Chris Gray on NUFC under Ashley

[Howmanheyman 32790]

The £132M should be discarded. It wasn't a debt, it's what he agreed to pay to own the club, the club's owners didn't owe £132M to anybody else for the right to own NUFC.

 

The mortgage was a no brainer, if he had the funds available then it made pure business sense to pay it off and save interest, just as you and me would do if we had the funds to do likewise with our house. (This is one of the reasons he got a bit huffy as he never knew about the mortgage in the first place and being followed by the ill feeling the KK episode brought him made things worse).

 

Manager pay offs? Were the club still paying SBR or Roeder? If not he never inherited any 'pay-off' debt on that score. He sacked Sham and he sacked KK and got stung.

 

We owed a fair bit out for Owen but we were still owed, (IIRC), approx £7-10M from Real Madrid for Woodgate. This I'm sure played a part in Shepherds thinking when paying way over the odds for him in the first place.

[Toonpack 9273]

So, despite Arsenal's squad being very frugally assembled they still spent in excess of £43M more than Newcastle did.

 

A spend of +£43Mill is hardly frugal, they support it by buying low and selling high and by making profits.

[Toonpack 9273]

The £132M should be discarded. It wasn't a debt, it's what he agreed to pay to own the club, the club's owners didn't owe £132M to anybody else for the right to own NUFC.

Agree totally

The mortgage was a no brainer, if he had the funds available then it made pure business sense to pay it off and save interest, just as you and me would do if we had the funds to do likewise with our house. (This is one of the reasons he got a bit huffy as he never knew about the mortgage in the first place and being followed by the ill feeling the KK episode brought him made things worse).

Agree but it didn’t need to be paid off in full in 2013, so until then he could have kept it going if he’d had the option.

Manager pay offs? Were the club still paying SBR or Roeder? If not he never inherited any 'pay-off' debt on that score. He sacked Sham and he sacked KK and got stung.

Souness and Roeder were around £5Mill between them, don’t know about SBR.

We owed a fair bit out for Owen but we were still owed, (IIRC), approx £7-10M from Real Madrid for Woodgate. This I'm sure played a part in Shepherds thinking when paying way over the odds for him in the first place.

The £27Mill figure is the NET owed at the point of change of ownership as far as I am aware.

[Kitman 2204]

Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club.

 

The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue.

 

It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back.

 

The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line.

 

Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill

 

IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability.

 

Hmmm.

 

I agree about the 132 mill - it's not money he's put in.

 

I'm not sure I agree about the 70 mill though. Firstly he must have known that 70 mill was due and had to be refinanced when he bought the company. So I'd see that as part of the purchase cost to him, the total cost being being partly equity (132 mill) and partly debt (70 mill). Secondly I assume he chose to put the money in that way, to save interest and to lower his tax bill when he sells his shares (and personally I believe he was intending to make a quickish re-sale when he bought them). I'd guess there were other options for that 70 mill - refinance the debt with a bank vs the clubs assets or put in new equity for instance.

 

I admit I'm not up with the accounting nuances though. What I was really getting at was the difference between what he paid to buy the club at the outset - let's call it 132 + 70 = 202 mill and what he has stumped up in total = 288 mill. I make that 86 mill (a lot less than is banded around in the press I think).

 

Still a lot of cash, but as I've said a lot of that must be down to mistakes made. The interesting thing for me will be to see what the club spends from here if it is at break even point, which was the plan after 2010/11 iirc. Will transfer profits still be used to subsidise operating expenses, invest in new players or pay down shareholder debt?

[manc-mag 1]

Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital.

 

So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007?

 

Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for

 

a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out

paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL

c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc)

 

I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing.

 

So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic?

 

59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point....

 

Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club.

 

The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue.

 

It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back.

 

The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line.

 

Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill

 

IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability.

 

Any element of the figure which is attributable to the purchase price of the club can simply be ignored fwiw, so he gets neither a) the plaudits for 'pumping this money in' (blind, pro-Ashley propagandists) or b ) the blame for putting the club into 'even greater debt' (pro-old guard hysteria).

 

Re: the £70 million of existing debts, if this only became repayable on demand where there was a change of owner, then the moderate view is that the last lot didn't have the club at 'death's door' financially speaking as is portrayed by the pro-Ashley propaganda machine. Ie it wasn't about to go instantly bust. And if Ashley had failed to appreciate £70 million was going to become instantly repayable on acquisition, then he's only got himself to blame as per the failure to do due diligence point, which doesn't need to be rehearsed any further.

 

For completeness however, the club was being run at a loss and whichever way you slice it this does become a problem when credit dries up-which it ultimately did. In this sense, it is better to have somebody with Ashely's financial clout transferring the debts to himself instead of the last owners, who simply would never have countenanced that in a million years. ie we weren't about to go instantly bust when Ashley took over, however we were in a lot of debt that we were having to service via loans-which is a game you usually play by consistently re-structuring. This model fails when credit providers disappear. Basically, it's clear as day Ashley is attempting to do things on a shoestring now, but then it is his cash on the line I suppose. For me Ashley's main suit isn't what he's ploughed in, it's simply historical context. Anyone thinking that the old guard would be throwing money around these days (ie their own money) compared to Ashley is off their swede. It's the wrong argument altogether (not that that will change anything on here).

 

Someone else might come in and fancy having a speculative punt with their own coin, but Ashley won't and in the present tense the last lot wouldn't either.

 

If I see some sensible acquisitions and a team that wants to play for the shirt, that'll do me for now. That's just being realistic about the times we live in. The good thing is, I actually think getting a few right minded and hungry players in, with a decent scouting policy, can get you a good few places up this current league. After that, who knows, perhaps we will get bought. Then its down to fate once again.

Edited June 13, 2011 by manc-mag

[NJS 4373]

For completeness however, the club was being run at a loss and whichever way you slice it this does become a problem when credit dries up-which it ultimately did. In this sense, it is better to have somebody with Ashely's financial clout transferring the debts to himself instead of the last owners, who simply would never have countenanced that in a million years. ie we weren't about to go instantly bust when Ashley took over, however we were in a lot of debt that we were having to service via loans-which is a game you usually play by consistently re-structuring. This model fails when credit providers disappear. Basically, it's clear as day Ashley is attempting to do things on a shoestring now, but then it is his cash on the line I suppose. For me Ashley's main suit isn't what he's ploughed in, it's simply historical context. Anyone thinking that the old guard would be throwing money around these days (ie their own money) compared to Ashley is off their swede. It's the wrong argument altogether (not that that will change anything on here).

 

This is the crux for me and shows we were/are fucked either way - a model which was great in its day but was imo doomed versus a "cautious" new owner.

 

I still don't understand in the context of the debt/financial breakdown how his alleged willingmess to take £80-100m "all in" in 2009 fits in though - I guess we'll never know now.

[Kitman 2204]

I agree with you Manc Mag, a lot of this is ancient history and relatively uninteresting. And if I'd shovelled 156 mill of my own money in loans into a business that I had little sentimental attachment to, I'd be hard arsed about it too.

 

But I wouldn't expect people to feel sorry for me and kiss my arse either, and that's how I feel about it tbh. Hence why I was interested in the difference between what he's paid to acquire the club and what he's put in to subsidise losses (capital funds vs operating funds I guess).

 

FWIW, I think he can put the mistakes behind him to a certain extent if we build instead of dismantle, and kick on from a good first season back. We'll see, we've seen him fumble the ball before so I'm reserving judgement till August.

[Toonpack 9273]

Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital.

 

So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007?

 

Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for

 

a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out

paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL

c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc)

 

I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing.

 

So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic?

 

59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point....

 

Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club.

 

The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue.

 

It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back.

 

The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line.

 

Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill

 

IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability.

 

Any element of the figure which is attributable to the purchase price of the club can simply be ignored fwiw, so he gets neither a) the plaudits for 'pumping this money in' (blind, pro-Ashley propagandists) or b ) the blame for putting the club into 'even greater debt' (pro-old guard hysteria).

 

Re: the £70 million of existing debts, if this only became repayable on demand where there was a change of owner, then the moderate view is that the last lot didn't have the club at 'death's door' financially speaking as is portrayed by the pro-Ashley propaganda machine. Ie it wasn't about to go instantly bust. And if Ashley had failed to appreciate £70 million was going to become instantly repayable on acquisition, then he's only got himself to blame as per the failure to do due diligence point, which doesn't need to be rehearsed any further.

 

For completeness however, the club was being run at a loss and whichever way you slice it this does become a problem when credit dries up-which it ultimately did. In this sense, it is better to have somebody with Ashely's financial clout transferring the debts to himself instead of the last owners, who simply would never have countenanced that in a million years. ie we weren't about to go instantly bust when Ashley took over, however we were in a lot of debt that we were having to service via loans-which is a game you usually play by consistently re-structuring. This model fails when credit providers disappear. Basically, it's clear as day Ashley is attempting to do things on a shoestring now, but then it is his cash on the line I suppose. For me Ashley's main suit isn't what he's ploughed in, it's simply historical context. Anyone thinking that the old guard would be throwing money around these days (ie their own money) compared to Ashley is off their swede. It's the wrong argument altogether (not that that will change anything on here).

 

Someone else might come in and fancy having a speculative punt with their own coin, but Ashley won't and in the present tense the last lot wouldn't either.

 

If I see some sensible acquisitions and a team that wants to play for the shirt, that'll do me for now. That's just being realistic about the times we live in. The good thing is, I actually think getting a few right minded and hungry players in, with a decent scouting policy, can get you a good few places up this current league. After that, who knows, perhaps we will get bought. Then its down to fate once again.

 

Agree 100%

 

Ashley is 100% to blame for his exposure to the repayment of the £70Mill and if he had done a full due dilligence I reckon he'd have done what the other suitors did and would have buggered off. Obviously that's just my opinion. re Kitman's comment, I believe he knew the debt was there, but was not aware (because he didn't do full dilligence) that it had to be paid off sharpish.

 

To be honest not many teams (excluding those with Sheiks/Oligrachs) take a "speculative punt", on balance the top teams all operate within their means.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Toonpack

[Toonpack 9273]

I agree with you Manc Mag, a lot of this is ancient history and relatively uninteresting. And if I'd shovelled 156 mill of my own money in loans into a business that I had little sentimental attachment to, I'd be hard arsed about it too.

 

But I wouldn't expect people to feel sorry for me and kiss my arse either, and that's how I feel about it tbh. Hence why I was interested in the difference between what he's paid to acquire the club and what he's put in to subsidise losses (capital funds vs operating funds I guess).

 

FWIW, I think he can put the mistakes behind him to a certain extent if we build instead of dismantle, and kick on from a good first season back. We'll see, we've seen him fumble the ball before so I'm reserving judgement till August.

 

That is the crux of the whole matter IMO.

 

I can see reasons justifying the frugality up to now (as I've stated many many times), this summer the club is in a sound position, the will to move onwards and upwards (or not) will be plain to see come Sept 1st. That "will" however, will be "within our means".

 

Edit - (Crux os obviously word of the day)

Edited June 13, 2011 by Toonpack

[Kitman 2204]

If Ashley's up to his nuts to the tune of 156 mill, it must be bloody tempting to use the Carroll cash to pay off some debt.

 

Edit: in fact it must be overwhelming, like a fat kid with a free run on the cookie jar

Edited June 13, 2011 by Kitman

[Christmas Tree 4702]

If Ashley's up to his nuts to the tune of 156 mill, it must be bloody tempting to use the Carroll cash to pay off some debt.

 

Edit: in fact it must be overwhelming, like a fat kid with a free run on the cookie jar

 

 

Not getting into the financial wizardry, but I think if he had wanted to milk the club dry it would have begun already.

 

I just dont see him either as the sort of person who wants to hover around mid table picking up the odd 10 or 20 mill here or there.

 

For me its either being geared towards a sale or more likely a genuine push to see what he can achieve. I've always had a feeling that his ego demands that he can turn around as we get into Europe / win a cup / break into the top four and stick two fingers up at the world.

 

He isnt going to attempt it they way Liverpool are by a sudden splurge of money, but I still think he's going to try and do it.

 

I think there is a lot of public lowering of expectations whilst behind the scenes this push for Europe seems pretty genuine.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

You're doing far too much thinking for my liking

[manc-mag 1]

You're doing far too much thinking for my liking

 

 

CT man, you'll choose to believe the propaganda machine whatever's going on.

 

Fwiw, I don't think he's here to 'milk the club' as some hysterics claim, cos to be perfectly honest he's a bloke that can make far more money focusing his efforts elsewhere. You may have a point about his ego being indirectly good for the club, however the bottom line there is he can change his mind as soon as the wind changes so you can't go banking on that as an enduring force for progress. I'll subscribe to the view he's seeing what progress you can make with a minimal transfer fund employing a very focused scouting policy. Again fwiw I think if that goes well, it can lift you to about 6th or 7th (or if very very well, 5th). Beyond that, realistically you do need mega money (ie money beyond the club's natural resources) and theres zero interest in it for him there at all. Best case scenario there is a sale and a new owner with focused ambition (ie an element of which at his own financial risk).

[Christmas Tree 4702]

You're doing far too much thinking for my liking

 

 

Well if your not happy, which one are you?

[Christmas Tree 4702]

You're doing far too much thinking for my liking

 

 

CT man, you'll choose to believe the propaganda machine whatever's going on.

 

Fwiw, I don't think he's here to 'milk the club' as some hysterics claim, cos to be perfectly honest he's a bloke that can make far more money focusing his efforts elsewhere. You may have a point about his ego being indirectly good for the club, however the bottom line there is he can change his mind as soon as the wind changes so you can't go banking on that as an enduring force for progress. I'll subscribe to the view he's seeing what progress you can make with a minimal transfer fund employing a very focused scouting policy. Again fwiw I think if that goes well, it can lift you to about 6th or 7th (or if very very well, 5th). Beyond that, realistically you do need mega money (ie money beyond the club's natural resources) and theres zero interest in it for him there at all. Best case scenario there is a sale and a new owner with focused ambition (ie an element of which at his own financial risk).

 

So after your opening line, you virtually agree with me....

 

This idea of some new owner arriving and being able to spend us into the top four is just a pipe dream tbh, the only possible way we are going to get back there is by continually building and improving (a bit like we seem to be doing now) and by having a very good manager.

 

This is where if anywhere, Ashley will have his biggest challenge. Will he ever be able to sit back again and trust a manager with his millions.

 

I can see the current set up getting us into Europe, but I dont see Pardew having enough about him for the real big time or Ashley being able to relinquish control even if he does bring in a really good manager.

 

The only possible scenario that I think Ashley would work with if he decided to go for the top four at some stage, would be is a return to the "director of football" scenario.

[manc-mag 1]

You're doing far too much thinking for my liking

 

 

CT man, you'll choose to believe the propaganda machine whatever's going on.

 

Fwiw, I don't think he's here to 'milk the club' as some hysterics claim, cos to be perfectly honest he's a bloke that can make far more money focusing his efforts elsewhere. You may have a point about his ego being indirectly good for the club, however the bottom line there is he can change his mind as soon as the wind changes so you can't go banking on that as an enduring force for progress. I'll subscribe to the view he's seeing what progress you can make with a minimal transfer fund employing a very focused scouting policy. Again fwiw I think if that goes well, it can lift you to about 6th or 7th (or if very very well, 5th). Beyond that, realistically you do need mega money (ie money beyond the club's natural resources) and theres zero interest in it for him there at all. Best case scenario there is a sale and a new owner with focused ambition (ie an element of which at his own financial risk).

 

So after your opening line, you virtually agree with me....

 

This idea of some new owner arriving and being able to spend us into the top four is just a pipe dream tbh, the only possible way we are going to get back there is by continually building and improving (a bit like we seem to be doing now) and by having a very good manager.

 

This is where if anywhere, Ashley will have his biggest challenge. Will he ever be able to sit back again and trust a manager with his millions.

 

I can see the current set up getting us into Europe, but I dont see Pardew having enough about him for the real big time or Ashley being able to relinquish control even if he does bring in a really good manager.

 

The only possible scenario that I think Ashley would work with if he decided to go for the top four at some stage, would be is a return to the "director of football" scenario.

 

I agree to an extent in theory, but I'm saying the practical chances of this happening are vastly undermined by the fact he could wake up tomorrow and do something fucking idiotic on a mood swing. The point about it needing to be gradual, incremental improvement (in bold) is one that I agree with, but it's equally the bit that I think is most vulnerable to Ashley's frankly horrendous capriciousness.

Edited June 13, 2011 by manc-mag

[Guest alex]

Given we've only had one decent transfer window under Ashley I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest that continual improvement is taking place.

[Happy Face 29]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

[manc-mag 1]

Given we've only had one decent transfer window under Ashley I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest that continual improvement is taking place.

 

Aye, and that's the thing. To assume it will (or even err towards the view it will) is fanciful. Hopefully it will but you'd be off your head to see it as already having taken full effect or likely to continue.

 

Additionally, in my view, the Ashley model absolutely relies on the incumbent manager being a 100% 'yes man'. Which restricts your field of good calibre managers considerably (if we're discussing continual progress)

[Christmas Tree 4702]

Given we've only had one decent transfer window under Ashley I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest that continual improvement is taking place.

 

Some would say the last two were exceptionally good.

 

Last summer brought us Tiote and Ben Arfa while most agreed the January business was very shrewd leaving us in this strong position to rebuild that we are now in.

[Christmas Tree 4702]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

I thought the financial information released in around March had us down as breaking even this year and moving into profit next year?

[Guest alex]

Given we've only had one decent transfer window under Ashley I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest that continual improvement is taking place.

 

Some would say the last two were exceptionally good.

 

Last summer brought us Tiote and Ben Arfa while most agreed the January business was very shrewd leaving us in this strong position to rebuild that we are now in.

I think only you could argue selling Carroll without a replacement would qualify as improvement. Now shush, adults are talking.

[manc-mag 1]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Aye, but equally the proponents of the 'old model' don't even recognise debt as a problem. Even when credit isn't available. I mean that literally as well, they don't even acknowledge it, I've witnessed it for years on here now.

 

So that bit won't bother them so much (or at least it shouldn't if they're being consistent).

[Christmas Tree 4702]

Given we've only had one decent transfer window under Ashley I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest that continual improvement is taking place.

 

Aye, and that's the thing. To assume it will (or even err towards the view it will) is fanciful. Hopefully it will but you'd be off your head to see it as already having taken full effect or likely to continue.

 

Additionally, in my view, the Ashley model absolutely relies on the incumbent manager being a 100% 'yes man'. Which restricts your field of good calibre managers considerably (if we're discussing continual progress)

 

Yep, thats the big road block even if everything else goes right.

 

That said and as Chelsea have shown, there are lots of decent managers out there prepared to work without full control.

[OTF 7278]

Given we've only had one decent transfer window under Ashley I'm not sure there's much evidence to suggest that continual improvement is taking place.

 

Some would say the last two were exceptionally good.

 

Last summer brought us Tiote and Ben Arfa while most agreed the January business was very shrewd leaving us in this strong position to rebuild that we are now in.