madras

and rumour has ir keegan left the first time round because they wouldn'e let him sign bepe signori.

What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? As far as I'm concerned the absolute duty of an administrator is to get as much back for the creditors as possible. So what does that mean? It means selling off the whole shebang, the players, facilities, knocking the stadium down for some other development for which money may be paid, the whole lot going into the pocket of Ashley, the bloke people wanted 'cos he was better than Fred. He could hardly just go ahead and do it off his own back with the club a going concern. creditors ? guess who that is.

it's like i'd rather have my leg sawn off (fred) as opposed to my head sawn off (ashley) plenty given the choice between the two would rather have fred whilst thinking all in all it's a pretty shitty choice. It's hard to believe that even after everything that has gone on under Ashley you and others are still coming out with idiotic tripe such as the above. To be more accurate it's any of: Ambition as opposed to no ambition knowledge of the game as opposed to no knowledge of the game someone who cares as opposed to a cockney market trader in it for all he can get Take your pick, they're all valid. Fred is a massive step up from the wide-boy. I just hope if it happens it happens in time, because Ashley is going to take this club down at least another division if he stays much longer, he may even totally destroy the football club. No doubt you'll still be trying to convince yourself that regular European football is no better and that Fred is just the same... no doubt you;ll remember that in freds last 10 years we finished below half way 6times. 3 times in his last 3 years if that was a guide as r=to the way we were going. he sure had ambition but that ambition got us to the point where in my opinion the banks wouldn't have bankrolled us anymore and we needed the banks just to make ends meet. yes ashley fucked up......doesn't mean fred was doing well for us.

it's like i'd rather have my leg sawn off (fred) as opposed to my head sawn off (ashley) plenty given the choice between the two would rather have fred whilst thinking all in all it's a pretty shitty choice.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: • £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. • £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. • £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. • £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. • £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do. can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that. Sorry mate don't understand your reply there - unless its a response to Parky's post "Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it." immediately above your post. it was, i just happened to miss out the bit i was referring to.

can i stand in for him, don't know, can you ? what do you think of a manager who won,,erm, erm, i cant remember,... evidently not don't know about that. you answered my simple straight forward question with a reply that had nothing to do with what i asked. so what about freddy then madarse. hey im doing ok. except mandiarse was his name for ozzymandias. shows how much attention i payed, actually tbh, i knew that, i was simply making reference to his way of changing names, fair play tho, he was right all along. perhaps his avoiding the issue skills has seen him looking at a career in politics? he was right in so far that ashley turned out to be terrible for us. he was wrong in saying how well fred had done in his latter years and where we were headed had he stayed.

erm...no He'd hired a good manager at exactly the right time and promptly gave him the funds to bring in new players i disagree about allardyce being a good manager and whom did he bring in ?

can i stand in for him, don't know, can you ? what do you think of a manager who won,,erm, erm, i cant remember,... evidently not don't know about that. you answered my simple straight forward question with a reply that had nothing to do with what i asked. so what about freddy then madarse. hey im doing ok. except mandiarse was his name for ozzymandias.

erm...no

can i stand in for him, don't know, can you ? what do you think of a manager who won,,erm, erm, i cant remember,... evidently not don't know about that. you answered my simple straight forward question with a reply that had nothing to do with what i asked.

can i stand in for him, don't know, can you ?

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) And Everton are for sale because Kenwright knows he and the current owners can't take it any further. I agree. This is now the nature of the beast for many clubs, but MA made it look like we were unique and in danger of going out of business which was a clear lie. whislt i agree with that (i don't think anyone believed it was imminent) i also think our position was one which needed remedying as soon as possible. Of course. But the time to get the wage burden down was this summer while sucking another chunk of PL money, not f***ing about in the last 2 windows. i can only assume he thought we;d stop up (he's known for his brinkmanship in business dealings), even i said he should have spent in the last window when it was looking ominous.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) And Everton are for sale because Kenwright knows he and the current owners can't take it any further. I agree. This is now the nature of the beast for many clubs, but MA made it look like we were unique and in danger of going out of business which was a clear lie. whislt i agree with that (i don't think anyone believed it was imminent) i also think our position was one which needed remedying as soon as possible.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) I'm keen to see how we need to borrow 30m to service debt. Show me. ok then. we had to borrow to stay afloat, 30million last season wasn't it ?ie the difference between what we had coming in and going out.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them)

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: • £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. • £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. • £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. • £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. • £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do. can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that.

we wouldn't be us if we were normal.

Like when he backed Bobby with just Bowyer when we needed to push on when we had the chance, or go for his own choices like Carr over Miguel etc. Meh. Besides, what is the point of backing managers when the managers you pick are for the most part penny dreadfuls. Sorry, not having a go, just need to vent when there is a prospect of the fat man returning. Aye, just like when he backed Souness with Owen and Luque instead of Anelka and Boa Morte, who probably would have cost about £13.5m less!!. Didn't Sir Bobby also say (in his book) that Gary Speed was sold by Shepherd without his (SBR) knowledge - and he (FFS) even denied what he had lined up when confronted about it by SBR? Aye, wouldn't sanction a move for Carrick either so we got Nicky Butt. When all is said and done it all comes back full circle to Freddy Shepherd. If Butt never gets signed we never get relegated. What a freakin' thing that is. pretty foolish if you think it comes down to that. Aaaaaah shut your Face Butt lover! "i like big butts i can not lie"

Like when he backed Bobby with just Bowyer when we needed to push on when we had the chance, or go for his own choices like Carr over Miguel etc. Meh. Besides, what is the point of backing managers when the managers you pick are for the most part penny dreadfuls. Sorry, not having a go, just need to vent when there is a prospect of the fat man returning. Aye, just like when he backed Souness with Owen and Luque instead of Anelka and Boa Morte, who probably would have cost about £13.5m less!!. Didn't Sir Bobby also say (in his book) that Gary Speed was sold by Shepherd without his (SBR) knowledge - and he (FFS) even denied what he had lined up when confronted about it by SBR? Aye, wouldn't sanction a move for Carrick either so we got Nicky Butt. When all is said and done it all comes back full circle to Freddy Shepherd. If Butt never gets signed we never get relegated. What a freakin' thing that is. pretty foolish if you think it comes down to that.

amongst all the talk of carrick,anelka etc i'd like to point out the only one that ever got beyond hearsay and into printed quotes (i think) was fred selling gary speed from under robson.

Fulham Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Ownership Mafco Holdings Limited, a Bermuda (tax haven) company, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed and his family Turnover £53.7m (up from £39.7m last year, a 35.2% increase) Gate and match-day £9.6m TV and broadcasting £34m Commercial activities £4.9m Sponsorship £3.6m Other operating income £1.6m Wage bill £39.3m (up from £35.2m the previous year, an 11.6% increase) Wages as proportion of turnover 73% Profit before tax £3.2m Debts £197m, included £174m owed to Al Fayed Interest payable £1.8m Highest paid director Unnamed: £228,083 State they're in Mohamed Al Fayed continued his extravagant funding of Fulham, increasing the loans from his companies to £174m, the second highest subsidy of any club by an owner behind Chelsea's Roman Abramovich. The loans are all interest free and during the year £9.5m was written off completely. Al Fayed, resident in Monaco, has had the reward this season of Fulham's highest ever finish, and he vehemently insists he has no intention of selling. their debts are owed to the owner......were ours under fred ? just a slight ever so subtle difference it makes to the relative positions. Our debts were owed to Ashley have you forgotten? no and i said ashley should have spent some of his money if only to protect his asset (ie he'd make more money selling a prem club than a fizzy pop one). but then again it's up to them how much they spend of their money.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. the problem as i saw it wasn't so much the debt but it's make up (ie wages and the length of the contracts therein)and growing year on year losses. meaning banks may not have seen us as a cushy place to loan money to.

Fulham Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Ownership Mafco Holdings Limited, a Bermuda (tax haven) company, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed and his family Turnover £53.7m (up from £39.7m last year, a 35.2% increase) Gate and match-day £9.6m TV and broadcasting £34m Commercial activities £4.9m Sponsorship £3.6m Other operating income £1.6m Wage bill £39.3m (up from £35.2m the previous year, an 11.6% increase) Wages as proportion of turnover 73% Profit before tax £3.2m Debts £197m, included £174m owed to Al Fayed Interest payable £1.8m Highest paid director Unnamed: £228,083 State they're in Mohamed Al Fayed continued his extravagant funding of Fulham, increasing the loans from his companies to £174m, the second highest subsidy of any club by an owner behind Chelsea's Roman Abramovich. The loans are all interest free and during the year £9.5m was written off completely. Al Fayed, resident in Monaco, has had the reward this season of Fulham's highest ever finish, and he vehemently insists he has no intention of selling. their debts are owed to the owner......were ours under fred ? just a slight ever so subtle difference it makes to the relative positions.