This debt lark.

[Park Life 70]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is fucking with you.

[trophyshy 6441]

at least he's only got a micro-cock.

[Park Life 70]

at least he's only got a micro-cock.

 

 

Thought he was a playa. Balls the size of Bambi imho.

[LeazesMag 0]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is fucking with you.

 

well, according to one or two cocks like baggy, thats not true, we are the only club with debts and have been badly run in recent years.

[Park Life 70]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is fucking with you.

 

well, according to one or two cocks like baggy, thats not true, we are the only club with debts and have been badly run in recent years.

 

Ashley ain't got what it takes to play with the big boys. End of story. You need vision and balls, he's got neither.

[trophyshy 6441]

YOU NEED X-RAY BALLS!

[Park Life 70]

YOU NEED X-RAY BALLS!

 

He needs DPing.

[trophyshy 6441]

two up the pumper?

 

Even Beresford balked!

[Park Life 70]

So basically drastically changing the way the club works and seriously affecting its ability to compete over a short period of time is silly.

[Toonpack 6985]

Not a defence of Ashley per se, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when some of those debt terms run out and they need re-financing.

 

Liverpool have already had to get a 6 month extension as they couldn't sort it out by the original deadline, they're with RBS though so can't see a UK bank pulling the plug on an "institution", but some of the rest, who can say.

 

If major players in finance and insurance can go down (as they have), a foreign bank pulling the plug on a football team is not inconceivable (if it's got assets)

[snakehips 0]

As my mother used to say, even the devil can quote the scriptures. These accounts prove nowt, it seems, with all parties being able to put their own slant on the situation.

 

I'll just dance thank you, as I haven't got a Scooby.

 

[Park Life 70]

Not a defence of Ashley per se, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when some of those debt terms run out and they need re-financing.

 

Liverpool have already had to get a 6 month extension as they couldn't sort it out by the original deadline, they're with RBS though so can't see a UK bank pulling the plug on an "institution", but some of the rest, who can say.

 

If major players in finance and insurance can go down (as they have), a foreign bank pulling the plug on a football team is not inconceivable (if it's got assets)

 

Capitalism has survived by continually borrowing from the future.

[Park Life 70]

As my mother used to say, even the devil can quote the scriptures. These accounts prove nowt, it seems, with all parties being able to put their own slant on the situation.

 

I'll just dance thank you, as I haven't got a Scooby.

 

 

One thing is clear to me comparing us to other clubs inc Everton, 80% of the PL has massive issues with player wages. Everton, everyones idea of a steady ship couldn't cover player wages with income. FACT.

[Toonpack 6985]

Not a defence of Ashley per se, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when some of those debt terms run out and they need re-financing.

 

Liverpool have already had to get a 6 month extension as they couldn't sort it out by the original deadline, they're with RBS though so can't see a UK bank pulling the plug on an "institution", but some of the rest, who can say.

 

If major players in finance and insurance can go down (as they have), a foreign bank pulling the plug on a football team is not inconceivable (if it's got assets)

 

Capitalism has survived by continually borrowing from the future.

 

True, but capitalism is trying to recover from a serious kick in the nads just now and borrowing isn't exactly easy at the minute, even banks won't lend each other money.

 

For all there's huge debt in the Prem League and that is apparently seen as OK, that will all be within existing banking arrangements/agreements, it's the renewal of banking facilities that'll be interesting to see.

[Park Life 70]

Freddy Shepherd says he would have battled Ashley takeover bid

Jan 28 2009 By Dan Warburton

OUSTED Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd claims only illness prevented him battling the takeover bid for the club.

Current owner Mike Ashley clinched Newcastle United in a bold Summer buy-out more than 18 months ago.

However Shepherd claims he lost control of the Tyneside outfit while being treated in hospital for pneumonia and a collapsed lung.

The 66-year-old also claims had he not been ill he wishes he had fought the take over bid.

But after more than a year away from St James’s Park, the flamboyant entrepreneur says he wouldn’t buy the club back after witnessing its decline.

In an interview with the BBC’s Inside Out programme, he said: “If I'd been fit I would certainly have taken Mike Ashley on - money wasn't a problem.

“It's difficult to watch something we built up over 15 years.

“We took it from nearly going into the Third Division to getting into the Champions League with a great ground and great training facilities.

“I am the last one that wants to see anything happening to it.”

In 2007 Ashley bought the Hall family shares for £55m, before Shepherd agreed to sell his stake in the club for £38m.

Before that, Shepherd was one of the key shareholders - along with the Hall family - who had effective control of the club.

But Shepherd claims he lost control when a deal was wagered while he was ill in hospital.

He also claims that while he knew Sir John Hall and his family were keen to sell their shares, he was unaware business tycoon Ashley was planning a takeover.

Mr Shepherd said: “I wasn’t consulted. John had done the deal. When I came out of the operating theatre there was a request for me to sign the document and for John to sell the shares.

“It was really a formality. That’s business.”

Shepherd also waded into the row over the possible departure of star striker Michael Owen during the Summer.

The 29-year-old’s contract expires at the end of the current season, and Shepherd says he owes the club another year having missed so many games through injury.

Shepherd said: “He has had 100% money - but he has only played 30% of the games.”

[Toonpack 6985]

Freddy Shepherd says he would have battled Ashley takeover bid

Jan 28 2009 By Dan Warburton

OUSTED Newcastle United chairman Freddy Shepherd claims only illness prevented him battling the takeover bid for the club.

Current owner Mike Ashley clinched Newcastle United in a bold Summer buy-out more than 18 months ago.

However Shepherd claims he lost control of the Tyneside outfit while being treated in hospital for pneumonia and a collapsed lung.

The 66-year-old also claims had he not been ill he wishes he had fought the take over bid.

But after more than a year away from St James’s Park, the flamboyant entrepreneur says he wouldn’t buy the club back after witnessing its decline.

In an interview with the BBC’s Inside Out programme, he said: “If I'd been fit I would certainly have taken Mike Ashley on - money wasn't a problem.

“It's difficult to watch something we built up over 15 years.

“We took it from nearly going into the Third Division to getting into the Champions League with a great ground and great training facilities.

“I am the last one that wants to see anything happening to it.”

In 2007 Ashley bought the Hall family shares for £55m, before Shepherd agreed to sell his stake in the club for £38m.

Before that, Shepherd was one of the key shareholders - along with the Hall family - who had effective control of the club.

But Shepherd claims he lost control when a deal was wagered while he was ill in hospital.

He also claims that while he knew Sir John Hall and his family were keen to sell their shares, he was unaware business tycoon Ashley was planning a takeover.

Mr Shepherd said: “I wasn’t consulted. John had done the deal. When I came out of the operating theatre there was a request for me to sign the document and for John to sell the shares.

“It was really a formality. That’s business.”

Shepherd also waded into the row over the possible departure of star striker Michael Owen during the Summer.

The 29-year-old’s contract expires at the end of the current season, and Shepherd says he owes the club another year having missed so many games through injury.

Shepherd said: “He has had 100% money - but he has only played 30% of the games.”

 

We'd have been just as badly off, if not worse off under that useless git.

 

We've been stumbling around the crap zone for the last 5 years or so and he presided over the fall much more than he presided over the ascent, despite what Leazes may say.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Toonpack

[Happy Face 29]

Shepherd said: “He has had 100% money - but he has only played 30% of the games.”

 

Newcastle have only paid for 30% of the games tbf.

[Guest alex]

Not quite like, although it isn't as cut and dried as Shepherd makes it. NUFC were 'only' compensated for the wages following his injury at the World Cup. He had the long lay off prior to that and several short periods on the sidelines. He's owes us fuck all like, imo, irrespective of all that.

[johnny tightlips 0]

Not a defence of Ashley per se, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when some of those debt terms run out and they need re-financing.

 

Liverpool have already had to get a 6 month extension as they couldn't sort it out by the original deadline, they're with RBS though so can't see a UK bank pulling the plug on an "institution", but some of the rest, who can say.

 

If major players in finance and insurance can go down (as they have), a foreign bank pulling the plug on a football team is not inconceivable (if it's got assets)/quote]

This is my new comfort blanket. I've finally accepting that we are not a decent manager and two good signings away from competing at the top again but that Ashley has created a time machine and shipped us back to the 70's - long term mediocrity, best players want out, bobbong around midtable at best and nothing to look forward to after January. The faint hope is that he stabilises our finances before the shit hits the fan for football

Edited January 28, 2009 by johnny tightlips

[Toonpack 6985]

Not a defence of Ashley per se, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when some of those debt terms run out and they need re-financing.

 

Liverpool have already had to get a 6 month extension as they couldn't sort it out by the original deadline, they're with RBS though so can't see a UK bank pulling the plug on an "institution", but some of the rest, who can say.

 

If major players in finance and insurance can go down (as they have), a foreign bank pulling the plug on a football team is not inconceivable (if it's got assets)

 

This is my new comfort blanket. I've finally accepting that we are not a decent manager and two good signings away from competing at the top again but that Ashley has created a time machine and shipped us back to the 70's - long term mediocrity, best players want out, bobbong around midtable at best and nothing to look forward to after January. The faint hope is that he stabilises our finances before the shit hits the fan for football

 

He hasn't done that (yet!!) all he's done is maintained the position/trend Shepherd had us in (albeit fiscally better off - sort of) What he hasn't done is moved us forward or arrested the slide, and THAT is his crime.

 

I seriously doubt that the Owen or Given situations would be much different if FFS was still at the helm, we wouldn't be doing a Villa, that's for sure.

 

I am equally sure we wouldn't have any money to spend, the biggest mistake the custodians of the club have made in recent times was not strengthening in the "Bowyer Summer", been downhill since.

[Guest alex]

Tbf, re: the oft-mentioned Bowyer summer, the board took a chance and bought Woodgate in the January and that (arguably) got us into the CL. And the side we had should have comfortably got us past Partizan Belgrade but they bottled it at home. That performance, as much the inactivity of the board that summer, was what was so costly. Still a 'blip' like that shouldn't have been anywhere near as costly as it was.

[Toonpack 6985]

Tbf, re: the oft-mentioned Bowyer summer, the board took a chance and bought Woodgate in the January and that (arguably) got us into the CL. And the side we had should have comfortably got us past Partizan Belgrade but they bottled it at home. That performance, as much the inactivity of the board that summer, was what was so costly. Still a 'blip' like that shouldn't have been anywhere near as costly as it was.

 

Can't agree with the team being "ok", it should have been OK to get into the competition proper i.e. past Belgrade BUT we should have been building for more than that.

 

That summer was the first evidence we were skint IMO and that made it more than a blip IMO

[Guest alex]

Tbf, re: the oft-mentioned Bowyer summer, the board took a chance and bought Woodgate in the January and that (arguably) got us into the CL. And the side we had should have comfortably got us past Partizan Belgrade but they bottled it at home. That performance, as much the inactivity of the board that summer, was what was so costly. Still a 'blip' like that shouldn't have been anywhere near as costly as it was.

 

Can't agree with the team being "ok", it should have been OK to get into the competition proper i.e. past Belgrade BUT we should have been building for more than that.

 

That summer was the first evidence we were skint IMO and that made it more than a blip IMO

What I meant was, one bad result would never have had the same impact on a club that was run better (or it shouldn't have had). I can't see it having that effect on teams we were competing with at the time, i.e. the likes of Liverpool.

The team had just finished 3rd as well, so it was alright. It might have needed freshening up a bit but it's conceivable the board were waiting to make sure we got into the CL proper. A gamble perhaps but a bigger gamble would have been spending before that money was guaranteed as a new signing may well have made no difference against Belgrade.

And surely if we were skint, as you assert, spending more money would have been a bad thing (at least until we knew we were in the CL).

That's not a defence of the old regime per se but I think it's a fair argument that they were exercising some financial prudence for once at that particular time.

Edited January 28, 2009 by alex

[johnny tightlips 0]

Not a defence of Ashley per se, but it'll be interesting to see what happens when some of those debt terms run out and they need re-financing.

 

Liverpool have already had to get a 6 month extension as they couldn't sort it out by the original deadline, they're with RBS though so can't see a UK bank pulling the plug on an "institution", but some of the rest, who can say.

 

If major players in finance and insurance can go down (as they have), a foreign bank pulling the plug on a football team is not inconceivable (if it's got assets)

 

This is my new comfort blanket. I've finally accepting that we are not a decent manager and two good signings away from competing at the top again but that Ashley has created a time machine and shipped us back to the 70's - long term mediocrity, best players want out, bobbong around midtable at best and nothing to look forward to after January. The faint hope is that he stabilises our finances before the shit hits the fan for football

 

He hasn't done that (yet!!) all he's done is maintained the position/trend Shepherd had us in (albeit fiscally better off - sort of) What he hasn't done is moved us forward or arrested the slide, and THAT is his crime.

 

I seriously doubt that the Owen or Given situations would be much different if FFS was still at the helm, we wouldn't be doing a Villa, that's for sure.

 

I am equally sure we wouldn't have any money to spend, the biggest mistake the custodians of the club have made in recent times was not strengthening in the "Bowyer Summer", been downhill since.

Its a heart thing rather than a head thing. Over the last few years its always felt like we could pull something out of the hat, some good signings, class manager, long term run of form. Suddenly, for me at least, it doesn't. it feels like the 70s and 80s. Nobody expects anything spectacular anytime soon. Maybe Ashley has got it right, by good luck or by good planning, and we will be fairly secure while the bottom drops out of a few other clubs. Its just not the sort of approach that gets the fans excited

[The messenger 0]

It's a bit misleading calling it down as debt without explaining further though. Surely a lot of those numbers can easily be cancelled out if the respective owners choose to do so. It's all about making money and sometimes juggling values around is more beneficial.