Wullie

Cisse can play there. By the end of the season, I think the player who will have made by far the most appearances as a wide forward will be a defensive midfielder.

Well then we agree (although I'd say the bare minimum is someone who can play as a wide left forward).

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing. West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m. Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks). Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks). sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again). Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to). Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last. The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt. So you want us in debt, like under shepherd? There's absolutely nothing wrong with debt in and of itself, depending on income.

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing. West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m. Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks). Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks). sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again). Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to). Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last. The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt. So you want us in debt, like under shepherd? Fwiw, in terms of "net spend" over the last 2 years only Liverpool & West Ham have a far superior net spend, and Sunderland's is only £2m more. Our net spend is higher than Spurs, Everton & Villa. So it's ok not to strengthen this summer then?

That's one reason of course, the other one is that it would cost him money to do so.

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty. I'm not really sure what you mean by 'content', but I get what you're saying. I admit that I don't think it's unacceptable for him to take some debt repayments. Every regime in my lifetime has taken money from the club, at least Ashley only did after he'd given us a massive interest free loan. If he wants to take his debt after he's paid for a good enough striker and a good enough left winger and put a real manager in place, then good luck to him - if it helps him fuck off and drink himself to death quicker, all the better. Even you can't justify a penny taken before those three things are in place. I couldn't care less about the numbers if the team is good enough, I've said this many times. I simply do not give a shit. A consistently good team will always make more than enough money in other revenue to trump any debt they can build up without actively trying to bankrupt themselves. Even when I posted all those numbers above, you just looked at the debt and said "we've got more" - quite apart from the fact that you refuse to think about the structure of that debt and the likelihood of it being called in, Man United's debt is £350m, Real Madrid and Barcelona even more. You can't just point at debt and say that we can't spend money. That's like saying anyone with a mortgage can't possibly afford to buy a car. Transfer fees are part and parcel of the normal running costs of a Premier League football club. Manageable debt makes the world turn, and we have the most manageable debt possible.

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty. Why are you treating a debt to our owner as being the same as a debt to a bank? In terms of financial security, it's simply not comparable.

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing. West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m. Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks). Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks). sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again). Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to). Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last. The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

Spot on. Not really. Using Chelsea and Man City as examples is just creating a ridiculous hyperbole. Swansea, Norwich, Southampton, West Ham, Fulham, Everton, Spurs have all spent much more than us, some of them vastly so. None of that is coming out of an oligarch's pocket, it's coming simply from being a Premier League football team and the incredible revenues that come with it.

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want. I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped. Absolutely pathetic. I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you. What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"? No sorry, that was flippant. I just mean, if our spending is more than our income, then we add to our debt. And that has to be financed. I know that players become assets for accounting purposes after they're signed, but in real terms their purchase still needs to be paid for with money, that comes from our revenue. Everytime we get near this point it ends in some sort of throwaway remark or personal abuse. I'm just not sure what I'm missing? The reason we struggle to pay for, e.g. two £10m players is because NUFC, unlike every other club in football, insist on paying their transfers up front. Why do they do this? It's insane. If we did that today, it would cost us £20m right this second. If Spurs/Arsenal/Everton/anyone else did it, it would cost them £4m. We're crippling our own spending power. Again, it's not that simple. Like in life things cost more if you pay in instalments and why Ashley wants to pay upfront as he wants a better deal. Pay £8m for Gomis now or pay £12m over 4 years, what's the point if you've already got the £8m? We do it the right way, if we did it on chucky while having mad debts to Ashley he'll be here until we're all dead. Why don't all clubs do it this way then if it's the "right way"? I don't believe football clubs do discount for cash up front either, we're not buying a used car. Your comment about "What's the point if you've got the £8m" - the point is to improve the team even more. I'd rather buy 4 £8m players with the same amount of cash and use the vast increase in TV money to pay for it. That's what our competitors are doing.

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want. I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped. Absolutely pathetic. I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you. What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"? No sorry, that was flippant. I just mean, if our spending is more than our income, then we add to our debt. And that has to be financed. I know that players become assets for accounting purposes after they're signed, but in real terms their purchase still needs to be paid for with money, that comes from our revenue. Everytime we get near this point it ends in some sort of throwaway remark or personal abuse. I'm just not sure what I'm missing? The reason we struggle to pay for, e.g. two £10m players is because NUFC, unlike every other club in football, insist on paying their transfers up front. Why do they do this? It's insane. If we did that today, it would cost us £20m right this second. If Spurs/Arsenal/Everton/anyone else did it, it would cost them £4m. We're crippling our own spending power.

Yes I think it is, and it was preceded by a couple of £30m+ losses. What are the similar "profits" (there's that word again that doesn't mean anything on its own because if you buy a £10m player, the profit remains the same for a year at which point the profit will say £8m) for other clubs? Because ultimately the numbers only mean something when compared to our competitors.

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want. I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped. Absolutely pathetic. I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you. What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"?

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want. I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped. Absolutely pathetic.

Christ. FFS man Wullie, it's a fact we were making regular losses and our debt was increasing. I'm not explaining it again, it's not going in and isn't going to.

Christ.

wullie the club is a company as much as you might not like to hear it, freddy mortgaged our future and now we're paying for it that's the simple fact...it'd be great if fat mike was benevolent enough to forget the 100m he spent wiping out freddy buying owen and luque but apparently he's not And as I've already said, I'm not asking him to forget it. It's still on the books and will remain there.

becasue perhaps as a businessman who has essentially destroyed his competition ruthlessly over the last 10 years he would rather have the 100m back, i don't know, it's irrelevant...he's due it, the issue is how he goes about getting it back How is he due it from his own company? He's entitled certainly, due implies we have some reason to pay it back other than him being a total cunt.

hold on, are you saying ashley should let his 100m+ just ride like? Probably not, but serves the cunt right for not doing the due diligence when he bought us. Fat cunt. nonsense No it's not. He didn't do due diligence, only absolute idiots would spend 125M on a business and not actual see any of the books. in actual fact i think you'll find gambles are made in business every day of the week, what tends not to happen is when a gamble is lost temporarily the billionaire in question just says "aye well, 150m down already, suppose another 100m isn't that much to miss" there's no fucking reason why he shouldn't want his money back, as objectionable as he is So when we get £63m+ from the Premier League this season, it's ok for him to take the lot in your view? absolutely not, when have i ever said that? i'm the person arguing against "certain people" that we should expect to spend that money now because it's guaranteed however as the owner is 100m down i'd expect there to be a % involved...don't see what's controversial What's controversial is that it appears to be 100%, or at least that 0% is going to be spent on players, or a new manager. You don't think we should spend some of that money now? Why on Earth not?

Yes, but we have over £100m in debt and up until a couple of years ago were losing £30m+ a year. That's a fact isn't it? So either we need affordable debt sources or Ashley needs to use his own money. Or the club could spend its own money instead of being used to repay the debt. You said yesterday it was unacceptable for him to be withdrawing his debt, now you're saying it's fine. I think it's acceptable for him to take some debt repayments out... repaying debt is part of a company's operations.It's pretty hard to argue about specific amounts though. To their own owner? Just saying "we've got masses of debt" is a misrepresentation. It's like me taking £1000 out of my savings and putting it in my current account, and claiming I have debt problems. I don't. I'm not going to send the heavies round, or come and confiscate my own telly. We have more than enough revenue to spend on players without adding a penny to Mike Ashley's debt. The only reason he needs that money back is greed, and to piss us off.

hold on, are you saying ashley should let his 100m+ just ride like? It's his own company we're talking about here, not two separate entities. NUFC can't run off with his cash. There's absolutely no way it's acceptable for us to spend £0 in transfer fees so that he can get his money back (does he have a big leccy bill or something?) How much is ok for him to take out in your view then? Just what we would have spent in transfers or can we go ahead and take the lot and bankrupt the club? This attitude amongst our fans of "he's the owner, he can do what he wants" is disgusting tbh. Ronaldo's right about the pathetic specimens we have become. The Yank cunts tried this with Liverpool and were ran out of town, it didn't matter how much money they had, the fans made their position untenable. We just carry right on licking Ashley's ring. fuck off wullie man, alls i'm saying is noone can expect anyone to just write off 100m in an ideal world he'd be smart and realise success is the way to money but we don't live in an ideal world He's not writing it off though. It's still there, in his own company, and will continue to be there and when he sells up, he'll get it back. Why does a bloke with a billion quid need that back right now, other than sheer greed and spite?

hold on, are you saying ashley should let his 100m+ just ride like? Probably not, but serves the cunt right for not doing the due diligence when he bought us. Fat cunt. nonsense No it's not. He didn't do due diligence, only absolute idiots would spend 125M on a business and not actual see any of the books. in actual fact i think you'll find gambles are made in business every day of the week, what tends not to happen is when a gamble is lost temporarily the billionaire in question just says "aye well, 150m down already, suppose another 100m isn't that much to miss" there's no fucking reason why he shouldn't want his money back, as objectionable as he is So when we get £63m+ from the Premier League this season, it's ok for him to take the lot in your view?

hold on, are you saying ashley should let his 100m+ just ride like? It's his own company we're talking about here, not two separate entities. NUFC can't run off with his cash. There's absolutely no way it's acceptable for us to spend £0 in transfer fees so that he can get his money back (does he have a big leccy bill or something?) How much is ok for him to take out in your view then? Just what we would have spent in transfers or can we go ahead and take the lot and bankrupt the club? This attitude amongst our fans of "he's the owner, he can do what he wants" is disgusting tbh. Ronaldo's right about the pathetic specimens we have become. The Yank cunts tried this with Liverpool and were ran out of town, it didn't matter how much money they had, the fans made their position untenable. We just carry right on licking Ashley's ring.

Yes, but we have over £100m in debt and up until a couple of years ago were losing £30m+ a year. That's a fact isn't it? So either we need affordable debt sources or Ashley needs to use his own money. Or the club could spend its own money instead of being used to repay the debt. You said yesterday it was unacceptable for him to be withdrawing his debt, now you're saying it's fine.

Yes in revenue, in debt, in anything you care to use to measure it. We're the 20th richest club in world football and the 6th richest in England in terms of revenue. We are also guaranteed at least 25 million pounds extra tv revenue in the next twelve months which will propel us up that world table.