Toonpack

Since putting the club on the market the first time he's closer to £55million in profit on the transfer market. What relevance does this have though? The £21m worth of players sold after relegation would not have covered the losses made during the subsequent season and we are in the process of spending the Carroll money. If we spend it all, then there will be no "profit" from the transfer market, as spurious a notion that is anyway. A few people are trying to make out we are a selling club but as far as i can see only Milner, N'Zogbia and Carroll support that view. I'm glad we sold Milner, disappointed at the time for Carroll but with the NOTW article on Sunday questioning his attitude, lifestyle and fitness, it looks like it could be fantastic business. Which leaves N'Zogbia which we are potentially buying back. Shit evidence tbh. Word on the street is he's anything but happy in the land of the scally.

Citeh's new one. Do you get a matching keffiyeh to go with the collar ??

You never know, until they play. Plenty have come good and plenty haven't.

Shone for Brum last season and looks a decent player, but we don't need anymore CM's unless it's a DM Possible replacement for Nolan IF he goes?? Unless it's instead of a buy in another area of need, isn't it "the more the merrier" from a squad depth perspective ? I do expect it'll be to cover "outgoing" though. I don't see us going for him if we have no CM outgoings like, and nor should we get rid of any CM's (Just Smith) But he's a good player and I wouldn't mind seeing him here if we did happen to unfotunately get shot of someone Can't he put in a shift at RB as well ?? (Don't know a huge amount about him tbh) would be an upgrade on Raylor or Guthrie though I reckon.

Shone for Brum last season and looks a decent player, but we don't need anymore CM's unless it's a DM Possible replacement for Nolan IF he goes?? Unless it's instead of a buy in another area of need, isn't it "the more the merrier" from a squad depth perspective ? I do expect it'll be to cover "outgoing" though.

Oh yes, definitely a WUM moment, although "shite at this level" is probably unfair (given my previous post about some players deemed not shite at this level) definitely should be improved on and not relied upon though.

I dunno, when I saw the fee I certainly blinked !!

If Bent and Carroll had been sold for £12-£15 million each and Henderson for say £8-£10Mill, he'd have a point.

I wonder how many strikers we're going to buy. We're surely after more than one....maybe Ba plus a new No 9? Presumably Ba would be second striker but that presumes Ba and first choice striker stay fit. Faced with the alternative of Best, Shola or Lovenkrands, I'd send Ba onto the pitch even if he wasn't fit. Fuck it, I'd send him on in a moon boot and crutches . Despite the fact that those three outscored Defoe, Crouch and Pavulychenko ??? Yes, despite that. Despite the fact it was also in less minutes on the pitch

I wonder how many strikers we're going to buy. We're surely after more than one....maybe Ba plus a new No 9? Presumably Ba would be second striker but that presumes Ba and first choice striker stay fit. Faced with the alternative of Best, Shola or Lovenkrands, I'd send Ba onto the pitch even if he wasn't fit. Fuck it, I'd send him on in a moon boot and crutches . Despite the fact that those three outscored Defoe, Crouch and Pavulychenko ???

Not yet they don't. Historically they have not, January they didn't, but by 1st September we'll see what they're up to but they do have a long list of players they'll likely ship out yet.

I think now we have a few clubs like Stoke and Bolton where "fans" are living their dream by just owning the clubs without regard to any desire to make money as such which could be argued was the intention of people like Shiniwatra(?) at Man City or the various Pompey shady owners who thought buying and selling clubs would be a "market". Maybe that was Ashley's original idea but I've never had a strong idea of what he ever intended. I agree its unlikely that they (Bolton etc) will chuck more money in but there's always the spectre of them underwriting wages for someone like Barton or Nolan. What I dread is clubs like ours embracing the UEFA rules with the idea of fairness but the usual suspects refusing to play ball. Well if the hyperbole is to be believed, many of the usual suspects are behind the drive for the rule. They know, because of their lofty positions, that their turnover is such that they will likely remain at the pinacle whilst ceasing to have to flush their cash down the drain (into players pockets). They might even be able to start making a decent wedge from the game or a return of their investment. These billionaire types play a very long game. Saw an interesting snippet about Kroenke, as well as uplifting his shareholding in the club itself he bought 59% of Arsenal Broadband (which I never knew even existed) as these guys think the media revolution is just starting, the example was quoted that the NY Yankees media company is actually worth three times what the team is. We have NFL and US sports team owners in the Prem, the NFL owners are currently prepared to sacrifice a whole season to win a bigger share of the pot from the players (it's good leverage as players get the majority of their income from game-cheques, no play, no pay). The owners'll likely take a huge hit initially but they'll recoup it longer term. The UEFA rules play into the hands of the real billionaires as in providing a platform to actually make money. The "we are rich-ish and love the club" crew are not going to cut it, long term.

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course). That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means. Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up. But if the that turnover includes a higher percentage of wages then there's still less "spare" cash for transfers which is how we operated in the past. It's the rise from a wages/turnover ration of 46% (I remember seeing quoted) to 86% that really fucked us imo. There's also a lion/antelope analogy where if the people who own QPR or Bolton wake up today and decide to spend £100m then you could say we "should" spend £120m to keep ahead then of course there's nothing to stop them chucking another £50m into the mix. That's why I think the turnover argument is almost pointless. Nothing apart from Platini's rules that is (if they want to play in Europe). The turnover argument was pointless, but it shouldn't be now. If of course the rules genuinely work. 60% of £100Mill is a lot better than 60% of £62Mill (Bolton) btw (and I appreciate you chose them as an illustrative example) Bolton's debt of circa £93Mill comrises £8Mill to banks and £85Mill to the owner as a loan for which he charges 5% interest, hardly a philanthropic footing from which it would lead you to think he'll throw significant further sums in. If QPR (or anyone) decides to go go all Man City, there's not much you can do about it. In truth it's no more a pisser now than it was when Abramovich showed up, it might even be getting better.

Those that did had it underwritten though, (except us of course). That said we do have the advantage that we are "bigger" so "within our means" is still significantly "greater" than their means. Even with us in the championship we were only £5Mill behind Blackburn's turnover and £10Mill Bolton. Now we're "back" we have an advantage ranging from £20-£40Mill over just about everyone else (outside of the obvious suspects). That's an awfull lot for the "also rans" ownership to commit to making up.

I apologise JawD, I meant to reply to what you said earlier. I'll have another look tomorrow. Was the stadium a badly managed debt ? Most financial experts didn't seem to think so, most of us on here have a mortgage and make repayments based on revenues, earnings etc, so why do amateur football wannabe accountants make out it was some sort of deal with the Devil. What is their alternative ? Save the money up first ? I've asked people like Toonpack and Mad Jock [in response to what he asked me] this very question, and the result is neither of them answer and Toonpack has put me on ignore probably because he realises that he can't. Nobody on here is a football accountant, it would seem. If someone, anywhere, knew how to run a football club that is a success on the pitch and make massive profits to constantly buy the best footballers, how much would they be worth ? Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do. Well, I dont think the finances were spiralling us into a black hole. Seemed ok back them the way it was being done despite what others will say now. But, that said, many are saying a lot of football clubs were pushing too far with debt and wages. The problem was more that if banks pulled the plug on their debt if they got nervous. I wonder how we would of faired if we were in the same boat when the banking crisis hit? I'd have been a little less comfortable. But, fact is we didnt go bust or whatever, we didnt collapse under FS so I agree with you here. It's just speculation and I'm looking at what has actually happened. So, while I agree with your (more or less) on this point, I've still seen little evidence (remember I'm looking at whats actually happened) to say we are a selling club supplying lesser teams as you said earlier. I also agree that I dont think MA has aspirations for the champions league. That was pretty much confirmed by pardew when he said he hoped that by us getting into Europe, it might make MA thirst for more. I kinda agree with that. I hope he does. I think at the moment thye want a top half finish. I still have in my mind (the young team, the managed debt, the lower wage ratio) is all to set the club up as a good prospect to be sold. MA will then be in an ideal place. If he is enjoying it he can keep it and if not, sell it. But he had to sort things out first to try and make it more attractive. I think he'll struggle currently because of his price. He wont want to lower his price and lose out, so the only other way is to increase it's worth. On my previous point though, I still dont really see evidence of us being a Bolton or Blackburn? Im not sure where you get that from. I would add one comment, which is the basis for my "blacker side" of the speculation. Outside of the leveraged buy outs, no other significant football club debt is or was like ours, ours was all with banks and was 100% secured against club assets and income streams to the point of saturation. All other debt (certainly in the Prem League) is/was guaranteed or underwritten by club ownership/benefactor so that the clubs are to a point "insured". Despite the assertion in certain quarters that I "hate" the previous ownership, the simple point is that they were not rich enough to cover the club exposure, even if they had the will to. Of the succesfull clubs (to this point) not one of them goes into significant debt to buy players or pay wages (outside of the obvious two). Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have all operated a transfer policy within their means, they do go into debt, but for capital projects like the Emirates or in Spurs case their training ground. They speculate to accumulate but always within their means. Of course it is, to an extent, a self fullfilling prophecy due to the Champions League cash. Liverpool will be an interesting story to watch, they've had little success of late (by their standards), they have historically made profits which has supported their relative success. Now they have no Europe and no Champions league cash, and they, I believe, made a small loss last year, their approach will be interesting when the sums are done at the end of the window, and again if they continue to miss out of the Champions League. P.S. Leazes, on the bit I've bolded in your post (because you were quoted and you're making stuff up again). I have answered that many times. The Stadium debt was "good debt" but it was just over half of what we owed.

I would add that, anyone who thinks everything they've done is bad is similarly by definition.....................

I don't think anything he does is part of an evil plan. Again, I've given him credit for a lot of his financial decisions. I just think he talks utter shit and misrepresents any of the good he's done as a result. People like this Chris Gray and you perpetuate it. As discussed, in the 5 years before Ashley we lost £0, £0, £2m, £15m and £33m. The last couple are worrying and not sustainable. There's nothing to suggest Shepherd would have tried to sustain it though. On 7 June '07 we signed Viduka on a free. Being a free suggests to me Shepherd was looking for proven Premier League players on a budget with the intention of cutting the losses of the previous season. His wages were a twat, but he only got a 2 year contract. He'd already sold Scott Parker for £7m too. Ashley took a controlling share on exactly the same day though. We went on to sign Barton(£5.8m), Rozenhal(£3m), Smith(£6m), Enrique(£6m), Faye(£2m) and Beye(£2m) - as well as a free Geremi, but on a 3 year deal at huge wages. That's just short of £25m he spent. Losses for the year went on to total £20m, which can't be laid at anyone elses door, as Ashley sanctioned all those buys. Yet all we hear from the propaganda machine is how Ashley has inherited a mess, as if he hasn't contributed to it himself at all. The above 'waste' pales in comparison to then getting us relegated. I don't want to hear about not taking a penny out of the club, or how much he's pumped in, because he's just as much to blame as the last lot...the difference being 12th would have been a failure in their eyes for the level of investment. He absolutely inherited a mess, no doubt in my mind, similarly there is no doubt he deepened the hole (as I've said before) BUT it's cost no-one but himself, hence my "thanks" for, or appreciation of, his deep pockets. We were unsustainable, we needed deep pockets, we got some. We could have done better or been luckier, undoubtedly.

I did, at some point today, can't remember where But not sure it's leveraged (in the true sense of the word as the purchase was not financed) a'la Liverpool were or Man U are, in so much as their purchase was funded by external finance (banks) The debt is held in the parent company (St James' Holdings Ltd) which is Ashley's so whilst he's bought the club with his own cash the purchase price is held as a debit in SJPH Ltd. Dunno if that makes it a leverage or not.

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ?? I've given Ashley all due credit, even in this thread, when the banks refused to loan his insolvent business the money to stay afloat, he used his own money to protect his investment. The fact the debt is larger than ever before should put a stop to any suggestion we're financially better off though. We've effectively transferred our credit card balance to a 0% introductory offer and spent more on the new card. The fact we aren't paying interest is great. I'm not having a pop here, but Ashley apologists like you are getting ahead of yourself by insisting the financial mess is well on the way to being resolved. £20-£30m year on year? Up to 2007 we only ever lost over £20m one time....the average loss was £10m a year for the five years before he arrived. Losses were £0-£2m for three out of the five years before Ashley arrived. We went from a £19m loss in 2000 to break ebven in 2003, without the slash and burn approach. I sniffed at that, so I'll sniff at this too. I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary. 2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary. Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course. We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's. I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

Sorry, but I think you're wrong (neither of us will be able to prove it one way or the other though). Player with one year left, who's succesfully stalled to get into that position, holds all the cards.

You can't to be honest. But I would contend owing £150Mill to yourself is better, by an immeasurable amount, than owing £150Mill to a bank.

And how does that negate anything I've said? You were saying he's yet to break even and I was just giving you a gentle reminder that they did forecast in March (I think) that they were on course to break even for the season just finished. In case you had forgotten Thought it might cheer you up on your birthday I hadn't fporgotten at all. Of course, breaking even won't get the finances looking immeasurably better either. It'll just stop the rot. Which as TP illustrates above is progress. Please don't agree with me, my arguments/statements/opinions lose credibility.

And how does that negate anything I've said? You were saying he's yet to break even and I was just giving you a gentle reminder that they did forecast in March (I think) that they were on course to break even for the season just finished. In case you had forgotten Thought it might cheer you up on your birthday I hadn't fporgotten at all. Of course, breaking even won't get the finances looking immeasurably better either. It'll just stop the rot. Stopping the rot = immeasurably better, surely

Who else they going to blame. They've offered him a new contract to stay, theres only Enrique to blame if he goes. (And fair enough if he wants to play CL football) Should still make his mind up one way or the other so a replacement can be acted on. With regard to Barton its already public knowledge that he has cooked his own goose by having too many things to say against the board whether that be statements to the press or talk-ins. The blokes a fool on that score. Not really, he'll be waiting to see if the clubs ambition matches his and to see what the contract situation really is like regarding other players, most likely As that twat Adrian Durham said the other night (and for the first time ever, I agreed with him): "I'm sick of hearing about players talking about clubs matching their ambition, what that really means is: I want more money".