Christmas Tree 4005 Posted February 26, 2011 Author Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I would make the club solvent, I would make it a going concern". Surely the above implies that bankrolling was short term to achieve the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Why assume his strategy has not changed? He has changed his mind about 5 times since he took over, dont know why anyone expects coherence or consistency (although it would be nice). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6166 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Something just dawned on me there. If he uses Tiote's contract as a front for a portion of the Carroll £35m, he's a sly cunt in more ways than one. Most clubs offer 4 year deals, sometimes 3, if you have someone like Rooney or Fabregas there'll be a 5 or 6 year deal knocking around. However if Ashley is factoring the wage of his entire contract as part of this 35s it makes sense for him because instead of it being £10m over 4 years, it becomes £16m over 6 years, there by knocking 16s of the said budget to sign players, when he probably hopes to get the best price possible for Tiote in the future rendering the whole thing as a front and a load of bollocks. Did you miss the whole thread where 50% of the board said exactly the same 2 days ago? The other 50% told us to stop being so cynical as if MA would do something like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Who knows, because he wants to it be self sustainable perhaps. But what is clear is that he doesn't want to bankroll it, and not "clear as mud" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Why assume his strategy has not changed? He has changed his mind about 5 times since he took over, dont know why anyone expects coherence or consistency (although it would be nice). Hence...clear as mud. Have you seen my sig? Highlighting the inconsistency is what I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6166 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 As I said yesterday, get Barton and Enrique on 6 year deals and he can claim he's reinvested the whole Carrol fee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Who knows, because he wants to it be self sustainable perhaps. But what is clear is that he doesn't want to bankroll it, and not "clear as mud" Except for the fact he IS bankrolling it, the most recent accounts showed we're insolvent and he's not managed to break even once. He said he plans to in 5 years time. Perhaps he's fast-tracked that and the next set of books will be rosy...doubt it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Who knows, because he wants to it be self sustainable perhaps. But what is clear is that he doesn't want to bankroll it, and not "clear as mud" Except for the fact he IS bankrolling it, the most recent accounts showed we're insolvent and he's not managed to break even once. He said he plans to in 5 years time. Perhaps he's fast-tracked that and the next set of books will be rosy...doubt it though. Yes, but he doesn't WANT to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 As I said yesterday, get Barton and Enrique on 6 year deals and he can claim he's reinvested the whole Carrol fee! Nailed on he will be sold in the summer now. Wise up people Aye, that was ONE of your predictions Moron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Who knows, because he wants to it be self sustainable perhaps. But what is clear is that he doesn't want to bankroll it, and not "clear as mud" Except for the fact he IS bankrolling it, the most recent accounts showed we're insolvent and he's not managed to break even once. He said he plans to in 5 years time. Perhaps he's fast-tracked that and the next set of books will be rosy...doubt it though. Yes, but he doesn't WANT to Which ISN'T what Pardoo said. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 As I said yesterday, get Barton and Enrique on 6 year deals and he can claim he's reinvested the whole Carrol fee! If a wage limit is set which is based on an average wage and a % of total revenue (e.g. 60-70%), then the only way to increase the wage cap, is to increase specific types of revenue. The Carroll money is a one off item so you cant plan the business cost structures based on this revenue. If he bases the wages paid out on player sales, he will have to repeat the size of the fee for Carroll in player sales in the future. There will be an element of this which is true but its too risky to drive decisions over fixed costs like wages. Given the current wages paid out and a need to keep that in line with revenues, increasing Tiote's wages from £8k a week to £50k a week, has to come from somewhere. If revenues are increasing (as they should be this year), he should be able to do this whilst maintaining a fixed wages/revenue ratio. Given the losses made last year, i would argue that increasing the wage bill (via the Tiote deal) is based on what are called 'fundamentals' i.e. gates, tv, sponsorship etc. Since its not sustainable financially to base the wage % on players sales, i doubt this will drive decisions on wages. Since Ashley understand these elements of a business better than most, i cant see the payer sales and wage being tied together in the way you suggest. It suggest a profligacy which is at odds with everything else he does. It might sound clever, as it sounds cynical but it actually makes fuck all sense from a tight-arsed, cost minimising business perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Who knows, because he wants to it be self sustainable perhaps. But what is clear is that he doesn't want to bankroll it, and not "clear as mud" Except for the fact he IS bankrolling it, the most recent accounts showed we're insolvent and he's not managed to break even once. He said he plans to in 5 years time. Perhaps he's fast-tracked that and the next set of books will be rosy...doubt it though. Yes, but he doesn't WANT to Which ISN'T what Pardoo said. :( It is though? He's put a model in place so that the club will become self sustainable in the future so that he doesn't have to bankroll it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaythesouthernmag 0 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 Get shut of Smith and there's 50k a week to play with, Campbell will go and I bet he's on good wedge too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 "I think Mike's made it clear that the financial model that he's put in here is one where he doesn't have to go to his personal world to fund it," he said. From Sky I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year... That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. Clear as mud. Past tense. You've lifted that quote directly from a statement where he was explaining that he would no longer be bankrolling the club, if I'm not mistaken? Because he claimed to be selling it. If he's not selling, why's he not bankrolling like he seemed to realise was required to build anything 3 years ago in the same position? Who knows, because he wants to it be self sustainable perhaps. But what is clear is that he doesn't want to bankroll it, and not "clear as mud" Except for the fact he IS bankrolling it, the most recent accounts showed we're insolvent and he's not managed to break even once. He said he plans to in 5 years time. Perhaps he's fast-tracked that and the next set of books will be rosy...doubt it though. Yes, but he doesn't WANT to Which ISN'T what Pardoo said. :( It is though? He's put a model in place so that the club will become self sustainable in the future so that he doesn't have to bankroll it? How do you know? That's what he hopes. Show me a non-champions league team with the revenue to have achieved this fantasy season after season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2011 Share Posted February 26, 2011 I don't know what you're even getting at, whatever it is must be trivial and a little bit pathetic though. The bottom line is he wants nufc to finance itself, it's pretty obvious that that's what they're getting at, I don't think being pedantic with quotes makes that any less clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) here's Keegans take on Pardews chances of getting that 35m quid. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00fc3sy Edited February 28, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Admits he'd have accepted the £35 million offer (so Leazes was wrong saying tell Liverpool to fuck off then?), but claims Alan won't see any of it. We'll wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6166 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 As I said yesterday, get Barton and Enrique on 6 year deals and he can claim he's reinvested the whole Carrol fee! Nailed on he will be sold in the summer now. Wise up people Aye, that was ONE of your predictions Moron I dont get your point? He will get all 3 on long contracts to ensure he gets maximum money for them when he sells them. He also gets to claim he's reinvested £35mil into the team. If he sells Enrique, Barton and Tiote this summer he will have an extra £30mil to add to the £35mil he's already pocketed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 As I said yesterday, get Barton and Enrique on 6 year deals and he can claim he's reinvested the whole Carrol fee! Nailed on he will be sold in the summer now. Wise up people Aye, that was ONE of your predictions Moron I dont get your point? He will get all 3 on long contracts to ensure he gets maximum money for them when he sells them. He also gets to claim he's reinvested £35mil into the team. If he sells Enrique, Barton and Tiote this summer he will have an extra £30mil to add to the £35mil he's already pocketed. Because the money isn't paid to Tiote up front. So it won't be used as part of the 35 million if he's sold, which you predict. You're basically predicting two different negative scenarios hoping to be proved right one way or another. Talk about hedging your bets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) Admits he'd have accepted the £35 million offer (so Leazes was wrong saying tell Liverpool to fuck off then?), but claims Alan won't see any of it. We'll wait and see. no I'm not. If you read properly, I always say that you should do what the manager decides what to do with his team. If my manager said to sell and he would use the money to put together a better team, then you do what he decides [like he did with Cole] but it is his decision and his job depends on how well he does. Simple as that. But he gets all the money to do what he wants to do with it, it's called giving him the tools to do the job properly Pardew said he didn't want to sell Carroll, so the club should have told Liverpool to fuck off. Edited February 28, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Admits he'd have accepted the £35 million offer (so Leazes was wrong saying tell Liverpool to fuck off then?), but claims Alan won't see any of it. We'll wait and see. no I'm not. If you read properly, I always say that you should do what the manager decides what to do with his team. If my manager said to sell and he would use the money to put together a better team, then you do what he decides [like he did with Cole] but it is his decision and his job depends on how well he does. Simple as that. But he gets all the money to do what he wants to do with it, it's called giving him the tools to do the job properly Pardew said he didn't want to sell Carroll, so the club should have told Liverpool to fuck off. So how do you pay the debts you're creating if you're losing money each season? Your manager isn't a qualified accountant, would you be happy to allow the club's financial strings to be pulled by a man that left school with few qualifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Admits he'd have accepted the £35 million offer (so Leazes was wrong saying tell Liverpool to fuck off then?), but claims Alan won't see any of it. We'll wait and see. no I'm not. If you read properly, I always say that you should do what the manager decides what to do with his team. If my manager said to sell and he would use the money to put together a better team, then you do what he decides [like he did with Cole] but it is his decision and his job depends on how well he does. Simple as that. But he gets all the money to do what he wants to do with it, it's called giving him the tools to do the job properly Pardew said he didn't want to sell Carroll, so the club should have told Liverpool to fuck off. So how do you pay the debts you're creating if you're losing money each season? Your manager isn't a qualified accountant, would you be happy to allow the club's financial strings to be pulled by a man that left school with few qualifications? Well, you should try explaining that to about 17 premiership clubs who are all about to go into admnistration, if that is what you are saying ? Of course, I'm sure you know best why don't you email your masterplan to Alex Ferguson and save ManU a few hundred million quid they have wasted on footballers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Admits he'd have accepted the £35 million offer (so Leazes was wrong saying tell Liverpool to fuck off then?), but claims Alan won't see any of it. We'll wait and see. no I'm not. If you read properly, I always say that you should do what the manager decides what to do with his team. If my manager said to sell and he would use the money to put together a better team, then you do what he decides [like he did with Cole] but it is his decision and his job depends on how well he does. Simple as that. But he gets all the money to do what he wants to do with it, it's called giving him the tools to do the job properly Pardew said he didn't want to sell Carroll, so the club should have told Liverpool to fuck off. So how do you pay the debts you're creating if you're losing money each season? Your manager isn't a qualified accountant, would you be happy to allow the club's financial strings to be pulled by a man that left school with few qualifications? Well, you should try explaining that to about 17 premiership clubs who are all about to go into admnistration, if that is what you are saying ? Of course, I'm sure you know best why don't you email your masterplan to Alex Ferguson and save ManU a few hundred million quid they have wasted on footballers What? Man Utd don't operate at a loss because of previous failed gambles do they? And if they were operating at a loss, I'm sure the club would recongise that it'd take more financial management than an ex footballer could provide to balance the books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'd take a bet off anyone on here that the net spend in the summer will be £10m or less. The favoured 'undisclosed fee' makes it moot, but as has been said before on here, two £5m signings both on £40k/week five year deals means the Carroll money has all been 're-invested'. And Pardoo has already publicly admitted that the money has to cover signings and wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I'd take a bet off anyone on here that the net spend in the summer will be £10m or less. The favoured 'undisclosed fee' makes it moot, but as has been said before on here, two £5m signings both on £40k/week five year deals means the Carroll money has all been 're-invested'. And Pardoo has already publicly admitted that the money has to cover signings and wages. nailed on. The same people will still be defending Ashley though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now