UV

Ashley has masterfully negotiated a new sponsorship deal at half the previous rate now though hasn't he? The club really is being turned round financially.

It was widely accepted on this forum - that he was putting in £20 million a year - of his own wealth - into the club a year. I think IIRC the clubs accounts proved this too. Since then we have had relegation and a worldwide recession. Now if that nugget of info was accepted (20 mil a year) as fact here last time around - how are we better financially now? Surely we would be in a worse state right? The money he "put into the club" was largely to pay for the change in policy to pay up front for players coming in while getting instalments for players sold. Take 08-09 for example. We spent over £26m on Guthrie, Bassong, Coloccini, Xisco, Nolan & Taylor plus whatever Gutierrez ended up costing, so say around £30m spent. We sold Rozenhal, Emre, Faye, Milner, Given & N'Zogbia also for around £30m. All in all no net spend or even a slight profit in transfers. HOWEVER we would only actually have received a fraction of that £30m (typically a quarter) in that year for some or all of those players we sold. So we may only have received around £10m in that year for the players sold. No net spend but £30m out, £10m in. Do you see where generous Mike's money went? It didn't go into the club in any way which added value to the team, it was just used to set the club up to make higher profits in future years. Profits we should be seeing now. He could say look at me aren't I great putting £20m a year in, when all he was doing was effectively putting it in the bank for later withdrawl.

True, but you need to spend something to attract the right man. Even then we wouldn't have been relegated if he got one of the 5000 better than Kinnear, wouldn't have lost 40m in TV money and could release/sell the high earners now after a stable season. Instead we're shitting ourselves about another relegation and Hughton is still here because Ashley has done naff all since we went down and he doesn't complain, not because of some f***ing masterplan. True, to a point, alot of clubs have found good manager with little cash in the pot, Fulham, Everton, Blacburn, even our own club was in a tight spot when SBR took over, its where i think the majority of critiscm aimed at the club should be focused, our failing to employ a credible manager. I guess thats my only point. My Messi/O'Neill analogy is a prime example of how i feel about, id much rather have a pretty ordinary manager with a decent reputation who would guide us so far leaving us in a better place like he did Leicester aloowing us to attract a better class of manager from there on in to having one of the best players of all time, in my opinion, becasue its my belief thatt he quality of the playing staff can only get you so far yet the quality of a manager can get you even further. Ridicule away. We kinda had that with fat sam but kinda messed it up by giving him pots of cash which he fucked up. We had an alright manager in Keegan as well only the board did manage to fuck that up, like i said my main critiscm is the largely held view that the most important thing a board should do is spend money, it isnt, it's to appoint the right man. Not spending money in January isnt what got us relegated, it was having that fucking loon in charge yet you read it over and over again that it was Ashleys lack of expenditure that get us binned. It's horseshit. The thing is that its bound to get twisted, I'm not saying we should spend no money and keep our powder dry until we're debt free, what im saying is that spending money isn;t the definitive affirmative answer on making the club successful, I'm just sick of hearing this "signing Ben /arfa/2 is the difference between getting us relegated and finsinihing mid table. /thats bullshit, and no ones pointing it out, if we signed Ben arfa and had Jim smith in charge we'd still be relegated. Of course the manager matters. Noone is going to argue that point, but Avram Grant might have something to say about the difference in managing teams of different abilities. I'm also curious about how this theory explains us running away with the championship last season with the man you're complaining about in charge if the manager is so much more important than the players. PS I thought me, the NUSC and Keegan were twice as much to blame for relegation than Ashley & Kinnear? Or has that opinion changed?

Those two positions aren't contradictory though. Of course not, they're the position of someone who will just sit back and accept whatever happens to the club without complaining (except to put down and complain about other people who have an issue with the way the club is run) or without doing anything about it (except to eventually lose interest and find other things to spend their money on). Every year we carry on with the way Ashley is running the club we lose some of the existing supporter base, and we fail to attract new youngsters picking their team. Every year revenues will fall relative to the competition, we will lose the financial advantage we have built up, and it will become harder and harder to get back to where we were even if we manage to scrape by and avoid relegation each year.

As soon as the transfer window is closed the same people who are saying we should wait until it's closed to complain will be saying that what's done is done, noone knows whose fault it really was, and there's no point in complaining now the window is closed and we should just get behind the team.

Because for the most part the better players who move in a transfer window move before the last couple of weeks. Typically, what's left is the dregs. You may get a hidden gem (eg Beye), but that's usually more down to luck than judgement. The last few weeks of the window should be for squad fillers, not 1st teamers. Are you waiting for the polar ice caps to disappear before you think about global warming?

Doesn't somebody say this every window? Yes, because it's completely correct... wise in fact. Most people are basing their criticism on past form and on the implicit presumption of no further significant transfer activity, only scrapping for loans with the rest of the bottom feeders. Why do we have to wait until the outcome is proven to have the debate? Still, there's plenty of cause for optimism I suppose. End of the window signings under Llambias : Xisco Gonzalez (L) Nolan R Taylor Harewood (L) Van Aanholt (L) Hall (L) Best Although of course it would be unreasonable to expect to live up to this kind of quality with no capital outlay.

That always got me So it's terrible and unforgivable when we have no fight and no team spirit, but when we do have some it doesn't make any difference? That's weird. It's nice to have fight and team spirit, but it doesn't act as a substitute for quality. I agree to a certain extent, obviously it's better to have better players. But look at what teams like Stoke and Birmingham have done through organisation and hard work. Organisation, hard work and £16m (+6 unknown fees) on 12 new players & 2 loans in the case of Stoke in their post-promotion season Organisation, hard work and £21m on 8 new players & 2 loans in the case of Birmingham in their post-promotion season Anyone spot the difference to what we're expecting?

Never fear, team spirit and good morale will see us through the next 5 years

That whole period man, we used to play good football, and I actually looked forward to the derby games. I remember we spanked Boro 4-1 at their place once. Such a great team, I watch the last 16 of the CL and then remind myself just 7 years ago we were at the equivalent stage. It's actually quite hard to consider, and very depressing. It'll happen again. Not for a while, but it will. Tragic how that period was a mere dip in the water though; replacing Bobby with Souness remains the worst decision in recent times. It just about pips putting Keegan and Wise in a melting pot in the 'bad decision' stakes. It's an absolute tragedy to think that that was what... 8 years ago? How many other clubs in our position would have used that progress to build a legacy and put in the foundations for a long-term successful team based around youth regeneration, concrete contracts for key players and a team mentality built on a particular type of football (like Barcelona) where players understand their role within a team and appreciate playing for a great club. Instead, we get rid of arguably the most popular man in British football, replace him with one of the most despised, tear apart an incredibly promising team for big-name players with no motivation or desire to play for the club except money, with no due dilligence as to their injury record, character, temperament or form, and with no apparent attempt at building a team based on what was missing at the time. I know that's been repeated and summed up so many times, but I just had to re-hash it to remember that yes, in fact, this wasn't just some horrible nightmare. Freddy Shepherd, fuck you sir. What a load of bollocks. I don't have time to go through it fully and point out all the contradictions (like who allowed Robson to spend the money on Bellamy, Robert, etc in the first place, along with the duds that he also bought) but I'll just say that even though I can't stand the man, the amount Souness harmed the club is massively, massively overstated. If we were so great before him and so shit afterwards, Roeder must have been one of the greatest managers ever to turn things around in half a year as a caretaker manager and get us to more points in 05-06 than we got in Robson's last season.

Owen -> Best Martins -> n/a Duff -> Routledge Bassong -> Williamson/Campbell Beye -> Simpson Geremi -> Perch Butt -> n/a Given -> n/a N'Zogbia -> n/a Yes, I can see why replacing (or not) those "shits who couldn't give a toss" for the players with great morale we've taken on will see us do far better this season. You obviously never watched Duff play for us did you? WInger my fucking arse! Ive never seen someone so terrified to take a man on, and so ready to blame anyone but himself when he lost the ball. All that arm waving carry on. I'm amazed his poor morale didn't spread through the squad and stop Fulham from getting to the Europa league final tbh. His 9 goals and 5 assists last season were also a pretty poor consolation for having to put up with all that arm waving.

Owen -> Best Martins -> n/a Duff -> Routledge Bassong -> Williamson/Campbell Beye -> Simpson Geremi -> Perch Butt -> n/a Given -> n/a N'Zogbia -> n/a Yes, I can see why replacing (or not) those "shits who couldn't give a toss" for the players with great morale we've taken on will see us do far better this season.

He didn't critcise the team. He just said the team wasn't as good as in the previous season, which was talking utter common sense, considering the previous season we we're 5th and that season we we're 11th/12th at the time. The lil rascal eh? Absolute disgrace. Don't want a cancer like that anywhere near the club ever again. Give me a "proper" player who'll blame poor performances on bad luck and dodgy referees over that any day. However, though it pains me to say it, to be fair to Souness (), hindsight showed he was probably right to get rid of Robert when he did (even though it was probably as much for non-footballing reasons as good judgement on his part). The problem was not replacing him adequately.

Not surprised, I've always said they never deserved a manager as good as O'Neill. Southgate is more fitting form them or even Souness. True, they can't even manage to fill their stadium with glory hunters from England's second biggest city when things are going pretty well for them. They got a few more in when Lerner started splashing all that cash, but it seems that regular 6th spot is getting dull for them and they're starting to drift away again. Not as interesting as a relegation season or a year in the Championship it seems. Will probably start moaning about him now that he's stopped putting money in and fall back closer to pre-Lerner attendances this season I reckon.

Agree, they are young, but when you see the names of players in this competition from earlier years, its pretty immense. This is a wounderfull experience for the lads, and they will grow on this im sure. They better had otherwise Mike will have to start another new 5 year plan. Pachuca beat PSG so we're through to the quarters with a game to spare. Play Pachuca later to see who wins the group.

Chubby chaser

How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts? Consolidating our position in the Premier League means staying up this year, no matter how we do it. Next year we'd no longer be a newly-promoted team and would have the benefit of two season's worth of Premier League income etc, which if it's anything like as lucrative as you've mentioned before will surely see us with a nice transfer kitty. If that doesn't prove to be the case I won't be happy at all. I'd say us having a weaker squad now is debatable tbh, not that it's even possible to compare any season with the train wreck when we went down. Every conceivable thing that could go wrong went wrong. We might have fewer individual talents now but we have better team IMO. As I said before, me being happy just to stay up by any means this time does not mean I'm happy with doing that every year. I can't understand how accepting the situation we're in somehow means I advocate it and want it to continue forever. Ashley has said the plan is to break even by 2015-2016. Ozzie is about to come back and show how we are going to make a loss this year without spending anything significantly more on players, but until he does let's assume we'll make a modest cash flow profit this year. He can't mean year on year break even, so what does that imply that Ashley means by "break even" and what does it suggest will happen for the next 5 years? If I'm correct and the club is on course to make a profit this year do you find it acceptable that the club should risk not spending that profit this year to improve our chances of staying up or to give us a better platform to work from next year?

Great counter argument as usual. Let's see your figures.

No Dave, there are plenty of people saying they are happy with it. The person I quoted for example. Sorry about that by the way, shall we get back on the blower to Nicky and beg him to sign another deal? We've done the 'experienced campaigner for big money' transfer policy to death and the result was a year in the Championship. Signing younger players who will garner experience by playing and signing them for good prices that represent value in the current economic climate doesn't sound too bad in comparison, not to me anyway. Spot on How are we "consolidating" anything if we end up not significantly improving on a weaker squad than the one we got relegated with the last time, and with the remnants of quality left one year closer to the ends of their contracts?

We finished 7th with those players that didn't really work out. Some of them didn't play much of a part in the season due to injury, but then their backups were at least as good as our first choice players are now relative to the competition. If you consider getting into Europe doing more harm than good, then I'm not really sure what your hopes are for the club you support. The effect of the players you mention "not working out" (ie not performing to level you would expect for the money paid) is that we didn't finish as high up the table as we would have liked. The effect of the calibre of players we are buying now "not working out" (which is every bit as likely) is humiliating relegation. I know it's currently fashionable to be happy with signing second rate players for low fees on low wages, but I guarantee if that policy continues without supplementing it with established quality players, we'll be relegated again within a couple of seasons as any remnants of quality we have left in the squad (or which develops from the players bought in) leaves due to lack of ambition from the club. As to whether Mike is going to put in £20m, here's my rough working out on the state of the club's finances for this year: Going by the 2006 accounts which are the last one's I have, I make the annual running costs of the club outside of the wage bill and interest repayments to be around £22m, lets say that's gone up to £25m. In the relegation season, revenue was £86m, down from £99m the previous year. I would expect revenue this year to be somewhere inbetween, say a conservative £90m. Let's also say the wage bill is now around £50m. I make that 90-50-25 = £15m profit. Very rough of course, and all based on guestimates, but I think I've very much erred on the side of higher costs and lower income (part of the reason the turnover reduced was because catering was contracted out so costs from that will have gone), but I'm happy for anyone to come along and correct or update any of those figures so we have a more accurate picture. I haven't for example included the money we will be receiving this year for the players sold in the past few years. So if Mike is putting in £20m on top, by my reckoning we should have £35m+ to spend on players & wages this year. Let the good times roll? I guess we'll see. Anyone want to bet on it?

Spurs, always trying to follow in our footsteps. I wish him all the best of luck in heading towards his goal.

We don't have Man U's spending power - even though that has been cut back ; we also don't have the same spending power as we did when KK was manager in the 90's. We ALL want winning/attacking football, but we haven't the means to buy it so we have to produce it locally - an that will take time and shrewd buying. While it's true we can't compete with the teams getting regular champions league football and those with rich sugar daddies, we have (or should have) a bigger advantage over the majority of other clubs in this league than we did back then, thanks to a built up fanbase and a larger stadium. Where does the idea we're suddenly paupers and should accept it come from? Because 1) the stadium capacity/fan base will only become an advantage once FIFA/UEFA bring in rules that force clubs to run on at least a break-even basis 2) Regardless of how much money is raised through STs, Merchandise sales etc., the buying policy is dictated by the owner and Ashley is clearly NOT going to allow large transfer budgets OR big wages. In the a/m circumstances, the manager has no alternative but to look for bargains and concentrate on the Youth policy. In any case, unless CL football is achieved, NUFC will NEVER be able to compete at the top level and fans will have to be satisfied with a constant battle to retain PL status and poss the odd cup run. Several thousand more fans at SJP will not make us better than other similar clubs - if that were the only criteria, we should be better than Everton and Spurs, but it will take years before we are anything like as good on the park. The club's location in the NE is also a handicap when competing for decent players within the price range unless they have a local connection.. Do you see anything different to this happening ? 1) Unless clubs have owners who are putting their own money in they already run like that or collapse quickly. Either way we have a short or medium term advantage. If 3 premiership clubs overextend themselves and go bust a year we don't have to worry about relegation at all. The point stands, we (should) have a financial advantage over all but half a dozen or so clubs in this league. I wasn't in any way having a go at Hughton. He has to deal with the reality of the funds he's given and the squad he has, and has to try and play the tactics that he thinks will get the best results from that group of lads. More fans at SJP should give us a competitive advantage over other similar clubs. The extra has to be spent wisely to translate that onto the pitch, but it at least means that there should be absolutely no chance barring an injury crisis that this club should have been relegated. We won't finish above all the teams we have an advantage over every season, that's just unrealistic, but on average we DID used to finish better off than the likes of Everton, Spurs, Villa, etc. I am not and have never asked Ashley to put money into this club, but I also don't expect him to use it to recoup the losses the club has made under his ownership due to his mismanagement. If indeed the club is supposed to be paying back the loan to Ashley as someone suggested above, then we honestly would have been better off going into administration 3 years ago as the doom-mongers pretend we were about to do. By now we'd probably have recovered and have a clean slate rather than have the prospect of any profits from a frugal existence going to paying off his debt for the foreseeable future. Under Ashley, you're right I don't see anything different happening, but don't try and make out it's inherently like that and he has no choice but to do it the hard way (and probably fail).

According to soccerbase, Wolves spent £11m + a couple of undeclared fees and Birmingham spent £18m + a couple of undeclared fees on 7 new players each Chris

We don't have Man U's spending power - even though that has been cut back ; we also don't have the same spending power as we did when KK was manager in the 90's. We ALL want winning/attacking football, but we haven't the means to buy it so we have to produce it locally - an that will take time and shrewd buying. While it's true we can't compete with the teams getting regular champions league football and those with rich sugar daddies, we have (or should have) a bigger advantage over the majority of other clubs in this league than we did back then, thanks to a built up fanbase and a larger stadium. Where does the idea we're suddenly paupers and should accept it come from? From the fact that we are millions in debt with an owner who has stated that his plan is to get the debt sorted, meaning we employ a relatively low profile manager with little money to spend. So we have to pay back £130m (or whatever it currently stands at) to Ashley before we can start spending again? Do you think that's what Ashley means by "break even"? £25m profits for the next 5 years until he's paid himself back the debt? That should be fun.