Mike Ashley plans to remain Newcastle owner for at least two more years

[Happy Face 29]

HF has the figures and has talked about them here before but even by the clubs own admittance we're in the crap.

 

Im sure Llambias has talked glowingly about how Sir Mike has pumped in something like £120-130m in loans to the club. When he took over there was something in the region of £70-£80m in debts (including the stadium mortgage).

 

Does this mean you have nothing to backup your statement!?

 

The growing debt....

 

In summary what Shepherd left was a club that was losing over £30m a year, had

debts of £70m

, had no assets they could borrow more money against, and had a set of players on long, lucrative contracts -

nufc-finances.org.uk/

 

"This club had

£100million-worth of debt

which has now been cleared" - Chris Mort in May 2008

 

"I then poured another

£110 million into the club

not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees."

- BBC

 

"I

have invested £250m

to try and make it happen" -

Telegraph

 

"Since the beginning of the season, he has pumped

£25.5m

into this football club and this week, a

further £5m

was needed. In addition to these amounts, Mike, realising the need to bring in new faces and back his manager's request,

spent £5.5m in the January transfer window

" -

BBC

 

I don't have a clue if the debt has spiralled as much as the club claim though.

 

Obviously they are liars and they want it both ways. Either they've fixed the club and made us a viable going concern in which case they'd have to be lying about all the money they've been forced to keep putting in, or the club is insolvent which means they're lying about how well run the club has been.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[OTF 6176]

My basic maths make that a £26m per annum loss just on the money Ashley is "putting in", however the first bit is interesting, "If Mike and the banks...." so that would mean they are also hodling some debt and ongoing losses. Add in the amount made from the transfer window with the sale of the likes of Bassong etc and we must be looking at an overall deficit of say, £50m in this one year? Add that to the original debt that was there when he bought the club (the debt racked up in building us a 52k seater stadium and purchasing players) and I get it to say £120m+, thats not taking into account the debt accrued in the period between Ashley purchasing the club and this season.

 

Not being argumentative, but I really don't understand your mathematics. How does the amount made from the transfer window contribute to the defecit? I appreciate that the players could be seen as assets, but realistically they would have been invaluable assets to us in this season as the best that we could have achieved is first position and currently without their services (and wages) we sit in first position.

 

If NUFC currently losing £26m per annum it does not paint a pretty picture of the finances of the club before Ashley took over. To put that into perspective consider that the television money from the Premier League is £45million pounds and the parachute payment we would have received this season is approx £12million pounds plus we will receive well in excess of £1million pounds television money this season so the gross difference on these figures alone is £32million pounds. Hearing just that you might think that we would then make a profit of £6 million (£32m - £26m), but that is far from the case. Consider all the players that we've sold since last season.

 

Sebastian Bassong £10,000 /week (£520,000 /year)

Charles N'Zogbia £20,000 /week (£1,040,000 /year)

James Milner £20,000 /week (£1,040,000 /year)

Shay Given £40,000 /week (£2,080,000 /year)

Obafemi Martins £80,000 /week (£4,160,000 /year)

Mark Viduka £80,000 /week (£4,160,000 /year)

Damien Duff £80,000 /week (£4,160,000 /year)

Michael Owen £100,000 /week (£5,200,000 /year)

 

Total savings across 1 season from the removal of these players from the payroll is £22,360,000. Against the £6m in the green that were just a second ago we're suddenly £16.36m in the red. This of course doesn't factor in many considerations, but goes to show in simple terms just how much expenditure has been shaved off for our plight in the Championship. At any length the sale of players since last season has exceeded the figure of £26m so whilst we obviously won't receive that all upfront when theoretically balancing the book that would cover for the debt. Sure, we'll no longer have the services of those players, but realistically an exodus of players was a given from the moment we were relegated (and even before in some cases).

 

Can someone please advise what the difference in pricing has been between Premier League and Championship match tickets, as that's something that I have no idea about. The attendances have been down on last season, but not by a great deal so it would be good to see what kind of difference we're talking in £s.

 

Llambias with his proclamations about expenditure is no doubt seizing on the opportunity on the back of Portsmouth's financial demise to attempt to swing some favour the way of Ashley. As for their accuracy well that's highly debatable given that these people have admitted that they have lied to the media and the fans.

[OTF 6176]

...and by the way this statement doesn't mean much at all:

 

It is costing Mike £500,000-a-week this season to keep Newcastle running without making further cutbacks, yet some people are saying the club should be able to wipe its own mouth, that it should be able to run by itself with the income coming in.

 

So what if it's 'costing' Mike that much to keep running the club. It costs money ongoing to run any business. That half a million a week may be the outgoings without factoring in any actual income. That kind of deliberate misleading statement (without technically lying) is part and parcel of this administration.

 

If Neil runs a lawn mowing business and pays Ted and Harry £800 each per week to mow the lawns and spends £200 on equipment and another £200 on advertising then it's costing Neil £2000 pounds a week to keep his mowing business running each week without making further cutbacks. Now the business may well be bringing in $3500 in revenue across that week so Neil's net position is in the positive, but nonetheless the statement is true.

 

I'm not suggesting that Newcastle's net position each week is in the positive, just that it's ridiculous to take a statement like that and use it to conclude that the club is losing £26million pounds this year.

[NJS 3981]

The point about outgoings only is a good one - the majority of the income would be "one-off" hits like ST sales and kit launches - cash turnstile + matchday pie income will be minimal.

[peasepud 59]

I'm not suggesting that Newcastle's net position each week is in the positive, just that it's ridiculous to take a statement like that and use it to conclude that the club is losing £26million pounds this year.

 

The only way that statement is meant to be read is that Ashley is pulling 500k per week out of his pocket to cover losses (eg £700k outgoings, 200k incomings = net loss of £500k), theres nothing stupid therefore about multiplying 52 by 500k.

 

if what you're saying is that Llambias is lying to make us look in a worse position than we are then I wouldnt dispute that happening as we know just how little we can trust from them. To use it however as a reasoning why we are in a better position under Ashley than Shepherd would be madness.

 

There are other considerations to take into account as well.

 

This is the season when we renegotiated our Sponsorship and kit deals, do you think we would manage anything like the deals we did last time? A club in the Championship commands far far less in these deals than one doing well in the Prem. How therefore does that make us better off than under Shepherd? £15m from NR last time and what was it this time? 6? As for Adidas/ Puma, I dread to imagine the difference there.

 

Corporate sponsorship down (you'd be lucky if half those boxes are being used), ticket sales down, merchandising down, the list goes on and on and on.....

 

Our overdraft is upto the hilt and, although I havent got the details yet I see that there are 2 more mentions of loans from a Bank when you view Companies House, that doesnt sound like a good position to me.

 

I have yet to see any proof that this football club is financially better off than it was pre-Ashley other than random contradictory statements from the owners lackey.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

The positive side of this for me is that the "debt" is Ashleys and not various loans etc.

 

I think we are more secure owing the money to him than the banks.

 

The big danger on the horizon is that a Barry Moat comes along and takes on some of that Debt.

 

While some of the figures being bandied around seem large, in reality they are chicken feed to Ashley and will become even more insignifigant as his empire strikes back after the recession.

[peasepud 59]

The positive side of this for me is that the "debt" is Ashleys and not various loans etc.

 

I think we are more secure owing the money to him than the banks.

 

The big danger on the horizon is that a Barry Moat comes along and takes on some of that Debt.

 

While some of the figures being bandied around seem large, in reality they are chicken feed to Ashley and will become even more insignifigant as his empire strikes back after the recession.

 

How can it be more secure? one man can go bust, one gambling man at that. All it takes is another massive loss on the stock market and he could call in the debts.

 

Plus its not just him, its the banks as well.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

...and by the way this statement doesn't mean much at all:

 

It is costing Mike £500,000-a-week this season to keep Newcastle running without making further cutbacks, yet some people are saying the club should be able to wipe its own mouth, that it should be able to run by itself with the income coming in.

 

So what if it's 'costing' Mike that much to keep running the club. It costs money ongoing to run any business. That half a million a week may be the outgoings without factoring in any actual income. That kind of deliberate misleading statement (without technically lying) is part and parcel of this administration.

 

If Neil runs a lawn mowing business and pays Ted and Harry £800 each per week to mow the lawns and spends £200 on equipment and another £200 on advertising then it's costing Neil £2000 pounds a week to keep his mowing business running each week without making further cutbacks. Now the business may well be bringing in $3500 in revenue across that week so Neil's net position is in the positive, but nonetheless the statement is true.

 

I'm not suggesting that Newcastle's net position each week is in the positive, just that it's ridiculous to take a statement like that and use it to conclude that the club is losing £26million pounds this year.

 

Why does Neil pay out in Pounds but only accepts payment in dollars, seems a strange way to operate that mind, is there something sinister going on?

[ewerk 26394]

The positive side of this for me is that the "debt" is Ashleys and not various loans etc.

 

I think we are more secure owing the money to him than the banks.

 

The big danger on the horizon is that a Barry Moat comes along and takes on some of that Debt.

 

While some of the figures being bandied around seem large, in reality they are chicken feed to Ashley and will become even more insignifigant as his empire strikes back after the recession.

 

In the last Times Rich List he was estimated as being worth around £700m, the money he has invested in the club isn't exactly 'chicken feed', it's quite a percentage of his overall wealth.

[Renton 17799]

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=710372

 

I shit on spaccadacca.

 

 

Happy, is that Johny Dekka as your avatar?? if so, inspired choice my friend!!

 

 

It is

 

Seconded, just said the same on another thread (now deleted). Mind, he's a North Shields legend, not South Shields. Get your own mad as a box of frogs hobo please.

 

Edit: apparently not deleted!

Edited March 8, 2010 by Renton

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=710372

 

I shit on spaccadacca.

 

 

Happy, is that Johny Dekka as your avatar?? if so, inspired choice my friend!!

 

 

It is

 

Seconded, just said the same on another thread (now deleted). Mind, he's a North Shields legend, not South Shields. Get your own mad as a box of frogs hobo please.

 

Edit: apparently not deleted!

 

I'm living between the two areas now so I can claim image rights on Decka.

 

I would have a picture of Billy Meths, Cowboy or Paddy though, but Stevie wouldn't approve of any 'mackem' tramps (and I couldn't find pictures).

[OTF 6176]

How can it be more secure? one man can go bust, one gambling man at that. All it takes is another massive loss on the stock market and he could call in the debts.

 

Can he actually call in the debts whilst he owns the club? I assume any such manouvre would involve the club going into receivership which is not a good move for Ashley to make whatever way you look at it. Otherwise he would have to sell the club to be able to call in any debt. With any potential buyers (who aren't Mike Ashley) sure to perform due dilligence there would be no way that the club could be sold if the levels of debt that Happy Feet has calculated actually exist. If this is the case it leaves Ashley in a position where the only thing that he can do is attempt to redress the shortfall in revenue against outgoings in order to make the club profitable. Once it's profitable it would be in a better position to sell, but only once the profit has been ploughed back into the club/the debters in order to improve the total financial position.

 

If we're losing 26million pounds this year, then we were in the red in previous years. I'm not suggesting we're in a better position with Ashley but more-so that we're in an equally shit position. Shepherd was hush hush regarding financial matters so it's tough to properly gauge the financial position of the club when it was sold. All we have to go by is what has come out of Ashley's PR machine. When it comes down to it any statements that they have made have always been with a purpose - either to herald Ashley pouring money into the club to cover debt/keep things running or to give an excuse as to why players had to be sold, or why players couldn't be bought. When they know that there's no real way for any of their 'facts' to be checked they can and will say whatever the fuck they want to suit whatever their current agenda happens to be.

[Deano 0]

I can actually see MA staying on for a few years tbh.

 

We go up with a smaller wage bill, less running costs, more TV revenue, higher gates and ticket prices....he'll bit by bit reclaim money he has loaned us and we will be sold in 2014.

 

If he has infact paid off alot of our debts in an interest free loan from himself then it would actually be in the clubs best interest for him to stay and whatever profit we make paid straight to him, thus reducing our debts and slowly becoming a more saleable asset.

 

The danger is if someone did buy us out and should they not completely pay off MA then MA could recall the debts at any time and then we would be in serious shit.

[Happy Face 29]

How can it be more secure? one man can go bust, one gambling man at that. All it takes is another massive loss on the stock market and he could call in the debts.

 

Can he actually call in the debts whilst he owns the club? I assume any such manouvre would involve the club going into receivership which is not a good move for Ashley to make whatever way you look at it. Otherwise he would have to sell the club to be able to call in any debt. With any potential buyers (who aren't Mike Ashley) sure to perform due dilligence there would be no way that the club could be sold if the levels of debt that Happy Feet has calculated actually exist I never calculated those figures, it's what Ashley says. If this is the case it leaves Ashley in a position where the only thing that he can do is attempt to redress the shortfall in revenue against outgoings in order to make the club profitable. Once it's profitable it would be in a better position to sell, but only once the profit has been ploughed back into the club/the debters in order to improve the total financial position. This is exactly the point. We're a badly run club and will be for a long time yet.

 

If we're losing 26million pounds this year, then we were in the red in previous years. I'm not suggesting we're in a better position with Ashley but more-so that we're in an equally shit position. Shepherd was hush hush regarding financial matters so it's tough to properly gauge the financial position of the club when it was sold. All we have to go by is what has come out of Ashley's PR machine Not true. All the figures from then have been published and can be read at nufc-finances.org.uk there was £70m of debt and £33m losses for the season. When it comes down to it any statements that they have made have always been with a purpose - either to herald Ashley pouring money into the club to cover debt/keep things running or to give an excuse as to why players had to be sold, or why players couldn't be bought. When they know that there's no real way for any of their 'facts' to be checked they can and will say whatever the fuck they want to suit whatever their current agenda happens to be. Whatever they say can be checked when the accounts come out. The 2009 accounts are out in the next month or so

Edited March 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[OTF 6176]

It will be very interesting to see the accounts and to then weigh them up against what has been said publically. Of course depending on where and when the debt that has been 'paid' off has been allocated the figures could be grossly misleading and created in such a way to create a variety of pictures.

 

2010-2011 will undoubtedly be a better season financially for the club than was 2008-2009. The large decreases in players wages will see to that. No new players will be brought in on massive wages as the lesson has surely been learnt. In addition I'm sure that Ashley will continue to operate the backroom and rest of the club without any additional employees. For this reason I can see Ashley as being happy to merely keep our premierleague status and nothing more.

 

Financially for Ashley the best model is one where we minimise our spend whilst staying in the top league. There's not a great deal of difference in prize money and resulting additional revenue that is dependant upon placings in the league (outside the European qualifying positions that is) so for him not being relegated is all he'll be aiming for. If he can continue to keep the club in the top league on a relatively shoestring budget (compared to our previously astronomical wage bills) at the same time maintaining attendances, merchandise sales and sponsorships then he's going to obtain the best return. To maintain the attendances occassionally he's going to have to spend some cash to bring a few new faces in so that it looks like he has ambition, but no doubt this cash will come from the sale of existing players. This is why he only wants to buy young players, because he wants as many potentially saleable players on the books.

 

He's definitely stuck in a catch-22 regarding the 100m that he paid towards the debt of the club (that is now owed by the club to Ashley - but only if they're sold). Worryingly according to http://nufc-finances.org.uk/ he can claim interest on the entire amount, which he obviously has no reason to do whilst he still owns the club. That debt will continue to loom large over any potential sale meaning that unless Ashley is prepared to write off at least some of it he won't be able to sell the club.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

It will be very interesting to see the accounts and to then weigh them up against what has been said publically. Of course depending on where and when the debt that has been 'paid' off has been allocated the figures could be grossly misleading and created in such a way to create a variety of pictures.

 

2010-2011 will undoubtedly be a better season financially for the club than was 2008-2009. The large decreases in players wages will see to that. No new players will be brought in on massive wages as the lesson has surely been learnt. In addition I'm sure that Ashley will continue to operate the backroom and rest of the club without any additional employees. For this reason I can see Ashley as being happy to merely keep our premierleague status and nothing more.

 

Financially for Ashley the best model is one where we minimise our spend whilst staying in the top league. There's not a great deal of difference in prize money and resulting additional revenue that is dependant upon placings in the league (outside the European qualifying positions that is) so for him not being relegated is all he'll be aiming for. If he can continue to keep the club in the top league on a relatively shoestring budget (compared to our previously astronomical wage bills) at the same time maintaining attendances, merchandise sales and sponsorships then he's going to obtain the best return. To maintain the attendances occassionally he's going to have to spend some cash to bring a few new faces in so that it looks like he has ambition, but no doubt this cash will come from the sale of existing players. This is why he only wants to buy young players, because he wants as many potentially saleable players on the books.

 

He's definitely stuck in a catch-22 regarding the 100m that he paid towards the debt of the club (that is now owed by the club to Ashley - but only if they're sold). Worryingly according to http://nufc-finances.org.uk/ he can claim interest on the entire amount, which he obviously has no reason to do whilst he still owns the club. That debt will continue to loom large over any potential sale meaning that unless Ashley is prepared to write off at least some of it he won't be able to sell the club.

 

 

This is the same for the majority of prem clubs. As we saw last year and again this year, once you get outside the top 9 or so it is rollercoaster stuff where all season is relegation avoidance.

 

There is no money out there to buy clubs so Ashleys only solution is to build the club up both on the field and off it whether he likes it or not. The more succesful he can make it, the more chance of getting more for it when he does sell. This can only be good for Newcastle.

[Deano 0]

It will be very interesting to see the accounts and to then weigh them up against what has been said publically. Of course depending on where and when the debt that has been 'paid' off has been allocated the figures could be grossly misleading and created in such a way to create a variety of pictures.

 

2010-2011 will undoubtedly be a better season financially for the club than was 2008-2009. The large decreases in players wages will see to that. No new players will be brought in on massive wages as the lesson has surely been learnt. In addition I'm sure that Ashley will continue to operate the backroom and rest of the club without any additional employees. For this reason I can see Ashley as being happy to merely keep our premierleague status and nothing more.

 

Financially for Ashley the best model is one where we minimise our spend whilst staying in the top league. There's not a great deal of difference in prize money and resulting additional revenue that is dependant upon placings in the league (outside the European qualifying positions that is) so for him not being relegated is all he'll be aiming for. If he can continue to keep the club in the top league on a relatively shoestring budget (compared to our previously astronomical wage bills) at the same time maintaining attendances, merchandise sales and sponsorships then he's going to obtain the best return. To maintain the attendances occassionally he's going to have to spend some cash to bring a few new faces in so that it looks like he has ambition, but no doubt this cash will come from the sale of existing players. This is why he only wants to buy young players, because he wants as many potentially saleable players on the books.

 

He's definitely stuck in a catch-22 regarding the 100m that he paid towards the debt of the club (that is now owed by the club to Ashley - but only if they're sold). Worryingly according to http://nufc-finances.org.uk/ he can claim interest on the entire amount, which he obviously has no reason to do whilst he still owns the club. That debt will continue to loom large over any potential sale meaning that unless Ashley is prepared to write off at least some of it he won't be able to sell the club.

 

 

This is the same for the majority of prem clubs. As we saw last year and again this year, once you get outside the top 9 or so it is rollercoaster stuff where all season is relegation avoidance.

 

There is no money out there to buy clubs so Ashleys only solution is to build the club up both on the field and off it whether he likes it or not. The more succesful he can make it, the more chance of getting more for it when he does sell. This can only be good for Newcastle.

 

Very true.

[LeazesMag 0]

It will be very interesting to see the accounts and to then weigh them up against what has been said publically. Of course depending on where and when the debt that has been 'paid' off has been allocated the figures could be grossly misleading and created in such a way to create a variety of pictures.

 

2010-2011 will undoubtedly be a better season financially for the club than was 2008-2009. The large decreases in players wages will see to that. No new players will be brought in on massive wages as the lesson has surely been learnt. In addition I'm sure that Ashley will continue to operate the backroom and rest of the club without any additional employees. For this reason I can see Ashley as being happy to merely keep our premierleague status and nothing more.

 

Financially for Ashley the best model is one where we minimise our spend whilst staying in the top league. There's not a great deal of difference in prize money and resulting additional revenue that is dependant upon placings in the league (outside the European qualifying positions that is) so for him not being relegated is all he'll be aiming for. If he can continue to keep the club in the top league on a relatively shoestring budget (compared to our previously astronomical wage bills) at the same time maintaining attendances, merchandise sales and sponsorships then he's going to obtain the best return. To maintain the attendances occassionally he's going to have to spend some cash to bring a few new faces in so that it looks like he has ambition, but no doubt this cash will come from the sale of existing players. This is why he only wants to buy young players, because he wants as many potentially saleable players on the books.

 

He's definitely stuck in a catch-22 regarding the 100m that he paid towards the debt of the club (that is now owed by the club to Ashley - but only if they're sold). Worryingly according to http://nufc-finances.org.uk/ he can claim interest on the entire amount, which he obviously has no reason to do whilst he still owns the club. That debt will continue to loom large over any potential sale meaning that unless Ashley is prepared to write off at least some of it he won't be able to sell the club.

 

what lesson has been learnt ?

 

Most of the above is precisely what I posted a couple of years ago that most people didn't comprehend ie lower standards, less expenditure and keeping the crowds [which won't last if REAL mediocrity continues]. If Mike Ashley makes a profit, then in his eyes it is "success".

 

It is an absolute disgrace that a club like NUFC with the 2nd biggest potential fanbase in the country is lowered to such levels of ambition and even more so when supporters appear to accept it.

 

Running a football club is not like running a high street store. I have had countless disagreements with people on NO, who call themselves accountants, that could not see this. Football is about success on the pitch, not the balance sheet, this is why you support a football club. The only way to keep cash coming in is through playing in europe, at the absolute minimum. It is just not practical to be successful at these levels of football and make profits. When will people realise this ?

[Deano 0]

For me Leazes its not about accepting lower standards....its about being realistic in what we can acheive this year and next.....should we stay up next year then i imagine the majority of fans will be expecting big things the following season?

[LeazesMag 0]

For me Leazes its not about accepting lower standards....its about being realistic in what we can acheive this year and next.....should we stay up next year then i imagine the majority of fans will be expecting big things the following season?

 

what do you mean by "big things". Playing in europe ? The last time we did this, people moaned about signing "trophy players", debts, and spouted on about "being embarrassed" including booing the team when they finished 5th.

Edited March 9, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Christmas Tree 3997]

For me Leazes its not about accepting lower standards....its about being realistic in what we can acheive this year and next.....should we stay up next year then i imagine the majority of fans will be expecting big things the following season?

 

what do you mean by "big things". Playing in europe ? The last time we did this, people moaned about signing "trophy players", debts, and spouted on about "being embarrassed" including booing the team when they finished 5th.

 

 

Leazes, do you actually still enjoy being a fan? Do you go to matches?

 

I think everyone on this board knows where you are coming from but the past is the past and now is now.

 

Somebody was rattling on today about the good old days when you could go out and have your choice of jobs. Yes it was better than today buts is still gone, its history.

 

I have said many a time that the likes of me 40's will never again experience the ride that we had under Keegan. Coming for a stand point of little expectation to playing in the champions league.

 

I can harp on about those days til the cows come home but if I dont move on and live in the here and now, how could I ever enjoy being a fan again.

[Kitman 2188]

I wouldn't mind gradual improvement of the squad with a sensible amount of investment. The problem is I can foresee no spending at all on new players next year (and I've little confidence we could/find attract high calibre players on a shoestring). I just can't see either our midfield or attack cutting it in the prem. Or Hughton for that matter.

 

Failure to invest sufficiently in Jan 09 was one of the main reasons we got relegated, along with self inflicted internal issues and inept managerial appointments. I doubt they've learnt those lessons really, staying in the prem (if promoted) with our squad is going to be much harder than getting back up there imo.

 

Longer term I think Ashley's retail store mentality, the need to balance the books and the incompetent (non football) management team will hold us back unless and until they all sod off or the prem league implodes financially. I don't feel the club will move forward on the pitch during his tenure; he doesn't offer is any chance or hope of success, I agree with Leazes on that.

[OTF 6176]

what lesson has been learnt ?

 

The lesson that dictates that you can't simply throw massive wages around in order to lure players who otherwise probably wouldn't be interested in playing for the club.

 

It is an absolute disgrace that a club like NUFC with the 2nd biggest potential fanbase in the country is lowered to such levels of ambition and even more so when supporters appear to accept it.

 

There's a difference between accepting it, and begrudgingly admitting it. I'm not suggesting that it's what I'd want for the immediate future of the club, but in reality it is all that we can expect from Ashley. In the end I'd be happy if there was a better progression of young players from the area coming through to the top levels and being able to compete with the top standard of teams in the country. This would limit the amount of money required to bring in, and then pay for the high waged foreign players that numbers wise dominate the Premier League.

 

Running a football club is not like running a high street store. I have had countless disagreements with people on NO, who call themselves accountants, that could not see this. Football is about success on the pitch, not the balance sheet, this is why you support a football club. The only way to keep cash coming in is through playing in europe, at the absolute minimum. It is just not practical to be successful at these levels of football and make profits. When will people realise this ?

 

It shouldn't be like running a store, but when you have a businessman who owns the club who has no emotional attachment to the club the fact is that it will be run as though it is a business. In some ways this should be a good thing, as it should help to ensure responsible spending. On the flip-side it will likely limit the ambition of the club. At any length I think the priority now is to have an annual profit and to maintain our premierleague status whilst building some stability in the coaching and playing staff. If this is done as part of a fiscally responsible series of campaigns then in a few years time we should start to see dividends and naturally the ambitions will rise.

 

Reaslistically it's delusional to instantly expect a certain degree of ambition at the club based on local fanbase alone when we're competing with abnormalities like Manchester City and Chelsea and image powerhouses like Manchester United and Liverpool who have a much wider reaching set of fans worldwide. At any length you have to consider the current financial situation when reckoning the ability of the owner to take calculated risks in the name of ambition.

Edited March 9, 2010 by OzToonFan

[Cid_MCDP 0]

I think Leazes said a mouthful about running a store not being like running a club. I'm not an expert in either obviously, but just looking at it from a pedestrian standpoint, you rarely want to throw good money after bad in a business, but you're almost required to when it comes to clubs.

 

In any case, not being someone who has lived and died by this club for the past 30 years- in relation to all the points made about being profitable and turnstiles, and making Europa, etc. etc., How is Birmingham City doing it this season?

 

Right now, they're 5 points out of 7th and have a game in hand on Villa, so it's by no means a done deal, but it's certainly possible at least. They've been around the low end of the top 10 all season long. Their attendance is significantly lower than ours- what's their secret? Are they just lucky this season? I don't think I've seen them play all season, so I really am asking.

 

They don't appear to be that great of a club- back and forth between EPL and CCC throughout the past 10 years, finished behind Wolves last season, currently the owners of a honest -2 GD, but have outscored only Pompey and Wolves, which I guess is a testament to their defensive style of play?

 

Are they in that much better financial shape than us? Is that the difference? Surely they aren't going after and getting marquee players either, right? Or is it just an abberation?

 

I guess I have trouble understanding how exactly we can make that Top 20 richest clubs list last month, but be where we are today.

[OTF 6176]

How is Birmingham City doing it this season?

 

Right now, they're 5 points out of 7th and have a game in hand on Villa, so it's by no means a done deal, but it's certainly possible at least. They've been around the low end of the top 10 all season long. Their attendance is significantly lower than ours- what's their secret? Are they just lucky this season? I don't think I've seen them play all season, so I really am asking.

 

They don't appear to be that great of a club- back and forth between EPL and CCC throughout the past 10 years, finished behind Wolves last season, currently the owners of a honest -2 GD, but have outscored only Pompey and Wolves, which I guess is a testament to their defensive style of play?

 

So far as I'm aware they had an extremely settled side through the most part of the season. Their defense in partcular has not been hit by injuries (incuding their right back Stephen Carr ). As such they've been a team where the 'team' is greater than the sum of the parts. They're starting to slip a little now, probably a little added pressure on them as well as some fatigue - still being in the cup up until recently can't have helped. I expect they'll continue a gradual slide down the table between now and the close of the season as they're in that mid-table comfort zone.

 

Ashley would be ecstatic with results that that for Newcastle next season. Getting the points on the table in the early part of the season will mean that he'll get away with minimal investment in the side in the January window.