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

[ChezGiven 0]

They're worse off than they were last year, which means they are going in the wrong direction, yes?

 

Spurs, yes anyway, good example. A club run within its means with a cap on wages well before we were, who sold their best players for more than the player cost who replaced them. What exactly is the point about Spurs again?

 

That we have performed worse than a club that has peformed amazingly well (adjusted for base income, the best in the league)? That this club lives within its means and has sound financial performance? That by managing our own finances well, selling players if its for financial benefit and working hard to scout young talent actually is an alternative model to the financial space race?

 

Cool.

[Baggio 0]

Commercially Spurs made less in 2009 and 2010 than they did in 2008, last years went up but how much of that is down to the extra made in corporate hospitality on CL nights I don't know.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Baggio

[LeazesMag 0]

so, are we going to qualify for the Europa Cup, and attempt to sustain it and reach higher than that ?

[Baggio 0]

so, are we going to qualify for the Europa Cup, and attempt to sustain it and reach higher than that ?

 

Hopefully, it will depend who wins the cups etc at to this years qualification I think.

[Happy Face 29]

They're worse off than they were last year, which means they are going in the wrong direction, yes?

 

Spurs, yes anyway, good example. A club run within its means with a cap on wages well before we were, who sold their best players for more than the player cost who replaced them. What exactly is the point about Spurs again?

 

That we have performed worse than a club that has peformed amazingly well (adjusted for base income, the best in the league)? That this club lives within its means and has sound financial performance? That by managing our own finances well, selling players if its for financial benefit and working hard to scout young talent actually is an alternative model to the financial space race?

 

Cool.

 

The point about Spurs was that they are on the up to some degree. That was the only thing you disagreed with me on, that there were any clubs on the up.

 

If you just want to restrict it to the last year, then we're on the up too obviously. Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal all grew revenue between £2m and £45m according to the chart you directed me to.

 

But Stevie's point and the entire premise of the discussion is where Ashley has taken us, very narrowly in terms of maximising turnover, whather you want to disregard it or not, it's one of the best indicators of a clubs size, which is very important to Stevie. Huge clubs can have massive losses, small clubs large profits. Growing turnover, while not a very effective indicator of prudent business acumen, is a good overall barometer of the importance of a club to sponsors, fans, tv and the league.

 

Since Ashley arrived, those clubs comparable to us have grown, we haven't. I did say the chart supported you too, in that most clubs plateaued out over the last couple of years, But Stevie's point is longer term than that, I think, and more clearly displayed here by omitting the intervening years...

 

 

http://s10.postimage.org/hndavv9pj/untitled.jpg

Edited February 22, 2012 by Happy Face

[McFaul 35]

But Stevie's point and the entire premise of the discussion is where Ashley has taken us, very narrowly in terms of maximising turnover, whather you want to disregard it or not, it's one of the best indicators of a clubs size. Huge clubs can have massive losses, small clubs large profits.

Precisely. Norwich City make a profit of £2m with a turnover of £38m. Manchester United make a loss of £10m with a turnover of £350m. Who are in a better position to be to afford the wages of Leo Messi, and who can barely afford to keep Grant Holt.

[LeazesMag 0]

so, are we going to qualify for the Europa Cup, and attempt to sustain it and reach higher than that ?

 

Hopefully, it will depend who wins the cups etc at to this years qualification I think.

 

you don't say.

 

What about "and attempt to sustain it and reach higher than that"

 

Hopefully, this thread will not be derailed any further by the likes of Toonspac etc

[Baggio 0]

But Stevie's point and the entire premise of the discussion is where Ashley has taken us, very narrowly in terms of maximising turnover, whather you want to disregard it or not, it's one of the best indicators of a clubs size. Huge clubs can have massive losses, small clubs large profits.

Precisely. Norwich City make a profit of £2m with a turnover of £38m. Manchester United make a loss of £10m with a turnover of £350m. Who are in a better position to be to afford the wages of Leo Messi, and who can barely afford to keep Grant Holt.

 

That's not really a great comparison to be fair.

 

Is it better to make £90 million and break even or £100 million and a loss of £20 million?

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Quick read through the last few pages and it reads like most of the thread. One noticable change tho, "Pocketing the cash' now changed to "witholding the cash"

[LeazesMag 0]

Quick read through the last few pages and it reads like most of the thread. One noticable change tho, "Pocketing the cash' now changed to "witholding the cash"

 

because people like you, don't appear to realise what "pocketing the cash" means, "withholding the cash and not backing the manager to attempt to build the best team possible" may impact more on your little brain

Edited February 22, 2012 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

But Stevie's point and the entire premise of the discussion is where Ashley has taken us, very narrowly in terms of maximising turnover, whather you want to disregard it or not, it's one of the best indicators of a clubs size. Huge clubs can have massive losses, small clubs large profits.

Precisely. Norwich City make a profit of £2m with a turnover of £38m. Manchester United make a loss of £10m with a turnover of £350m. Who are in a better position to be to afford the wages of Leo Messi, and who can barely afford to keep Grant Holt.

 

That's not really a great comparison to be fair.

 

Is it better to make £90 million and break even or £100 million and a loss of £20 million?

 

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

 

Fans are vain, not sane.

 

Can you imagine West Brom and Norwich fans taking the piss out of Man U's losses

[ewerk 30620]

What factors influence our revenue? The main one is our performance on the pitch.

 

While our revenues were comparatively higher under Shepherd, this was because we had some decent players and had high league finishes and European runs. This brings in TV money, ticket money and sponsorship. However, while we were doing all this we were largely making losses. To credit Shepherd as some sort of financial genius who was responsible for increasing revenues is an overstatement. The fact is that we were not getting a good return on investment.

 

The problem we currently have is that we have gone too far the other way. We haven't been able to go on growing our revenue while investment on the field was cut. The key is to striking a balance with healthy investment and increased revenue as a result of improved team performances.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ewerk

[LeazesMag 0]

What factors influence our revenue? The main one is our performance on the pitch.

 

While our revenues were comparatively higher under Shepherd, this was because we had some decent players and had high league finishes and European runs. This brings in TV money, ticket money and sponsorship. However, while we were doing all this we were largely making losses. To credit Shepherd as some sort of financial genius who was responsible for increasing revenues is an overstatement. The fact is that we were not getting a good return on investment.

 

The problem we currently have is that we have gone too far the other way. We haven't been able to go on growing our revenue while investment on the field was cut. The key is to striking a balance with healthy investment and increased revenue as a result of improved team performances.

 

what you say is fairly obvious, but seems to escape most people. The bit in bold is something I have been thinking of posting for the last day or two, but wondered who would be first to say it. The fact is, football and profits simply very rarely go hand in hand. For the vast majority of clubs, its a loss making "industry", yet we still see pages and pages of posts [and not only on here] where people seem to think they are financial geniuses and have the answers. Toonspac posted a huge list of clubs who have gone bust over the last few decades, yet none of them are now supermarkets and are still actually football clubs.

 

This is what makes me laugh more than anything, especially some posters who post nothing about football and every post they make is on the pretence of being a financial guru.

Edited February 22, 2012 by LeazesMag

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Quick read through the last few pages and it reads like most of the thread. One noticable change tho, "Pocketing the cash' now changed to "witholding the cash"

 

because people like you, don't appear to realise what "pocketing the cash" means, "withholding the cash and not backing the manager to attempt to build the best team possible" may impact more on your little brain

Yeah, I get it. Like spending ten million on Cisse and not selling anyone. Never mind soon be the end of the season and you can start hoping he flogs our best players

[ewerk 30620]

What factors influence our revenue? The main one is our performance on the pitch.

 

While our revenues were comparatively higher under Shepherd, this was because we had some decent players and had high league finishes and European runs. This brings in TV money, ticket money and sponsorship. However, while we were doing all this we were largely making losses. To credit Shepherd as some sort of financial genius who was responsible for increasing revenues is an overstatement. The fact is that we were not getting a good return on investment.

 

The problem we currently have is that we have gone too far the other way. We haven't been able to go on growing our revenue while investment on the field was cut. The key is to striking a balance with healthy investment and increased revenue as a result of improved team performances.

 

what you say is fairly obvious, but seems to escape most people. The bit in bold is something I have been thinking of posting for the last day or two, but wondered who would be first to say it. The fact is, football and profits simply very rarely go hand in hand. For the vast majority of clubs, its a loss making "industry", yet we still see pages and pages of posts [and not only on here] where people seem to think they are financial geniuses and have the answers. Toonspac posted a huge list of clubs who have gone bust over the last few decades, yet none of them are now supermarkets and are still actually football clubs.

 

This is what makes me laugh more than anything, especially some posters who post nothing about football and every post they make is on the pretence of being a financial guru.

 

I agree with most of that. For all but a couple of the very top clubs, it's unlikely that you will win anything without making losses. Going forward, what we lack is an owner prepared to finance the club to get us competing with the top four.

[LeazesMag 0]

Quick read through the last few pages and it reads like most of the thread. One noticable change tho, "Pocketing the cash' now changed to "witholding the cash"

 

because people like you, don't appear to realise what "pocketing the cash" means, "withholding the cash and not backing the manager to attempt to build the best team possible" may impact more on your little brain

Yeah, I get it. Like spending ten million on Cisse and not selling anyone. Never mind soon be the end of the season and you can start hoping he flogs our best players

 

absolutely no point in trying to explain anything to you. Where is the Carroll cash ?

 

Are you going to buy a season ticket next season, and join me in going to games hoping for a celebratory pint after a win ?

[LeazesMag 0]

What factors influence our revenue? The main one is our performance on the pitch.

 

While our revenues were comparatively higher under Shepherd, this was because we had some decent players and had high league finishes and European runs. This brings in TV money, ticket money and sponsorship. However, while we were doing all this we were largely making losses. To credit Shepherd as some sort of financial genius who was responsible for increasing revenues is an overstatement. The fact is that we were not getting a good return on investment.

 

The problem we currently have is that we have gone too far the other way. We haven't been able to go on growing our revenue while investment on the field was cut. The key is to striking a balance with healthy investment and increased revenue as a result of improved team performances.

 

what you say is fairly obvious, but seems to escape most people. The bit in bold is something I have been thinking of posting for the last day or two, but wondered who would be first to say it. The fact is, football and profits simply very rarely go hand in hand. For the vast majority of clubs, its a loss making "industry", yet we still see pages and pages of posts [and not only on here] where people seem to think they are financial geniuses and have the answers. Toonspac posted a huge list of clubs who have gone bust over the last few decades, yet none of them are now supermarkets and are still actually football clubs.

 

This is what makes me laugh more than anything, especially some posters who post nothing about football and every post they make is on the pretence of being a financial guru.

 

I agree with most of that. For all but a couple of the very top clubs, it's unlikely that you will win anything without making losses. Going forward, what we lack is an owner prepared to finance the club to get us competing with the top four.

 

the only, in fact the huge, area I disagree with this, is I just do not accept that because 2 clubs are bankrolled, and ManU have a unique global appeal, it means that NUFC have to sell their best players and withold the money from their manager and not support him to build the best team possible, like the 2nd rate small selling clubs behave.

 

The day people are brainwashed into thinking we have no chance of qualifying for the Champions League and buying quality players of the calibre that the likes of Liverpool and Spurs, is the day they should give up to be honest.

 

This is the ONLY way that any qualification for europe, will be built on and hopefully maintained and bettered ie keeping your best players and building on them, rather than selling them and looking for cheaper replacements. It is not sustainable, and will not last when the luck runs out, or the manager goes, probably to a club that backs him, which is what will happen if he keeps up the good results.

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Which of the players which you keep mentioning would get into our starting 11 now?

[PUGATRON1000 0]

What factors influence our revenue? The main one is our performance on the pitch.

 

While our revenues were comparatively higher under Shepherd, this was because we had some decent players and had high league finishes and European runs. This brings in TV money, ticket money and sponsorship. However, while we were doing all this we were largely making losses. To credit Shepherd as some sort of financial genius who was responsible for increasing revenues is an overstatement. The fact is that we were not getting a good return on investment.

 

The problem we currently have is that we have gone too far the other way. We haven't been able to go on growing our revenue while investment on the field was cut. The key is to striking a balance with healthy investment and increased revenue as a result of improved team performances.

 

what you say is fairly obvious, but seems to escape most people. The bit in bold is something I have been thinking of posting for the last day or two, but wondered who would be first to say it. The fact is, football and profits simply very rarely go hand in hand. For the vast majority of clubs, its a loss making "industry", yet we still see pages and pages of posts [and not only on here] where people seem to think they are financial geniuses and have the answers. Toonspac posted a huge list of clubs who have gone bust over the last few decades, yet none of them are now supermarkets and are still actually football clubs.

 

This is what makes me laugh more than anything, especially some posters who post nothing about football and every post they make is on the pretence of being a financial guru.

 

Leazes MegaMind has spoken

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Which of the players which you keep mentioning would get into our starting 11 now?

 

the point is where is the Carroll cash ? Or do you think we have such a soopa doopa team and are winning every game, we can't do any better ?

 

And in case you didn't realise, stuck in your armchair, its a squad game. You need more than 11 players.

Edited February 22, 2012 by LeazesMag

[jaythesouthernmag 0]

Which of the players which you keep mentioning would get into our starting 11 now?

 

the point is where is the Carroll cash ? Or do you think we have such a soopa doopa team and are winning every game, we can't do any better ?

 

And in case you didn't realise, stuck in your armchair, its a squad game. You need more than 11 players.

Have a word with yourself, I agree we could do with a couple of squad players but for you to use that to support your argument for selling Carroll,Barton,Nolan and Enrique is frankly stupid

[LeazesMag 0]

Which of the players which you keep mentioning would get into our starting 11 now?

 

the point is where is the Carroll cash ? Or do you think we have such a soopa doopa team and are winning every game, we can't do any better ?

 

And in case you didn't realise, stuck in your armchair, its a squad game. You need more than 11 players.

Have a word with yourself, I agree we could do with a couple of squad players but for you to use that to support your argument for selling Carroll,Barton,Nolan and Enrique is frankly stupid

 

 

selling Carroll [or witholding the money from the manager for what is accepted as a big fee, to improve the entire team and squad as much as possible with it - do you really not understand this], Nolan and Enrique and giving away Barton for nothing, were all stupid decisions.

 

A couple of squad players ? What glue are you sniffing ? Would we not be better if Nolan, Barton and Enrique [and others sold in the last 3 years or so] were all still here ?

 

You really don't understand the build and improve process do you ? Rather than a revolving door sell and replace [cheaply] policy ? How naive are you to think that you can go on selling your best players and continue to replace like this ? Why do you think all the successful clubs there has ever been have not applied this policy ?

 

Sigh. I give up.

Edited February 22, 2012 by LeazesMag

[spongebob toonpants 3997]

He's took a break

 

The day the music died....

 

So what happened, or aren't we allowed to know

[PUGATRON1000 0]

Would we not be better if Nolan, Barton and Enrique [and others sold in the last 3 years or so] were all still here ?

 

 

IMHO no, as we would be paying their overinflated wages still, and I can't imagine any of them to be happy sitting on a bench, or playing reserve football. Yes it's a squad game, BUT a couple bad apples can create chaos. I am more than happy with how we have progressed ( in league position AS WELL AS football played,) since they left. We're not even close to being a finished article, but as a work in progress I think we are doing good things.

[BestBaNone 0]

Whether or not or transfer policy is sustainable is a matter of opinion. 100% opinion. Leazesmag though, he claims to like facts. The fact is that we are an improving outfit using this strategy in the market, as the improving league positions back up. Simple.