Baggio

Part of that is signing a smaller sponsorship deal with Northern Rock while we were in the Championship, not that it affected us in a negative way as we hadn't seen any of the old sponsorship money in years anyway as it was all spent up front, now though we've got a nice new deal with Virgin money which will boost our commercial side significantly next year. We also have to take into account that we've got a smaller gate revenue thanks to having a large family enclosure with cheap tickets, whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate but I wouldn't knock them for offering better deals to get kids in. That will cost £2m max if that, and fair enough you can't slag them for that. However our commercial activities are a drop in the ocean compared to Tottenham, drop in the ocean and no one can sit there and say they are a much bigger club than us, they're not. Tottenham are ran properly, they're well marketed, we probably haven't even got a marketing department. You can't argue with with the way Levy has gone about things, he's been excellent in turning them around. The advantage they do have over us is location when it comes to things like corporate hospitality, they also do well with merchandise which is down to them releasing 3 kits most seasons. I think the biggest thing for them compared to us is that their fans have bought into their UEFA cup campaigns, so it's the extra games where they really pull the money in compared to us. It will be interesting to see how much the Virgin deal is worth (telegraph say £10m per season but that sounds high to me) because that along with our increase in tv money for a higher finish than last year should see us pull away from the clubs you mentioned earlier.

Yeah, I got that totally wrong But you got to the nub of it... Of course, everyone in the world of football seems to be concerned with debt these days, so most attention is inevitably focused on this part of the balance sheet. Aston Villa’s reported net debt has increased by 18% from £72.3m to £85.2m, though this would be nearly £100m if the post balance sheet loan notes of £12.5m were included. The net debt as at 31 May 2009 comprises £84.5m loan notes and £9.2m of bank loans and overdrafts less £8.5m cash. Although the debt is getting larger, it still looks reasonable compared to Manchester United, as it’s much lower (£100m vs £716m) and, in stark contrast to the Glazers, is financed from Lerner’s own company, rather than banks. However, it is high compared to most other clubs in the Premier League. According to The Times review, only four clubs have more debt than Villa: obviously Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal, but also (worrying drum roll) Portsmouth. The interest charged on the debt is at a standard rate of LIBOR plus 2%, which is currently very low at below 3%, but it should be noted that if LIBOR rose to 5%, then the club would have to pay 7%. The accounts report £5.7m interest payable, including £4.5m on the loan notes (which goes to Lerner) and £0.8m on bank loans. This may not seem much, but it does represent about 5% of revenue. If that is added to Reform Acquisition Limited’s £7.7m management fees, then you could argue that Lerner took out nearly 15% of revenue, which would be excessive if repeated every year. So Lerner’s approach is rather more hard-nosed than has been reported in the media. This is not necessarily a bad thing, even though some clubs are lucky enough to have owners who do not charge interest on their loans (Stoke City and Fulham, to name but two). All I am saying here is that Lerner is not quite the saint that some Villa fans would seem to believe. I'd love to see the fuckers go down. Apparently he hasn't been to Villa park all season, I think he's definitely losing interest in them which is why he's attempting to downscale after an initial spending spree.

Part of that is signing a smaller sponsorship deal with Northern Rock while we were in the Championship, not that it affected us in a negative way as we hadn't seen any of the old sponsorship money in years anyway as it was all spent up front, now though we've got a nice new deal with Virgin money which will boost our commercial side significantly next year. We also have to take into account that we've got a smaller gate revenue thanks to having a large family enclosure with cheap tickets, whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate but I wouldn't knock them for offering better deals to get kids in.

Wolves caretaker boss Terry Connor today revealed he has been told to get the team ready for Saturday’s clash at Newcastle with a view to him being in charge for the game. The club is now prepared for its search for a new manager to drag on beyond the weekend if necessary. Read more: http://www.expressan.../#ixzz1n0xjIVln

With the foundations now in place I fully expect us to stay in the top 10 every year from now on, if we fall out of it then they will be rightly criticised.

People can do what they like with their money but ultimately the club will only be as big as the fans make it, if they don't want to put the cash in then fair enough but it seems daft to complain about it if you were condoning the boycoutt in the first place. His biggest mistake was putting the club on the market after the protests and basically leaving the club to get on with it which for me caused our relegation, since taking the club off the market and attempting to turn it around I don't think there's much to fault tbh.

Not sure why that deserves a laugh tbh. Alienating your entire fan base so much that the majority refuse to buy your product is very much mismanagement surely? People were pointing out that it would be the club that would suffer financially when fanzines and supporters clubs were telling fans to boycoutt club shops and confectioneries, so it seems daft to complain about it now now it's actually happened.

Good post Chez, I see us getting £40 million for last seasons tv money as Sunderland picked up £39m for coming 13th and Bolton £38m for coming 14th the year before, so perhaps the rise is a boost in commercial activities with being back in the Premiership. The good news is this year we will be looking at another £6m for our league position plus as you say the Virgin sponsorship deal, then hopefully the following year we can boost it even further if we get Europe (Fulham made £12m from it) It's also worth pointing out that while Villa and Sunderland have made improvements in closing the gap in regards to turnover, we're expecting to break even while they made losses of £38m and £28m respectively.

Don't remember backing Ramos although he was highly rated before he went to Spurs, which sort of goes hand in hand with Toonpacks point about needing luck. I think it was Comolli who was the DOF that brought him in, that's the same guy who's in charge of Liverpool's transfer policy that you're singing the praises of in the Carroll thread. I'm guessing you didn't realise that.

They've actually spent more than they earn. It's not the method, it's what you do with it, that,s why I said Spurs spent well, oh and probably the most important thing is striking it lucky with a manager Not sure if that's a joke. Lucky that they were a more attractive opportunity to Redknapp than we were? Fortunate to stumble on Jol where Ashley headhunted Kinnear? Lucky that they are in commuting distance from Sandbanks. Not as fortunate as us with Pardew when they appointed Santini and Ramos.

I don't remember anyone saying "anybody would be better than Fred" j bollocks Link?

Well if rumours are to be believed it will be one of Douglas from FC Twente or Montpellier captain Yanga-M'Biwa, can't say I'm that familiar with either however I trust our scouting network to bring in the quality we need judging by recent signings.

I don't remember anyone saying "anybody would be better than Fred" just more of a realisation that he had made huge mistakes that he would have struggled to get the club out of, like it or not Ashley has turned it around, even if he has had to make some unpopular decisions on the way. We know to score when it comes to our squad, if we get a ridiculous offer or a player wants out then we will move them on.

I think Pardew will start Guthrie in the middle with Tiote.

Here's a good table of Spurs finances to see what departments they've boosted income in over a period of years. It's their wage bill that amazes me, keeping it that low with the quality of player is a fantastic achievement. Their boost in turnover from 2007 to 2010 is pretty much all sky money.

I don't think it's as simple as getting it for them doing well as their sponsorship at the time dwarfed the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool who were far more successful, from what I remember Mansion were trying to sponsor Man Utd but when then fell through they paid massively over the odds to sponsor Spurs.

Big difference between a gap of £16m and a gap of £74m. We haven't even got a proper commercial department anymore. I guarantee if Freddie Fletcher (not FFS) was brought in to NUFC and allowed to run the business side, our turnover would be over £120m. They're clueless arseholes, for a clubs turnover to go down from 8 years ago is chronic mismanagement at the highest level. What do you think he would do to get it over £120 million? The only way I can see us getting up near that is with a huge sponsorship deal which we couldn't have had straight away as we were tied in with Northern Rock, we signed a new one while we were relegated which wasn't worth a lot but we will have to see what this new one with Virgin brings in. The biggest boost for Spurs between 2007 and 2010 is from broadcasting which we should get a fair lump of for this season too. I see our figures in the same way as I see how we've gone about getting to where we are now, we took a step backwards while we swept the decks and now we're in a position to move forward, I fully expect the figures to push over the £100 million mark from next year.

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field? £28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales. £50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales. http://www.soccerbas...mTabs=transfers A mixture of a huge sponsorship deal, qualifying for the Uefa cup which their fans got behind and a boost in sky revenue.

The obvious difference is that that figure includes Spurs run in the Champions League which made a huge difference to their income, the year before they brought in £119m. I think with our predicted league finish this year plus the Virgin deal we will clear £100 million comfortably, then if we get Europe too that will be another income boost for the following year. Have you got the figures from the 2006/07 season for both teams, which was Shepherds last season? Nope the CL revenue was worth £15m the major difference was the increase in the Sky deal. Tottenham £93.1m (Levy) Newcastle £87.1m (FFS) I've just had a look and it was £103.1m for the 2007 accounts, so they were well on there way to pulling away from us. Their Champions League run brought in £37.1 million according to their accounts, gate receipts up £300k, media up £2.5m, sponsorship up £6m and merchandise up £1.8m from the £119m they brought in the year before.

The obvious difference is that that figure includes Spurs run in the Champions League which made a huge difference to their income, the year before they brought in £119m. I think with our predicted league finish this year plus the Virgin deal we will clear £100 million comfortably, then if we get Europe too that will be another income boost for the following year. Have you got the figures from the 2006/07 season for both teams, which was Shepherds last season?

I think with the financial fair play rules coming in as well as the government demanding clubs sort their finances out things should change in our favour as long as they're both enforced properly, it couldn't have come at a better time for us as in terms of the financial side of things we're where a lot of clubs will want to be so it's a good head start. Mike Ashley running the club on a different footing has fuck all to do with any "financial brain anticipating the future" either, its quite simply that he decided long ago to run the club as a vehicle to sit alongside his sports company and preserve premiership status with as small an outlay as possible. If he doesn't make an operational profit, he'll get it by selling a top player. This is what I've said for nearly 5 years now, and people are still bickering on about it and insisting differently. It's as obvious as the nose on your face, a decent season and maybe even 1 qualification for the Europa Cup isn't going to change that, because it is selling your best players and replacing with cheaper is not sustainable, the luck will run out and the policy will be obvious to everybody - although they won't admit it. As if they should need to be told any more, fooled by a decent run of results. This is as sad and stupid as it gets. Pretty sure he done it as what he bought was a club that couldn't sustain itself with how it was currently operating. Now we're on a much more solid financial footing as well as having a better squad than what he was left with, yet that means we've gone backwards.

Spurs run the club as a business too tbf, it's just the current lot are much better at it than Sugar was. They've generated healthy profits which they've used to improve the team, even if they have made a healthy profit in the transfer window this season.

If we didn't genuinely want anyone better than Perch or Williamson, that's worrying. It could be that we're aiming for a CB of Colo's level and our target wasn't available in January. Pardew identified CB as an area of concern so it's safe to say that the club will have looked at the possibility of signing someone but for whatever reason the deal didn't happen. I think that's how it was too, he even said about Mariappa that if he doesn't come now then that's it as we won't be in for him in the summer. I'm happy for them to wait to get who they want even if it is a risk, a short term loan until the end of the season would have been ideal.

I think with the financial fair play rules coming in as well as the government demanding clubs sort their finances out things should change in our favour as long as they're both enforced properly, it couldn't have come at a better time for us as in terms of the financial side of things we're where a lot of clubs will want to be so it's a good head start.

http://icnewcastle.i...-name_page.html Robson sacking was too late Sep 19 2004 By Neil Farrington, Sunday Sun "I am 72 now - the same age as Bobby - and I suppose there comes a time when a lot of us really have to look how far we're going on. "Listening to all the fans, my realisation was that it was a watershed. There was a lot of criticism. I had to stand and agree with them and I had to say, basically, there was something wrong. There's got to be change." Sir John stressed that as he was no longer on the Newcastle United board they were his personal views, and that he was fully behind Freddy Shepherd. He says: "It was a very difficult decision to make. I would guess that the board thought this particular season Newcastle would finish fourth and get into the Champions League. But we had a poor start to the season. "The problems in the dressing room seemed to continue through into the season and I can understand Freddy Shepherd, the chairman's decision. "It was the right decision, to my mind, and I'm standing by him. "Probably the only thing to be criticised was the timing. "It might have been better if Bobby had taken an ambassadorial role at the end of last season."