Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 upload them via the http://www.toontastic/stokoe link man! Link don't work for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 upload them via the http://www.toontastic/stokoe link man! Link don't work for me added ".net" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Statistics eh What I was trying to look at was whether the club is healthier now compared to when he took over thus comparing 07 to 11. Bit like in a business you would look at the kpi's. When you start expanding it like you are doing you are then getting into how he has effected parts of the business, two very different things. You will get no argument from me on has he took us to hell and back'ish and has he left the fanbase fucked off. It's only different in that you want to look at a snapshot that suits your argument (12th is better than 13th...woohoo!!) as opposed to a overall view (actually 12th is a peak for Ashley and 13th a disappointment before he arrived). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I was about to say, to borrow from Leazes: four years into the grand 'plan' and Ashley's peak struggles to beat the previous regime at its lowest ebb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6874 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I was about to say, to borrow from Leazes: four years into the grand 'plan' and Ashley's peak struggles to beat the previous regime at its lowest ebb. Ebb!!! That pre-supposes there was a flow to follow, was a slippery slope and only was heading one way as the "profit" graph amply illustrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited September 5, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I was about to say, to borrow from Leazes: four years into the grand 'plan' and Ashley's peak struggles to beat the previous regime at its lowest ebb. Ebb!!! That pre-supposes there was a flow to follow, was a slippery slope and only was heading one way as the "profit" graph amply illustrates. The profit graph illustrates that Ashley's been lower 2 out of the 3 years in comparison. And that the total losses in the 3 years before he arrived were £50m (£2m + £15m + £33m) , while the total losses in the 3 years since were higher at £52.3m (£20m + £15.2m + £17.1m). If he'd maintained turnover at the same level as he inherited that wouldn't be a problem. I'd say it's been THAT slippery slope which is most illustrative. Profit can hit peaks and troughs year after year, based on big buys or sales. Turnover is a lot harder to quick fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) That said...turnover should bounce back to higher than any of the 3 years before Ashley arrived in the next accounts. Edited September 5, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 It will break 100m this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 It will break 100m this year. Aye...so if doubling your turnover in 12 months isn't enough to spend a bit on a much needed striker...what will it take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 It will break 100m this year. Aye...so if doubling your turnover in 12 months isn't enough to spend a bit on a much needed striker...what will it take? Its what made me sure we would. Hence the thread i started, i cant get my head round it. I could see the financial side of things during and after relegation were very bad. If we account for those losses, then we can say that at least the Carroll money covered these. Not very exciting but realistic perhaps. Since then we have increased TV revenue, lowered the wage bill and of course have interest free loans. No explanation and no excuses this time. It might seem a bit late from me but i dont think giving them a season after relegation to sort themselves out was too lacking in ambition from me. Now we are back on our feet i cant see any reason not to invest. I still hope Pardew pulls some magic out of the hat and there are some positives for the team to look at but imo the excuses have gone from legitimate financial worries to without credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 The problem with all these statistics is the relegation. One one hand the income, apart from player sales, was down, yet attendances were up due to folk wanting to see a winning team. It's that last part which should be the real focus of attention to the fat lad iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 That said...turnover should bounce back to higher than any of the 3 years before Ashley arrived in the next accounts. Aye, just need to flog a few more players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 so with ashley in control sorta speak of sports direct and jjb will it mean he will invest more in players or is he gonna be a tight arse like in the transfer window gone ie sell before you can buy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 So a mortgage doesn't count as debt? The rest are as useful as 'Global Warming vs The Pirates'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Global warming versus the rising pirate population is no laughing matter, Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 (edited) Thanks to CFC they're on the decline *edit* not Chelsea football club. Edited September 5, 2011 by Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 So a mortgage doesn't count as debt? Swings and roundabouts...I've gone with net debt from Swiss Ramble above. Could equally have said that the £150m is actually £282m now. I'm sure you aren't trying to say the debt hasn't increased since Ashley arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9010 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Ashley has, basically, turned us into Sunderland. For me, he's trying to turn us into Wigan. Their transfer policy seems to be similar. Buy cheap promising players from abroad with resell value. JJB Stadium - Sports Direct stadium Small club mentality (music after goals and that shit) - This will soon come, I'm sure. Fat Sports Retailer - Fat Sports Retailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 West Brom's model is interesting, there are some parallels to ours but they operate at a much lower overall wage level and have developed a model that allows them to be relegated and finish 7th and 7th 2 seasons running. Not even we are that risk averse. Worth a read but i've pulled out some interesting bits http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/we...ource=BP_recent Many have attributed the reasons for the club’s continual ups and downs to its cautious financial approach, which is very clearly explained each year in the chairman’s statement in the accounts. For example, in 2008 he said, “We endeavoured to strike the right balance between organising the club’s finances in a sensible way and giving ourselves the best possible chance of establishing West Bromwich Albion in the top flight.” The message is hammered home virtually every time that Peace makes a public pronouncement, “Since I’ve been at the club we’ve modeled our budgets on the worst case scenario of going down, then finishing seventh and seventh (in the Championship) and not coming back up. The rationale is: if we go off the edge of a cliff, we have to survive.” Or, more pithily, “We are not going to go mad and bankrupt this club.” There’s no doubt that West Brom are a very well run business, but there are two sides to every story and the result of this prudence is a low transfer budget and wage bill. The focus appears to be more on survival off the pitch rather than survival in the Premier League. Nothing wrong with that, many would argue. Indeed, refusing to break the bank makes perfect sense when the fate of less conservative clubs is considered: just look what has happened to the likes of Portsmouth, Hull City, Sheffield Wednesday, Crystal Palace, Bradford City, Derby County, etc. The list of clubs that have become financial casualties after attempting to “live the dream” (© Peter Ridsdale) is a long and sad one. On the other hand, while Albion’s policy might be applauded by Michel Platini, it also makes it very difficult for the club to compete with clubs that are a little more cavalier with their spending. This risk averse stance has prevented Albion from moving to the next level, in contrast to clubs like Stoke City and Bolton Wanderers, and places them firmly among the favourites for relegation every season. .... When defending Albion’s transfer policy last year, Peace claimed that since he had become chairman in 2002, the club had invested a net £38 million in transfer fees plus a further £12 million in infrastructure developments at the Hawthorns stadium and the training ground. That’s a fair bit of cash for a club the size of West Brom, but the counter argument is that if they had increased their outlay, they would have got this back and more through a longer stay in the lucrative Premier League. .... Although dividends were last paid out in 2005, Peace’s remuneration is very good for a company with a turnover of just £28 million. According to last year’s offer document, Peace has a basic salary of £500,000 plus a discretionary bonus. He would certainly struggle to get a similar package at companies the same size in other industries. Assuming that Peace was the highest paid director, he received £712,000 in 2010, up from £513,000 the previous year. In fact, he has trousered £1.8 million in the last three years. O .... In fairness (giving Peace a chance), West Brom’s financial performance in the period under his control has been very good with the club being profitable in four of the last six years. That included three years in the Championship, where it is extremely rare for clubs to thrive financially, but Albion still reported a £2.3 million profit last season. If non-cash items are excluded, EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxation, Depreciation and Amortisation) including profit on player sales was actually positive every single year. This is very largely due to the operating profits, as the once-off profits on player sales have not been that significant, e.g. only contributing £2.9 million in 2009/10, though a further £1.7 million compensation was received after the management team of Tony Mowbray, Mark Venus and Peter Grant moved to Celtic. The only time this made a substantial difference to the results was in 2007/08, as the club faced a second year in the Championship, when profit on player sales was £18.1 million with Peace commenting, “My attitude changed then from not allowing players to go to saying we’ll let them go for the right price.” However, one advantage of Albion’s conservative policy is that they don’t need to hold a fire sale of their star players if they are relegated. When Mowbray was confronted by this situation in 2009, he said, “We are not in a position where we have to get £20 million into the club quickly because of any shortfall of revenue after relegation.” More on the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) Exactly!! I 've been banging on for a couple of years about Ashley looking to be the next West Brom rather than the next Arsenal... 2009... I'm now convinced everything is going as planned for Ashley (or change of planned once keegan went). Over 3 months without looking close to a sale. He's clearly saying one thing (I'm gonna sell) and doing another (not selling) like he always has. As fans, we want to be up there with Chelsea or Man U. But look at the operating loss they've most recently posted (07/08), £85m and £44m respectively. Does an owner, using his own money want that? Being succesful costs, and is all about the gamble of maintaining success until you can sell a high revenue company (not necessarily a profitable one) in a stronger market than you bought it. Which club should you try to emulate to make a profit without any risk? Only 5 clubs reported a profit in the most recent accounts. Blackburn (7th), Spurs (11th) and Fulham (17th) all earned about £3m. But West Brom earned over £11m...in the Championship. If you want to be profitable, you just have to maintain a championship squad that can occasionally go up and guarantee a pay day and a parachute when you fail to invest again. 2010... So, like West Brom, we'll be set up not to lose money even if we go down. Last month I don't think anyone can doubt he's getting it right, the question is at what cost. There's only a few teams that are able to make money in the Premier league. Those that reach the Champions League...and West Brom. They take relegation as an acceptable hazard of not spending beyond their means. They invest only in promotion, not necessarily in survival. They can survive on parachute payments and the take it as a bonus when they survive. That's a far cheaper, less risky approach to getting a club stable. It's not an approach ANY fan should be happy with though. Let alone fans of a club that were in the Champions league very recently. It's also not an approach Ashley has EVER owned up to. Preferring to peddle the lie that we could break into the top ten with zero (or negative) investment. Edited September 6, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 (edited) 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. Which is further detailed by HF, and the comparison to West Brom and the comments about being happy to exist in the premiership, albeit with the odd relegation, on the minimal expenditure possible. Comments you scorned when I made them.... 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. Edited September 6, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Ashley has, basically, turned us into Sunderland. For me, he's trying to turn us into Wigan. Their transfer policy seems to be similar. Buy cheap promising players from abroad with resell value. JJB Stadium - Sports Direct stadium Small club mentality (music after goals and that shit) - This will soon come, I'm sure. Fat Sports Retailer - Fat Sports Retailer Scarily, that is closer to the mark than you may realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I was about to say, HF's been on about West Brom being the model for ages now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 I was about to say, HF's been on about West Brom being the model for ages now. West Brom eh ? Dizzy heights. 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