The slippery slope

[Guest alex]

I was about to say, HF's been on about West Brom being the model for ages now.

 

West Brom eh ?

 

Dizzy heights.

The model from Ashley's pov, that is.

[LeazesMag 0]

Funnily enough, being a football fan, I'm more arsed about what happens on the pitch. If you don't take on-field performance as the most important indicator as to how a club is doing then I'm not quite sure why you bother following the sport or supporting the team.

I'll chuck in the caveat about it being the lowest ebb since we got our initial promotion to the PL btw.

 

exactly

[Barney 0]

Did they spend more than us this summer?

[manc-mag 1]

I still think he bought it 'for fun' originally in the sense that he wanted something different to do with his 100's of £ millions. That's not to say he didn't want a profit out of it, that will always have been central, but I think that initial method was simply to buy the club cheap and sell it for double or treble a few years later. That's just what was happening in football at the time and why it would have appealed to him. I don't think his focus was on penny pinching at the very outset and I think the snapshot of transactions around that time shows this. Ditto the appointment of Keegan. Then the banks went to shit however and with it 99% of his potential buyer pool disappeared, along with the possibility he would make any money on exit. So things will have changed at that point for me.

 

The extent of the indebtedness of the club at the time of purchase/how much Ashley has put in to plug that is always going to be a source of dispute I reckon, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about significant sums. Equally whether in doing what he's alleged to be doing now (asset stripping/running it as a Sports Direct advertising hoarding) he's actually made any money overall is impossible to tell. Personally I don't think he's seen penny one yet and I don't think he'll be in 'profit' for many moons to come using the strategy. That's not a defence of his methods, just my view of the context of it all. That said he can afford to absorb those losses, which have arisen out of his own stupidity in not researching the club and bad timing (the first being his own fault and the latter being beyond the control of the speculator)

 

Think you make some interesting points on wage caps, Pud. I don't know how low he might try to drive it down further, but whats certain is we'll see the likes of Colo and Jonas leaving in the next year or so. I said that about all of the ones that went this window.

 

The vacant striker situation stands apart from anything else for me though. Any club, regardless of it's financial budget needs to replace it's main striker in that period of time, even if it's with a more economical model. To not do so at all literally takes it outside of a football economics debate. I think that's where the groundswell of opinion now lies against fatty.

 

congratulations on finally starting to wake up to what I've been telling you for ages, courtesy of PP and an excellently-put post.

 

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1, comments from Mort and Allardyce told us everything, if you were awake and receptive to see through what they were driving at, which in Morts case were naive in the extreme, or were to people who had seen the club run like a 3rd rate football club previously anyway.

 

How will he drive down the wage bill further ? By signing ever-inferior players, and "driving" down interest [and therefore gate receipts and commercial revenues etc] in the club still further perhaps ?

 

This club is in decline, it has been in decline for a few years now, since Ashley bought it, and this decline could be about to accelerate.

 

 

Not sure what you're getting at tbh. If you're talking about his intentions from day 1 I actually contradict what you're saying if you look at it (and what Pud said to a degree). I think his intentions changed when his buyer pool disappeared along with bank finance-that's when the budget model began. Of course he'll have always wanted a profit out of it ultimately (and from day 1), but then so has every owner we've ever had.

 

Pud's main point about the wage cap is absolutely compelling if it continues to go the way he predicts. And as I said, I think the (what has to amount to a refusal, never mind failure) to buy a striker actually takes it outside of a football economics debate for the present because it inflicted a real injury on the team which had absolutely no basis in budgetary constraints.

 

If somehow against all the apparent odds, we improve this season in terms of league finish then we once again get back into a business model debate though, like it or not. And I don't mean in the sense of us breaking into the top four, I just mean in terms of what we're about as a football club and what a club of our natural resources can expect to do in the present day. That goes back to the point on increased turnover incidentally, which Toonpack raised elsewhere. It will need the likes of you to start saying exactly where, how and how much extra turnover can be generated and where that allows you to aim for in this day and age. Not just 'raise turnover' because that won't do anymore.

 

But as I say, for the moment we're speared all that because it's not appropriate. In the last window Ashley inflicted a wound on the team which was utterly independent of budgets and the result has to be we don't even dignify the debate with second guessing the economics for now. That only becomes a live issue again if there is continued improvement this season.

[Happy Face 29]

Did they spend more than us this summer?

 

Not sure whatthey recouped from sales, but they bought Shane Long for £6.5m and kept hold of Odemwingie.

 

Would have been happier to have any one of them than our strike force.

[LeazesMag 0]

I still think he bought it 'for fun' originally in the sense that he wanted something different to do with his 100's of £ millions. That's not to say he didn't want a profit out of it, that will always have been central, but I think that initial method was simply to buy the club cheap and sell it for double or treble a few years later. That's just what was happening in football at the time and why it would have appealed to him. I don't think his focus was on penny pinching at the very outset and I think the snapshot of transactions around that time shows this. Ditto the appointment of Keegan. Then the banks went to shit however and with it 99% of his potential buyer pool disappeared, along with the possibility he would make any money on exit. So things will have changed at that point for me.

 

The extent of the indebtedness of the club at the time of purchase/how much Ashley has put in to plug that is always going to be a source of dispute I reckon, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about significant sums. Equally whether in doing what he's alleged to be doing now (asset stripping/running it as a Sports Direct advertising hoarding) he's actually made any money overall is impossible to tell. Personally I don't think he's seen penny one yet and I don't think he'll be in 'profit' for many moons to come using the strategy. That's not a defence of his methods, just my view of the context of it all. That said he can afford to absorb those losses, which have arisen out of his own stupidity in not researching the club and bad timing (the first being his own fault and the latter being beyond the control of the speculator)

 

Think you make some interesting points on wage caps, Pud. I don't know how low he might try to drive it down further, but whats certain is we'll see the likes of Colo and Jonas leaving in the next year or so. I said that about all of the ones that went this window.

 

The vacant striker situation stands apart from anything else for me though. Any club, regardless of it's financial budget needs to replace it's main striker in that period of time, even if it's with a more economical model. To not do so at all literally takes it outside of a football economics debate. I think that's where the groundswell of opinion now lies against fatty.

 

congratulations on finally starting to wake up to what I've been telling you for ages, courtesy of PP and an excellently-put post.

 

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1, comments from Mort and Allardyce told us everything, if you were awake and receptive to see through what they were driving at, which in Morts case were naive in the extreme, or were to people who had seen the club run like a 3rd rate football club previously anyway.

 

How will he drive down the wage bill further ? By signing ever-inferior players, and "driving" down interest [and therefore gate receipts and commercial revenues etc] in the club still further perhaps ?

 

This club is in decline, it has been in decline for a few years now, since Ashley bought it, and this decline could be about to accelerate.

 

 

Not sure what you're getting at tbh. If you're talking about his intentions from day 1 I actually contradict what you're saying if you look at it (and what Pud said to a degree). I think his intentions changed when his buyer pool disappeared along with bank finance-that's when the budget model began. Of course he'll have always wanted a profit out of it ultimately (and from day 1), but then so has every owner we've ever had.

 

Pud's main point about the wage cap is absolutely compelling if it continues to go the way he predicts. And as I said, I think the (what has to amount to a refusal, never mind failure) to buy a striker actually takes it outside of a football economics debate for the present because it inflicted a real injury on the team which had absolutely no basis in budgetary constraints.

 

If somehow against all the apparent odds, we improve this season in terms of league finish then we once again get back into a business model debate though, like it or not. And I don't mean in the sense of us breaking into the top four, I just mean in terms of what we're about as a football club and what a club of our natural resources can expect to do in the present day. That goes back to the point on increased turnover incidentally, which Toonpack raised elsewhere. It will need the likes of you to start saying exactly where, how and how much extra turnover can be generated and where that allows you to aim for in this day and age. Not just 'raise turnover' because that won't do anymore.

 

But as I say, for the moment we're speared all that because it's not appropriate. In the last window Ashley inflicted a wound on the team which was utterly independent of budgets and the result has to be we don't even dignify the debate with second guessing the economics for now. That only becomes a live issue again if there is continued improvement this season.

 

load of wishy washy nothing comments avoiding the main issue, which is that you've been spouting bullshit for 4 years.

[Guest alex]

Jesus in a jalopy

[Happy Face 29]

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1

 

Why did you not say owt then?

[manc-mag 1]

I still think he bought it 'for fun' originally in the sense that he wanted something different to do with his 100's of £ millions. That's not to say he didn't want a profit out of it, that will always have been central, but I think that initial method was simply to buy the club cheap and sell it for double or treble a few years later. That's just what was happening in football at the time and why it would have appealed to him. I don't think his focus was on penny pinching at the very outset and I think the snapshot of transactions around that time shows this. Ditto the appointment of Keegan. Then the banks went to shit however and with it 99% of his potential buyer pool disappeared, along with the possibility he would make any money on exit. So things will have changed at that point for me.

 

The extent of the indebtedness of the club at the time of purchase/how much Ashley has put in to plug that is always going to be a source of dispute I reckon, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about significant sums. Equally whether in doing what he's alleged to be doing now (asset stripping/running it as a Sports Direct advertising hoarding) he's actually made any money overall is impossible to tell. Personally I don't think he's seen penny one yet and I don't think he'll be in 'profit' for many moons to come using the strategy. That's not a defence of his methods, just my view of the context of it all. That said he can afford to absorb those losses, which have arisen out of his own stupidity in not researching the club and bad timing (the first being his own fault and the latter being beyond the control of the speculator)

 

Think you make some interesting points on wage caps, Pud. I don't know how low he might try to drive it down further, but whats certain is we'll see the likes of Colo and Jonas leaving in the next year or so. I said that about all of the ones that went this window.

 

The vacant striker situation stands apart from anything else for me though. Any club, regardless of it's financial budget needs to replace it's main striker in that period of time, even if it's with a more economical model. To not do so at all literally takes it outside of a football economics debate. I think that's where the groundswell of opinion now lies against fatty.

 

congratulations on finally starting to wake up to what I've been telling you for ages, courtesy of PP and an excellently-put post.

 

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1, comments from Mort and Allardyce told us everything, if you were awake and receptive to see through what they were driving at, which in Morts case were naive in the extreme, or were to people who had seen the club run like a 3rd rate football club previously anyway.

 

How will he drive down the wage bill further ? By signing ever-inferior players, and "driving" down interest [and therefore gate receipts and commercial revenues etc] in the club still further perhaps ?

 

This club is in decline, it has been in decline for a few years now, since Ashley bought it, and this decline could be about to accelerate.

 

 

Not sure what you're getting at tbh. If you're talking about his intentions from day 1 I actually contradict what you're saying if you look at it (and what Pud said to a degree). I think his intentions changed when his buyer pool disappeared along with bank finance-that's when the budget model began. Of course he'll have always wanted a profit out of it ultimately (and from day 1), but then so has every owner we've ever had.

 

Pud's main point about the wage cap is absolutely compelling if it continues to go the way he predicts. And as I said, I think the (what has to amount to a refusal, never mind failure) to buy a striker actually takes it outside of a football economics debate for the present because it inflicted a real injury on the team which had absolutely no basis in budgetary constraints.

 

If somehow against all the apparent odds, we improve this season in terms of league finish then we once again get back into a business model debate though, like it or not. And I don't mean in the sense of us breaking into the top four, I just mean in terms of what we're about as a football club and what a club of our natural resources can expect to do in the present day. That goes back to the point on increased turnover incidentally, which Toonpack raised elsewhere. It will need the likes of you to start saying exactly where, how and how much extra turnover can be generated and where that allows you to aim for in this day and age. Not just 'raise turnover' because that won't do anymore.

 

But as I say, for the moment we're speared all that because it's not appropriate. In the last window Ashley inflicted a wound on the team which was utterly independent of budgets and the result has to be we don't even dignify the debate with second guessing the economics for now. That only becomes a live issue again if there is continued improvement this season.

 

load of wishy washy nothing comments avoiding the main issue, which is that you've been spouting bullshit for 4 years.

 

Leazes, you're a clot so I can't agree with you, you appreciate that deep down.

 

In one thread the other day you made a comment which essentially went: "Pardew came in and everything was fine, at some point he'll get disillusioned, and one day he'll leave/get fired. It was the same with Hughton" I honestly think you'll try and claim credit for this 'prediction' too one day, completely oblivious to the fact it is essentially the fate of 99.99% of professional managers since the dawn of time. As if anyone believes Pardew won't be leaving one day. Jesus wept

[snakehips 0]

Firstly, let me say I'm not stepping into Team Positive's paddling pool just yet.

 

However, just imagine this: bar three second half goals in the final game of last season; this year's accounts (which we aint going to see 'til next year unfortunately) possibly seeing us break even; a decent striker aquired to compliment a reasonably good transfer window (Christ, what were they thinking? For a couple of million more they would have done a canny job). If those three things had/were actually gone in our favour, we would be looking at a completely different picture today.

[Happy Face 29]

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1

 

Why did you not say owt then?

 

 

I'm quite confident now - certainly hopeful - that Ashley may match the Champions League qualifications, and better it, now that he has appointed the same manager that Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd chose.

 

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=430730

 

Maybe not day 1, but year 1 eh?

[manc-mag 1]

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1

 

Why did you not say owt then?

 

 

I'm quite confident now - certainly hopeful - that Ashley may match the Champions League qualifications, and better it, now that he has appointed the same manager that Fletcher, Hall Jnr and Shepherd chose.

 

 

http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?...st&p=430730

 

Maybe not day 1, but year 1 eh?

 

 

Holy fuck! Just leave, basically.

[snakehips 0]

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1

 

Why did you not say owt then?

 

The key word is 'almost'. He's very cannily inserted that word in a huge amount of posts lately, purely as a get out clause because he knows we know he didn't say it from day one. Our Leazes could almost be mistaken for a lawyer

[Guest alex]

Firstly, let me say I'm not stepping into Team Positive's paddling pool just yet.

 

However, just imagine this: bar three second half goals in the final game of last season; this year's accounts (which we aint going to see 'til next year unfortunately) possibly seeing us break even; a decent striker aquired to compliment a reasonably good transfer window (Christ, what were they thinking? For a couple of million more they would have done a canny job). If those three things had/were actually gone in our favour, we would be looking at a completely different picture today.

I think it's the fact that they didn't just go that extra yard (when they had the means to do so, plus some and had gotten some expensive earners off the books) that is all the more telling / depressing with a view to the future though. Like manc-mag says, it was more of a refusal rather than a failure to sign a decent striker.

[Christmas Tree 4005]

[manc-mag 1]

Firstly, let me say I'm not stepping into Team Positive's paddling pool just yet.

 

However, just imagine this: bar three second half goals in the final game of last season; this year's accounts (which we aint going to see 'til next year unfortunately) possibly seeing us break even; a decent striker aquired to compliment a reasonably good transfer window (Christ, what were they thinking? For a couple of million more they would have done a canny job). If those three things had/were actually gone in our favour, we would be looking at a completely different picture today.

 

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of HF and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me.

 

My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however.

Edited September 6, 2011 by manc-mag

[OTF 6464]

With the two-speed economy of football currently where certain teams can 'afford' to spend vastly in excess of others either because of their massive international profile or their mega-rich ownership we should at worst be able to operate at the lowest risk end of the second tier teams. Lowest risk because our turnover affords us the ability to effectively minimise the risk of relegation by having a higher budget assigned to the actual team than many of the other teams in the division. Even when running this low risk model it would take a minor catastrophe - like the Keegan affair - to see Newcastle relegated.

 

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the turnover and facilities should enable the club to achieve more than all but the 5 or 6 teams who have higher turnovers themselves (Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham). That should be possible with minimal risk, with some of the rewards being higher finish on the table (more prize money), greater attendances at home matches (more matchday revenue) and increased sale of merchandise. All of the former should result in increased corporate revenue and will aid in the maintenance and advancement of the Newcastle United profile on a wider scale.

[LeazesMag 0]

Firstly, let me say I'm not stepping into Team Positive's paddling pool just yet.

 

However, just imagine this: bar three second half goals in the final game of last season; this year's accounts (which we aint going to see 'til next year unfortunately) possibly seeing us break even; a decent striker aquired to compliment a reasonably good transfer window (Christ, what were they thinking? For a couple of million more they would have done a canny job). If those three things had/were actually gone in our favour, we would be looking at a completely different picture today.

 

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of you and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me.

 

My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however.

 

what exactly "do you know now" that you didn't know in January ?

 

You don't half blabber on about a load of bollocks.

[snakehips 0]

I think he's referring to Jan '12, where, history tells us it will be even more difficult to get the top striker we need. I fear NUFC wont have the top striker for a whole season.

[ChezGiven 0]

I was about to say, HF's been on about West Brom being the model for ages now.

There are similarities but its not an analogue to our model. We certainly are not set up to go down and finish 7th and 7th. However, the possibility of profit whilst risking nothing but survival in the premiership is there to see in WB's model.

 

The technical discussion around that profit is worth closer attention as Peace has driven down declared profits by massively reducing the value of assets (amortisation) on relegation, a practice not exactly condoned by the auditors but tacitly approved.

Edited September 6, 2011 by ChezGiven

[manc-mag 1]

(Edited as had got hips' and HF's posts conflated as they posted in quick succession).

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

MM you're a lawyer/detective, what do you reckon to the whole Deano situation?

[manc-mag 1]

Firstly, let me say I'm not stepping into Team Positive's paddling pool just yet.

 

However, just imagine this: bar three second half goals in the final game of last season; this year's accounts (which we aint going to see 'til next year unfortunately) possibly seeing us break even; a decent striker aquired to compliment a reasonably good transfer window (Christ, what were they thinking? For a couple of million more they would have done a canny job). If those three things had/were actually gone in our favour, we would be looking at a completely different picture today.

 

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of you and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me.

 

My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however.

 

what exactly "do you know now" that you didn't know in January ?

 

You don't half blabber on about a load of bollocks.

 

Leazes, please look at Happy Face's post #138 and realise that you talk shite. Then decide whether you can stick around here with your head held high, because for me you are a complete shambles of a poster.

 

This is exactly what I mean when I say 'cake-and-eat-it' time.

[LeazesMag 0]

Firstly, let me say I'm not stepping into Team Positive's paddling pool just yet.

 

However, just imagine this: bar three second half goals in the final game of last season; this year's accounts (which we aint going to see 'til next year unfortunately) possibly seeing us break even; a decent striker aquired to compliment a reasonably good transfer window (Christ, what were they thinking? For a couple of million more they would have done a canny job). If those three things had/were actually gone in our favour, we would be looking at a completely different picture today.

 

Aye, true and this is why there is so much value to the forum in the likes of you and Chez (not arse licking there) really keeping things under constant review and-boring as it might be to many-crunching the numbers/facts etc for the plebs like me.

 

My point for the last window though is (and I realise I'm repeating myself here), the economics debate ceases for me for the moment because the refusal to buy a striker was utterly unjustified on the basis of what we know now. That would only be overhauled (and hence the debate resurrected) if hindsight proves we genuinely did get someone in the Jan window that made the summer targets right to ignore. I'd be astonished if that was the case however.

 

what exactly "do you know now" that you didn't know in January ?

 

You don't half blabber on about a load of bollocks.

 

Leazes, please look at Happy Face's post #138 and realise that you talk shite. Then decide whether you can stick around here with your head held high, because for me you are a complete shambles of a poster.

 

This is exactly what I mean when I say 'cake-and-eat-it' time.

 

mancmag, please stop congratulating yourself on calling Mike Ashley correctly, when I have been telling you for 4 years what you are now saying yourself [in a more long winded and egocentric way], despite you saying it has been for all this time, and still is, "shite".

 

Laughable.

[Dr Gloom 20242]

His [Ashleys] intentions were obvious almost from day 1

 

Why did you not say owt then?

 

strange that isn't it. and that's where leazesmag's whole "i was right, the rest of you were wrong" argument falls apart.

 

the only difference between leazesmag and everyone else is he thought shepherd was doing a great job. i'm sure he'd secretly admit that, just like the rest of us, he was excited at the prospect of a billionaire owner with deep pockets coming in. he didn't know ashley would be shit from the start. no one did. but it was equally obvious to everyone as soon as it started going tits up. it's not like he's some mastermind that called it from the beginning, so why he continues this crusade to persuade to prove to the rest of the board that he was right and everyone else has come around to his way of thinking is beyond me.

 

the only thing i agree with leazesmag about is that shepherd was a better chairman than ashley. but with ashley, you're talking about one of the worst owners out there. that doesn't mean that shepherd was the greatest either. as supporters, we were all entitled to hope someone with more of a clue might take over and do a better job after shepherd's decisions to sack SBR then hire souness, roder and allardyce effectively turned a top 5 side into also rans.