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

[McFaul 35]

No you complete erectile disfunction old doilum. Sugar never speculated to accumulate, whereas Levy has to an extent while retaining their wage ceiling. Sugar devalued the club he ran it as a functional business within its' means, they were getting pennies off HOLSTEN and PONY, they now have one of the largest sponsorship deals in football with Mansion House, because of how Levy has enhanced the clubs stature. They pay big fees, they largely didn't other than a few spectacular failures like Dean Richards under Sugar's rein. The fact is Tottenham's income has doubled now under Levy compared to what it was under Sugar, speculate to accumulate. LM is right you hardly ever talk about football, I doubt you're even capable of it, and when you do talk about the financial stuff, your knowledge is about as empty as the mackems upper tier on Saturday night.

 

Spurs have never spent more than they earned, yet they've still managed, within that framework, to make that "what they earn" grow, so what they can spend in relation becomes greater, they do not ever break that rule (or haven't yet).

 

You are wrong (not a suprise) - They have never speculated (gone out on a limb financially) to accumulate. That is a 100% fact.

 

They have sold well (high) and bought well (cheaper), consistently. Exactly the same model as NUFC's current model, whether we can keep it consistent is another matter.

 

This is about football you ignoramus.

Look at the above you silly old cunt. Levy ran it like a football club of value, which is why their income has went up 250%, whereas Sugar ran it with little ambition and foresight, how is that difficult to understand?

[Toonpack 10002]

No you complete erectile disfunction old doilum. Sugar never speculated to accumulate, whereas Levy has to an extent while retaining their wage ceiling. Sugar devalued the club he ran it as a functional business within its' means, they were getting pennies off HOLSTEN and PONY, they now have one of the largest sponsorship deals in football with Mansion House, because of how Levy has enhanced the clubs stature. They pay big fees, they largely didn't other than a few spectacular failures like Dean Richards under Sugar's rein. The fact is Tottenham's income has doubled now under Levy compared to what it was under Sugar, speculate to accumulate. LM is right you hardly ever talk about football, I doubt you're even capable of it, and when you do talk about the financial stuff, your knowledge is about as empty as the mackems upper tier on Saturday night.

 

Spurs have never spent more than they earned, yet they've still managed, within that framework, to make that "what they earn" grow, so what they can spend in relation becomes greater, they do not ever break that rule (or haven't yet).

 

You are wrong (not a suprise) - They have never speculated (gone out on a limb financially) to accumulate. That is a 100% fact.

 

They have sold well (high) and bought well (cheaper), consistently. Exactly the same model as NUFC's current model, whether we can keep it consistent is another matter.

 

This is about football you ignoramus.

Look at the above you silly old cunt. Levy ran it like a football club of value, which is why their income has went up 250%, whereas Sugar ran it with little ambition and foresight, how is that difficult to understand?

 

Your thickness knows no bounds.

 

Yes Spurs have outperformed NUFC and yes their turnover has soared. BUT it’s been done on the back of ONLY spending what they made (or a wee bit less some years).

 

They have earned some money and spent it well and as a result earned a bit more money spent that bit more money well, rinse and repeat. They have not EVER thought or done “Oooh things are going canny, let’s borrow £20 Million and see if we can get there faster”. It just has not happened. They have not as yet ever deviated from the model of only spending what they earn.

 

That is obviously interpreted in Stevie world (because you’re thick) as: Oh look Spurs have made their turnover soar, they must have chucked ridiculous sums at the team to make that happen. So it must be a fact. It’s totally and irrefutably an incorrect premise but in Stevie-world (and maybe some particularly dense goldfish’s brain) it’s now a fact.

 

Laughable

[Happy Face 29]

Everton only spend what they have too. Why aren't they challenging for the league?

Edited February 20, 2012 by Happy Face

[McFaul 35]

Your thickness knows no bounds.

 

Yes Spurs have outperformed NUFC and yes their turnover has soared. BUT it’s been done on the back of ONLY spending what they made (or a wee bit less some years).

 

They have earned some money and spent it well and as a result earned a bit more money spent that bit more money well, rinse and repeat. They have not EVER thought or done “Oooh things are going canny, let’s borrow £20 Million and see if we can get there faster”. It just has not happened. They have not as yet ever deviated from the model of only spending what they earn.

 

That is obviously interpreted in Stevie world (because you’re thick) as: Oh look Spurs have made their turnover soar, they must have chucked ridiculous sums at the team to make that happen. So it must be a fact. It’s totally and irrefutably an incorrect premise but in Stevie-world (and maybe some particularly dense goldfish’s brain) it’s now a fact.

 

Laughable

Why couldn't they do it under Sugar then?!? The similarities are obvious. Levy is progressive in every aspect of how he does his job, Sugar ran it purely as a static business, like these are now. Levy takes the club forward, he has plans, look at their new stadium plans, what are our fucking plans, buy cheap sell big and see how it goes. There's no grand plan to increase turnover or get in to the top four, then plan is to make it a profit making business for his benefit, our success is almost inconsequential. Are you such an old fuckwit you can't see that?

[Baggio 0]

2003/2004

Turnover

Newcastle United £90.8m (FFS)

Tottenham Hotspur £66.2m (Sugar)

 

2010/2011

Turnover

Newcastle United £88m (Ashley)

Tottenham Hotspur £162m (Levy)

 

Pointless debating with pointless old doilums anyway but these figures end a lot of debate about the influence Mike Ashley has had on NUFC. I can't even see a POV where you can stick up for these or explain them away, but some sad cunt will.

 

The obvious difference is that that figure includes Spurs run in the Champions League which made a huge difference to their income, the year before they brought in £119m.

 

I think with our predicted league finish this year plus the Virgin deal we will clear £100 million comfortably, then if we get Europe too that will be another income boost for the following year.

 

Have you got the figures from the 2006/07 season for both teams, which was Shepherds last season?

[McFaul 35]

2003/2004

Turnover

Newcastle United £90.8m (FFS)

Tottenham Hotspur £66.2m (Sugar)

 

2010/2011

Turnover

Newcastle United £88m (Ashley)

Tottenham Hotspur £162m (Levy)

 

Pointless debating with pointless old doilums anyway but these figures end a lot of debate about the influence Mike Ashley has had on NUFC. I can't even see a POV where you can stick up for these or explain them away, but some sad cunt will.

 

The obvious difference is that that figure includes Spurs run in the Champions League which made a huge difference to their income, the year before they brought in £119m.

 

I think with our predicted league finish this year plus the Virgin deal we will clear £100 million comfortably, then if we get Europe too that will be another income boost for the following year.

 

Have you got the figures from the 2006/07 season for both teams, which was Shepherds last season?

Nope the CL revenue was worth £15m the major difference was the increase in the Sky deal.

 

Tottenham £93.1m (Levy)

Newcastle £87.1m (FFS)

[Baggio 0]

2003/2004

Turnover

Newcastle United £90.8m (FFS)

Tottenham Hotspur £66.2m (Sugar)

 

2010/2011

Turnover

Newcastle United £88m (Ashley)

Tottenham Hotspur £162m (Levy)

 

Pointless debating with pointless old doilums anyway but these figures end a lot of debate about the influence Mike Ashley has had on NUFC. I can't even see a POV where you can stick up for these or explain them away, but some sad cunt will.

 

The obvious difference is that that figure includes Spurs run in the Champions League which made a huge difference to their income, the year before they brought in £119m.

 

I think with our predicted league finish this year plus the Virgin deal we will clear £100 million comfortably, then if we get Europe too that will be another income boost for the following year.

 

Have you got the figures from the 2006/07 season for both teams, which was Shepherds last season?

Nope the CL revenue was worth £15m the major difference was the increase in the Sky deal.

 

Tottenham £93.1m (Levy)

Newcastle £87.1m (FFS)

 

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

[Happy Face 29]

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

 

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field?

 

£28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales.

£50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales.

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2590&comp_id=1&teamTabs=transfers

[McFaul 35]

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

Big difference between a gap of £16m and a gap of £74m. We haven't even got a proper commercial department anymore. I guarantee if Freddie Fletcher (not FFS) was brought in to NUFC and allowed to run the business side, our turnover would be over £120m. They're clueless arseholes, for a clubs turnover to go down from 8 years ago is chronic mismanagement at the highest level.

[Baggio 0]

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

 

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field?

 

£28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales.

£50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales.

 

http://www.soccerbas...mTabs=transfers

 

A mixture of a huge sponsorship deal, qualifying for the Uefa cup which their fans got behind and a boost in sky revenue.

[ewerk 31230]

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

 

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field?

 

£28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales.

£50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales.

 

http://www.soccerbas...mTabs=transfers

 

Which is exactly what we need to be doing. A £20m net spend (spent well) for a couple of years could see us competing for the next few seasons with the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal.

[Happy Face 29]

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

 

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field?

 

£28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales.

£50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales.

 

http://www.soccerbas...mTabs=transfers

 

A mixture of a huge sponsorship deal, qualifying for the Uefa cup which their fans got behind and a boost in sky revenue.

 

Those were the achievements. I'm asking how they achieved it. Huge sponsorship deals aren't bestowed on clubs for running a tight ship, they go to clubs with a big following (we dwarf Spurs) and on field success.

[Baggio 0]

I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us.

 

Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

Big difference between a gap of £16m and a gap of £74m. We haven't even got a proper commercial department anymore. I guarantee if Freddie Fletcher (not FFS) was brought in to NUFC and allowed to run the business side, our turnover would be over £120m. They're clueless arseholes, for a clubs turnover to go down from 8 years ago is chronic mismanagement at the highest level.

 

What do you think he would do to get it over £120 million?

 

The only way I can see us getting up near that is with a huge sponsorship deal which we couldn't have had straight away as we were tied in with Northern Rock, we signed a new one while we were relegated which wasn't worth a lot but we will have to see what this new one with Virgin brings in.

 

The biggest boost for Spurs between 2007 and 2010 is from broadcasting which we should get a fair lump of for this season too.

 

I see our figures in the same way as I see how we've gone about getting to where we are now, we took a step backwards while we swept the decks and now we're in a position to move forward, I fully expect the figures to push over the £100 million mark from next year.

[Baggio 0]

 

Those were the achievements. I'm asking how they achieved it. Huge sponsorship deals aren't bestowed on clubs for running a tight ship, they go to clubs with a big following (we dwarf Spurs) and on field success.

 

I don't think it's as simple as getting it for them doing well as their sponsorship at the time dwarfed the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool who were far more successful, from what I remember Mansion were trying to sponsor Man Utd but when then fell through they paid massively over the odds to sponsor Spurs.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Chez will come along soon enough and go, "A je suis allez, you are ALL wrong; a clear result of the cognitive dissonance you prescribe to in an attempt to thrust your feeble imaginary narratives on this highly complex issue of insolvent toxic debt assets and quantitative marginal realignment of stock-based sponsorship contracts."

[Baggio 0]

Here's a good table of Spurs finances to see what departments they've boosted income in over a period of years.

 

 

It's their wage bill that amazes me, keeping it that low with the quality of player is a fantastic achievement.

 

Their boost in turnover from 2007 to 2010 is pretty much all sky money.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Baggio

[Park Life 71]

Spurs have outspent Liverpool from 2004 right upto 2010. FACT.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Park Life

[LeazesMag 0]

Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

Spot on that.

 

The difference between Spurs now and us ten years ago is that Spurs have managed to do it while making a profit.

 

However, how sustainable that is remains to be seen. While we were making operating profits but making overall losses because of player trading, Spurs have been making operating losses but more than covering them with profit on player sales. If they want to compete with the big boys then they can't do that forever.

 

they also haven't brainwashed stupid supporters into accepting they have no chance of competing with Man City or Chelsea

 

Have you looked at the league table recently , or are you stuck in your little world ?

[LeazesMag 0]

 

 

I think with the financial fair play rules coming in as well as the government demanding clubs sort their finances out things should change in our favour as long as they're both enforced properly, it couldn't have come at a better time for us as in terms of the financial side of things we're where a lot of clubs will want to be so it's a good head start.

 

Mike Ashley running the club on a different footing has fuck all to do with any "financial brain anticipating the future" either, its quite simply that he decided long ago to run the club as a vehicle to sit alongside his sports company and preserve premiership status with as small an outlay as possible. If he doesn't make an operational profit, he'll get it by selling a top player. This is what I've said for nearly 5 years now, and people are still bickering on about it and insisting differently.

 

It's as obvious as the nose on your face, a decent season and maybe even 1 qualification for the Europa Cup isn't going to change that, because it is selling your best players and replacing with cheaper is not sustainable, the luck will run out and the policy will be obvious to everybody - although they won't admit it. As if they should need to be told any more, fooled by a decent run of results.

 

This is as sad and stupid as it gets.

 

Pretty sure he done it as what he bought was a club that couldn't sustain itself with how it was currently operating.

 

Now we're on a much more solid financial footing as well as having a better squad than what he was left with, yet that means we've gone backwards.

 

I like the optimism, better name is gullibility though.

 

Same thing as I said to all those cretins on NO years ago, who insisted "anybody would be better than Fred".

 

If we finish 7th and qualify for europe, he will not build on it, keep our best players and add to them. You'll see.

[LeazesMag 0]

If we didn't genuinely want anyone better than Perch or Williamson, that's worrying.

 

It could be that we're aiming for a CB of Colo's level and our target wasn't available in January. Pardew identified CB as an area of concern so it's safe to say that the club will have looked at the possibility of signing someone but for whatever reason the deal didn't happen.

 

I think that's how it was too, he even said about Mariappa that if he doesn't come now then that's it as we won't be in for him in the summer.

 

I'm happy for them to wait to get who they want even if it is a risk, a short term loan until the end of the season would have been ideal.

 

that all depends on the quality of the "player they want". Don't expect too much, and don't expect them to do it without selling a top player either.

 

I would say that the hierarchy [not the manager] is happy with what we have, because they "are doing OK" and there is no real desire to do better.

 

Which only takes you one way.

Edited February 20, 2012 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

He wants to remain in the prem as cheap as possible, so bought cisse cos we look like we're going down this season?

 

you're showing your gullibility. I've no problem with someone being young, but you ought to listen to people who have seen more than you.

[LeazesMag 0]

By the same measure as Leazes uses to place us 5th best, if the league standings remain as they are, Ashley has us on average 10th best in terms of top flight finishes under his ownership....

 

 

1.4 Manchester United

2.6 Chelsea

3.6 Arsenal

5.2 Liverpool

5.6 Manchester City

6.2 Tottenham Hotspur

7.0 Everton

8.4 Aston Villa

11.2 Fulham

12.0 Newcastle United

 

Take out the first Keegan tenure (which was our real zenith, steadily downhill since then) our average "finish" was 9.4th, that still good enough for 5th best ???

 

fuck me

[LeazesMag 0]

By the same measure as Leazes uses to place us 5th best, if the league standings remain as they are, Ashley has us on average 10th best in terms of top flight finishes under his ownership....

 

 

1.4 Manchester United

2.6 Chelsea

3.6 Arsenal

5.2 Liverpool

5.6 Manchester City

6.2 Tottenham Hotspur

7.0 Everton

8.4 Aston Villa

11.2 Fulham

12.0 Newcastle United

 

and the season in the lower division should also count.

 

People will still defend this decline though.

[LeazesMag 0]

Spurs are giving it a good shot like we did, since they replaced their owner [Alan Sugar] who "ran them like a business, within their means". Ourselves and Spurs have swapped places, because we have swapped footballing outlooks, it comes down to that in the end. I've said this elsewhere, this is the truth about Spurs, they are run by football men and we are not. Its got fuck all to do with anything else, and anyone who says we are doing what Spurs do is an idiot, we have done fuck all like Spurs for the last 5 years now.

Spot on that.

 

Utter crap MugFool, as usual.

 

Spurs are operating within their means and have done for years. They have been doing EXACTLY what we now appear to be doing, they however, have a multi-year headstart on us.

 

To think or say different is pure ignorance.

 

are you capable of making sensible football posts on a football message board ?

[Gemmill 46141]

By the same measure as Leazes uses to place us 5th best, if the league standings remain as they are, Ashley has us on average 10th best in terms of top flight finishes under his ownership....

 

 

1.4 Manchester United

2.6 Chelsea

3.6 Arsenal

5.2 Liverpool

5.6 Manchester City

6.2 Tottenham Hotspur

7.0 Everton

8.4 Aston Villa

11.2 Fulham

12.0 Newcastle United

 

Take out the first Keegan tenure (which was our real zenith, steadily downhill since then) our average "finish" was 9.4th, that still good enough for 5th best ???

 

fuck me

 

It's a perfectly reasonable point. You can't jump from 5th under Shepherd to 10th under Ashley, when a truer representation is that we'd been on the slide for some time under your old chummy chum chum.