manc-mag

Haven't read it, but this should be treated as toilet paper.

He's trying to infiltrate the womens institute I reckon. Already got a middle aged woman's haircut.

'the' btw. dunno why but that made me laugh more than it should.

Aye. Only Girl in The World has a mint chorus. I actually don't even think she's that fit. Does your cock not work?

And these are the hard cold facts of football today. Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money. Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short? The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager. But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game. But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4. You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley. You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still. Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry. You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit. When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more. Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14% How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football. Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues. In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool. Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%). You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull. I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy. The point about "just increase turnover" needs specifically addressing and I think if Pud and other proponents make the point in this thread it'd be helpful to hear how exactly that's proposed, just in terms of moving the debate along as I think TP makes some fair points there. What we can say with confidence is that he has no intention whatever of trying to compete with the top four as that would absolutely require his own money. Below that for me it's about how ambitious a club like NUFC can and should be given it's natural (potential) resources and I think the answer there is obviously higher than the 10th place that's often cited-but then is that sufficiently motivating to Ashley given the difference in income it would mean to the club? I suspect not personally and I think the striker saga is good evidence of that. I have to say though, I don't really get the point about NUFC 'now being in more debt than ever'. If it is, it's debt owed to Ashley and realistically it'll have to be cleared if Ashley sells the club. He won't write it off (obviously), he'll want it paying off by a buyer, but then that buyer is simply going to put a lower purchase valuation on the club given it's level of debt. This bit is a totally minor issue for me. It’s a shame that isn’t what happened when FMA bought the club. The current debts exceed the price FMA paid for the club. He’d be very lucky to get £70m for NUFC if the debts aren’t reduced dramatically. The idea the debts will just sit there until a buyer comes along and offers him a chance to lose £150m seems highly unlikely. Turnover tracks the quality of the product. A better team attracts more supporters, more sponsorship, more coporate hospitality, more TV money and sells more merchandise. For some of these it may more about price/supply/demand than new business but it’s not rocket science. Obviously European qualification represents a major threshold of income generation but it isn’t the be all and end all. What I find interesting about this debate is the unspoken assumption we can’t operate a more ambitious transfer strategy on our current turnover. I have no idea what this assumption is based on apart from the campaign to lower supporter expectations, which boils down to unsubstantiated hot air. The accounts for last year and this will make very interesting reading. I'm not saying he'll do one thing or the other really, it was more just a comment on the repayability of the loan. ie we're more in debt but it's all to him (if it is indeed as a result of personal funds he's pumped in), so it's not an issue of that becoming an almighty pressure unlike if say it was to a bank or 3rd party lender. And ref: more ambitious, you'll note I say I think we should be more ambitious than 10th (ie the current 'target'), and simply that it's unrealistic to think we could be top 4. I think you have to be looking towards the head of the pack in between those places on our turnover, and as I say, I think the failure to sign a striker indicates quite forcefully that Ashley isn't bothered to do that - the reason being it wouldn't make a massive difference to him from a financial point of view.

He's going to get the run anyway you'd hope, so that one will be answered sooner rather than later. He's a poor footballer but if the ball ends up in the back of the net that's ok. As has already been mentioned, his work rate is a positive and should mean the fans are more patient and forgiving of his obvious shortcomings. On the flip side, with a run in the side as a first choice starter, the pressure to deliver will be stepped up (obviously quite rightly so), so we'll see how he responds to that. All decent strikers have to respond to that.

And these are the hard cold facts of football today. Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money. Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short? The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager. But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game. But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4. You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley. You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still. Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry. You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit. When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more. Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14% How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football. Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues. In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool. Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%). You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull. I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy. The point about "just increase turnover" needs specifically addressing and I think if Pud and other proponents make the point in this thread it'd be helpful to hear how exactly that's proposed, just in terms of moving the debate along as I think TP makes some fair points there. What we can say with confidence is that he has no intention whatever of trying to compete with the top four as that would absolutely require his own money. Below that for me it's about how ambitious a club like NUFC can and should be given it's natural (potential) resources and I think the answer there is obviously higher than the 10th place that's often cited-but then is that sufficiently motivating to Ashley given the difference in income it would mean to the club? I suspect not personally and I think the striker saga is good evidence of that. I have to say though, I don't really get the point about NUFC 'now being in more debt than ever'. If it is, it's debt owed to Ashley and realistically it'll have to be cleared if Ashley sells the club. He won't write it off (obviously), he'll want it paying off by a buyer, but then that buyer is simply going to put a lower purchase valuation on the club given it's level of debt. This bit is a totally minor issue for me.

Class! Paxmanesque

Clearly I didn't ask for your life story, I just wanted you to confirm whether deep down you knew your position on things like this was essentially not based on reality. I was honestly hoping you'd be able to say 'yes' fwiw, but obviously not.

You do realise these 'sneaking feelings' you have are basically just self comforting/self defence mechanisms now though don't you? To have reached your mid forties, I implore you to say you have that self-awareness? Hmmmmm. A well educated legal eagle trapped in perpetual online warfare with a pensioner discussing self awareness But to address the question specifically please...you do realise that don't you? What I'm saying is this bears all the hallmarks of you forgetting the disappointment/failure to sign a striker (and your 'sneaky feeling') only the other day, not taking any lesson from that, and replacing that with a 'sneaky feeling' something else will work instead. It's not to say Best might not have a half decent season, but that's nothing to do with your instincts about him at this stage-what you've typed above owes more to your own psychological need to believe something good will come rather than having any evidential basis for it. (That's why you get on people's tits is essentially what I'm saying btw). Hid the bite well til the last line It was a serious comment fwiw. I've actually always thought you were an entertaining poster (and have said as much previously) in the face of all the flack you take-but the flak is warranted on that particular point. So in reference to my question, will you have the courteousy to address it - it is your thread after all and it is on topic - or would you prefer to just continue side stepping it with scarcely relevant comments? The treads about Leon Best and anyone can feel free to share their views on him. Do I want to have a self awareness discussion with some random on the Internet and end up in a cunning battle of wits in-between jobs aided only by an Iphone. Not particularly but thanks for the offer. Now try me again on a weekday when any distraction from Cbeebies and dirty nappies is welcome and I might play. It's not massively cerebral in all fairness. Sounds like you'd rather just ignore the point really. This is what I'm referring to btw CT. Transfer deadline thread only a few days ago: Christmas Tree Aug 31 2011, 09:28 AM I'm not having a pop, it's a valid point that I'm trying to bring to your attention.

You do realise these 'sneaking feelings' you have are basically just self comforting/self defence mechanisms now though don't you? To have reached your mid forties, I implore you to say you have that self-awareness? Hmmmmm. A well educated legal eagle trapped in perpetual online warfare with a pensioner discussing self awareness But to address the question specifically please...you do realise that don't you? What I'm saying is this bears all the hallmarks of you forgetting the disappointment/failure to sign a striker (and your 'sneaky feeling') only the other day, not taking any lesson from that, and replacing that with a 'sneaky feeling' something else will work instead. It's not to say Best might not have a half decent season, but that's nothing to do with your instincts about him at this stage-what you've typed above owes more to your own psychological need to believe something good will come rather than having any evidential basis for it. (That's why you get on people's tits is essentially what I'm saying btw). Hid the bite well til the last line It was a serious comment fwiw. I've actually always thought you were an entertaining poster (and have said as much previously) in the face of all the flack you take-but the flak is warranted on that particular point. So in reference to my question, will you have the courteousy to address it - it is your thread after all and it is on topic - or would you prefer to just continue side stepping it with scarcely relevant comments?

You do realise these 'sneaking feelings' you have are basically just self comforting/self defence mechanisms now though don't you? To have reached your mid forties, I implore you to say you have that self-awareness? Hmmmmm. A well educated legal eagle trapped in perpetual online warfare with a pensioner discussing self awareness But to address the question specifically please...you do realise that don't you? What I'm saying is this bears all the hallmarks of you forgetting the disappointment/failure to sign a striker (and your 'sneaky feeling') only the other day, not taking any lesson from that, and replacing that with a 'sneaky feeling' something else will work instead. It's not to say Best might not have a half decent season, but that's nothing to do with your instincts about him at this stage-what you've typed above owes more to your own psychological need to believe something good will come rather than having any evidential basis for it. (That's why you get on people's tits is essentially what I'm saying btw).

You do realise these 'sneaking feelings' you have are basically just self comforting/self defence mechanisms now though don't you? To have reached your mid forties, I implore you to say you have that self-awareness?

I still think he bought it 'for fun' originally in the sense that he wanted something different to do with his 100's of £ millions. That's not to say he didn't want a profit out of it, that will always have been central, but I think that initial method was simply to buy the club cheap and sell it for double or treble a few years later. That's just what was happening in football at the time and why it would have appealed to him. I don't think his focus was on penny pinching at the very outset and I think the snapshot of transactions around that time shows this. Ditto the appointment of Keegan. Then the banks went to shit however and with it 99% of his potential buyer pool disappeared, along with the possibility he would make any money on exit. So things will have changed at that point for me. The extent of the indebtedness of the club at the time of purchase/how much Ashley has put in to plug that is always going to be a source of dispute I reckon, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about significant sums. Equally whether in doing what he's alleged to be doing now (asset stripping/running it as a Sports Direct advertising hoarding) he's actually made any money overall is impossible to tell. Personally I don't think he's seen penny one yet and I don't think he'll be in 'profit' for many moons to come using the strategy. That's not a defence of his methods, just my view of the context of it all. That said he can afford to absorb those losses, which have arisen out of his own stupidity in not researching the club and bad timing (the first being his own fault and the latter being beyond the control of the speculator) Think you make some interesting points on wage caps, Pud. I don't know how low he might try to drive it down further, but whats certain is we'll see the likes of Colo and Jonas leaving in the next year or so. I said that about all of the ones that went this window. The vacant striker situation stands apart from anything else for me though. Any club, regardless of it's financial budget needs to replace it's main striker in that period of time, even if it's with a more economical model. To not do so at all literally takes it outside of a football economics debate. I think that's where the groundswell of opinion now lies against fatty.

Aye, righto. It came across that way.

Mate, I could have about a dozen sigs from that rant. You're clearly foaming. I'll leave it there, it's too easy to hold my attention

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it]. It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership. Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ? I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your shambles of an argument. You can be 'right' about pretty much anything as long as you make enough contradictory statements down the years, you just look like a bell end in the process. You can't have it both ways you clot. "shambles" seems to be your word of the moment, what a shame that it perfectly describes your constant change of mind and your semi-permanent disagreement with me and anything I say, even when everything I said about Mike Ashley which you have disagreed with is staring you in the face now and undeniable. The same thing will continue to happen. The decline will continue. You will continue to disagree with me, and insist you are right and I am wrong, even though as time passes, you will take on board more and more of what I am telling you now. I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, read this again, I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, only long term apathy could do that, just like before although it will take a long time, and Mike Ashley has started the ball rolling down this particular road. "Clot". "Shambles". How pathetic are you. It's as pathetic as those posts where you said "chomp", are you really an "intelligent solicitor", with nothing better to do than that? Your ego governs everything you say, you wanker. You just want to disagree, because its me that is saying this, if someone else said it you would probably agree, you're such a clown, you're a joke. You may be a solicitor son, but you do not know more or better than I do. You know nothing about me, so don't draw such hasty conclusions about what you perceive of me. Spend the next 4 years disagreeing with me again, like you have done the last 4, if you like, but I'm sticking to my guns because I know the direction the club is going, it is crystal clear, I will watch with interest while you slowly come around to realising it. piece of piss!

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it]. It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership. Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ? I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your shambles of an argument. You can be 'right' about pretty much anything as long as you make enough contradictory statements down the years, you just look like a bell end in the process. You can't have it both ways you clot.

KSA and Wacky take a bow. Quality craic.

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits. The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it... Cake and eat it time again.

you don't say. The quote from that book, which I posted a few months ago, drew a direct parallel with success and wages in football. But of course, you scorned it. I honestly don't know what you think you're proving any more. The team's who pay the most money generally have the best players? Yes, nice one Einstein. Do you seriously imagine my dispute is about these most basic of rudiments?

I think you only get into the realms of eg £15 million + transfer fees if theres competition for the players signature in the first place-and if theres competition for their signature, the competitor is likely to be willing to offer more wages. We're doing our business largely where there's no competitor, that way we can't be played off on wages as we're the only show in town. When competition emerges, that's typically when we lose interest.

I don't think its the transfer fee per se, I just think if you go to a certain fee, you're not going to get the player on the wages we pay. They will expect more. Departing from the new wage structure is a much bigger issue than, on a a one off basis, finding £2 or 3 million extra for a specific transfer target. All newcomers will have been sold the new wage structure so you can't suddenly depart from it (or if you do you create an enormous shit storm) and all old players will have left because of it. That doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldnt have brought anyone in though. There will still have been viable striker targets commensurate with the rates we paid for Santon (fee and wages). It's a massive fail whatever the budget context is.

who is right Sammy ? Then ask yourself - again - who is the shambles ...... I know you think you're making a point, but it needs to be associated to my post in order to work. That's how forums work. Making yourself sound like Mystic Meg is amusing though I'll give you that.