Tom 14011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think we really need a modern day equivalent of a Freddie Fletcher on the commercial front to help maximise our revenues as much as possible to help us compete. Although then again this will never be a priority for Ashley whilst he's happy gaining exposure for his Sports Direct empire at minimal if any outlay. Don't you read the program Jonny? Mr. Kinnear says we can't compete commercially. It's a shame he doesn't have a time machine to go back and tell Mr.Fletcher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 How was appointing a man of the calibre of Sir Bobby lucky? We were also on a very sound financial footing then as well. So where did the black hole come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think we really need a modern day equivalent of a Freddie Fletcher on the commercial front to help maximise our revenues as much as possible to help us compete. Although then again this will never be a priority for Ashley whilst he's happy gaining exposure for his Sports Direct empire at minimal if any outlay. I'd rather we had a version of Wenger (and the scouting system) to be honest. He's talented enough to operate within Ashley's penny pinching structure and deliver a much better brand of football than Pardew does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 So where did the black hole come from? The so-called "black hole" came after Robson had left though. In 2001-02, Manchester United reported the highest operating profit at £34m, followed by Newcastle United at £15m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 In fact rather than say Sir Bobby's appointment was luck - which it wasn't as they'd been after him for years, would it be more applicable to say the appointments of Daglish & subsequently Gullit were unlucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The so-called "black hole" came after Robson had left though. I'm sure shepherd will have been living on borrowed finances and busing that hole in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Dear me Simple question. Do you think we've got a better first team squad this year than last year? In Kemen Out Harper Simpson Perch That's a negatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 In fact rather than say Sir Bobby's appointment was luck - which it wasn't as they'd been after him for years, would it be more applicable to say the appointments of Daglish & subsequently Gullit were unlucky? I said the appointment of Sir Bobby AND shepherds use of finance / debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 In Kemen Out Harper Simpson Perch That's a negatory. I'm talking the teams that started last season v this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'm sure shepherd will have been living on borrowed finances and busing that hole in 2004. PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2004 Group turnover of £90.2m (2003: £96.4m) reflecting non-qualification for the Group stage of the UEFA Champions League. However this was largely mitigated by the strength of the business in other areas Continued strong Group operating profit before player amortisation and trading of £20.4m (2003: £27.6m) Total operating profit of £8.3m (2003: £11.6m) Wage and salary costs down 1% to £44.9m (2003: £45.2m) Earnings per share up 7% to 3.2p per share (2003: 3.0p per share) The Board has proposed a final dividend of 2.04p per share (2003: 2.04p per share) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I said the appointment of Sir Bobby AND shepherds use of finance / debt. What use of finance/debt? We were going very strongly. Edit- As above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 So where did the black hole come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 oh and lets not forget.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2004 Group turnover of £90.2m (2003: £96.4m) reflecting non-qualification for the Group stage of the UEFA Champions League. However this was largely mitigated by the strength of the business in other areas Continued strong Group operating profit before player amortisation and trading of £20.4m (2003: £27.6m) Total operating profit of £8.3m (2003: £11.6m) Wage and salary costs down 1% to £44.9m (2003: £45.2m) Earnings per share up 7% to 3.2p per share (2003: 3.0p per share) The Board has proposed a final dividend of 2.04p per share (2003: 2.04p per share) PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2004 Group turnover of £90.2m (2003: £96.4m) reflecting non-qualification for the Group stage of the UEFA Champions League. However this was largely mitigated by the strength of the business in other areas Continued strong Group operating profit before player amortisation and trading of £20.4m (2003: £27.6m) Total operating profit of £8.3m (2003: £11.6m) Wage and salary costs down 1% to £44.9m (2003: £45.2m) Earnings per share up 7% to 3.2p per share (2003: 3.0p per share) The Board has proposed a final dividend of 2.04p per share (2003: 2.04p per share) Ah 2003/04. The season we signed Lee Bowyer and signed Michael Bridges on a 3 month loan. I think we also ditched Acuna and Solano in the same time. The squad ended the season weaker than it began, without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2004 Group turnover of £90.2m (2003: £96.4m) reflecting non-qualification for the Group stage of the UEFA Champions League. However this was largely mitigated by the strength of the business in other areas Continued strong Group operating profit before player amortisation and trading of £20.4m (2003: £27.6m) Total operating profit of £8.3m (2003: £11.6m) Wage and salary costs down 1% to £44.9m (2003: £45.2m) Earnings per share up 7% to 3.2p per share (2003: 3.0p per share) The Board has proposed a final dividend of 2.04p per share (2003: 2.04p per share) That looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30602 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'm a firm believer in steady rather than rapid growth. One of the most important elements at any football club (or business for that matter) is the culture. Wholesale, significant changes to the squad are likely to rock the boat - the best policy, IMO, is to gradually improve, year on year. Top 10 might be the target this year, followed by top 7 next year, then maybe a push for the top 4 after that. By which stage, if it's all going to plan, the squad will have grown into a team comfortable playing at that level. Taking a mid-table team and throwing in a couple of new players doesn't suddenly transform it into a top 4 contender. As much as it goes against what I'd like to see as a myopic fan, slow, steady growth is likely to see us fare better over the next 5 years than chucking a fortune at a couple of mercenaries for a risky push for the Champions League. I don't think that too many on here would agree with that but it's not what we're seeing. What appears to be happening is a stop/start recruitment process based on purchasing players based on exploiting their contract issues rather than a consistent effort to recruit the players we need at fair market value. We should be looking to progress each year yet the summer after finishing fifth we only bought Anita for a position that didn't require strengthening. The winter transfer window was spent buying players who had been on our radar for quite some time but were less expensive in January than in the previous window. Following last year's poor showing we refused to add to our squad this summer despite the fact that the new TV deal with vastly increased money was kicking in. There doesn't appear to be a concerted effort to push ourselves further and further up the league each year, rather we have a hap hazard recruitment policy that is largely intent on purchasing players for less than their market value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The club seem to have accepted there is a glass ceiling at around 5th in the PL and won't fully commit to trying to break that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 The club seem to have accepted there is a glass ceiling at around 5th in the PL and won't fully commit to trying to break that. Which makes their cup capitulation all the more unforgiveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 4725 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 JULY 2004 Group turnover of £90.2m (2003: £96.4m) reflecting non-qualification for the Group stage of the UEFA Champions League. However this was largely mitigated by the strength of the business in other areas Continued strong Group operating profit before player amortisation and trading of £20.4m (2003: £27.6m) Total operating profit of £8.3m (2003: £11.6m) Wage and salary costs down 1% to £44.9m (2003: £45.2m) Earnings per share up 7% to 3.2p per share (2003: 3.0p per share) The Board has proposed a final dividend of 2.04p per share (2003: 2.04p per share) If it was in the results it wouldn't have been a "black hole" surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15525 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If it was in the results it wouldn't have been a "black hole" surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 If it was in the results it wouldn't have been a "black hole" surely? What the hell are you on about man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Insane in the membrane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Oldskool track @ CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 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