Modern machinery and weather forecasting make haymaking reasonably quick and stress-free. Tudor farmers would have taken several days to cut, dry and gather their hay and would have had only folk rhymes like 'red sky at night' to guide them. Forecasting the weather two or three says in advance wouldn't have been possible, so all the more reason for them to 'make hay while the sun shines'.

 

The proverb, like all proverbs, was extended to life in general and it quickly became a cliche. As early as 1673 it was cited in a figurative, i.e. non-farming, context, in Richard Head's glossary of the language of theives and beggers The Canting Academy:

 

She ... was resolv'd ... to make Hay whilest the Sun shin'd.

[NJS 4385]

 

He wouldn't let us take an extra 800 to Brighton, there'll be no top 4 for us again.

 

It's an interesting argument.

 

you have to actually go to games to understand this point of view.

 

Which proves you didn't go to Leeds the two or three times we only took the corner allocation about fifteen years ago.

[LeazesMag 0]

He wouldn't let us take an extra 800 to Brighton, there'll be no top 4 for us again.

 

It's an interesting argument.

 

you have to actually go to games to understand this point of view.

 

Which proves you didn't go to Leeds the two or three times we only took the corner allocation about fifteen years ago.

 

Did you go to SToke City in 1968, Watford in 1974, Brighton in 1983 or Burnley in 1969 ?

Edited January 26, 2012 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

Does anyone know what it actually means?

 

 

Meaning

 

Make the most of one's opportunities while you have the chance.

 

Origin

 

This proverb is first recorded in John Heywood's A dialogue conteinyng the nomber in effect of all the prouerbes in the Englishe tongue, 1546:

 

Whan the sunne shinth make hay. Whiche is to say.

Take time whan time cometh, lest time steale away.

 

Many proverbs exist in other languages, but this one doesn't and it's a reasonable surmise that the phrase is of English Tudor origin.

 

Of course, mediaeval farmers would be as well aware of the wisdom of not leaving it too late to gather one's hay. Modern machinery and weather forecasting make haymaking reasonably quick and stress-free. Tudor farmers would have taken several days to cut, dry and gather their hay and would have had only folk rhymes like 'red sky at night' to guide them. Forecasting the weather two or three says in advance wouldn't have been possible, so all the more reason for them to 'make hay while the sun shines'.

 

The proverb, like all proverbs, was extended to life in general and it quickly became a cliche. As early as 1673 it was cited in a figurative, i.e. non-farming, context, in Richard Head's glossary of the language of theives and beggers The Canting Academy:

 

She ... was resolv'd ... to make Hay whilest the Sun shin'd.

 

 

Thanks.

 

The context i have heard it is in reference to business management teams who are managing products in rapidly expanding markets. I know you are savvy CT so am not saying you dont already know. There are two ways of developing business, one is through market share and the other is market size (or market development). When a market develops, its is usually because of external influences like e.g. rising demand for all products in the market. Your numbers rise over time, hitting business targets as the rise in demand leads to increased product sales across the market. Therefore, staying still with a constant market share leads to an increase in sales. The analogy with the 90s is apt since the football market was rapidly expanding, so being an owner of a football club meant you could go from a 3m revenue in 1990 to a 50m revenue in 2000 whilst doing nothing but standing still. Hence 'making hay whilst the sun shines'. I'll asssume your one of the few who can follow that too.

Edited January 26, 2012 by ChezGiven

[LeazesMag 0]

what a shame that self proclaimed financial whizz kids don't understand football.

[LeazesMag 0]

Taken from the book

 

 

 

On 15 September 2008, the investment bank Lehman Bros collapsed, followed almost immediately by the worlds stock markets.

 

Any football club on earth was a midget next to Lehman. In the year to September 2007, the bank had income of $59 billion [148 times Man U's income at the time], profits of $6bn [50 times ManU at the time] and was valued by the stock market at £34 billion. If ManU shares had still been traded on the stock market, they would probably have been worth less then 5 percent of Lehmans, yet Lehman still exist while ManU very much do.

 

Over the last decade, people worried a lot more about the survival of football clubs than of banks. Yet it was many of the worlds largest banks that disappeared. The public perception that football clubs are inherently unstable businesses is wrong. Despite being incompetently run, they are some of the most stable businesses on earth.

 

First some facts. In 1923 the Football League consisted of 88 teams spread over four divisions. In the 2007-08

season:

 

1. 85 of these clubs still existed [97 percent]

2. 75 remained in the top four divisions [85 percent]

3. An actual majority, 48 clubs, were in the same division as they had been in 1923

4. Only 9 temas still in the top 4 divisions were two or more divisions away from where they had been in 1923, [poor Notts County had sunk from first to fourth tier]

 

So almost every professional club in England had survived the Great Depression, the 2nd World War, recessions, corrupt chairman and appalling managers. it is a history of remarkable stability. For comparison, the economic historian Les Hannah made a list of the top 100 companies in 1912, and researched what had become of them by 1995. Nearly half the companies - 49 - had ceased to exist. Five of these had gone bankrupt, 6 were nationalised, and 37 were taken over by other firms. Even among the businesses that survived, many had gone into new sectors or moved to new locations.

 

What made these non-football businesses so unstable was, above all, competition. There is such a thing as brand loyalty, but when a better product turns up most people will switch sooner or later. So normal businesses keep having to innovate or die. They face endless pitfalls, competitor pull ahead, consumers tastes change, new technologies make entire industries obsolete, cheap goods arrive from abroad, government interferes, recessions hit, companies over invest and go bust, or they simply get unlucky. By contrast football clubs are immune from all these effects.

 

1. A club that fails to keep up with the competition might get relegated, but it can always survive at a lower level.

2. Some fans lose interest, but clubs have geographical roots. A bad team might find its catchment area shrinking, but not disappearing completely.

3. The "technology" of football can never become obsolete because the technology is the game itself. At worst football clubs might become less popular.

4. Foreign rivals cannot enter the market and supply football at a lower price. The rules of football protect domestic football by forbidding foreign competitors from joining their league. English clubs as a whole could fall behind foreign competitors and lose their best players, but foreign clubs have financial problems and incompetent managers of their own.

5. The Government is not about to nationalise football.

6. Clubs often over-invest, but this almost never destroys the club, only the wealth of the investor. At worst, the club gets relegated.

7. A clubs income might decline in a recession, but it can always live with a lower income.

 

In most industries a bad business goes bankrupt, but football clubs almost never do. The 40 English clubs the entered insolvency proceedings through May 2008 cut deals with their creditors [usual the players and the taxman] and moved on. Yes, Aldershot went bankrupt in 1992 but supporters simply started a new club almost identical to the old one. In Italy Fiorentian went bust in 2002, and got relegated to the Italian fourth division, but within a couple of years they were back at the top, the bankruptcy forgotten. No big football club disappears under its debts. If West Ham [or imagine] Liverpool fell into administration, they too wuld be guaranteed to be reborn under new ownership. We would bet Portsmouth will always be with us in some form or other. No matter how much money clubs waste, someone always bails them out. This is what is known in finance as "moral hazard", when you know you will be saved however much money you lose. Football clubs are incompetent because they can be. The professional investors who briefly bought club shares in the 1990's got out as soon as they discovered this.

[ewerk 30610]

 

Did you go to SToke City in 1968, Watford in 1974, Brighton in 1983 or Burnley in 1969 ?

 

You don't know, man! You weren't there!

[ChezGiven 0]

I knew you'd like that. The expansion of the club in the 90s was a combination of the right ambition at the right time, the two factors working together to produce fantastic results both on and off the pitch. Not possible without Keegan but the evironment was just right for us to massively expand due to the massive increase in revenues from all aspects of the game.