Our finances

[Park Life 70]

This seasons fig will be a lot better I imagine.

 

Wages will be about 60%...about what it was the season before Ashley took over.

 

Don't blame Ashley totally for the high wages when he took over. I want to make that clear. I blame FSA partly. In that first period he could have had little clue what was going on with silly wages for Collo, Smith and the like. Not to mention Geremi and Viduka who were paid the gdp of a small banana republic. All signed by fat fucking sam.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Park Life

[Park Life 70]

We're 8th and have had some absolutely brilliant results and there is no reason for optimism?

 

Also, i know people dont like CT's opinions but tbf, i'd be embarrassed to let fans of other clubs see us characterise 8th as struggling. We all know why we can think that because we all expect it to go wrong. However, as of today, we arent struggling this season.

 

I'm optimistic that we will strengthen this January based on the last 2 windows. I'm far less optimistic that Pardew can keep us going at the same level nevermind improve us but lets wait and see.

 

Ashleys a cunt but i'm not going to stick my head up my arse because of it.

 

not sticking my head up my arse at all. And while I don't particularly care for the thought that other fans see us dismissing being 8th in the table, there is a long way to go yet, this season. I just don't think Mike Ashley will ever harbour any serious ambitions at this football club, a few results [defeats or wins] is neither here nor there.

 

On the other hand, I didn't care when other fans supposedly "laughed" at us, so why give a toss if they think we are "arrogant" ? [ presume that is what you are getting at here CG ]

 

 

 

I don't think I'm either anyway, I'm just aware we are one of the biggest clubs in the country, and I'll counter that by also admitting that we have never had the success to justify that to other supporters - hence the reason they aren't aware of how big this club should be.

 

Good post. There is a long way to go and it was only a few weeks back i was brimming with optimism just to come crashing back down to earth when we looked shit again.

 

Yes i do think we might look a bit arrogant by saying we are struggling because others wont look at it the way we do. They dont have the gnawing feeling at the pit of their stomach that things will go to fucking shit without warning (that all too recognisable feeling we all felt last monday) and they havent watched us all season and seen that along with the potential to play well, there is also a team of shite just waiting to dribble out the back of 11 pairs of shorts at a moment's notice. They just see the geordies are in 8th, arent they doing well. The proximity in points to 17th place is rarely mentioned.

 

As for the ambition question, the only thing i can say is that with the new financial rules coming in, business margins and large home crowds will give us an edge over oil men and chicken farmers if expenditure is limited by turnover. A decent manager is the crux of the issue though, so who knows what Pardew will bring to that.

 

 

Correct my friend a reckoning is coming and with it will come the lightning and all that other shit.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Park Life

[dbsweeney 0]

As for the ambition question, the only thing i can say is that with the new financial rules coming in, business margins and large home crowds will give us an edge over oil men and chicken farmers if expenditure is limited by turnover. A decent manager is the crux of the issue though, so who knows what Pardew will bring to that.

 

 

Correct my friend a reckoning is coming and with it will come the lightning and all that other shit.

 

Hear, hear ...

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Good thread lads.

 

Mike Ashley is a fat cunt.

[Guest]

Good thread lads.

 

Mike Ashley is a fat cunt.

 

 

No ambitions though. Cost cutting is ludicrous. Idiot with ambition and certain bankruptcy FTW

[spongebob toonpants 3608]

The only conclusion that I can draw from the Mike Ashley ownership of the club is that football is a joke at our expense

 

The seemingly infallible ability to make the worst possible decision at any given time.....

 

to choose Wise over Keegan, to sell in that window, to refuse to support then sack the one man who against all odds had returned dignity and premiership football to our club, to be responsible for Joe Kinnear......

 

But even in the face of such ridiculous ineptitude to have the club in a comfortable mid table position, having romped the Championship, with the most exciting young footballer in Britain grabbing headlines l r and c, still able to pull in over 50k for a televised match,

 

We all know that we will get sucked back in only for that bastard to fuck us all over again. It would be easier if his bizarre running of the club had left us broke relegated and looking at administration. This state of affairs just prolongs the agony.

[Kitman 2188]

I think most people don't care about the finances as long as the club isn't going to go bust. I don't see any satisfaction in running at break even or better, I'd rather we were in debt, buying players and competing for trophies. It's not up to me to decide what is financially prudent, I don't give a toss about it frankly. What Ashley's done at our club baffles me and I don't trust him one iota with its future.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

The only conclusion that I can draw from the Mike Ashley ownership of the club is that football is a joke at our expense

 

The seemingly infallible ability to make the worst possible decision at any given time.....

 

to choose Wise over Keegan, to sell in that window, to refuse to support then sack the one man who against all odds had returned dignity and premiership football to our club, to be responsible for Joe Kinnear......

 

But even in the face of such ridiculous ineptitude to have the club in a comfortable mid table position, having romped the Championship, with the most exciting young footballer in Britain grabbing headlines l r and c, still able to pull in over 50k for a televised match,

 

We all know that we will get sucked back in only for that bastard to fuck us all over again. It would be easier if his bizarre running of the club had left us broke relegated and looking at administration. This state of affairs just prolongs the agony.

 

 

Agony?

 

8th in the leagure

Beating Sunderland 5-1

Beating Liverpool 3-1

Watching players like Tiote, Barton and Carrol

 

Best agony in my lifetime tbh

[Holden McGroin 4917]

What a load of shite you talk at times Leazes.

 

Thats a bit rich.

[Renton 17848]

I feel I have something valuable to contribute here; I've been observing this situation for a long time, and I don't think Ashley has any serious ambition to propel this football club - one of the biggest in the country - into the stratosphere of success. Without ambition and spending we aren't going to get anywhere, and Mike Ashley may have a lot of things, but serious ambition for the football club isn't one of them.

 

 

Given the bar chart what are expecting him to do?

 

I'm expecting him to do nothing, or next to nothing, because it is quite clear he has no serious ambitions for the football club.

 

would be highly ironic if, despite the protestations of those who insist the Halls and Shepherd were taking the club towards administration, that it is Mike Ashley who succeeds in accomplishing it in the end.

 

Which would mean, the Halls and Shepherd having saved the club from administration, rescuing the club from decades of falling revenues and 2nd rate standards, we then see someone else coming in and accomplishing that very thing through reversing everything they put into place which gave us such a massively expanded football club, stadium, and profile in the game.

 

This is the way the club is heading, again, unless he sells out.

 

Charts are by in large for idiots. Smart people look at numbers not pictures.

The bar chart shows a massive lump into debt, but anyone looking at the numbers knows the issue encountered was we had a massive wage bill and low income. Now we are back in the premiership and the wage bill is significantly lower, we are actually in a much stronger position.

 

Hopefully Ashley will have learnt from our relegation season and bring in a striker.

 

Aren't you the person who thought they were paying 70% income tax, and couldn't work out what the VAT increase meant, in the politics thread?

 

Apologies if I'm mistaken like.

[ChezGiven 0]

I think most people don't care about the finances as long as the club isn't going to go bust. I don't see any satisfaction in running at break even or better, I'd rather we were in debt, buying players and competing for trophies. It's not up to me to decide what is financially prudent, I don't give a toss about it frankly. What Ashley's done at our club baffles me and I don't trust him one iota with its future.

Unfortunately, that doesnt make any sense. You cant expect the club not to go bust and be in debt. Remember this is from a critical piece from an independent observer of football finances.

More to the point, Ashley’s loans have been critical to the club’s survival, as it is far from clear that they would have managed to secure refinancing from the debt market. For example, Barclays Bank has insisted on securing its lending on assets and cash from transfer fees, while the last loan obtained by the previous regime under chairman Freddy Shepherd was at the prohibitively expensive interest rate of 11.72%.

 

In fact, it is fair to say that the previous ownership had mortgaged the club to the hilt, securing loans on virtually all the club’s assets (training ground) and future income streams (TV, sponsorship), though they would argue that this was used to fund the stadium development. Whatever the reasons, when Ashley bought the club, the holders of the loan notes invoked a change of control clause, forcing the new owner to immediately repay the £45 million outstanding, as opposed to the annual installments until 2016 that he had anticipated

The rate at which you borrow is based on your risk and the extent to which your business is up to its neck in debt. If Shepherd had wanted a personal loan at the bank, the rate wouldnt have been 11.72%. The club could lend at that rate though.

 

You should also care if the club is in debt / making a loss. If the club makes a loss each year, the debt mounts up until it goes bust. The only way to stop this is to have a benefactor subsidising the club. This is anti-competitive and is certainly not allowed in Europe for companies competing in the common market.

 

This is why Platini wants it to change, which it will. Then you dont want to need a benefactor just to stay afloat, especially if that benefactor is actually just subsidising Smith's wages, an inefficient and pointless exercise.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Good stuff - this thread I mean, good posting all round.

Bad stuff - Mike Ashley's handling of the club and lack of ambition.

[manc-mag 1]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only iyam.

[Happy Face 29]

This seasons fig will be a lot better I imagine.

 

Wages will be about 60%...about what it was the season before Ashley took over.

 

Don't blame Ashley totally for the high wages when he took over. I want to make that clear. I blame FSA partly. In that first period he could have had little clue what was going on with silly wages for Collo, Smith and the like. Not to mention Geremi and Viduka who were paid the gdp of a small banana republic. All signed by fat fucking sam.

 

Fairy nuff with Geremi, Smith and Viduka. He was sanctioning moves without having done his due diligence....idiotic, but he'd have been mullered if his first move was to say "we aren't signing anyone".

 

Collo came in a year after Ashley though, so if he didn't know the wage issues by then he really wasn't paying enough attention. He can't blame Shepherd for ANY of the players not having relegation clauses either....cos he signed every player that showed for us in the championship.

 

EDIT: That's a mistake in the article where they say "The cut might have been deeper if the club had inserted relegation clauses into the players’ contracts, but apparently the previous owners did not consider this a possibility."

 

The previous owners couldn't put clauses in contracts for the current owner.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Happy Face

[Christmas Tree 3997]

This seasons fig will be a lot better I imagine.

 

Wages will be about 60%...about what it was the season before Ashley took over.

 

Don't blame Ashley totally for the high wages when he took over. I want to make that clear. I blame FSA partly. In that first period he could have had little clue what was going on with silly wages for Collo, Smith and the like. Not to mention Geremi and Viduka who were paid the gdp of a small banana republic. All signed by fat fucking sam.

 

Fairy nuff with Geremi, Smith and Viduka. He was sanctioning moves without having done his due diligence....idiotic, but he'd have been mullered if his first move was to say "we aren't signing anyone".

 

Collo came in a year after Ashley though, so if he didn't know the wage issues by then he really wasn't paying enough attention. He can't blame Shepherd for ANY of the players not having relegation clauses either....cos he signed every player that showed for us in the championship.

 

EDIT: That's a mistake in the article where they say "The cut might have been deeper if the club had inserted relegation clauses into the players’ contracts, but apparently the previous owners did not consider this a possibility."

 

The previous owners couldn't put clauses in contracts for the current owner.

 

Who wernt the players who got us relegated.....

Edited December 15, 2010 by Christmas Tree

[Guest alex]

This seasons fig will be a lot better I imagine.

 

Wages will be about 60%...about what it was the season before Ashley took over.

 

Don't blame Ashley totally for the high wages when he took over. I want to make that clear. I blame FSA partly. In that first period he could have had little clue what was going on with silly wages for Collo, Smith and the like. Not to mention Geremi and Viduka who were paid the gdp of a small banana republic. All signed by fat fucking sam.

 

Fairy nuff with Geremi, Smith and Viduka. He was sanctioning moves without having done his due diligence....idiotic, but he'd have been mullered if his first move was to say "we aren't signing anyone".

 

Collo came in a year after Ashley though, so if he didn't know the wage issues by then he really wasn't paying enough attention. He can't blame Shepherd for ANY of the players not having relegation clauses either....cos he signed every player that showed for us in the championship.

 

EDIT: That's a mistake in the article where they say "The cut might have been deeper if the club had inserted relegation clauses into the players’ contracts, but apparently the previous owners did not consider this a possibility."

 

The previous owners couldn't put clauses in contracts for the current owner.

 

Who wernt the players who got us relegated.....

How do you work that out, CT? There were some 'bad apples' who left in the summer after we went down but at the same time there were plenty of those signed by Ashley who were culpable in the relegation season.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

This seasons fig will be a lot better I imagine.

 

Wages will be about 60%...about what it was the season before Ashley took over.

 

Don't blame Ashley totally for the high wages when he took over. I want to make that clear. I blame FSA partly. In that first period he could have had little clue what was going on with silly wages for Collo, Smith and the like. Not to mention Geremi and Viduka who were paid the gdp of a small banana republic. All signed by fat fucking sam.

 

Fairy nuff with Geremi, Smith and Viduka. He was sanctioning moves without having done his due diligence....idiotic, but he'd have been mullered if his first move was to say "we aren't signing anyone".

 

Collo came in a year after Ashley though, so if he didn't know the wage issues by then he really wasn't paying enough attention. He can't blame Shepherd for ANY of the players not having relegation clauses either....cos he signed every player that showed for us in the championship.

 

EDIT: That's a mistake in the article where they say "The cut might have been deeper if the club had inserted relegation clauses into the players’ contracts, but apparently the previous owners did not consider this a possibility."

 

The previous owners couldn't put clauses in contracts for the current owner.

 

Who wernt the players who got us relegated.....

How do you work that out, CT? There were some 'bad apples' who left in the summer after we went down but at the same time there were plenty of those signed by Ashley who were culpable in the relegation season.

 

misread tbh

[U_V 0]

You should be looking at the Gross Debt line in the club's account, not SJ Holdings. That went from 77 to 107 the year he bought the club, which was a result of decisions made in 2006/7. The following year the gross debt went from 107 to 150. Thats the year immediately following the sale and is based on revenues and costs set down in decisions in 2005,6,7 as this is how contracts and business and stuff works

 

If you buy something that is haemorraghing money, then 2 years after you buy it in debt, your debts are much much bigger.

 

The 138m added to the debt of SJ Holdings is the 138m it cost to buy the club. Ashley created a vehicle (tax reasons etc) to buy the club and therefore needed to transfer the money across to do so. The debt is whats on top of the 138m, which is truly observed in the trend from 2005 of 55 to 70 to 77 to 107 to 150 by 2009 reflects the underlying performance of the business over the whole period.

 

By rights we should have gone bankrupt in 2009, 14 months after he bought the club.

 

Is that really true though? Which decisions specifically do you mean? Of course player wages in contracts negotiated prior to Ashley's arrival will contribute to outgoings and were somewhat beyond Ashley's control (unless those players were sold - I'm sure we could have got some money for Owen and his wages off the books if we were THAT desperate). However these amounts were also outgoings in FY06-07, so why did they not add so significantly to the debt then too.

 

The £30m+ loss figure is thrown around a lot, and I'm sure a lot of people take that to mean we spent over £30m more than we took in that year, but this is not the case as it is massively weighted by the amortisation and impairment of the squad value (around £29m that year - and £7.5m of that was the convenient writing off of Luque in that FY by the accountants under Ashley's direction when he wasn't actually sold until the year after). These amounts are paper losses, not cash spent in that year, and they may not even be a true reflection of the rise or fall in squad value, they are just an accounting convenience. The actual amount we overspent by in that year looks to be around £6m as reflected in the increase in the debt which was nowhere near as bad as this accounting "loss" figure makes it look. In fact £5m of this overspend was actually directly due to the takeover (director payoffs and aborted finance costs). The club wasn't exactly "haemorraghing money" was it.

 

In Ashley's first year we were guaranteed an £18m boost in TV revenue, and due to this actual revenue went up by £13m, we also stopped paying interest on the loans, so how did we end up over-spending by £30m in 07-08 and £43m in 08-09 due to actions taken in years prior to his arrival when in the previous year it would have been a £1m overspend if not for the purchase of the club? I have not looked at the accounts beyond 2007s, but I can only assume that most of this extra debt is actually due to the policy change implemented by Ashley of paying up front for players while selling in instalments and to the increase in the wage bill due to the players brought in under his watch.

 

You say "By rights we should have gone bankrupt in 2009, 14 months after he bought the club.", but that's assuming H&S would have run the club in the same way as Ashley did. That's by no means a given and very likely wouldn't have been the case. Had Ashley taken over the club in 2000 when the net debt was near the £50m mark, the turnover was only £45m, we'd made a £19m loss, had a 64% wage/turnover ratio and 3 years finishing in the bottom half with another on the way I'm sure the same case could have been made then for him saving us from oblivion even if he'd sacked Robson, sold Shearer and we'd been relegated - it was all inevitable and would have been even worse under Shepherd!

Edited December 15, 2010 by U_V

[ChezGiven 0]

The answer to your first paragraph is two trending lines. One is costs going up and the other is revenues which are going down. Each month/year those trends continue, the more the loss per year. In 2006, the losses were smaller than in 2007 because our revenue was higher and our costs were smaller. Those trends were set in place by contracts in the preceding and current years. Downward trending revenue and upward trending costs will lead to bankruptcy.

 

Second paragraph, i agree and this is where my lack of accountancy skills means i have to say, not sure. If you read the article in the OP again, he says its not until 2009 where the club makes an actual operating loss of 9m. This is before interest, tax, amort, etc. When you add that in its something like a 38m loss which if offset by 23m in sales (real cash). This concerns me too because it makes me think that the books were cooked before they got the club and they were therefore able to write down more 'paper losses'.

 

He addresses this in the article.

 

So how does a club go from making a small profit in 2005 to a large loss in 2009, especially in a period when the money from television has significantly increased? The step graph above clearly shows that Newcastle’s TV money has indeed increased in that period by £10 million, but all of that has been wiped out by falls in both match day income of £6 million and commercial revenue of £4 million, meaning no revenue growth at all. Despite that, player costs have shot up: wages by £21 million and player amortisation £6 million. The deficit has been mitigated to some extent by lower interest charges £4 million and higher profit from player sales £10 million.

 

Its not that clear an analysis.

 

I made the comment about bankruptcy because Shepherd would not have seen the financial crisis coming and its my strong belief that re-financing the club during and immediately after the crisis would not have been possible. It would had to have been sold or closed.

[Guest]

I think you have misunderstood Leazes' point here. He's not saying that the club needed to balance the books, he's saying that Mike Ashley doesn't have any ambition on the pitch. Which is all that he cares about.

 

God, are you's stupid?

[Phil 6]

I feel I have something valuable to contribute here; I've been observing this situation for a long time, and I don't think Ashley has any serious ambition to propel this football club - one of the biggest in the country - into the stratosphere of success. Without ambition and spending we aren't going to get anywhere, and Mike Ashley may have a lot of things, but serious ambition for the football club isn't one of them.

 

 

Given the bar chart what are expecting him to do?

 

I'm expecting him to do nothing, or next to nothing, because it is quite clear he has no serious ambitions for the football club.

 

would be highly ironic if, despite the protestations of those who insist the Halls and Shepherd were taking the club towards administration, that it is Mike Ashley who succeeds in accomplishing it in the end.

 

Which would mean, the Halls and Shepherd having saved the club from administration, rescuing the club from decades of falling revenues and 2nd rate standards, we then see someone else coming in and accomplishing that very thing through reversing everything they put into place which gave us such a massively expanded football club, stadium, and profile in the game.

 

This is the way the club is heading, again, unless he sells out.

 

Charts are by in large for idiots. Smart people look at numbers not pictures.

The bar chart shows a massive lump into debt, but anyone looking at the numbers knows the issue encountered was we had a massive wage bill and low income. Now we are back in the premiership and the wage bill is significantly lower, we are actually in a much stronger position.

 

Hopefully Ashley will have learnt from our relegation season and bring in a striker.

 

Aren't you the person who thought they were paying 70% income tax, and couldn't work out what the VAT increase meant, in the politics thread?

 

Apologies if I'm mistaken like.

 

 

That's me.

 

 

A VAT rise from 17.5% to 20% is a rise of 2.5%, but is not a 2.5% rise....

 

...and on the tax front I thought I said tax not income tax and I stand by that statement - PAYE 40%, student loan 9%, national insurance 11%... is 60% alone, then you add all the indirect taxes VAT, Petrol, Booze, TV license, health care benefits etc... it's well in excess of 70%... and Labour still couldn't balance the books.

 

 

With regards to charts and graphs maybe it more that I'm of the opinion they are generally used to prove a point and made to lead the viewer in a certain direction, I don't think i've ever though I need a graph to understand these numbers better. In this charts case it's crystal clear people in this thread are using it to forecast the next few sets of accounts, yet anyone with half a brain knows this shouldn't be done given our circumstances and the fact the accounts are out of sync with a season - they can be very misleading. So we have people saying 'ugg, line go up, bad Ashley'. Yet everyone agrees Ashley has cuts loads of corners to save money, so why are some people blaming him for debt, he inherited a shite overpaid team that wasn't playing in Europe managed by Fat Sam.

 

 

</end rant>

[Park Life 70]

We still owed money on Martins (about 5m) Luque (around 4m) and Smith (2.4m) also although people say Owen was offset by Woodgate and the England money imo we owed a few million on him too. This is without wages touching 70 % of turnover. A chunk of it is actually just the stadium 'mortgage' being paid off.

I know we paid Collo upfront all 10m or so of it as we did Ricky as well.

 

Before the financial crisis it must be noted that I was an advocate of spend your way out of trouble and into Europe type. And I have a feeling Ashley cut too deep and too hard into our competitive stance.

 

Fat sam and the financial crisis plus ongoing debt is what did for Ashleys initial enthusiasm and player purchasing. It looked like he wanted to compete it's just that he was badly advised by fat sam, wise and the Spanish fella.

 

Think he wants to balance the on field fooprint with a sprinkling of homegrown andn 2/3 medium financial outlays on talent but no more and certainly no more 10m plus purcahases for a good while if ever.

 

*Getting Jonas for a nominal fee of aroud 2m means we'll be able to sell him on at a profit (5m).

 

Edited December 15, 2010 by Park Life

[Park Life 70]

I feel I have something valuable to contribute here; I've been observing this situation for a long time, and I don't think Ashley has any serious ambition to propel this football club - one of the biggest in the country - into the stratosphere of success. Without ambition and spending we aren't going to get anywhere, and Mike Ashley may have a lot of things, but serious ambition for the football club isn't one of them.

 

 

Given the bar chart what are expecting him to do?

 

I'm expecting him to do nothing, or next to nothing, because it is quite clear he has no serious ambitions for the football club.

 

would be highly ironic if, despite the protestations of those who insist the Halls and Shepherd were taking the club towards administration, that it is Mike Ashley who succeeds in accomplishing it in the end.

 

Which would mean, the Halls and Shepherd having saved the club from administration, rescuing the club from decades of falling revenues and 2nd rate standards, we then see someone else coming in and accomplishing that very thing through reversing everything they put into place which gave us such a massively expanded football club, stadium, and profile in the game.

 

This is the way the club is heading, again, unless he sells out.

 

Charts are by in large for idiots. Smart people look at numbers not pictures.

The bar chart shows a massive lump into debt, but anyone looking at the numbers knows the issue encountered was we had a massive wage bill and low income. Now we are back in the premiership and the wage bill is significantly lower, we are actually in a much stronger position.

 

Hopefully Ashley will have learnt from our relegation season and bring in a striker.

 

Aren't you the person who thought they were paying 70% income tax, and couldn't work out what the VAT increase meant, in the politics thread?

 

Apologies if I'm mistaken like.

 

 

That's me.

 

 

A VAT rise from 17.5% to 20% is a rise of 2.5%, but is not a 2.5% rise....

 

...and on the tax front I thought I said tax not income tax and I stand by that statement - PAYE 40%, student loan 9%, national insurance 11%... is 60% alone, then you add all the indirect taxes VAT, Petrol, Booze, TV license, health care benefits etc... it's well in excess of 70%... and Labour still couldn't balance the books.

 

 

With regards to charts and graphs maybe it more that I'm of the opinion they are generally used to prove a point and made to lead the viewer in a certain direction, I don't think i've ever though I need a graph to understand these numbers better. In this charts case it's crystal clear people in this thread are using it to forecast the next few sets of accounts, yet anyone with half a brain knows this shouldn't be done given our circumstances and the fact the accounts are out of sync with a season - they can be very misleading. So we have people saying 'ugg, line go up, bad Ashley'. Yet everyone agrees Ashley has cuts loads of corners to save money, so why are some people blaming him for debt, he inherited a shite overpaid team that wasn't playing in Europe managed by Fat Sam.

 

 

</end rant>

 

To think he only really had FSA and Wise to guide him it's lucky we're in the PL now tbh.

[ewerk 26540]

*Getting Jonas for a nominal fee of aroud 2m means we'll be able to sell him on at a profit (5m).

 

 

Didn't we end up paying around £5m for him?

[Happy Face 29]

we have people saying 'ugg, line go up, bad Ashley'.

 

I'm not by the way. I'm saying "line go down, Ashley bad".

 

Shepherd raised costs and raised revenue. The former was prohibitive.

 

Ashley's mistake wasn't increasing costs but reducing revenue. He's lowered costs, but the loss of income has taken away our competitive advantage over smaller clubs with a lesser fanbase. That's a lot harder to get back on track than spending is. Spending decisions are made in an instant. It takes years to build the profile that people are willing to invest in.

 

Ashley's stupidity dropped 9000 people off the gate. Halved our sponsorship deal. Significantly reduced TV earnings. Outsourced catering has lost a wedge. All commercial sales are down.

 

His contempt for the club, players, managers and fans has done this. Costs could have been brought under control without the level of alienation that caused such a drop in revenue.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Happy Face