Stable Financial Footing

[Guest]

SBTP, fuck off

[Flair 0]

'Consolidate that postion'? Like Leeds did?

 

None of us honestly know what Shepherd's motive were that summer. Was he looking to recover some of the previous losses to repay the debt? Or was he looking to increase his dividend? One thing you can never accuse him of is lacking ambition.

 

With looking to beatify him, if Ashley showed half the ambition of his predecessors then we'd all be happier fans.

 

 

And I haven't.

 

 

How would you like Ashley to show that ambition? Get the club into debt trying to reach a pretty unattainable top 4 position. With the money in the teams that are up there now, how much do you think it'd cost?

That’s how everybody bar Man City do it.

 

Your missing the key point. You can’t rest on your laurels in football. The moment a club stops trying to go forward it’s guaranteed to go backwards, and once that happens revenue streams start to fall and the club enters a vicious downward cycle. Nobody wants Ashley to run up huge debts in a mad dash to win the Champions League. They want him to have ambition for the club beyond having a profit on the balance sheet at the end of the season. As it stands he’s run up huge debts going nowhere. Diminishing our standing has club has cost a fortune.

 

There’s ambition. There’s Ridsdale style madness, and there’s Bob Murray style complacency. The later of the three most reassembles how NUFC are being run.

 

thats spot on really. And as for Ridsdale, Leeds are now on the way back, and while they have had these few years in the doldrums, talk to a Leeds supporter now and he will tell you about reaching the European Cup Semi Final, long after the downward slide has faded out of memory. Football is all about highs and lows, glory, and enjoying the highs. We don't have an FA Cup win in our lifetimes to remember and say "I was there" [i was 8 months old when we last won the FA Cup]. What I find staggering is the amount of supporters, taken in by this scaremongering about the Leeds model, who appear to be saying they would rather have semi-permanent almost complete obscurity and a healthy balance sheet while flitting between relegation and re-promotion instead, is their irrational hatred of the Halls and Shepherd, through not understanding what they did for the club. Is it really THAT extreme ?

Hall and Shepherd did a lot for the club and it was only in the last two or three years of their tenure that things started to go awry. Backing a manager with £50m is no bad thing, backing Souness with that amount of money was a major cock up. However, when you look at the big picture the good they did far outweighed the bad.

 

What I don’t buy is the idea Ashley saved the club from administration. We had about £70m of debt most of which was a structured loan for redeveloping the ground, in others words most of it was a sound long term investment. The debt was nothing out of the ordinary for a PL club. The operating costs were a different matter. A £30m a year loss isn’t sustainable and something had to be done. Something sensible, not Ashley’s ham fisted cost cutting assault on the fabric of the club that got us relegated and cost the club £50m.

 

I don’t want to talk about Shepherd and Hall but as long as they are blamed for Ashley’s mistakes it’s hard not too. They were far from perfect but they are not to blame for the state the club is in now and the sooner people stop letting Ashley of the hook the sooner we’ll get shot of him.

 

 

Don't just point fingers without offering alternative solutions.

A solution? How about a gradual reduction in the operating deficit set against a background of stability, thereby retaining our Premier League status and boosting the coffers by at least £50m.

 

The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants.

 

 

Operating at a huge loss and you suggest gradually reducing it. Surely it's like an oil leak, you want to plug it asap, I would have thought. If you do it slowly, more leaks out. Relegation wasn't because of cost-cutting either, it was because of the farcical events of the season, and big money players not being up for it (generally what happens when you sign trophy players, they couldn't give a fuck)

The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants.

 

 

I don't see how the price he paid relates really. I doubt if he'd have been able to buy it for the lower, reflected price you suggest.

Then he shouldn’t have bought it then should he. Nobody was holding a gun to his head. He took a huge gamble, fucked up and nearly four years later we had to sell our best player because the club is (apparently) still neck deep in financial shit. It's pathetic.

 

 

Perhaps, but there's nothing at all to suggest we'd have been better off with the alternative. Even before relegation Ashley had put a lot of cash in, cash that I dare say wouldn't have been provided by the previous owners.

What would have happened if Ashley had stayed well away is the great unknown. We might have gone into administration or we might not. We might have been bought by Sheik Mansour for £100m or Barry Moat for a quid. There’s no way of knowing, which is why it’s better to stick with what has happened and on that front Ashley has been a disaster.

 

 

We're higher in the league than we were when we came in, so on that front, disaster is an exaggeration. We took a huge step backwards in farcical circumstances, but even the relegation wasn't disastrous, because we've gone from strength to strength since.

 

Gone strength to strength, aye. You mean delving into the free agent market to sign Shefki.

[Guest Your Name Here]

Quick edit from you

It was.

 

The end of the season is the time to make judgements about relative league positions and relegation cost the club £50m, which has to be disastrous for a club supposedly facing administration 12 months earlier.

 

We can go over and over this endlessly repetitive debate until Alan Smith scores a goal, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and when dessert is finally served I’m expecting it to taste like a shit-cake covered in turd-sauce. You obviously have a more optimistic view and I hope you're right.

 

 

If we hadn't gone down, Carroll would probably have never broke into the team. His fee has effectively made the relegation free. I understand the pessimism, it's easy to take the comments about signing players that have resale value as we want to be a selling club, but for me it means that a player is coming here and playing well enough for his value to increase, as opposed to Luque/Viana/Boumsong and the ilk.

They weren’t flops because they cost a lot of money; it was down to bad judgement. Even managers of SBR’s calibre make mistakes, managers like Souness are one long mistake. Perch was cheap, is he good player? Campbell cost nowt, has he been good value? What about Rooney, he cost MU £25m, would SAF have been better off paying £2m for Best and Routledge?

 

As for Carroll. I appreciate what you’re saying and wouldn’t disagree, but all relegation did was bring forward the inevitable. He’s too good not to have broken into the first team. The difference is if we had an owner with any ambition we might have been able to hang onto him. Beardsley, Waddle, Gazza... the club went backwards after each was sold. Selling your best players is false economy.

[manc-mag 1]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

[Guest]

'Consolidate that postion'? Like Leeds did?

 

None of us honestly know what Shepherd's motive were that summer. Was he looking to recover some of the previous losses to repay the debt? Or was he looking to increase his dividend? One thing you can never accuse him of is lacking ambition.

 

With looking to beatify him, if Ashley showed half the ambition of his predecessors then we'd all be happier fans.

 

 

And I haven't.

 

 

How would you like Ashley to show that ambition? Get the club into debt trying to reach a pretty unattainable top 4 position. With the money in the teams that are up there now, how much do you think it'd cost?

That’s how everybody bar Man City do it.

 

Your missing the key point. You can’t rest on your laurels in football. The moment a club stops trying to go forward it’s guaranteed to go backwards, and once that happens revenue streams start to fall and the club enters a vicious downward cycle. Nobody wants Ashley to run up huge debts in a mad dash to win the Champions League. They want him to have ambition for the club beyond having a profit on the balance sheet at the end of the season. As it stands he’s run up huge debts going nowhere. Diminishing our standing has club has cost a fortune.

 

There’s ambition. There’s Ridsdale style madness, and there’s Bob Murray style complacency. The later of the three most reassembles how NUFC are being run.

 

thats spot on really. And as for Ridsdale, Leeds are now on the way back, and while they have had these few years in the doldrums, talk to a Leeds supporter now and he will tell you about reaching the European Cup Semi Final, long after the downward slide has faded out of memory. Football is all about highs and lows, glory, and enjoying the highs. We don't have an FA Cup win in our lifetimes to remember and say "I was there" [i was 8 months old when we last won the FA Cup]. What I find staggering is the amount of supporters, taken in by this scaremongering about the Leeds model, who appear to be saying they would rather have semi-permanent almost complete obscurity and a healthy balance sheet while flitting between relegation and re-promotion instead, is their irrational hatred of the Halls and Shepherd, through not understanding what they did for the club. Is it really THAT extreme ?

Hall and Shepherd did a lot for the club and it was only in the last two or three years of their tenure that things started to go awry. Backing a manager with £50m is no bad thing, backing Souness with that amount of money was a major cock up. However, when you look at the big picture the good they did far outweighed the bad.

 

What I don’t buy is the idea Ashley saved the club from administration. We had about £70m of debt most of which was a structured loan for redeveloping the ground, in others words most of it was a sound long term investment. The debt was nothing out of the ordinary for a PL club. The operating costs were a different matter. A £30m a year loss isn’t sustainable and something had to be done. Something sensible, not Ashley’s ham fisted cost cutting assault on the fabric of the club that got us relegated and cost the club £50m.

 

I don’t want to talk about Shepherd and Hall but as long as they are blamed for Ashley’s mistakes it’s hard not too. They were far from perfect but they are not to blame for the state the club is in now and the sooner people stop letting Ashley of the hook the sooner we’ll get shot of him.

 

 

Don't just point fingers without offering alternative solutions.

A solution? How about a gradual reduction in the operating deficit set against a background of stability, thereby retaining our Premier League status and boosting the coffers by at least £50m.

 

The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants.

 

 

Operating at a huge loss and you suggest gradually reducing it. Surely it's like an oil leak, you want to plug it asap, I would have thought. If you do it slowly, more leaks out. Relegation wasn't because of cost-cutting either, it was because of the farcical events of the season, and big money players not being up for it (generally what happens when you sign trophy players, they couldn't give a fuck)

The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants.

 

 

I don't see how the price he paid relates really. I doubt if he'd have been able to buy it for the lower, reflected price you suggest.

Then he shouldn’t have bought it then should he. Nobody was holding a gun to his head. He took a huge gamble, fucked up and nearly four years later we had to sell our best player because the club is (apparently) still neck deep in financial shit. It's pathetic.

 

 

Perhaps, but there's nothing at all to suggest we'd have been better off with the alternative. Even before relegation Ashley had put a lot of cash in, cash that I dare say wouldn't have been provided by the previous owners.

What would have happened if Ashley had stayed well away is the great unknown. We might have gone into administration or we might not. We might have been bought by Sheik Mansour for £100m or Barry Moat for a quid. There’s no way of knowing, which is why it’s better to stick with what has happened and on that front Ashley has been a disaster.

 

 

We're higher in the league than we were when we came in, so on that front, disaster is an exaggeration. We took a huge step backwards in farcical circumstances, but even the relegation wasn't disastrous, because we've gone from strength to strength since.

 

Gone strength to strength, aye. You mean delving into the free agent market to sign Shefki.

 

 

Let's see if he plays more games than free agent Bernard Fucking clueless cunt.

[Guest Your Name Here]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential.

 

Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Your Name Here

[Guest]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential.

 

Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises.

 

 

But there's no tie-ins so how is it an admission? It's more of an admission that people hurting from the Carroll sale might not renew, and is designed more for the short-term than the long.

[spongebob toonpants 3635]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

 

By ambition I don't mean spunking tens of millions of their own money though, just running a club that had been turned into one of the top revenue generators in the world in a way that would take it forward.

 

We don't know how bad the debt was when he took over, or what might have happened but to blame Shepherd for the state we are in now is ridiculous. When Ashley took over he paid off the debt in cash- as we were told time and time again. Of course it is impossible to know how much truth we have ever been told about the state of the finances by Ashley, he has lied from the minute he took over, the noises that come from the club have been nothing but misinformation and downright bollocks from the get go.

 

Without wanting to defend Shepherd particularly he isn't the one who sanctioned the contracts for Viduka, Smith, Barton, Geremi, Capaca, Rozenhal, Beye, Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez, and it wasn't him that sacked and therefore had to pay for the contracts of Allardyce and Keegan within acouple of months of each other. I'm pretty sure Shepherd didn't have Wise on the payroll at £1m a year either.

 

To blame anybody but Ashley is ridiculous, and if he had any idea about how to run a club well we wouldn't be signing Shefki Kuqi whilst being £49 million up on transfers

[spongebob toonpants 3635]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential.

 

Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises.

 

 

But there's no tie-ins so how is it an admission? It's more of an admission that people hurting from the Carroll sale might not renew, and is designed more for the short-term than the long.

 

A ten year price freeze is a short term plan - what now?

[Guest]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

 

By ambition I don't mean spunking tens of millions of their own money though, just running a club that had been turned into one of the top revenue generators in the world in a way that would take it forward.

 

We don't know how bad the debt was when he took over, or what might have happened but to blame Shepherd for the state we are in now is ridiculous. When Ashley took over he paid off the debt in cash- as we were told time and time again. Of course it is impossible to know how much truth we have ever been told about the state of the finances by Ashley, he has lied from the minute he took over, the noises that come from the club have been nothing but misinformation and downright bollocks from the get go.

 

Without wanting to defend Shepherd particularly he isn't the one who sanctioned the contracts for Viduka, Smith, Barton, Geremi, Capaca, Rozenhal, Beye, Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez, and it wasn't him that sacked and therefore had to pay for the contracts of Allardyce and Keegan within acouple of months of each other. I'm pretty sure Shepherd didn't have Wise on the payroll at £1m a year either.

 

To blame anybody but Ashley is ridiculous, and if he had any idea about how to run a club well we wouldn't be signing Shefki Kuqi whilst being £49 million up on transfers

 

 

 

...and operating at a financial loss to that. So you wanted it run from that position in a way that would take it forward. Let's hear your suggestion then, Paphitis

[Guest Your Name Here]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential.

 

Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises.

 

 

But there's no tie-ins so how is it an admission? It's more of an admission that people hurting from the Carroll sale might not renew, and is designed more for the short-term than the long.

Because it leaves the club no scope for increasing prices. The only sustainable growth model for a football club is to increase demand by virtue of having a better team, thereby allowing them to increase prices without losing customers. Then reinvest the extra revenue this creates to further improve the team, increase demand, increase revenue, improve the team.

[Guest]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential.

 

Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises.

 

 

But there's no tie-ins so how is it an admission? It's more of an admission that people hurting from the Carroll sale might not renew, and is designed more for the short-term than the long.

 

A ten year price freeze is a short term plan - what now?

 

 

There's no tie-ins, are you an outrageous thick cunt or just a nob? It's short term, basically admitting that it's going to be difficult getting people on board this season, but if you do sign up, here's an incentive. If it's still shit after that, you can go. Surely the no tie-ins bit gives the club the incentive to keep those supporters. Hardly an admission of no ambition, is it?

[Guest]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

Ambition doesn’t equate to spunking tens of millions on new signings. Ambition in footballing terms is about wanting to fulfil your potential and loitering around the PL is way below NUFC’s potential.

 

Take the ten year ST freeze bollocks. It’s a blatant admission the club are expecting to do jack shit over the next decade, that they have no interest in increasing their revenues though giving the punters a better product. Inflation alone will reduce our ability to bring in better players unless our revenue rises.

 

 

But there's no tie-ins so how is it an admission? It's more of an admission that people hurting from the Carroll sale might not renew, and is designed more for the short-term than the long.

Because it leaves the club no scope for increasing prices. The only sustainable growth model for a football club is to increase demand by virtue of having a better team, thereby allowing them to increase prices without losing customers. Then reinvest the extra revenue this creates to further improve the team, increase demand, increase revenue, improve the team.

 

 

There is scope to increase prices, to those that don't sign up for the deal this season. It's all about getting people on board for next season.

[Kitman 2188]

There is scope to increase prices, to those that don't sign up for the deal this season. It's all about getting people on board for next season.

 

So if the vast majority of season ticket holders renew season after season, then there's no scope for increasing prices for these people for the next 10 years?

Edited February 10, 2011 by Kitman

[Guest Your Name Here]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

 

By ambition I don't mean spunking tens of millions of their own money though, just running a club that had been turned into one of the top revenue generators in the world in a way that would take it forward.

 

We don't know how bad the debt was when he took over, or what might have happened but to blame Shepherd for the state we are in now is ridiculous. When Ashley took over he paid off the debt in cash- as we were told time and time again. Of course it is impossible to know how much truth we have ever been told about the state of the finances by Ashley, he has lied from the minute he took over, the noises that come from the club have been nothing but misinformation and downright bollocks from the get go.

 

Without wanting to defend Shepherd particularly he isn't the one who sanctioned the contracts for Viduka, Smith, Barton, Geremi, Capaca, Rozenhal, Beye, Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez, and it wasn't him that sacked and therefore had to pay for the contracts of Allardyce and Keegan within acouple of months of each other. I'm pretty sure Shepherd didn't have Wise on the payroll at £1m a year either.

 

To blame anybody but Ashley is ridiculous, and if he had any idea about how to run a club well we wouldn't be signing Shefki Kuqi whilst being £49 million up on transfers

This is the one thing in this debate that boils my piss. He paid off the existing debts by creating new debts. The club owes more money now than it ever did under the last regime. Yet this line about him paying off the debts’ gets reeled out time and time again.

 

That aside I agree with your view. Ashley should be judged on his own actions, not those of the previous regime. He chose to buy the club. He chose not to undertake due diligence. He chose to force Keegan out. He chose to appoint Wise, JFK and Lambias, piss Shearer around, sack Hughton, sell Carroll, rename the ground, deface the roof, put the club for sale, take it off the market, put it up sale again, take it off the market again..... he chose to take on the responsibility and he’s accountable for the state of the club now.

[Guest]

There is scope to increase prices, to those that don't sign up for the deal this season. It's all about getting people on board for next season.

 

So if the vast majority of season ticket holders renew season after season, then there's no scope for increasing prices for these people for the next 10 years?

 

 

is correct, but you have to take into account the substantial increase that they've just made (you could get a ticket for £430 this season!) and the fact that tickets aren't THE be all and end all for revenue

[Guest Your Name Here]

There is scope to increase prices, to those that don't sign up for the deal this season. It's all about getting people on board for next season.

 

So if the vast majority of season ticket holders renew season after season, then there's no scope for increasing prices for these people for the next 10 years?

TBF I think ASM is right; it is all a short term ploy to get people to renew. The thing is if everybody called his bluff and renewed the club's future revenue stream would be fucked.

 

It probably wasn’t the best example of the lack ambition. Perhaps how much money the club receives for all the Sports Direct advertising might be a better illustration.

[spongebob toonpants 3635]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

 

By ambition I don't mean spunking tens of millions of their own money though, just running a club that had been turned into one of the top revenue generators in the world in a way that would take it forward.

 

We don't know how bad the debt was when he took over, or what might have happened but to blame Shepherd for the state we are in now is ridiculous. When Ashley took over he paid off the debt in cash- as we were told time and time again. Of course it is impossible to know how much truth we have ever been told about the state of the finances by Ashley, he has lied from the minute he took over, the noises that come from the club have been nothing but misinformation and downright bollocks from the get go.

 

Without wanting to defend Shepherd particularly he isn't the one who sanctioned the contracts for Viduka, Smith, Barton, Geremi, Capaca, Rozenhal, Beye, Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez, and it wasn't him that sacked and therefore had to pay for the contracts of Allardyce and Keegan within acouple of months of each other. I'm pretty sure Shepherd didn't have Wise on the payroll at £1m a year either.

 

To blame anybody but Ashley is ridiculous, and if he had any idea about how to run a club well we wouldn't be signing Shefki Kuqi whilst being £49 million up on transfers

This is the one thing in this debate that boils my piss. He paid off the existing debts by creating new debts. The club owes more money now than it ever did under the last regime. Yet this line about him paying off the debts’ gets reeled out time and time again.

 

That aside I agree with your view. Ashley should be judged on his own actions, not those of the previous regime. He chose to buy the club. He chose not to undertake due diligence. He chose to force Keegan out. He chose to appoint Wise, JFK and Lambias, piss Shearer around, sack Hughton, sell Carroll, rename the ground, deface the roof, put the club for sale, take it off the market, put it up sale again, take it off the market again..... he chose to take on the responsibility and he’s accountable for the state of the club now.

 

I wasn't claiming he was white knight by paying off the debts, or as you more accurately point out loaning the club the money so the debt was transferred to him, I was trying to show the stupidity of blaming the shepherd debt legacy for the place we are now.

[Kitman 2188]

I have a lot of sympathy with ASM's viewpoint in that the financial landscape must have changed since Ashley bought the club due to the GFC. I think the previous Board would have had to make some tough calls and maybe even pruned things back, simply because the banks would probably have demanded it. This process was just under way with Allardyce when Ashley swooped (or should that be belly-flopped?) on the club.

 

At the same time other clubs seem to have found the money to buy players. When Ashley came on board we actually spent a lot of money.....and the the shutter came down when he got all huffy about the fall out from the KK debacle. Since then the plan seems to be to live within our means, which means loooking out for loan deals and bargains, with the aim of making the club self financing in the short term.

 

I don't know much about NUFC's finances other than what gets posted on here and following the arguments that go back and forth. But it seems to me that we are at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of financial caution, where the likes of Hull and Blackpool operate. I don't know whether we're typical of most clubs outside the top 4 now?

 

It may be that Ashley simply won't put his hand in his pocket whereas other owners will. I don't know what he expected when he bought us but surely he didn't expect the club to be self financing? I'm all for running the club sensibly but I'd like to see the squad strengthened season to season and if that money has to come from Ashley rather than profit, I'm not really bothered. I think he has a responsibility as our owner to take the club forward.

 

Instead it looks like he's more interested in making transfer profits and running down the wage bill, to the detriment of the team. Some of the mistakes he's made seem like a deliberate 2 fingers to the fans. For instance I still can't understand why we don't make some limited investment in Jan 2009 to safeguard against relegation, it just seemed like pigheaded foolishness at the time. now we have the sale of Carroll, albeit for a great price, with no replacement lined up.

 

As a fan I'm not interested in the club's balance sheet, provided we're not in danger of bankruptcy. I'm interested in the team improving and progressing. I'd say we've had the opportunity to do that but I get baffled that we won't commit further investment to push us on. Not squillions on "trophy players" but plugging obvious gaps and improving quality in one or two key positions. I think this is where "showing some ambition" comes in.

 

It may be that the 35m is reinvested wisely but at the moment and given how things have unfolded, I think poeple have a right to be cynical.

[Guest Your Name Here]

Can we just be clear what you're saying when you say 'ambition' though. By ambition you mean someone who's prepared to spunk tens of millions of their own money on signings and/or servicing substantial debt. So basically Saudi oil or Russian gas billionaires. Because there's not that many of them at the end of the day and even less that want to buy football clubs. I think that's where Skidders exaccerbation comes from in part and I share that too fwiw, because some people seem to think that just the mere mention of the word 'ambition' sends you catapulting up the league.

 

This isn't getting done on tick anymore (unless it's leveraged debt like at Man U) until credit becomes available/money becomes cheap again.

 

By ambition I don't mean spunking tens of millions of their own money though, just running a club that had been turned into one of the top revenue generators in the world in a way that would take it forward.

 

We don't know how bad the debt was when he took over, or what might have happened but to blame Shepherd for the state we are in now is ridiculous. When Ashley took over he paid off the debt in cash- as we were told time and time again. Of course it is impossible to know how much truth we have ever been told about the state of the finances by Ashley, he has lied from the minute he took over, the noises that come from the club have been nothing but misinformation and downright bollocks from the get go.

 

Without wanting to defend Shepherd particularly he isn't the one who sanctioned the contracts for Viduka, Smith, Barton, Geremi, Capaca, Rozenhal, Beye, Jonas, Colo, Xisco, Gonzalez, and it wasn't him that sacked and therefore had to pay for the contracts of Allardyce and Keegan within acouple of months of each other. I'm pretty sure Shepherd didn't have Wise on the payroll at £1m a year either.

 

To blame anybody but Ashley is ridiculous, and if he had any idea about how to run a club well we wouldn't be signing Shefki Kuqi whilst being £49 million up on transfers

This is the one thing in this debate that boils my piss. He paid off the existing debts by creating new debts. The club owes more money now than it ever did under the last regime. Yet this line about him paying off the debts’ gets reeled out time and time again.

 

That aside I agree with your view. Ashley should be judged on his own actions, not those of the previous regime. He chose to buy the club. He chose not to undertake due diligence. He chose to force Keegan out. He chose to appoint Wise, JFK and Lambias, piss Shearer around, sack Hughton, sell Carroll, rename the ground, deface the roof, put the club for sale, take it off the market, put it up sale again, take it off the market again..... he chose to take on the responsibility and he’s accountable for the state of the club now.

 

I wasn't claiming he was white knight by paying off the debts, or as you more accurately point out loaning the club the money so the debt was transferred to him, I was trying to show the stupidity of blaming the shepherd debt legacy for the place we are now.

I know. I was just being pendantic

[OTF 6299]

It may be that the 35m is reinvested wisely but at the moment and given how things have unfolded, I think poeple have a right to be cynical.

 

It's more than a right. If they feel anything but cynical there's something wrong.

[Guest Your Name Here]

I have a lot of sympathy with ASM's viewpoint in that the financial landscape must have changed since Ashley bought the club due to the GFC. I think the previous Board would have had to make some tough calls and maybe even pruned things back, simply because the banks would probably have demanded it. This process was just under way with Allardyce when Ashley swooped (or should that be belly-flopped?) on the club.

 

At the same time other clubs seem to have found the money to buy players. When Ashley came on board we actually spent a lot of money.....and the the shutter came down when he got all huffy about the fall out from the KK debacle. Since then the plan seems to be to live within our means, which means loooking out for loan deals and bargains, with the aim of making the club self financing in the short term.

 

I don't know much about NUFC's finances other than what gets posted on here and following the arguments that go back and forth. But it seems to me that we are at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of financial caution, where the likes of Hull and Blackpool operate. I don't know whether we're typical of most clubs outside the top 4 now?

 

It may be that Ashley simply won't put his hand in his pocket whereas other owners will. I don't know what he expected when he bought us but surely he didn't expect the club to be self financing? I'm all for running the club sensibly but I'd like to see the squad strengthened season to season and if that money has to come from Ashley rather than profit, I'm not really bothered. I think he has a responsibility as our owner to take the club forward.

 

Instead it looks like he's more interested in making transfer profits and running down the wage bill, to the detriment of the team. Some of the mistakes he's made seem like a deliberate 2 fingers to the fans. For instance I still can't understand why we don't make some limited investment in Jan 2009 to safeguard against relegation, it just seemed like pigheaded foolishness at the time. now we have the sale of Carroll, albeit for a great price, with no replacement lined up.

 

As a fan I'm not interested in the club's balance sheet, provided we're not in danger of bankruptcy. I'm interested in the team improving and progressing. I'd say we've had the opportunity to do that but I get baffled that we won't commit further investment to push us on. Not squillions on "trophy players" but plugging obvious gaps and improving quality in one or two key positions. I think this is where "showing some ambition" comes in.

 

It may be that the 35m is reinvested wisely but at the moment and given how things have unfolded, I think poeple have a right to be cynical.

Nice sensible balanced post amidst an ocean of hyperbole.

[LeazesMag 0]

I have a lot of sympathy with ASM's viewpoint in that the financial landscape must have changed since Ashley bought the club due to the GFC. I think the previous Board would have had to make some tough calls and maybe even pruned things back, simply because the banks would probably have demanded it. This process was just under way with Allardyce when Ashley swooped (or should that be belly-flopped?) on the club.

 

At the same time other clubs seem to have found the money to buy players. When Ashley came on board we actually spent a lot of money.....and the the shutter came down when he got all huffy about the fall out from the KK debacle. Since then the plan seems to be to live within our means, which means loooking out for loan deals and bargains, with the aim of making the club self financing in the short term.

 

I don't know much about NUFC's finances other than what gets posted on here and following the arguments that go back and forth. But it seems to me that we are at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of financial caution, where the likes of Hull and Blackpool operate. I don't know whether we're typical of most clubs outside the top 4 now?

 

It may be that Ashley simply won't put his hand in his pocket whereas other owners will. I don't know what he expected when he bought us but surely he didn't expect the club to be self financing? I'm all for running the club sensibly but I'd like to see the squad strengthened season to season and if that money has to come from Ashley rather than profit, I'm not really bothered. I think he has a responsibility as our owner to take the club forward.

 

Instead it looks like he's more interested in making transfer profits and running down the wage bill, to the detriment of the team. Some of the mistakes he's made seem like a deliberate 2 fingers to the fans. For instance I still can't understand why we don't make some limited investment in Jan 2009 to safeguard against relegation, it just seemed like pigheaded foolishness at the time. now we have the sale of Carroll, albeit for a great price, with no replacement lined up.

 

As a fan I'm not interested in the club's balance sheet, provided we're not in danger of bankruptcy. I'm interested in the team improving and progressing. I'd say we've had the opportunity to do that but I get baffled that we won't commit further investment to push us on. Not squillions on "trophy players" but plugging obvious gaps and improving quality in one or two key positions. I think this is where "showing some ambition" comes in.

 

It may be that the 35m is reinvested wisely but at the moment and given how things have unfolded, I think poeple have a right to be cynical.

 

despite what an obsessed wanker says in a different thread, that pretty much sums it up and has always been my thinking too

 

Edit. I'll just add that, as his business plan has saw the club plunge from 14th to 40th in the rich list, and will only go further downwards unless something changes, that the problems are all entirely of his own making for not recognising how to tap your fanbase and keep your revenue maximised which is what any decent business should do as its top priority.

Edited February 11, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Its a mistake to band Halls and Shepherd together. They did an excellent job while Sir John Hall was the major player in the management of the club. In my opinion, things started to go wrong when Sir John stopped taking an active roll.

 

Judging by appearances it seems Freddy Shepherd took all the biggest rolls as soon as he could get his hand in.

 

I wasn't really going to reply to Scoular, I realise he is an older person like me and has seen a lot, but Sir John Hall stepping down had absolutely nothing to do with the appointment of managers and the backing of them within the club. Neither the Halls or Shepherd owned the club independently of each other and made those decisions without the other because they couldn't do it.

 

As has been pointed out by myself and supported by one or two others [Craig and Shackbleep I think], from a playing point of view, it was Keegan who started it all rolling in the first place and he was approached and persuaded to take the job by Hall Jnr, Shepherd and Fletcher while Sir John Hall didn't want to make the change and sack Ardiles.

 

Sorry for going into this again, it just seemed relevant to respond in this way.

[LeazesMag 0]

'Consolidate that postion'? Like Leeds did?

 

None of us honestly know what Shepherd's motive were that summer. Was he looking to recover some of the previous losses to repay the debt? Or was he looking to increase his dividend? One thing you can never accuse him of is lacking ambition.

 

With looking to beatify him, if Ashley showed half the ambition of his predecessors then we'd all be happier fans.

 

 

And I haven't.

 

 

How would you like Ashley to show that ambition? Get the club into debt trying to reach a pretty unattainable top 4 position. With the money in the teams that are up there now, how much do you think it'd cost?

That’s how everybody bar Man City do it.

 

Your missing the key point. You can’t rest on your laurels in football. The moment a club stops trying to go forward it’s guaranteed to go backwards, and once that happens revenue streams start to fall and the club enters a vicious downward cycle. Nobody wants Ashley to run up huge debts in a mad dash to win the Champions League. They want him to have ambition for the club beyond having a profit on the balance sheet at the end of the season. As it stands he’s run up huge debts going nowhere. Diminishing our standing has club has cost a fortune.

 

There’s ambition. There’s Ridsdale style madness, and there’s Bob Murray style complacency. The later of the three most reassembles how NUFC are being run.

 

thats spot on really. And as for Ridsdale, Leeds are now on the way back, and while they have had these few years in the doldrums, talk to a Leeds supporter now and he will tell you about reaching the European Cup Semi Final, long after the downward slide has faded out of memory. Football is all about highs and lows, glory, and enjoying the highs. We don't have an FA Cup win in our lifetimes to remember and say "I was there" [i was 8 months old when we last won the FA Cup]. What I find staggering is the amount of supporters, taken in by this scaremongering about the Leeds model, who appear to be saying they would rather have semi-permanent almost complete obscurity and a healthy balance sheet while flitting between relegation and re-promotion instead, is their irrational hatred of the Halls and Shepherd, through not understanding what they did for the club. Is it really THAT extreme ?

Hall and Shepherd did a lot for the club and it was only in the last two or three years of their tenure that things started to go awry. Backing a manager with £50m is no bad thing, backing Souness with that amount of money was a major cock up. However, when you look at the big picture the good they did far outweighed the bad.

 

What I don’t buy is the idea Ashley saved the club from administration. We had about £70m of debt most of which was a structured loan for redeveloping the ground, in others words most of it was a sound long term investment. The debt was nothing out of the ordinary for a PL club. The operating costs were a different matter. A £30m a year loss isn’t sustainable and something had to be done. Something sensible, not Ashley’s ham fisted cost cutting assault on the fabric of the club that got us relegated and cost the club £50m.

 

I don’t want to talk about Shepherd and Hall but as long as they are blamed for Ashley’s mistakes it’s hard not too. They were far from perfect but they are not to blame for the state the club is in now and the sooner people stop letting Ashley of the hook the sooner we’ll get shot of him.

 

 

Don't just point fingers without offering alternative solutions.

A solution? How about a gradual reduction in the operating deficit set against a background of stability, thereby retaining our Premier League status and boosting the coffers by at least £50m.

 

The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants.

 

 

Operating at a huge loss and you suggest gradually reducing it. Surely it's like an oil leak, you want to plug it asap, I would have thought. If you do it slowly, more leaks out. Relegation wasn't because of cost-cutting either, it was because of the farcical events of the season, and big money players not being up for it (generally what happens when you sign trophy players, they couldn't give a fuck)

The bottom line in all of this is the price Ashley paid. If the club was about to go tits up he should have paid a price that reflected the amount of investment needed to steady the ship. Instead what he did was piss money down the drain because (according to you) somebody set him a deadline and he shit his pants.

 

 

I don't see how the price he paid relates really. I doubt if he'd have been able to buy it for the lower, reflected price you suggest.

Then he shouldn’t have bought it then should he. Nobody was holding a gun to his head. He took a huge gamble, fucked up and nearly four years later we had to sell our best player because the club is (apparently) still neck deep in financial shit. It's pathetic.

 

 

Perhaps, but there's nothing at all to suggest we'd have been better off with the alternative. Even before relegation Ashley had put a lot of cash in, cash that I dare say wouldn't have been provided by the previous owners.

What would have happened if Ashley had stayed well away is the great unknown. We might have gone into administration or we might not. We might have been bought by Sheik Mansour for £100m or Barry Moat for a quid. There’s no way of knowing, which is why it’s better to stick with what has happened and on that front Ashley has been a disaster.

 

 

We're higher in the league than we were when we came in, so on that front, disaster is an exaggeration. We took a huge step backwards in farcical circumstances, but even the relegation wasn't disastrous, because we've gone from strength to strength since.

 

You could also say that Leeds Utd have done the same in the last year or two, they are on their way back, and have the semi final of the European Cup to look back on, instead of being a nothing yo-yo club looking at the balance sheet and other clubs playing in europe. Which is what they will remember when they say "I was there".

 

Take my word for it. As you get older, you will realise when it all starts to pass you by.