ChezGiven

Didnt the FTSE 100 lose half its value in the same period though? Abramovich's losses were 4 times the size of Ashley's total wealth too, or something like that. To have an IPO at 300p of a retail business built from scratch is a massive achievement in itself tbf. How he then handled the float and his subsequent short positions against the stock shows a ruthless and shrewd man. He's a cunt too, which is the final piece in the profile of a 'good businessman'. A ruthless, shrewd, cunt is basically what you are looking for. Most of us would prefer a benefactor, not a businessman.

I really dont get it. There was me thinking our club had imploded and was on the cusp of financial ruin only to be redeemed by a miraculous one season stay in the second tier, prompting hopes of doing what only a few teams manage to do and that is to be promoted and stay promoted. That must be a parallel universe i'm living in as apparently our proper and rightful ambition for next season is competing with smaller clubs like Villa and Spurs? The bottom line is that the club can afford to spend 20m over the summer. If they dont, then NUST needs to step up and wrestle the fucking club out of the fat cunts hands. If they do, then we should hope its enough to survive and build further. If that doesnt prove enough, then a judgement needs to be made by the fans about whether more could have been done. I'm hoping one of the lessons learned from January 2009 is not to gamble on our premiership status. This makes me think we will spend 20m (not including wages). I'm prepared (just) to forgive them for thinking that a squad containing Owen, Viduka, Martins, Duff, Beye, Bassong, Barton, Enrique, Colocinni, Jonas even Nolan and Guthrie was good enough to survive. It would be unforgivable to think the current lot have the same chance.

Its a good point that. The issue is whether there will be enough stability and investment over the summer to build on the platform we have.

Utter bollocks that story, she just couldnt afford immac and the teachers took things into their own hands.

Been funny recently. "Hei the Queen’s ganna disserlve Parlimint but hauze she ganna dee tha man pet? Leik it's not made oota sugah aw owt. Bonkaz!" "Ah've been studyin Yerga so Ah'm ganna dee the occasional deep tweet leek Yerker Erner dees. Stan by a one's comin up noo." "Let yor serls gan chasin rainbers thru the valleys uv yor innah consciousness; be at one wi the skei an embrace feelin mint."

It's strange how only a few people think like this - I was just sayiing last week that if someone gave me £900m I'd give NUFC at least half of it, possibly more and was looked at as if I was an Alien. The response was that you should enjoy your wealth which seemed to involve investing it and checking to see whether it grows rather than spending it - madness. On the "spree" if someone wants to do an N-O style how much will the net spend be in the summer poll, I'll vote for less than zero - especially if Guttirez has a decent world cup. He will play for us next season i reckon. Just cant see where else he would go. And will people stop going on about him having a decent world cup, he'll be playing in the same side as Messi, no one will notice him.

I'll be worried if this becomes a recurring action. Why ?? IF we spent say £20 mill, and he also takes back £20mill thus reducing the club indebtedness (to him) that'd be OK by me tbh Which Premier League clubs run a £40m profit? None after the adjustment period but thats not the point. Which premier league club is about to experience a minimum of 40m additional revenue next season? The club is in debt. The club reduces costs. The club gets significantly more revenue. Ergo, some of the debt gets paid back. Has everyone forgotten why we wanted to be promoted? The premiership IS the prize. If they were bank loans they'd HAVE to be repaid with interest, so i've no problem with that. Shepherd would go on a spending spree, then he was frugal the to pay off some debt (we ran transfer profits in 1997, 2000 and 2004) you can't buy year on year. I just don't expect us to be spending £20 million on players AND paying off £20m of loans AND retaining our best players AND running a balanced book. I dont see why not. Thats the value of the prize. If he managed to get running costs in line with revenues + parachute this season, then thats about the scenario he is looking at. Apart from the balanced book thing, i think we'll still have large debts. For me, the financial side of things is beyond question, the only variable is how much fatty wants to put in. Are we forgetting the richest game of football on the planet is the championship play off? People are right to suspect whether he will invest at all but the jump up to the prem (given a level of prudency in the level below) does lead to a massive increase in income.

However we're losing £500k per week according to the same journalists. So that additional £40m will only put you £14m in the black. So how is it feasible to pay out £20m on players and £20m to Fatty? That would put you £26m in debt wouldnt it? Ergo, we pay £20m off the debt and end up £6m further in the cack??? Im no accountant but my breath is baited waiting to see how that ones recorded on the balance sheet I paid very little attention to that 500k a week thing, it could easily reflect the revenue minus costs before the parachute payment, which is a special item on the P&L. It may also have been rounded up a bit too, since a bit less than that is about 20m per year. Which is the figure i would expect before the parachute payment. As other have said, the increased spend has to take account of the increase in wages etc so its not that clear how much is available. Birmingham and Wolves do offer some insight to what is feasible to spend but i doubt they had the same debts as us.

I'll be worried if this becomes a recurring action. Why ?? IF we spent say £20 mill, and he also takes back £20mill thus reducing the club indebtedness (to him) that'd be OK by me tbh Which Premier League clubs run a £40m profit? None after the adjustment period but thats not the point. Which premier league club is about to experience a minimum of 40m additional revenue next season? The club is in debt. The club reduces costs. The club gets significantly more revenue. Ergo, some of the debt gets paid back. Has everyone forgotten why we wanted to be promoted? The premiership IS the prize.

With 2 banners and a regular chant that combined the word 'cockney' with 'mafia', 'bastard' and 'rapist', its hardly surprising people take this impression away with them.

If Smiths and Butts were pots and pans, the midfield would be better.

If we did get rid of them two anyway and replaced them with established premiership players, it would mean 7 midfielders at the club of the required standard.

Or it could be to do with gaining promotion and then letting it be known the next day what the general plan is for next season. Nah, i doubt that but why not? I'd be calling them idiots if they didnt, as long as they do intend to spend in that region then they should be letting it be known. I know many people cant see them spending 20m but i cant see them not spending around that amount. As others have said, it'll be interesting to see if the figure includes wages or is purely about transfer fees. Needs to be the latter as we'll need to spend £10m+ just on a goalscorer imo. Indeed. Smith and Butt's wages are about what? 60k for Smith? Same for Butt? 120k is 4 well paid young players. Thats before using the additional revenue. Smith is here for another 2 years I think. Who'd buy him and pay him what he's on? So I'd be surprised if he left. Also, Butt got a contract extension and there's no way it'll been for what he was initially on when we signed him. The latter's out of contract come the summer though. Not sure being club captain goes hand in hand with a large % wage cut. He'll be one of the highest earners at the club. As for Smith, am sure Billy Davies will be looking for experienced battlers if they go up. It was a year extension wasn't it? At his age if he was offered £30k per week (which is what I'm guessing it was) he'd be daft not to take it because it's not like he could get that elsewhere anyway. Forest had no money in January so how can they afford anywhere near what Smith is on even if they come up? And, assuming they can't, what incentive would there be for Smith to go there? In other words I think the £120k saving is more likely to be about £30k a week. Still a good wage for a good young player potentially though. Forest, if they come up, will also have an extra 40m to spend. I can see him interesting Birmingham, Wolves or even Stoke. I think we could get rid of Smith if thats what the management decide to do. Its what i'd do anyway, which would save a decent amount, no matter the details on Butt's contract extension.

Or it could be to do with gaining promotion and then letting it be known the next day what the general plan is for next season. Nah, i doubt that but why not? I'd be calling them idiots if they didnt, as long as they do intend to spend in that region then they should be letting it be known. I know many people cant see them spending 20m but i cant see them not spending around that amount. As others have said, it'll be interesting to see if the figure includes wages or is purely about transfer fees. Needs to be the latter as we'll need to spend £10m+ just on a goalscorer imo. Indeed. Smith and Butt's wages are about what? 60k for Smith? Same for Butt? 120k is 4 well paid young players. Thats before using the additional revenue. Smith is here for another 2 years I think. Who'd buy him and pay him what he's on? So I'd be surprised if he left. Also, Butt got a contract extension and there's no way it'll been for what he was initially on when we signed him. The latter's out of contract come the summer though. Not sure being club captain goes hand in hand with a large % wage cut. He'll be one of the highest earners at the club. As for Smith, am sure Billy Davies will be looking for experienced battlers if they go up.

Or it could be to do with gaining promotion and then letting it be known the next day what the general plan is for next season. Nah, i doubt that but why not? I'd be calling them idiots if they didnt, as long as they do intend to spend in that region then they should be letting it be known. I know many people cant see them spending 20m but i cant see them not spending around that amount. As others have said, it'll be interesting to see if the figure includes wages or is purely about transfer fees. Needs to be the latter as we'll need to spend £10m+ just on a goalscorer imo. Indeed. Smith and Butt's wages are about what? 60k for Smith? Same for Butt? 120k is 4 well paid young players. Thats before using the additional revenue.

I was going to say that, its a massive income stream too.

Or it could be to do with gaining promotion and then letting it be known the next day what the general plan is for next season. Nah, i doubt that but why not? I'd be calling them idiots if they didnt, as long as they do intend to spend in that region then they should be letting it be known. I know many people cant see them spending 20m but i cant see them not spending around that amount.

Whether it adds up to 60m or 50m is not that important. The basic 40m is established as a minimum uplift in revenue. The figure could reach 60m according to that accountant on ssn the other day through additional tv, merchandising, ticket sales, cup runs etc. The club (not Ashley) now has money to spend, which it didn't have before.

Smith, Butt, Pancate and Ranger out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/ap...e-chris-hughton

Un puddle a la oeuf sans hat Day off work for me today.

If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no use for tinkers.

Very fitting victory, done in the manner we gained promotion. We will need to change our approach to games completely next season if we want to take points.

Just pm'ed you a few options.