Guest Your Name Here Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I seem to remember Gazza playing in 85/86, 86/87 & 87/88 for us. He was here for more than a year. As for the Milburn Stand, that wasn't club vision they were forced to do an account of what happened at Bradford. He made his debut in the last game of 85/86 I think but 86/87 was when he really arrived. He made two appearances off the bench in 84/85 but played two full seasons (not the one I said yesterday, oops) before joining Spurs in 88. Still the worst bit of transfer business the club have conducted imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6815 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. Sorry it's taken so long, been a busy weekend ( and I haven't read the thread further yet so some of this may have been said already by a fellow realist) - and it's in two bits as it must be too big for a single reply. Revenue (the money we generate) in itself is irrelevant, what is important is the revenue figure in comparison to the liabilities and costs associated with generating said revenue. We made a loss of £34.2 Million in 2007 That means the “revenue” was less, by a considerable amount, than the money we spent. The money “went” out the door faster than it came in. That loss was also “reduced” by the fact we got £7 million from the FA for Owens injury. We had record high revenue of £99.4 million in 2008, 2009 revenue dropped to £86.1 Million but that’s comparable with 2007, in fact possibly better because we achieved almost the same revenue with no UEFA cup games, the annual loss went down to £20.3 million (would have been £30 million if we didn’t make a profit on player sales of £10mill-ish) (BTW our only “profit” of £660K in 2005 was helped by a profit on player sales of £13.4 million). Directly responding to the point about “where’s the money gone” the answer is that it’s gone chasing the money we didn’t have but had spent in years past (or committed to spending in years past). For example, the £25million 5 year deal N/Rock cash (2005), paid up front and spent the in same year. There’s a £5million a year reduction in revenue for starters. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets. Edited April 3, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6815 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Assuming no more debt was built up only £25m of the debt (ie only the footballing part of the debt, not the part which was wasted away on increasing the stadium capacity) would have needed to be refinanced during the credit crunch. That is unless the already agreed refinancing package which was cancelled when Ashley bought the club didn't cover that anyway. That's less than the debts of the majority of the rest of the clubs in the league, some with only half our revenue at the time. As most of them survived, I would think we could have found some finance from somewhere. If not, and if desperate, we could always have followed the Ashley route of selling our best players to old rivals (though hopefully without employing some of the people he has entrusted with the running of the club it would not have had quite such dire consequences). How can you conceivably “assume no new debts would build up”. Our debt had grown from £37 Million in 2004 to £70 Million in 2007, that’s all but doubled in four years – sounds familiar as it’s doubled again in about the same timeframe. So we would have had to refinance the £25 million (you mention) plus a lumper to cover the annual losses, running at circa £30 Million a year, so for lets say 4 years, we’re looking at a refinance package of £25 Million plus 4x £30 Million, which equals £150 Million, near as makes no difference. When you are running at a loss the debt doesn’t stand still, it gets bigger every day. Of course any new loan repayments are also an increased cost to the club. So refinancing then – What was the package that was agreed to come into place ?? All I can see reference to is a £3 million loss in the 2007 accounts for failed refinancing attempts. BTW we were already paying 11.75% on one loan we already had in place in 2007. I’d also point out the net assets, -£16 Mill in my post above, at this time, we had literally less than NOTHING to secure lending against. But all that is OK because the other teams in the Premiership have debt, so we being NUFC can do it as well, on an even grander scale because we’re HUGE. Well let’s look at the Prem Teams. (these figures are from an early 2010 article as they are the best and most recent summary I can find). Discounting the top 4 as they are different cases. Liverpool Turnover: £164.2m Operating profit: £24.9m Net debt: £261.7m Interest payment: £36.5m The clearest possible example of the madness of a leveraged buyout in football. Liverpool's relatively healthy operating profits in 07-08 were wiped out by interest payments on their borrowings from the Royal Bank of Scotland and the US bank Wachovia. Since Liverpool refinanced in the summer, the new managing director of the club, Christian Purslow, has claimed that the club's debt has come down to £237m. New owner since then but he’s already said, got to sell to spend. West Ham Turnover: £71.6m Operating profit: –£32.8m Net debt: £114.9m Interest payment: £3.0m As the new co-owner David Gold puts it: "a car crash". West Ham's 07-08 accounts showed that they owed £114.9m, more than its annual turnover. The accounts also showed the club had breached covenants on a £35m bank loan. The new repayment date for that loan, from a syndicate of five banks, is August 2011. This is, no doubt, the reason why the Hammers' new owners are urgently seeking to raise £40m from new investors. Wonder why the just don't go to the bank ?? Fulham Turnover: £53.7m Operating profit: –£2.1m Net debt: £164.0m Interest payment: £1.0m The colossal size of Fulham's net borrowing reflects the debt it owes to Mohamed al-Fayed. The 07-08 accounts show that the club owes the Harrods owner £159m. However, this is said to be unsecured, interest-free and with no fixed repayment timetable. The club also has a £4.5m bank loan from NatWest, secured on Fulham's future broadcasting income and repayable within a year, on which it paid interest of 7.11 per cent. Aston Villa Turnover: £75.6m Operating profit: –£13.1m Net debt: £72.3m Interest payment: £5.7m Aston Villa's 07-08 accounts show the club has a £13m bank loan secured on the club's assets. £2.5m of this is repayable in three instalments each year until 2012. It also has a £10m overdraft. But Villa's biggest debt is to their American owner, Randy Lerner, who has lent the club £49.5m. These loans are repayable in full in December 2016. Villa paid £4.1m in interest in the year on Lerner's loan, on top of £1.37m to service the bank loan. Sunderland Turnover: £63.5m Operating profit: –£2.4m Net debt: £48.8m Interest payment: £0.7m Another club that survives by the grace of wealthy benefactors. The club's 07-08 accounts show that the Black Cats owed £35.2m to their immediate parent company. This was unsecured, interest-free and with no repayment date. The club also had a £13.6m bank overdraft, guaranteed by the owners. Ellis Short, the American businessman who took full control of the club last May, has given conflicting signals over how much he is willing to spend in order to push Sunderland up the table. The latest word is that he wants to reduce the wage bill. Bolton Wanderers Turnover: £52.3m Operating profit: –£5.3m Net debt: £58.4m Interest payment: £3.9m Not a healthy picture. Bolton rely on the backing of their owner Edwin Davies. The latest accounts show that the club owes its parent company £55.9m. Moreover, this borrowing does not come for free: £23m is repayable on demand and has an interest rate of 10 per cent. A further £11.5m is secured on future TV money. Wigan Athletic Turnover: £46.3m Operating profit: –£17.0m Net debt: £54.0m Interest payment: £1.5m The club's latest accounts make it plain that all that stands between Wigan and oblivion is Dave Whelan. The owner has put £39m into the club in the form of an unsecured, interest-free loan with no fixed repayment date. The club also has an overdraft and bank loan from Barclays of £18.7m, repayable on demand, on which Wigan paid £1.5m in interest in 08-09. The club ran at an operating loss of £17m in that year and the accounts note "further losses are anticipated in 2010 and 2011". Tottenham Hotspur Turnover: £113.0m Operating profit: £18.4m Net debt: £45.9m Interest payment: £8.0m Spurs have gone into debt to build a new training ground in Enfield. The club is paying an annual interest rate of 7.29 per cent on £30m of its borrowings. But it does not have to pay this back until 2024. A planned new 56,000-seat stadium should increase match-day revenues, although it remains to be seen how much the project itself will cost, or the terms of the financing. Stoke City Turnover: £11.2m Operating profit: –£7.8m Net debt: £2.3m Interest payment: £0.5m The Potters' 07-08 accounts showed negligible debt, but do make it clear how dependent the club is on its benefactor, Peter Coates, the owner of the bet365 online betting company. Revenue will have increased thanks to the Premier League TV money. But so will their outgoings. Last summer, the club spent £10m in luring Robert Huth and Tuncay Sanli to the Britannia Stadium. Everton Turnover: £79.7m Operating profit: £6.3m Net debt: £37.9m Interest payment: £4.1m Uncertainty reigns. £27m of the Toffees' borrowings – secured on future ticket sales – are spread over a relatively long period. But the 7.79 per cent interest rate meant that £4.1m of cash left the club in 08-09. The plan to increase match-day revenues by building a new 50,000-seat stadium in Kirkby was thrown into disarray last year when the Government rejected the proposal. Wolves Turnover: £18.2m Operating profit: –£1.6m Net debt: £13.0m Interest payment: £0m Wolves spent heavily to win promotion in 2007 and the club's 07-08 accounts reflect that. The effort was financed by new owner, Steve Morgan, who is now owed £13m by the club, although this is interest-free. Morgan tried to buy Liverpool in 2004 and says he was prepared to put £70m of cash into the Merseyside club to do so. Looking at Wolves' zero interest bill for 07-08, many Liverpool fans will probably wish he had been successful. Birmingham City Turnover: £49.8m Operating profit: £13.7m Net debt: £12.0m Interest payment: £0.26m Hope, perhaps, for Hammers fans. Birmingham City's 07-08 accounts reflect the golden legacy of David Gold, David Sullivan and Karren Brady. The accounts are evidence that a middle-ranking club without a ridiculously wealthy sugar daddy can run its finances in a sensible manner. The club's main debt was a £14.7m loan from its parent company, but this appears to be interest-free. Birmingham's new owner, Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung, has a solid base on which to build. Blackburn Rovers Turnover: £50.9m Operating profit: –£6.8m Net debt: £20.3m Interest payment: £0.8m Precarious. The latest accounts show bank debt, secured on the club's assets, projected to increase to £20m. This loan is repayable by May 2012. The estate of the club's late benefactor, Jack Walker, has lent some £6m interest-free. But there does not appear to be an open-ended commitment to fund the club's losses. As the chairman, John Williams, warns in the accounts: "Without external funding we are inevitably moving from a trading club to a net selling club". obviously they've been sold to the chicken farmers since The bottom line appears to be the banks that do lend money to clubs only do so IF it’s guaranteed by owners. Otherwise the clubs debts are serviced by the owners. I’ve said before thank fuck Freddy/Halls pissed off and we got someone with deep pockets. To me it is evident that the banks were NOT a route to refinance without a guarantee from Halls/FFS (because the club had NOTHING) and to be honest that just wouldn’t have happened, A- because they ain’t rich enough, and B - because they were into making money from the club not risking their own cash. "Portsmouth 2" just waiting to happen. I hope that’s answered the points you raised. Edited April 3, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 that is a seriously scary post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets. So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) that is a seriously scary post it is scary how so many of our supporters STILL prefer the club to have aims like the Stokes of this world rather than the Liverpools and Spurs. I have seen those figures before, interesting to see that pretty much the vast majority of the premiership also has huge debt, there should be about 14 clubs going bust soon. Some of these people should read a book called "Why England lose, and other curious football phenomena explained", it may enlighten them as to their idealistic outlook. In particular it shows that despite football being the biggest money loss in the world, only a fraction of clubs go bust. Far from it being instable, it is actually one of the most stable "businesses" that exist. You just have to be mad, and accept you will probably lose money. I can find the stats, but the above is the gist of them. At the end of the day, the people peddling these scare stories are clueless fuckwits who can't bring themselves to admit anything at all good about the old board. Why does this have to be said all the time ? Their heads are up their arse. If our old board were so baaaaaad, how come they attracted all these people back to the club and since eh went, the financial whizz kids that are Ashley and his right hand man, are taking the club into a decline instead of easily arresting this so called shambles of a business and putting us back into the, eeerrr, upper echelons where the "shit" owners had us ? Edited April 3, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets. So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? he doesn't answer questions like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6815 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6815 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 it is scary how so many of our supporters STILL prefer the club to have aims like the Stokes of this world rather than the Liverpools and Spurs. I have seen those figures before, interesting to see that pretty much the vast majority of the premiership also has huge debt, there should be about 14 clubs going bust soon. Some of these people should read a book called "Why England lose, and other curious football phenomena explained", it may enlighten them as to their idealistic outlook. In particular it shows that despite football being the biggest money loss in the world, only a fraction of clubs go bust. Far from it being instable, it is actually one of the most stable "businesses" that exist. You just have to be mad, and accept you will probably lose money. I can find the stats, but the above is the gist of them. At the end of the day, the people peddling these scare stories are clueless fuckwits who can't bring themselves to admit anything at all good about the old board. Why does this have to be said all the time ? Their heads are up their arse. If our old board were so baaaaaad, how come they attracted all these people back to the club and since eh went, the financial whizz kids that are Ashley and his right hand man, are taking the club into a decline instead of easily arresting this so called shambles of a business and putting us back into the, eeerrr, upper echelons where the "shit" owners had us ? Bold bit = Fallacy, because as my non-diatribe facts riddled post(s) states - the liabilities are, by and large, underwritten by owners/benefactors. The rest is the usual laughable nonsense. What's your plan Leazes, to put us back in the glory ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) it is scary how so many of our supporters STILL prefer the club to have aims like the Stokes of this world rather than the Liverpools and Spurs. I have seen those figures before, interesting to see that pretty much the vast majority of the premiership also has huge debt, there should be about 14 clubs going bust soon. Some of these people should read a book called "Why England lose, and other curious football phenomena explained", it may enlighten them as to their idealistic outlook. In particular it shows that despite football being the biggest money loss in the world, only a fraction of clubs go bust. Far from it being instable, it is actually one of the most stable "businesses" that exist. You just have to be mad, and accept you will probably lose money. I can find the stats, but the above is the gist of them. At the end of the day, the people peddling these scare stories are clueless fuckwits who can't bring themselves to admit anything at all good about the old board. Why does this have to be said all the time ? Their heads are up their arse. If our old board were so baaaaaad, how come they attracted all these people back to the club and since eh went, the financial whizz kids that are Ashley and his right hand man, are taking the club into a decline instead of easily arresting this so called shambles of a business and putting us back into the, eeerrr, upper echelons where the "shit" owners had us ? Bold bit = Fallacy, because as my non-diatribe facts riddled post(s) states - the liabilities are, by and large, underwritten by owners/benefactors. The rest is the usual laughable nonsense. What's your plan Leazes, to put us back in the glory ?? what's your plan, and your chums on skunkers who supply you with all this, to go back to games when we buy trophy players and get back into the Champions League ? Which you now scorn. What hypocrites. Ironic that the very essence of your scaremongering shite you peddle ie administration, you also now in the above post, say is a "fallacy". Make your mind up. Pathetic really. Edited April 3, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6815 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 what's your plan, and your chums on skunkers who supply you with all this, to go back to games when we buy trophy players and get back into the Champions League ? Which you now scorn. What hypocrites. Ironic that the very essence of your scaremongering shite you peddle ie administration, you also now in the above post, say is a "fallacy". Make your mind up. Pathetic really. Your comprehension is shit isn't it It's a fallacy because ........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million. Take out the reiteration and you’re answer boils down to “Not really, end of”, which to be fair isn’t the most compelling argument I’ve ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6815 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million. Take out the reiteration and you’re answer boils down to “Not really, end of”, which to be fair isn’t the most compelling argument I’ve ever read. What argument and what point are you trying to make ??? really ??? The club was skint. Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million. Take out the reiteration and you’re answer boils down to “Not really, end of”, which to be fair isn’t the most compelling argument I’ve ever read. What argument and what point are you trying to make ??? really ??? The club was skint. Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though. It’s a known fact Ashley paid £135m for the club, yet you are telling us it was worth minus £16m. I’m asking you to explain this £151m discrepancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3973 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 So the club figures prove that the only way to survive is to have owners who guarantee loans or running costs with their own money - something Hall & Shepherd never did apart from one very early stage when I remember Hall guaranteeing an overdraft with Barclays briefly. In fact I'd say the motivation to sell was probably advice that that's the way clubs were heading and they didn't fancy it. Of course you can spend beyond your means as LM advocates but the results can be summed up by Portsmouth and Leeds who never seem to get a mention in LM's take on football finances. I wonder why that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets. So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? he doesn't answer questions like that Because its an impossibly stupid question The club was worth £135m when MA paid £135m for it, funnily enough. 'Value' is a tricky concept tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 that is a seriously scary post it is scary how so many of our supporters STILL prefer the club to have aims like the Stokes of this world rather than the Liverpools and Spurs. I have seen those figures before, interesting to see that pretty much the vast majority of the premiership also has huge debt, there should be about 14 clubs going bust soon. Some of these people should read a book called "Why England lose, and other curious football phenomena explained", it may enlighten them as to their idealistic outlook. In particular it shows that despite football being the biggest money loss in the world, only a fraction of clubs go bust. Far from it being instable, it is actually one of the most stable "businesses" that exist. You just have to be mad, and accept you will probably lose money. I can find the stats, but the above is the gist of them. At the end of the day, the people peddling these scare stories are clueless fuckwits who can't bring themselves to admit anything at all good about the old board. Why does this have to be said all the time ? Their heads are up their arse. If our old board were so baaaaaad, how come they attracted all these people back to the club and since eh went, the financial whizz kids that are Ashley and his right hand man, are taking the club into a decline instead of easily arresting this so called shambles of a business and putting us back into the, eeerrr, upper echelons where the "shit" owners had us ? Football clubs go bust, they just dont disappear because all you need is a ball, some strips and 11 lads willing to turn out on a saturday and you have a product. Not many products are that simple to produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) So the club figures prove that the only way to survive is to have owners who guarantee loans or running costs with their own money - something Hall & Shepherd never did apart from one very early stage when I remember Hall guaranteeing an overdraft with Barclays briefly. In fact I'd say the motivation to sell was probably advice that that's the way clubs were heading and they didn't fancy it. Of course you can spend beyond your means as LM advocates but the results can be summed up by Portsmouth and Leeds who never seem to get a mention in LM's take on football finances. I wonder why that is? They don’t prove anything of the sort. The last regime’s mistake was investing heavily in Souness’ managerial acumen. If he’d used the money provided wisely we’d have been back in the UEFA Cup and knocking on the CL door again, which would have generated enough income to keep the overall finances in check. The invest-to-progress policy was a workable business model; it had after all served us very well for a decade. Almost all successful businesses adopt this model in some shape or form. If they don’t they stagnate and lose market share to competitors that invest heavily in product development. It’s not a risk free approach but nor is resting on your laurels, or relying on a benefactor. This is the most tedious and stupid debate. At the time of the sale a NUFC in perfect financial health would have been worth a lot more than £135m. Ashley got the club for a lot less because investment was needed to steady the ship after Souness steered us towards the rocks. The £110m Ashley had to ‘put in’ wasn’t a favour, it was the unavoidable necessity that enabled him to acquire the club for a knock down price. We can argue as much as we like about how bad the club’s financial position was but the purchase price should have reflected the state the club was in. The sale should have been the point at which the financial difficulties were addressed. If they weren’t, if Ashley paid too much, that’s entirely his fault. Not SJH’s or Shepherd’s. Edited April 3, 2011 by Your Name Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets. So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m? he doesn't answer questions like that Because its an impossibly stupid question The club was worth £135m when MA paid £135m for it, funnily enough. 'Value' is a tricky concept tbf. By that logic Jean-Alain Boumsong was worth £8M because, funnily enough, that’s what we paid for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 By that logic Jean-Alain Boumsong was worth £8M because, funnily enough, that’s what we paid for him. Boumsong not being worth what we paid for him only proves we are mugs. It has very little to do with assets or liabilities, otherwise by your logic we should have paid someone 16m for them to buy us in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 6134 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 By that logic Jean-Alain Boumsong was worth £8M because, funnily enough, that’s what we paid for him. Boumsong not being worth what we paid for him only proves we are mugs. It has very little to do with assets or liabilities, otherwise by your logic we should have paid someone 16m for them to buy us in 2007. ..and going by your logic Ashely paying £135M for Newcastle United only proves that he's a mug (which he has since re-proved over and over). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 What are or were we worth then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 By that logic Jean-Alain Boumsong was worth £8M because, funnily enough, that’s what we paid for him. Boumsong not being worth what we paid for him only proves we are mugs. It has very little to do with assets or liabilities, otherwise by your logic we should have paid someone 16m for them to buy us in 2007. would you say that ManU paying 30m quid for Juan Sebastian Veron also made ManU and Alex Ferguson mugs ? Would you say Chelsea are mugs for signing Winston Bogarde ? These are just 2 examples among hundreds or thousands if you really want to rake around and look for them. This is what amazes me about people latching onto mistakes made by NUFC and the previous owners, why do they think we are the only club in the game who makes mistakes ? The point is that in spite of the mistakes, we were one of the top clubs in the country, so we made less mistakes than most and more good deals than most. These things happen all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) that is a seriously scary post it is scary how so many of our supporters STILL prefer the club to have aims like the Stokes of this world rather than the Liverpools and Spurs. I have seen those figures before, interesting to see that pretty much the vast majority of the premiership also has huge debt, there should be about 14 clubs going bust soon. Some of these people should read a book called "Why England lose, and other curious football phenomena explained", it may enlighten them as to their idealistic outlook. In particular it shows that despite football being the biggest money loss in the world, only a fraction of clubs go bust. Far from it being instable, it is actually one of the most stable "businesses" that exist. You just have to be mad, and accept you will probably lose money. I can find the stats, but the above is the gist of them. At the end of the day, the people peddling these scare stories are clueless fuckwits who can't bring themselves to admit anything at all good about the old board. Why does this have to be said all the time ? Their heads are up their arse. If our old board were so baaaaaad, how come they attracted all these people back to the club and since eh went, the financial whizz kids that are Ashley and his right hand man, are taking the club into a decline instead of easily arresting this so called shambles of a business and putting us back into the, eeerrr, upper echelons where the "shit" owners had us ? Football clubs go bust, they just dont disappear because all you need is a ball, some strips and 11 lads willing to turn out on a saturday and you have a product. Not many products are that simple to produce. Simple fact Chez, is that the vast majority of football clubs are in the red, but very few go bust. You can go back 80-100 years [which is what this book does] and prove it. You can't argue with history and facts, and this is what we are talking about, rather than Toonpacks wild speculation and doom mongering which he picks up from the mongs and tosspots on skunkers, and Newcastle Online for all we know. I can put up the stats, and the figures if you like when I look for them. This is the REAL reality, you can't go around saying what WOULD have happened, because the simple FACT is that it DIDN'T. The other simple fact is that of the clubs who do go bust, and have gone bust in the last 80 years and more, almost all of them have gone bust due to lack of investment, apathy, massive drops in revenue, lack of ambition rather than for speculative reasons. This is the reality. Nobody is disputing that the club could have been run better, but that is the same for most clubs, and most clubs DO NOT go bust. It also proves, that success in football is directly proportionate with the WAGES paid to footballers, going right back through history. Not transfer fees, but WAGES. You simply can't argue with historical pattern over such a period of time. Nothing has changed in this respect, and nothing ever will. Edited April 4, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I'm not latching on to mistakes, I was merely acknowledging his analogy. The point was having net liabilities does not mean you have negative value. 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