If we finish in the top 4.....

[Happy Face 29]

You could of saved yourself writing the previous post then by just saying they couldn't compete.

 

Who said they could? Why is it a question you're getting so worked up about?

[manc-mag 1]

Who said they could? Why is it a question you're getting so worked up about?

 

I think it's at least germane to the issue of who exactly can compete in modern football. ie the futility of banging on about what the last lot did/achieved etc. It doesn't provide a blueprint for future success so why waste time pretending it does. We're trying to deal with what's do-able in the here and now. If in fact there's only a very very small pool of potential owners who could make the club compete at the very top, then that's a piece of information that should check you before you decide to try and run down what's been achieved this season. That last point not aimed at you btw, obviously.

[Happy Face 29]

I think it's at least germane to the issue of who exactly can compete in modern football. ie the futility of banging on about what the last lot did/achieved etc. It doesn't provide a blueprint for future success so why waste time pretending it does. We're trying to deal with what's do-able in the here and now. If in fact there's only a very very small pool of potential owners who could make the club compete at the very top, then that's something that's a piece of information that should check you before you decide to try and run down what's been achieved this season. That last point not aimed at you btw, obviously.

 

The only point I see Leazes making is that football is ostensibly the same now as it was then, if you're going to challenge on the field you need to compete with the rest of the league in the transfer market to sign the best players...and pay what's required to do that.

 

The only difference is the wealth of the owners, and the borrowing required to compete.

 

 

Freddy Shepherd is worth a total of £60m personally and did the whole thing on tick. No-one could do what he did now. He exploited the untapped potential of the region and the club, then had to get out. He hasn't got back into any other club either because the game is beyond him now.

 

Mike Ashley is the 7th wealthiest manager in the league with a net worth of £1.5b+ though. 25 times as wealthy as Shepherd, He's pumped in £250m+ personally (over 4 times Shepherd's personal fortune, £50m a year) and should be a man who can compete with at least 18 other clubs, every season. He has the means, the stadium, the dedicated support that outshines most Premier League clubs, even in the championship, but (so far) he chooses to let the club wipe it's own nose and has tens of millions in profit to spend this summer before putting any more of his own money in.

 

The summer will be interesting.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Happy Face

[Gemmill 35582]

FFP prevents the ploughing of one's own money in though. Ashley's net worth is a total irrelevance as the club is now required to wipe its own nose. I don't know why you raise the subject of him putting his own money in, as that's no longer an option.

 

I appreciate that this is beyond the wit of Leazes.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Gemmill

[Happy Face 29]

Fair point...and one I've made to Leazes on here before too. But he wasn't bound by those rules for when he was getting himself in bother, first throwing his money about like it was Paul Wellers hair, and then tightening his belt excessively.

 

But again, to be fair, Leazes doesn't even ask for the owners money these days, he just asks "where is the Carroll money?", which is what will be interesting about the £32m profit most recently posted and what gets spent in the Summer.

[manc-mag 1]

The only point I see Leazes making is that football is ostensibly the same now as it was then, if you're going to challenge on the field you need to compete with the rest of the league in the transfer market to sign the best players...and pay what's required to do that.

 

The only difference is the wealth of the owners, and the borrowing required to compete.

 

 

Freddy Shepherd is worth a total of £60m personally and did the whole thing on tick. No-one could do what he did now. He exploited the untapped potential of the region and the club, then had to get out. He hasn't got back into any other club either because the game is beyond him now.

 

Mike Ashley is the 7th wealthiest manager in the league with a net worth of £1.5b+ though. 25 times as wealthy as Shepherd, He's pumped in £250m+ personally (over 4 times Shepherd's personal fortune, £50m a year) and should be a man who can compete with at least 18 other clubs, every season. He has the means, the stadium, the dedicated support that outshines most Premier League clubs, even in the championship, but (so far) he chooses to let the club wipe it's own nose and has tens of millions in profit to spend this summer without putting any of his own money in.

 

The summer will be interesting.

 

I agree with absolutely all of that btw. The irony is Ashley actually could compete if he wanted to. He is one of the very very very few people who could.

 

He'd have to underwrite it though and if it didnt work it would cost him money. Either directly or on re-sale. I personally wouldn't lose a great deal of sleep over that as it's not my money. That's not the point though. He no doubt does and most people in that very very very small group of potential owners probably would too. Because it's their money.

 

Leazes is wont to bang on about putting his money into the club via his ST and in so doing he elevates the importance of the club's income - ie the fans financing of the club. "We're a big club, we should be competing with x, y and z" etc etc. This underpins much of what he says. In the same breath he also advocates going bankrupt (or going to the point of bankruptcy) if that's what it takes to get success. Now the point about bankruptcy is neither here nor there in a sense, Leazes is absolutely right that most clubs dont go bankrupt, and he thinks in saying that he's proved a point, but that in and of itself is a red herring. The point is even if you get near to bankruptcy it means you've exceeded your income massively, so in this sense he's simultaneously exalting an approach which places the absolute minimal importance on the club's income.

 

Ergo the two thing's he harps on about are utterly contradictory and once again what he's saying boils down to nothing more than an old man shouting "spend more money" and other slogans of that ilk. At the end of the day, it's the difference between an opinion and an argument and we all know it. The man in the pub can have an opinion (and almost invariably does), but it doesn't stop his pants reeking of piss.

[manc-mag 1]

Fair point...and one I've made to Leazes on here before too. But he wasn't bound by those rules for when he was getting himself in bother, first throwing his money about like it was Paul Wellers hair, and then tightening his belt excessively.

 

But again, to be fair, Leazes doesn't even ask for the owners money these days, he just asks "where is the Carroll money?", which is what will be interesting about the £32m profit most recently posted and what gets spent in the Summer.

 

 

superb

[Gemmill 35582]

Yes but he also accounts for "the Carroll money" in an utterly retarded way. He refuses to accept that agent's fees are a legitimate cost to the business, or that players wage differentials have to be funded from somewhere - the improved contracts for existing players and the wages of newly introduced players.

 

But these costs exist and are realities of business. It's like talking to a baby. "35.......minus what we spent on Cisse. That's what's left, so I wanna see all of that spent." We make a small operating loss at present. If we take all of the money that Leazes thinks should be spent, and spend it all in visible transfer fees (cos that's the only way to make his silly little sum work), then we have to fund increased agent fees from current operating income and our wage:turnover ratio goes up again because now we have more players, and we need to retain playerslike Coloccini, sonwe need to find an improved wage for him from somewhere, and suddenly we're making an even bigger operating loss and are on our way to getting ourselves into bother again.

 

There's still work to be done to fix the finances of the club. There'll be some spending in the summer I'm sure, but if we're gonna attempt to hold them to Leazes football finance rules, which are completely unworkable in the real world, then there's gonna be a lot of disappointment.

[Gemmill 35582]

The man in the pub can have an opinion (and almost invariably does), but it doesn't stop his pants reeking of piss.

 

[manc-mag 1]

Yes but he also accounts for "the Carroll money" in an utterly retarded way. He refuses to accept that agent's fees are a legitimate cost to the business, or that players wage differentials have to be funded from somewhere - the improved contracts for existing players and the wages of newly introduced players.

 

But these costs exist and are realities of business. It's like talking to a baby. "35.......minus what we spent on Cisse. That's what's left, so I wanna see all of that spent." We make a small operating loss at present. If we take all of the money that Leazes thinks should be spent, and spend it all in visible transfer fees (cos that's the only way to make his silly little sum work), then we have to fund increased agent fees from current operating income and our wage:turnover ratio goes up again because now we have more players, and we need to retain playerslike Coloccini, sonwe need to find an improved wage for him from somewhere, and suddenly we're making an even bigger operating loss and are on our way to getting ourselves into bother again.

 

There's still work to be done to fix the finances of the club. There'll be some spending in the summer I'm sure, but if we're gonna attempt to hold them to Leazes football finance rules, which are completely unworkable in the real world, then there's gonna be a lot of disappointment.

 

Aye, well put.

 

I'm satisfied with the full and frank apology I've received from him though on a personal level. Once again I'd like to take this opportunity to commend him for admitting where he was utterly wrong this season and we all move forward together, with an eye on European adventures to come.

[Lake Bells tits 1]

[Gemmill 35582]

I agree. He's a cunt with a heart of gold, and he's shown that this week in his repentance both on the board and in the form of numerous private messages.

[brummiemag1 0]

FFP prevents the ploughing of one's own money in though. Ashley's net worth is a total irrelevance as the club is now required to wipe its own nose. I don't know why you raise the subject of him putting his own money in, as that's no longer an option.

 

I appreciate that this is beyond the wit of Leazes.

 

Slightly off topic but are you sure its definitely the case under FFP that an owner would be prevented from giving a no strings attached financial donation to the club? If so what would be the advantage in having billionaire owners like Man City and Chelsea if they cannot contribute financially? And if so does that mean no one can give money to a club?

[Happy Face 29]

Yes but he also accounts for "the Carroll money" in an utterly retarded way. He refuses to accept that agent's fees are a legitimate cost to the business, or that players wage differentials have to be funded from somewhere - the improved contracts for existing players and the wages of newly introduced players.

 

But these costs exist and are realities of business. It's like talking to a baby. "35.......minus what we spent on Cisse. That's what's left, so I wanna see all of that spent." We make a small operating loss at present. If we take all of the money that Leazes thinks should be spent, and spend it all in visible transfer fees (cos that's the only way to make his silly little sum work), then we have to fund increased agent fees from current operating income and our wage:turnover ratio goes up again because now we have more players, and we need to retain playerslike Coloccini, sonwe need to find an improved wage for him from somewhere, and suddenly we're making an even bigger operating loss and are on our way to getting ourselves into bother again.

 

There's still work to be done to fix the finances of the club. There'll be some spending in the summer I'm sure, but if we're gonna attempt to hold them to Leazes football finance rules, which are completely unworkable in the real world, then there's gonna be a lot of disappointment.

 

 

Irrespective of agents fees, new contracts etc, we made a profit after player trading of £32m last year though.

 

The argument that Ashley was covering a loss and making the tough financial decisions to secure our future was only valid as long as we were running at a loss.

 

Now we have significant profits, and to be fair to Ashley, I've posted my appreciation that £20m+ has been spent since the last set of accounts were published. My complaints are limited to perfect world questions now, where I wonder what we could have done had we invested some extra of that wedge in a better CB to step in for Steven Taylor.

[manc-mag 1]

Slightly off topic but are you sure its definitely the case under FFP that an owner would be prevented from giving a no strings attached financial donation to the club? If so what would be the advantage in having billionaire owners like Man City and Chelsea if they cannot contribute financially? And if so does that mean no one can give money to a club?

 

 

An absolute peach of a post.

[manc-mag 1]

Irrespective of agents fees, new contracts etc, we made a profit after player trading of £32m last year though.

 

The argument that Ashley was covering a loss and making the tough financial decisions to secure our future was only valid as long as we were running at a loss.

 

Now we have significant profits, and to be fair to Ashley, I've posted my appreciation that £20m+ has been spent since the last set of accounts were published. My complaints are limited to perfect world questions now, where I wonder what we could have done had we invested some extra of that wedge in a better CB to step in for Steven Taylor.

 

Restores the faith when it gets down to this sort of debate and tbf you've contributed to that more than most. It's those sorts of headline figures that should be setting the terms of reference for debates about next season, 'progress' and 'ambition' etc etc. Good stuff.

[manc-mag 1]

I agree. He's a cunt with a heart of gold, and he's shown that this week in his repentance both on the board and in the form of numerous private messages.

 

A particularly nice touch and one which set the tone, as it was in the same spirit of reconciliation I telephoned Gene Clark earlier today to suggest we let bygones be bygones. Sadly it just rang out.

[Gemmill 35582]

 

 

Irrespective of agents fees, new contracts etc, we made a profit after player trading of £32m last year though.

 

The argument that Ashley was covering a loss and making the tough financial decisions to secure our future was only valid as long as we were running at a loss.

 

Now we have significant profits, and to be fair to Ashley, I've posted my appreciation that £20m+ has been spent since the last set of accounts were published. My complaints are limited to perfect world questions now, where I wonder what we could have done had we invested some extra of that wedge in a better CB to step in for Steven Taylor.

 

Aye we did make that profit, but it was an exceptional profit (if we want to retain our best players, it's not something that we're gonna repeat this year) and as such needs to be handled carefully. As you say, we've spent a decent chunk of cash since then.

 

I think things like whether we could have bought a centre half are more likely a player availability issue than a willingness to spend issue. We'll find out in the summer though - rumours are that we know who our man is and we're waiting til the summer for him, which is promising. Better that than lashing out on a stop gap who you then have to pay a wage for the next 3 years. Leazes talk of Chris Samba was utterly ridiculous - not in the business model and has gone to a club that specialise in "final pay day" style contracts, which we are thankfully no longer in the business of offering.

[Gemmill 35582]

 

A particularly nice touch and one which set the tone, as it was in the same spirit of reconciliation I telephoned Gene Clark earlier today to suggest we let bygones be bygones. Sadly it just rang out.

 

I believe he was attending a book signing.

[Gemmill 35582]

 

Slightly off topic but are you sure its definitely the case under FFP that an owner would be prevented from giving a no strings attached financial donation to the club? If so what would be the advantage in having billionaire owners like Man City and Chelsea if they cannot contribute financially? And if so does that mean no one can give money to a club?

 

That's the whole point of FFP. There is a requirement that football income and expenditure balance, so you can no longer have huge cash injections from wealthy owners. Have a look at the Wiki page on it. The rules don't include expenditure on infrastructure or training facilities, but transfer fees are included.

[Baggio 0]

 

 

Who said they could? Why is it a question you're getting so worked up about?

 

Worked up

 

Renton put the question to Leazes which he ignored, we both know he done this because he knows they couldn't compete yet he won't admit it as he would have little to go on about.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Worked up

 

Renton put the question to Leazes which he ignored, we both know he done this because he knows they couldn't compete yet he won't admit it as he would have little to go on about.

 

I assume he's not saying how exactly they would compete now, because he never even claimed they could.

 

Explain to me how exactly you propose to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson Baggio. Answer the Question!!!!

[Baggio 0]

I was reading on RTG when their accounts comes out and some guy on there posted a link to the Arsenal accounts that said players going out go through the books at once where as players incoming go through over the length of their contract.

 

Would explain why we made £32 profit despite buying Ben Arfa, Tiote and Perch in the same financial year.

[Baggio 0]

 

 

I assume he's not saying how exactly they would compete now, because he never even claimed they could.

 

Explain to me how exactly you propose to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson Baggio. Answer the Question!!!!

 

You so funny

[Gemmill 35582]

If you sell a player, you realise a profit equivalent to the transfer fee less what their current book value is. And you realise that profit at the point of sale. Whilst a player is at the club, you amortise his transfer price over the course of his contract. Is that what you mean?

 

As a basic example, you buy a player for 10m, and give him a 5 year contract. When you buy him he goes on your books at the full 10m, and you write that value down over the length of the contract (so 2m a year). So say 4 years into his contract, you sell him for 5m, your profit is 3m (5m fee less the 2m residual value that he currently sits on your books at).

 

Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know, but it just rounds out your Arsenal example.

 

And yeah, the cost of the player when you buy them is basically a balance sheet impact only - it doesn't have an impact on profit at all, except for the amount that you amortise that year (I.e. the 2m in the example above).

Edited April 26, 2012 by Gemmill