This debt lark.

[Park Life 70]

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.

 

This is my contention, if MA was serious about investing in the first team all these figures would have been juggled/massaged etc...Instead of being used at this time as a great big (somewhat reasonable) excuse not to spend.

[Toonpack 6874]

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

 

Since the Bowyer summer, I've never felt like that tbh I'm far from convinced Ashley has "got it right" BUT I don't honestly think it's any worse than it was, we've flirted with the bottom for years now.

 

In fact IF he can ship out the worthless £60K+ merchants (Duff/Geremi etc) and we do get some tryers in, it can't be much worse. Of course whether he gets anyone in is the question. I don't necesarily have a problem with the financial model he's trying to put in, just a shame we're doing it from a point of extreme weakness.

 

For how many years have we, the fans, been debating, all over the place, the need for full-backs, midfielders etc etc

 

Lately the ONLY way we could attract players was by shelling out a wage way over what anyone else could (or would) and it hasn't got us very far.

[spongebob toonpants 3606]

If Ashley was serious about movingthe club forward he would be looking to generate more income and develope the commercial side of the club.

Credit crunch or not if he wanted to get his hands on a few million quid for the short term, whilst the long term plans are put into place, he would be able to do it.

 

However his business record shows he is not about deveopment he is about buying companies and stripping them down for a profit. He doesnt do long term thinking. There is no plan - this is what is wil be happeningfrom now on - nothing

[NJS 3985]

If Ashley was serious about movingthe club forward he would be looking to generate more income and develope the commercial side of the club.

Credit crunch or not if he wanted to get his hands on a few million quid for the short term, whilst the long term plans are put into place, he would be able to do it.

 

Good point.

 

I think in all of the slagging of Shepherd in the context on the finances, I'd say in his defence that I presume his next cunning plan, rather than just new loans, was to generate income from the redevlopment of the Metro/Brewery scheme. I'm not sure if it would be feasible now but if Ashley had pushed this forward in 2007 it could have worked.

 

The alternative which I expected was to make the football side the priority via investment which being honest, it looked as if that was going okay until the end of August.

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

I think that is pretty much bang on to be honest. And probably quite right too. Its easy to say we should have gone out and ironically, spent money we didn;t have with the blessing of supporters who later said we shouldn't spend money we didn't have, but quite simply, we were 1-0 up after the away leg and should have beaten Partizan. Or even drew....or won the shoot out, at home.

Edited January 28, 2009 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 6874]

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.

 

I think that is pretty much bang on to be honest. And probably quite right too. Its easy to say we should have gone out and ironically, spent money we didn;t have with the blessing of supporters who later said we shouldn't spend money we didn't have, but quite simply, we were 1-0 up after the away leg and should have beaten Partizan. Or even drew....or won the shoot out, at home.

 

I don't disagree with Alex's point at all (a well made point). BUT at the time we were big time charlies (alledgedly) and we had no real inkling at all we were skint, it was the following circumstances that showed the cracks. The issue is, "all of a sudden we were broke" and that's where this downward spiral started, regretably we don't appear to have bottomed out yet.

 

YES we should have beaten Partizan, but in that summer if there was ever a time to "stretch or gamble on the finances" that was the one - you aren't going far with Aaron Hughes as your centre back (or penalty taker for that matter) !!.

 

The point is spot on regarding the likely lesser effect of missing the CL to other clubs and why's that ??. The decision to excercise of financial prudence because we were skint is a fair one BUT how come we were skint at that time given our relative levels of achievement, that one's down to Leazes' mate

 

BTW Leazes the bold bit - isn't that exactly what Ashleys getting hammered for just now ?????

Edited January 28, 2009 by Toonpack

[Fop 1]

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.

 

This is my contention, if MA was serious about investing in the first team all these figures would have been juggled/massaged etc...Instead of being used at this time as a great big (somewhat reasonable) excuse not to spend.

 

I reckon those accounts are so relaxed they are in a coma.

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

I think that is pretty much bang on to be honest. And probably quite right too. Its easy to say we should have gone out and ironically, spent money we didn;t have with the blessing of supporters who later said we shouldn't spend money we didn't have, but quite simply, we were 1-0 up after the away leg and should have beaten Partizan. Or even drew....or won the shoot out, at home.

 

I don't disagree with Alex's point at all (a well made point). BUT at the time we were big time charlies (alledgedly) and we had no real inkling at all we were skint, it was the following circumstances that showed the cracks. The issue is, "all of a sudden we were broke" and that's where this downward spiral started, regretably we don't appear to have bottomed out yet.

 

YES we should have beaten Partizan, but in that summer if there was ever a time to "stretch or gamble on the finances" that was the one - you aren't going far with Aaron Hughes as your centre back (or penalty taker for that matter) !!.

 

The point is spot on regarding the likely lesser effect of missing the CL to other clubs and why's that ??. The decision to excercise of financial prudence because we were skint is a fair one BUT how come we were skint at that time given our relative levels of achievement, that one's down to Leazes' mate

 

BTW Leazes the bold bit - isn't that exactly what Ashleys getting hammered for just now ?????

 

if I thought for a moment that Ashley had the good of the club at heart and was temporarily calling the reigns in, in a bid to re-group and have another serious shot at the first opportunity, I wouldn't have gave him half the criticism I've gave him.

 

Its a matter of choice, I think he has chosen not to make serious ambition befitting a club of our size, and I think its impossible to be successful without laying out the big bucks like the others do. I realise that Chelsea under Abramovic, Man City under the Arabs, and Manu for their global appeal and support are a different ball game, but I just can't accept that we shouldn't be giving it a decent shot at matching the others and doing the best we can to compete with those other 3, just like Liverpool and Arsenal have done, who also both have huge debts by the way, bigger than us ?

 

The lack of action to get away from the foot of the table, after the summer we had, and the money that has came in from ticket sales, other revenue but particularly transfers if you say such money should be given back to the manager (at least), then it is just staggering that they are now putting the whole future on the line like this.

 

The comment "Leazes' mate" is a cheap shot though toonpack, I've only recognised that the old board did very well and despite their mistakes which everybody makes, they would not be sitting on their arses doing nothing in the current situation, debt or no debt.

Edited January 28, 2009 by LeazesMag

[Scottish Mag 3]

Alot of people talk about the summer we only brought in Bowyer but tbh Bobby (as much as I hate to criticise him) spent the best part of 15 million the year before on Bramble and Viana both of whom spent alot of time on the bench. Whilst we had finished in the top4 surely any money that was spent should have went on players who were going to automatically walk in to the team and improve us...

 

Its actually quite scary to think what a difference two players, Robert and Bellamy, made to the side when you take into account some of the average players and bad buys we made. Cheers Souness...

[peasepud 59]

The comment "Leazes' mate" is a cheap shot though toonpack, I've only recognised that the old board did very well and despite their mistakes which everybody makes, they would not be sitting on their arses doing nothing in the current situation, debt or no debt.

 

Thats the difference between Ashley and Shepherd (and Im no Shepherd sympathiser), FFS would have been shifting his arse to get us sorted out, another big name manager (who tbf would have probably failed miserably) and some signings. Fatty Ashleys answer is to sell everything (and I mean everything from players to fittings) to reign in some cash and make us a going concern rather than a going places team.

[Park Life 70]

Alot of people talk about the summer we only brought in Bowyer but tbh Bobby (as much as I hate to criticise him) spent the best part of 15 million the year before on Bramble and Viana both of whom spent alot of time on the bench. Whilst we had finished in the top4 surely any money that was spent should have went on players who were going to automatically walk in to the team and improve us...

 

Its actually quite scary to think what a difference two players, Robert and Bellamy, made to the side when you take into account some of the average players and bad buys we made. Cheers Souness...

 

We should be looking for two like these always, that should be the baseline at all times. Two or three dangerous players can make a five position league difference.

 

Last summer we (MA) missed the boat and then he jumped in the river and drowned himself when he allowed KK to leave.