MAN CITY MAKE BIGGEST LOSS WHILE NUFC MAKE BIGGEST PROFIT

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I'm comparing the latest accounts with EVERY season going back over a decade.

 

[Happy Face 29]

 

[Baggio 0]

I'm comparing the latest accounts with EVERY season going back over a decade. If a club has more cup games, it's because they get past clubs like Brighton or (relegated) Blackburn in the early stages. To attribute poor matchday revenues ONLY to that is to completely let them off the hook. Attendances are down 4k - 5k. That impacts matchday revenue and is down to Ashley.

 

Our average season attendance for last season was 49,935, in 2007 it was 50,686 so down a whopping 750k from the attendances I'm looking at.

 

The previous owners would have cut loose the catering if it was costing them money, they weren't subsidising pies for fans. The fact Ashley did it is more indicative of how fans aren't happy to give him their money.

 

Whether they would of or not is opinion, what we do know is they make more money outsourcing the catering than they did when it was in house, if memory serves correct it operated at break even up until then so they outsourced it rather than waste man power on running it.

 

Up to the week we sold Milner he'd spent £27m,that was a year and a half, Keegan had started the season reasonably too. Drawing at old Trafford and beating Bolton at home. Then we sold Milner, Zoggy and Given to pull in £22m and go on a downward spiral. He spent beyond the clubs means...and then he undercut the confidence that can build by gutting the team despite the manager. the worst of both worlds.

 

So he didn't spend £15 million over 2 seasons then? I take it those stats suited that agenda on the previous page?

 

I'm asking without someone to shoulder the losses/debt, if NUFC were required to stand on it's own two feet financially, was it better placed to do so in 2007 or now?

 

The banks wouldn't lend us another £40m or whatever to cover the losses then so we were in the shit really bad, but would any financial institution lend us the £150m Ashley has built it up to while alienating most of his customers/sponsors....on the back of the same turnover we had then and losses back to what they were in 2005.

 

Of course we are worse off and we would have been fucked by 2008 if he wasn't shouldering the debt, as I've said that was down to the previous board buying players that we couldn't afford in instalments that were hitting the accounts for the following few years.

 

Unless you can think of something Ashley could have done different in his first 2 seasons that would have meant we wouldn't have accumulated so much? Sell more players? Surely that would have been him making even more cuts that supposedly caused relegation?

 

Lets say the old lot had stayed and were not prepared to sell to anyone, where do you think we would be now?

Edited May 28, 2012 by Baggio

[Happy Face 29]

Our average season attendance for last season was 49,935, in 2007 it was 50,686 so down a whopping 750k from the attendances I'm looking at.

 

The average attendance that corresponds to our most recent financial results was 47718.

[Happy Face 29]

So he didn't spend £15 million over 2 seasons then? I take it those stats suited that agenda on the previous page?

 

Should I have provided the exact number of days. Don't avoid the overall point to concentrate on the minutiae of an approximation.

[Baggio 0]

The average attendance that corresponds to our most recent financial results was 47718.

 

So less than 3k despite our first season back from relegation and over 2k have come back this season.

 

Looks like we're going in the right direction after all.

[Happy Face 29]

 

Of course we are worse off and we would have been fucked by 2008 if he wasn't shouldering the debt, as I've said that was down to the previous board buying players that we couldn't afford in instalments that were hitting the accounts for the following few years.

 

Unless you can think of something Ashley could have done different in his first 2 seasons that would have meant we wouldn't have accumulated so much? Sell more players? Surely that would have been him making even more cuts that supposedly caused relegation?

 

Lets say the old lot had stayed and were not prepared to sell to anyone, where do you think we would be now?

 

You're changing how the discussion is framed, from 'we've been turned around' to 'we'd be much worse off without him'. I'll take that as agreement that he's not quite turned us round yet. Which was my only point

[Baggio 0]

Should I have provided the exact number of days. Don't avoid the overall point to concentrate on the minutiae of an approximation.

 

Not exactly, most people count the year by season, or the football financial year if you're talking finances.

 

So when you say 2 years and you really mean 15 months or less than 3 full transfer windows then yes I'd say you're showing stats to suit your agenda.

 

Xisco came in after Milner left btw.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Baggio

[Baggio 0]

You're changing how the discussion is framed, from 'we've been turned around' to 'we'd be much worse off without him'. I'll take that as agreement that he's not quite turned us round yet. Which was my only point

 

I disagree, I'd say he's turned us around to get us on the right path but there is still plenty of room for improvement, which we should see with the new sponsorship deal and getting us back into Europe.

 

The financial outlook you're going off is for the previous season to the one just gone, which I think it's fair to say when we have pushed on.

[LeazesMag 0]

Since when has it been up to YOU to decide who the BIG hitters are around here?

 

paddockLad sitting in the corner demanding recognition for his efforts

[Happy Face 29]

Not exactly, most people count the year by season, or the football financial year if you're talking finances.

 

So when you say 2 years and you really mean 15 months or less than 3 full transfer windows then yes I'd say you're showing stats to suit your agenda.

 

Xisco came in after Milner left btw.

 

That's my thing. Ask Chez.

 

You're supposed to frame your own argument against the point being made though, not focus in on the side issue of how precise my working has been.

 

Milner and Nzogbia weren't particularly high earners either. Not sure what Given was on, but it could be argued that Ashley did very little to really lower the wage bill until we'd been relegated.

 

In signing Smith, Coloccini, Geremi, and Nolan(?) (and perhaps sanctioning Barton and Viduka who arrived after he bought out Sir John but before the take over was complete) he was guilty of lumbering the club with some of the most expensive contracts in recent history.

 

Everyone on the books for the last 3 years was signed by Ashley.

 

To argue that Ashley's spent 5 years correcting the mistakes of his predecessor on that score is misleading....and a line Llambias often likes to spin.

 

He deserves massive credit on restructuring the policy since since relegation, to suit a second tier club. The question is whether he can restructure it again to make us first tier, which we should be primed to do now.

[Happy Face 29]

So less than 3k despite our first season back from relegation and over 2k have come back this season.

 

Looks like we're going in the right direction after all.

 

I've not said otherwise. Not matching the full houses of Shepherd's last year though, or even the 50,700 of his first season, so not turned it around completely yet.

[LeazesMag 0]

I've not said otherwise. Not matching the full houses of Shepherd's last year though, or even the 50,700 of his first season, so not turned it around completely yet.

 

I think people ought to walk before they run.

[Gemmill 35601]

Man City spent 114% of revenues on player wages.

 

I can't be arsed to check the FFP rules, but there HAS to be something in there precluding this sort of nonsense.

[Kid Dynamite 6096]

 

 

I've not said otherwise. Not matching the full houses of Shepherd's last year though, or even the 50,700 of his first season, so not turned it around completely yet.

 

Fewer people can afford to drop 600quid now with the state of the economy. Taking that into account our attendances are probably more impressive than in FS last year

[Happy Face 29]

Fewer people can afford to drop 600quid now with the state of the economy. Taking that into account our attendances are probably more impressive than in FS last year

 

It would be a lot to pay, luckily the average season ticket in SJP was only £507 according to the latest accounts. That includes boxes, corporate and that.

 

Prices have come way down since FS. I pay the same to sit behind the goal as i used to pay for sitting in the corner furthest from the pitch. That's ALL family enclosure now, so half the price it was 6 years back. Half price season tickets for friends too. Free tickets with shirts as well.

 

Taking that into account our attendances are probably overinflated compared to what they'd be if prices had remained static.

[Baggio 0]

 

 

That's my thing. Ask Chez.

 

You're supposed to frame your own argument against the point being made though, not focus in on the side issue of how precise my working has been.

 

Milner and Nzogbia weren't particularly high earners either. Not sure what Given was on, but it could be argued that Ashley did very little to really lower the wage bill until we'd been relegated.

 

In signing Smith, Coloccini, Geremi, and Nolan(?) (and perhaps sanctioning Barton and Viduka who arrived after he bought out Sir John but before the take over was complete) he was guilty of lumbering the club with some of the most expensive contracts in recent history.

 

Everyone on the books for the last 3 years was signed by Ashley.

 

To argue that Ashley's spent 5 years correcting the mistakes of his predecessor on that score is misleading....and a line Llambias often likes to spin.

 

He deserves massive credit on restructuring the policy since since relegation, to suit a second tier club. The question is whether he can restructure it again to make us first tier, which we should be primed to do now.

 

I've never said he's spent 5 years putting right all of the wrongs as he's had his fair share of mistakes along the way, however unlike some owners he does appear to learn from his mistakes for the most part, although this seems to be going off topic from the original point of whether he has turned us around or not from when he bought us.

 

*Close to break even from a £33 million loss (not including Carroll money)

*5th place league finish up from 13th

*far superior squad with players attracting interest from champions league clubs

*Reduced the wage bill by £9 million

 

Your points about him not turning it around are...

 

*Debt increased in getting to this point

*Matchday revenue down

*Commercial revenue down

 

All fair points, what we do know is that he contracted out the catering contract worth £7.6 million a year as it wasn't profitable however if you include that back in for arguments sake it brings us back somewhere near, on top of that we have a new shirt sponsorship to hopefully boost income in that area.

 

Match day is down but will be boosted this term by an average of 2,000 more fans through the gate, next season we also have European football so more home games equals more money in the coffers. Anything else you can think of to get more people through the gates?

 

I'm not sure what his options are with cutting the debt, out of interest if he were to sell players and pay himself the money to reduce the clubs debt would you see that as profess to turning the club around? Since you didn't debate the point about the losses in his first 2 seasons being down to over spending by the previous board catching up with us in the form of amortisation hitting the books I presume you don't disagree with it.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Baggio

[Happy Face 29]

My response was to Deaders who seems to think he's got us from being in debt to "clean" and "turned us round".

 

It was strictly this financial point (which I think a lot of fans share) that I was opposing.

 

In addition to the 3 points of mine you quote above, I’d examine closer the 2 financial arguments you make to say he has turned us around:

 

*Close to break even from a £33 million loss (not including Carroll money)

 

This goes hand in hand with a 90% increase in TV money.

 

£33m loss without the £26m TV money in '07 would have been a £59m loss.

£4m loss last year without £49m TV money in '11 would have been a £53m loss.

 

Not something Ashley has to work for, something any owner would have benefited from similarly. If Shepherd was still here, he'd be able to claim he turned it around off the back of a very similar figures. He did exactly that in 2003, 2004 and 2005 where we broke even (give or take) following £40m losses in the 3 seasons prior.

 

*Reduced the wage bill by £9 million

I think I've gone into some detail on this as to why Ashley has been just as culpable as anyone else in our worsening wage bill.

 

 

You can see he's only been able to reduce wages one year, and that was following relegation. He can rightly claim to have slowed the growth in 08/09...but was it worth the cost if we got relegated? Wages are growing again now though, just as fast as they were before relegation. The nature of wages is that they will increase year on year, so to only be paying out now what we were in 2006 and finishing 2 places higher is impressive, even if it did cost us our premier league place and a good deal of income in the interim. The trick is to keep turnover growing faster than wages though, always striving to pay more for better quality players, while keeping it within the bounds of a growing turnover.

 

You can see that wages as a percentage of turnover was never above the 70% mark until well into his ownership...and this value shoots up as he dragged us down. He's managed to get us back to the level we were prior to his take over. Does that warrant the claim of turning around Shepherd’s mismanagement?

 

This return to the low 60s in terms of percentage of turnover is great news, but how much was down to pro-active revenue generation? Again, the reduction goes hand in hand with a 90% increase in TV money. Look at the wages as a proportion of income WITHOUT the tv money and it tells a story of it’s own.

 

 

Still in a much worse position than it was, our reliance on top flight survival is as great as ever, and the loss of that TV money would harm the club now more than it would when Shepherd was here, because media income makes up so much more of the revenue we're depending on.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Well, that's a good response to deaders, very detailed. I wait with great anticipation for Deader's reply to you.

[Gemmill 35601]

Well, that's a good response to deaders, very detailed. I wait with great anticipation for Deader's reply to you.

 

[Happy Face 29]

Well, that's a good response to deaders, very detailed. I wait with great anticipation for Deader's reply to you.

 

You're right

 

Match day is down but will be boosted this term by an average of 2,000 more fans through the gate, next season we also have European football so more home games equals more money in the coffers. Anything else you can think of to get more people through the gates?

 

I'm not sure what his options are with cutting the debt, out of interest if he were to sell players and pay himself the money to reduce the clubs debt would you see that as profess to turning the club around? Since you didn't debate the point about the losses in his first 2 seasons being down to over spending by the previous board catching up with us in the form of amortisation hitting the books I presume you don't disagree with it.

 

He's tied in to low prices for the majority for the next 10 years, so outside of increasing the amount of cup football there's not much more to be done to increase gate receipts.

 

It would be a public relations boon to admit that there's very little money available in branding an existing stadium and remove the vast majority of the ugliest Sports Direct branding. It would be a big story in itself, the return of St James Park, so I wouldn't be amazed to see him do it simply for that exposure.

 

There's a huge number that still won't spend in the clubshops, on programs or anything else, even outside of matchday tickets. Given our position, it's just the principle keeping them from contributing while Ashley is about, so that problem would be lessened and you'd see a good increase in merchandising imo. I'm not saying I'm expecting it, because I've always voiced concern that the Sports Direct exposure is his primary motivation, and it would be a short term gain in terms of brand exposure to be in the news. But if the club came first, he'd do it in an instant.

 

Other than that, it's just a case of backing the team to succeed, which in itself reaps the rewards you mention of greater sponsorship longer cup runs, European qualification etc. We're on the first step to that, We'll have got back to Shepherd levels when we break £100m.

 

I don't see any reason to pay off the debt as long as he's sitting on it interest free and isn't growing it further.

 

The question of amortisation I think I covered in that it's something every owner has suffered from to some extent and Ashley has contributed to our poor record there himself with buys such as Xisco, Smith, Barton and Colocinni.

[LeazesMag 0]

You're right

 

 

 

He's tied in to low prices for the majority for the next 10 years, so outside of increasing the amount of cup football there's not much more to be done to increase gate receipts.

 

It would be a public relations boon to admit that there's very little money available in branding an existing stadium and remove the vast majority of the ugliest Sports Direct branding. It would be a big story in itself, the return of St James Park, so I wouldn't be amazed to see him do it simply for that exposure.

 

There's a huge number that still won't spend in the clubshops, on programs or anything else, even outside of matchday tickets. Given our position, it's just the principle keeping them from contributing while Ashley is about, so that problem would be lessened and you'd see a good increase in merchandising imo. I'm not saying I'm expecting it, because I've always voiced concern that the Sports Direct exposure is his primary motivation, and it would be a short term gain in terms of brand exposure to be in the news. But if the club came first, he'd do it in an instant.

 

Other than that, it's just a case of backing the team to succeed, which in itself reaps the rewards you mention of greater sponsorship longer cup runs, European qualification etc. We're on the first step to that, We'll have got back to Shepherd levels when we break £100m.

 

I don't see any reason to pay off the debt as long as he's sitting on it interest free and isn't growing it further.

 

The question of amortisation I think I covered in that it's something every owner has suffered from to some extent and Ashley has contributed to our poor record there himself with buys such as Xisco, Smith, Barton and Colocinni.

 

precisely. And the point is, if this is EVER achieved, then its only going to be done by employing the same methods to achieve it and to stay there when you get there.

 

They will have spent years going backwards, then forwards again, then be faced with exactly the same decisions to either make or not make.

 

It's a funny old game.

Edited June 1, 2012 by LeazesMag