ChezGiven 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think Whitley Bay have improved finances this year, not sure that will get them into the champions league. If improving the finances was the only thing that mattered, it would be good news for Wolves. Fortunately for us with our shit finances, it's more about getting good people into the club to scout, manage and play. Improving finances is a medium term strategy to elevate the absolute level you compete on with respect to wages and transfers. The debate last week on here was focused on that and that's correct, the finances worsened and are now improving and the reason why this is important is because we spent £10m on a striker on the back of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Respect the cock Tame the cunt Wolves are shit The Wolves supporters should be ecstatic, according to the financial whizz kids, even if they are relegated they have good and improving finances ? Soon they will be like Spurs. Sorry LM, I've read back a few times and must be being blind. Link me to who is saying Wolves fans should be ecstatic would ya so I can throw my 2c in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Makes me laugh how Leazes thinks financial stability is a bad thing. Of course league position matters, 6th position is more than anyone would have thought at this stage of the season. Not sure what his hang up with the Wolves thing is, they have their natural position which is somewhere between the top of the championship and bottom of the premiership. Sound finances mean they won't do a Pompey or Leeds so I think their fans will be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 For all the talk of improved finaces, I'd reiterate that the only thing Ashley has done on the financial side is cut and burn. Costs are down on the back of wages being axed. We're likely to break even this year, however debts are still well in excess of those inherited. The club broke even (or thereabouts) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and no-one with a bad word for shepherd was claiming he had the finances in order a year before he sold up. "financial stability" is the wrong phrase for a club with £150m of debt. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 For all the talk of improved finaces, I'd reiterate that the only thing Ashley has done on the financial side is cut and burn. Costs are down on the back of wages being axed. We're likely to break even this year, however debts are still well in excess of those inherited. The club broke even (or thereabouts) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and no-one with a bad word for shepherd was claiming he had the finances in order a year before he sold up. "financial stability" is the wrong phrase for a club with £150m of debt. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Isn't Ashley offering financial stability as long as he owns the club? I would say its better to have a debt to him than to a bank or the inland revenue. I think in the next few years we could see a few more clubs going the way of Pompey and Rangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31216 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 For all the talk of improved finaces, I'd reiterate that the only thing Ashley has done on the financial side is cut and burn. Costs are down on the back of wages being axed. We're likely to break even this year, however debts are still well in excess of those inherited. The club broke even (or thereabouts) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and no-one with a bad word for shepherd was claiming he had the finances in order a year before he sold up. "financial stability" is the wrong phrase for a club with £150m of debt. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Aye but the debt is owed to Ashley and is as a result of us losing money due to mistakes made in Shepherd's later years and the early part of Ashley's reign. As far as I'm concerned the debt can be largely forgotten about until Ashley sells the club. And we did make a loss of around £15m in Shepherd's last year. Things were only going to get worse (and did). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's what I said. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 For all the talk of improved finaces, I'd reiterate that the only thing Ashley has done on the financial side is cut and burn. Costs are down on the back of wages being axed. We're likely to break even this year, however debts are still well in excess of those inherited. The club broke even (or thereabouts) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and no-one with a bad word for shepherd was claiming he had the finances in order a year before he sold up. "financial stability" is the wrong phrase for a club with £150m of debt. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Isn't Ashley offering financial stability as long as he owns the club? I would say its better to have a debt to him than to a bank or the inland revenue. I think in the next few years we could see a few more clubs going the way of Pompey and Rangers have Morrisons opened 2 new supermarkets ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 For all the talk of improved finaces, I'd reiterate that the only thing Ashley has done on the financial side is cut and burn. Costs are down on the back of wages being axed. We're likely to break even this year, however debts are still well in excess of those inherited. The club broke even (or thereabouts) in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and no-one with a bad word for shepherd was claiming he had the finances in order a year before he sold up. "financial stability" is the wrong phrase for a club with £150m of debt. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Isn't Ashley offering financial stability as long as he owns the club? I would say its better to have a debt to him than to a bank or the inland revenue. I think in the next few years we could see a few more clubs going the way of Pompey and Rangers Both of whom have less than a third of our "good debt". No reason Ashley can't switch that borrowing to a bank any time he likes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31216 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's what I said. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Under what circumstances could you see Ashley calling that loan in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's what I said. We're stable only as long as Ashley guarantees that debt and we stay out of the relegation places. Under what circumstances could you see Ashley calling that loan in? I wouldn't say it's impossible that he might move the clubs debt back to a bank. Odd though it would be while he has the wealth to keep it interest free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 http://www.nufc.com/html/telegraph_stonehouse.html mike ashley isnt the rich benefactor we,d hoped for but for those quoting the ambition of previous owners makes this an interesting read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 "Newcastle's chief executive says they are doing fine in their ambition to attain mid-table stability in the Premiership. The club, Premiership runners-up in 1996 and 1997, made losses of £19 million last year and have hardly spent any money on players, balancing purchases with sales this season. Stonehouse says: "We do not have the spare cash of Manchester United, and if we had the resources of some of the Continental clubs we might splash out in the transfer market. Every year we have a budget for net expenditure on players and that is largely intact. But we have made mistakes in the transfer market in the past and Bobby Robson and the board are not keen to spend." Newcastle borrowed £55 million to enlarge and renovate their stadium and with interest at 7.45 per cent that means annual repayments of nearly £4.5 million. Last August they borrowed £4 million to improve catering facilities. Last month they received a welcome £15 million, the final tranche of a £25 million interest-fee loan from NTL, the cable company but the drop in the club's value has been significant. NTL bought their last set of shares in the club in December 1999, when shares were valued at £1.20. They are now worth 34p each. One City analyst told me: "The club is treading water and it needs somebody to come and put in money to take it forward. Since Cameron Hall Development own 48 per cent, that could only come if Sir John Hall and his family decide to sell." Stonehouse admitted that the interest payments were a drain but insisted: "I'm not worried about the cash flow, what I'm concerned about is that we maintain our mid-table position. "We have long-term commitments and we need long-term stability. We are not Manchester United, but a lot better placed than other Premiership clubs having done a lot of the development of our ground. "I'm not sitting here worried about getting fresh capital. My concern is the transfer system, players' wages and performance. We do not have to get into the Champions League, mid-table stability is more important and we will cut our cloth accordingly." However, if supporters want to cut more fashionable cloth then new money, perhaps a new owner, may be the only way forward." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 thats what I meant to do, thanks though, unleash the leazes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 "We have long-term commitments and we need long-term stability. We are not Manchester United, but a lot better placed than other Premiership clubs" Brilliant. Every club comes out with this when the accounts come out, no matter how bleak things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guttierrors 0 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Its the date of the article that makes it interesting iyam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 See Rangers are sinking further. I don't think they will disappear and it will be resolved, but to come out of administration they need to cut costs. Expecting to see players struck off (likely reserves etc) Portsmouth are another side they are looking increasing in trouble. Port Vale is another one who couldn't pay wages last week. It's simply wrong to wear blinkers these days and think clubs are immune and can just spend endlessly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6700 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Re: Portsmouth, I go back to the point that it's wrong on every level that the parachute payments has gone to the former owner instead of the club. Yes, I know someone pointed out that it's going to Gaydamak as the result of some court order but it throws the whole reason the parachute payments were set up in the first place right out of the window. It's a means by the FA to protect the continued interests of one of their clubs. Not a means to pay of their debts. If it's a loophole being exploited, it needs closing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31216 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The FA can't really interfere in the internal dealings of a club though. Given the situation they're in it's poor that the locals have hardly rallied around them, the ground was still only 3/4 full yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Re: Portsmouth, I go back to the point that it's wrong on every level that the parachute payments has gone to the former owner instead of the club. Yes, I know someone pointed out that it's going to Gaydamak as the result of some court order but it throws the whole reason the parachute payments were set up in the first place right out of the window. It's a means by the FA to protect the continued interests of one of their clubs. Not a means to pay of their debts. If it's a loophole being exploited, it needs closing. But football authorities can't overrule the company laws that apply to every other line of business. If they hadn't agreed to assign the parachute payments then Portsmouth would already have been liquidated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleeToonFan 1 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Noticed how in Italy they have this 'Lodo Petrucci' which means if you go bankrupt you start a league below the one you was in. Glad we don't have anything like that tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9973 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Noticed how in Italy they have this 'Lodo Petrucci' which means if you go bankrupt you start a league below the one you was in. Glad we don't have anything like that tbh It should be two leagues here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 http://www.nufc.com/...stonehouse.html mike ashley isnt the rich benefactor we,d hoped for but for those quoting the ambition of previous owners makes this an interesting read and, in spite of all this, they still backed their managers and qualified for the Champions League, and as a result finished in the top 4 on 3 occastions. Can't wait for soopa Mike to do the same. So where is the Carroll cash ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46064 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I thought you were gonna knock this on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I thought you were gonna knock this on the head. I've gave up trying to educate JSM, and one or two others, and will try and avoid "hijacking" threads by taking the piss out of certain people, but this is a genuine article aimed at the weekend developments, and the conclusions to be seen from it should be obvious to everyone. I don't suppose it will stop one or two idiots continuing to say I'm spouting bollocks though even though I've been pointing out exactly what is happening here for a number of years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now