Toonpack

It's not that definitive tbh possibly's a better word, be good to know the journo's source. It's a throwaway line in a down the page piece. If true, the timings interesting (clever) as we'll not know for sure until the accounts after next.

The batmobindianelephant Is the African version faster ???

For Parky Hodgson's record as Liverpool manager: P31 W13 D9 L9. Money spent by Hodgson as Liverpool manager: £20 million Dalglish's record as Liverpool manager: P30 W15 D6 L9 Money spent by Dalglish as Liverpool manager: £114 million

How much is that, about £25m before additional per televised match fees? With a net transfer profit of £30m it’s hard to see why they’d need the money up front. Agree, it's very strange. Edit re the bold bit, it's more than that (depending on the definition of Premier League money): Last Season each club received £13.8million as the equal share of domestic TV rights and £17.9million as the equal share of overseas TV rights. Facility fees of £582,000 are paid to a club every time they play in a live TV match - with a minimum income of £5.82million even if a club has been involved in fewer than 10 live games. (from the Telegraph) All of it together is the thick end of £40 Mill

From the Guardian today, beneath an article on Bolton's plight. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/se...bts-gary-cahill About us: Last month Barclays loaned Newcastle their season's Premier League monies in advance, having apparently also extended their overdraft in March That seems very strange, unless "you know who" has recouped a huge lumper, wonder where that came from !

Liverpool dropped 09 to 10 £68Mill down to £62Mill despite having the third best shirt sponsorship deal in europe (Barca and Bayern being more, Man U the same) As an aside Bundesliga commercial revenues are HUGE and dwarf the PL, it really is just the TV money that makes the difference. Looking at your graph (and repointing Liverpool) the overall trend/patern is down.

Howay Chez, make your mind up, £££'s or €€€'s

We don't really. In the absence of an Arab state or mega-philanthropic owner: We need to stop haemoraging money, consolidate, and start turning our "size" (which is real) into profit. Which is what Ashley has done (arguments about protecting his investment aside) we could NOT go on as we were, and that's not a defence of him, whoever was in charge absolutely would have needed to do it. (Fuck ups costing more money or greater losses not withstanding). Where that profit will go is a whole different discussion. On a level playing field of sustainability, we are by far bigger than most. THAT is to our advantage. Spurs are a decent yardstick, their location and it's price/income benefits is somewhat mitigated by their lack of capacity in comparison to us (and our regional catchment stuff). Liverpool "could" be a good measure if they stay "average", they're still benefitting from the financial bow-wave comming off years and years of real success so that's all scewed as well. If they miss the champions league for a couple of more years, be interesting to see where they sit.

In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. Again though, you are putting non relevant data into a statistical argument. Its irrelevant for this argument (ie potential turnover) whether we are able to attract the players to get us to that league position. If we performed to the same level and achieved the same league positions as Spurs have then we should have a higher turnover than Spurs would. Those extra seats with the extra merchandising plus the other factors I highlighted earlier, lack of better local competition, location of ground etc etc should see us increase on Spurs turnover. That's all well and good Pud but has been said many times, the turnover in isolation is irrelevant, in essence, since 2005, we have spent £160 Million MORE than Spurs just to maintain/achieve our existing/real historical turnover.

Where are those figures from? http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/profits2.htm shows different figures, not sure how reliable the site is though. From the ramble, he also quotes notes from the accounts as back up, he's as reliable as any I'll see if I can find Spurs accounts and validate a couple of years as a sample/health check Edit- Spurs actual accounts back up the ramble: http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/uploads/as...nual_report.pdf

Just to be a twat, you'd need average ticket prices by year to evaluate properly, or ave attendance anyway. Liverpool get less people in than us, but yet make more money. Also we have (others may as well) outsourced the catering etc, so that revenue will have gone from "matchday" to commercial, assuming your figures are all matchday revenue and not just gate receipts. I think to establish the variables, we need to use something like this:

In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. And in the period in question Spurs have turned cumulative profit of £63.1 Million, we haven't made a profit sine 2004 (£4 and a bit million) Really? Yep Spurs 2005 £4.9 Mill 2006 £0.6 Mill 2007 £27.7 Mill 2008 £3.0 Mill 2009 £33.4 Mill 2010 - £6.5 Mill (loss) Our cummulative losses in the same period = £98.2 Mill, that's a "swing" or "advantage" of £161.3 Mill Spurs are self sustaining (with plenty of change to spare)

In what respect? 20,000 extra seats? That's worth about £6m a year. A good deal, but dwarfed by the TV money. And attracting players to that there London is a lot easier. And in the period in question Spurs have turned cumulative profit of £63.1 Million, we haven't made a profit sine 2004 (£4 and a bit million)

Where's this fixture register on the pisseasystarttotheseason-ometer ??? Given they've beaten us the last 5 times up here I guess it should be considered VERY VERY tough ??

Not necessarily - If you use the actual exchange rate from the same date each year it'll be as decent an approximation as anything.... so: I took 1st June (midpoint of the year-ish): 2006 1.46 2007 1.47 2008 1.26 2009 1.16 2010 1.20 Source: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi Apply those to the years and see what pops out, you have the spreadsheet already so I'll let you do the work Good idea in theory, but the Deloittes report comes out in early Feb. I could take the exchange rate from that moment, but all the clubs being surveyed announce their yearly results across a wide spread of the year, each when the exchange rate is different to another. Just looking at the figure it results in for Newcastle's income, 2005-2007 is pretty close, but after that it's way off as the exchange rate becomes more volatile... Well, we know NUFC turnover per year definitively in £££'s (from the accounts) so divide that into the Delloite Euro figure each year to give a "Toontastic/Delloit" exchange rate for each year. GBP (Accounts) 2005 87 Mill 2006 83 Mill 2007 87.1 Mill 2008 99.4 Mill 2009 86.1 Mill Euro (per Delloite) 2005 ??? Mill 2006 124.3 Mill 2007 129.4 Mill 2008 125.6 Mill 2009 101 Mill Exchange Rate calculated: 2005 ??? 2006 1.50 2007 1.49 2008 1.26 2009 1.17 Close as we're gonna get without hours/days of digging.

Not necessarily - If you use the actual exchange rate from the same date each year it'll be as decent an approximation as anything.... so: I took 1st June (midpoint of the year-ish): 2006 1.46 2007 1.47 2008 1.26 2009 1.16 2010 1.20 Source: http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi Apply those to the years and see what pops out, you have the spreadsheet already so I'll let you do the work

Villa's a difficult one as theres something like 5 "companies" in Lerners ownership model, two of which are variations of AVFC Ltd !, but Ramble uses what he thought was the holding companies accounts for his estimates but he has never tabulated it. From the rambler - "the figures from a company called Reform Acquisitions Limited, which is the parent company for Aston Villa’s five (yes, five!) companies, including Aston Villa FC Limited, whose principal activity is described as “professional football club”, and, confusingly, Aston Villa Football Club Limited, whose principal activity is “commercial and retail operations”. The ultimate holding company is Reform Acquisitions LLC, which is registered in the Good Old US of A, with the controlling party being Mr. R Lerner" This is a cracking debate/analysis mind (just catching it up).

Yep. Is it unrealistic to expect better than relegation/12th place for £280m of investment? Or even for £70m if you take into account that £140m went to the previous owners and £70m to the banks on day 1. No it's not. But expectation and actual achievement are often at irreconcilable (in a volatile environment - as football is). £X in, does not = Y league position. Should we have gone down, no, but we did. Not sure what your point is tbh. I don't disagree with anything in your earlier post BTW

Yep. BTW PM me your address I have a balance sheet pom-pom for you

we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? It gets paid, these loans arent usually a case of heres £20m I'll give you a shout when I want it and the interest back. Its a case of heres £20m and we want £100k per month back for the next few years. You dont go into that lightly, you calculate what you can afford to borrow and how much it will be worth to you. Its fairly straight forward really, you borrow money to ensure you have a team that can compete, by competing you entertain and as a result you sell tickets, shirts, pies, pints. You appear on TV more often and hopefully manage to get into Europe, getting additional TV revenue and further ticket, shirts, pies, pints and novelty "NUFC went to Italy and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirts. Part of that additional income is used to repay the debt each month. To the point where you've borrowed to the point where you've no equity left and have spent the next several years money, what then, if in your scenario you don't manage to compete, what happens ???? obviously, they shouldn't have attempted to be successful in the first place. But when you're not, what do you do ??

You're right, best not to bother trying Toonpack's sympathies lie with the owner and his bank balance for some reason. Dunno why some people worry about FMA's bank balance, he's very rich. (I realise it's easy to play with other people's money but then I didn't ask him to buy NUFC.) Pud’s bold bit – That wasn’t the question. It is perfectly valid to try but ……. If you try (your way) and fail (as we did) to the point credit lines are all but exhausted, what then ? What would you do, what can you do ? Kitman’s bold bit – Utter rubbish, I have no sympathy for him at all, I do however have the ability to look at things dispassionately. Some things he’s done I can understand, some I can’t (like not going out on a personal limb, just a little more, to buy a striker). Exactly, that is the crux of the whole thing and my only point in post #126

we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? It gets paid, these loans arent usually a case of heres £20m I'll give you a shout when I want it and the interest back. Its a case of heres £20m and we want £100k per month back for the next few years. You dont go into that lightly, you calculate what you can afford to borrow and how much it will be worth to you. Its fairly straight forward really, you borrow money to ensure you have a team that can compete, by competing you entertain and as a result you sell tickets, shirts, pies, pints. You appear on TV more often and hopefully manage to get into Europe, getting additional TV revenue and further ticket, shirts, pies, pints and novelty "NUFC went to Italy and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirts. Part of that additional income is used to repay the debt each month. To the point where you've borrowed to the point where you've no equity left and have spent the next several years money, what then, if in your scenario you don't manage to compete, what happens ????

unlike everybody else [ie 90% of clubs in the country] who don't go bust and out of existence, do you mean that we do ? NUFC won't go out of existence. They may have when long term apathy had set in and less than 20,000 fans were attending games, and a share issue failed because they couldn't even raise the amount of money they had got for selling Gazza to Spurs only a few years earlier perhaps ? You have failed to answer my question. Now, without reference to any other clubs, how would we survive if/when we could no longer raise further debt? as I said, quite clearly, going by your criteria, we have to allow smaller clubs to buy our best players and compete at the levels of Bolton and Blackburn. Or cease to exist. My reply to you is also quite clear. Why aren't 90% of football clubs in imminent danger of ceasing to exist. Please answer the question. As I have stated many times and as you asidiously refuse to acknowledge. Those 90% of clubs debts are underwritten or at least guaranteed by an owner/benefactor. NUFC's debt position was solely, 100%, every single penny, leveraged on the club, it's income, present and future, and it's assetts. Our debt position was incomparable with 99% of the other clubs never mind 90%. Chalk and cheese.

unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that

Vista is awful !!! Software4Students, you must know some child/student you can "claim" guardianship to, get yourself W7 (and loads more for that matter) for not a lot of cash. They do check a sample for bona fide "relationship" but you'd have to be really unlucky.