Teasy

I think it is personally. Nick Shorey for £25K is a bargain. HBA for loan fee + transfer fee is no a bargain it may turn out a good deal but for me it will never be a bargain. Everything is relative. But it is a bargain, especially when you consider that Scum paid a similar fee for Bebe. Take a look on youtube man, and see what skills the lad possesses. He's a magician. Definitely think he could end up as a bargain like.

And positives? Financial stability is the only real positive so far. I'm not even sure I've said anything positive about Ashley in this thread. Any financial "stablility" - and by this I think people are talking about the club making a profit - will have come about thanks to the increased TV revenues, and not through Ashley's great financial acumen. We'll have to wait for this year's accounts in a year or so to know for sure, but I think we'll see that the cuts in the wage bill (which I hope we can agree has come at the expense of weakening the squad even if there is an argument that the first team is better) are actually less than the drops in other revenue streams since he took ownership. ie without the increased TV revenue we'd be worse off even with the wage bill cuts. In 2007 the wage bill was £62.5m, revenue was £87.1m, of which £25.9m was media revenue (TV money), and we spent £5m more than we received. This year the wage bill is estimated as £50-£55m?, so around a £10m reduction, and we should receive over £50m in TV money, so over £25m increase. We damn well should be better off financially even ignoring the transfer market profits. I put stability in inverted commas above, as I think the weakened squad increases the chance of relegation if we have a year with a bad injury list and/or players lose form, so the finances of the club are actually less stable IMO. The only stability comes through the fact he can fund any losses himself, and while that's not to be sniffed at, in the long run if he expects those losses to be paid back it will definitely hold the club back possibly even more-so than going into admin and wiping the debts would have done (not that I think this was inevitable or likely). Comparing to the results from the year before Ashley took over is a bit tenuous IMO, considering the clubs finances were beginning to spiral out of control at that time, the following season was always going to be worse, with bigger losses and bigger wage bills ect. At the time the club had just lost £12m so our already considerable debt had increased again, meaning our £7m per year interest payments were going to be going up for the following season. We had no sponsorship money coming in (despite it showing in the accounts) and that wouldn't change for years to come because the money had been spent in advance. We had no assets left to borrow against and no way to decrease the wage bill for several years. We were in a state. As horrifying as Ashleys time has been here in a lot of ways, we're now much more financially secure. All of our debt is owed to him with an interest free loan, so we're saving £10m+ in costs right there. We've got new sponsors and we'll be receiving that money yearly rather then blowing it in one go. We've also saved costs on catering, which was outsourced (one of the reasons revenue is down, however what you won't see as easily is that costs will also be down). We aren't paying out massive sums in dividends despite record losses like before and our wage bill is £10-£15m lower then it was 5 years ago (obviously the average player wage has increased since then, so in normal circumstances you'd expect it to be significantly higher). Our revenue hasn't increased as much as it should have due to some of the fucking mental things Ashley's done. We'll have to wait and see, but I think we'll probably be at least £10m short of where we should be considering the increase in TV money. However the cost savings will be more like £25m+, even more so if you accept that 2007 was going to be even more costly then 2006 wether Ashley was their or not. Anyway no matter what you think about any of this, the fact is we no longer have to find loans from outside sources. IF anything goes wrong the costs will be covered, which makes us pretty secure financially. If only Ashley wasn't a fucking knob, everything would be great..

He doesn't though He doesn't explain anything so the "he won't be able to just explain it away" part of the post is pointless. He doesn't care what anyone thinks, until a player hands in a transfer request of course. Then Mike Ashley made him do it so that people wouldn't be angry at him

those that were offered it. th rest stayed as no-one wanted them or wouldn't meet their prices. Exactly. In that way we were lucky, as I think if he had the choice Ashley would have sold off more players, and we may have struggled to get promoted. Forced ambition if you like. This season we've only had an average injury list, and not all at the same time, so it hasn't impacted us so much. The players still with us who got relegated have done far better than most expected. Tiote was a good piece of scouting no doubt, but there's also luck that a player who was a sub in a Dutch team hit the ground running in the Prem, and we were especially lucky with the way Carroll developed, as going into the season our strikeforce looked terrible. so surely the things that have gone against us must be unlucky then or does it only work one way ? I'd expect a mixture of good and bad luck. This season aside from a few injuries, it's mostly been good luck on the playing front, and most of the players have hit good form. When we got relegated there was a bit of bad luck, yes, especially with all our strikers and attacking midfielders playing poorly at the same time in the second half of the season, but we should never have been in the position where a bit of bad luck was enough to get us relegated. That took help from a lot of poor decisions from the management. For a club of our means, a season of bad luck should mean a bottom half finish at worst. but it's not luck either way that the majority of our squad stayed due to being on high enough wages to put everyone else off. It wasn't luck that got us into that situation, no, it was down to Ashley's choice to give them those contracts. But once there I'd say it was fortunate (form our point of view as supporters) we were somewhat hamstrung in who we could easily dispose of, as given a free choice I think Ashley would have let more go. Clubs might have preferred to buy Coloccini and Jonas ahead of Martins and Duff... Then where would be have been? Martins and Duff would have raped the Championship. If they'd stirred themselves from the physio room. They'd have raped the Championship with one leg missing.

those that were offered it. th rest stayed as no-one wanted them or wouldn't meet their prices. Exactly. In that way we were lucky, as I think if he had the choice Ashley would have sold off more players, and we may have struggled to get promoted. Forced ambition if you like. This season we've only had an average injury list, and not all at the same time, so it hasn't impacted us so much. The players still with us who got relegated have done far better than most expected. Tiote was a good piece of scouting no doubt, but there's also luck that a player who was a sub in a Dutch team hit the ground running in the Prem, and we were especially lucky with the way Carroll developed, as going into the season our strikeforce looked terrible. so surely the things that have gone against us must be unlucky then or does it only work one way ? I'd expect a mixture of good and bad luck. This season aside from a few injuries, it's mostly been good luck on the playing front, and most of the players have hit good form. When we got relegated there was a bit of bad luck, yes, especially with all our strikers and attacking midfielders playing poorly at the same time in the second half of the season, but we should never have been in the position where a bit of bad luck was enough to get us relegated. That took help from a lot of poor decisions from the management. For a club of our means, a season of bad luck should mean a bottom half finish at worst. but it's not luck either way that the majority of our squad stayed due to being on high enough wages to put everyone else off. It wasn't luck that got us into that situation, no, it was down to Ashley's choice to give them those contracts. But once there I'd say it was fortunate (form our point of view as supporters) we were somewhat hamstrung in who we could easily dispose of, as given a free choice I think Ashley would have let more go. Clubs might have preferred to buy Coloccini and Jonas ahead of Martins and Duff... Then where would be have been? Martins and Duff would have raped the Championship.

Fucking hell man, that's not short and sweet. I'll respond eventually like but that's a lot to reply to, I'm off next week like

Very little IMO. Had we stayed up most of the big earners were still in line to leave. The main difference is we could have kept the players on lower wages like Bassong, or at least made money from them. As it is because of the relegation we lost £30m cash and all the profit from players like Bassong and Martins, so in effect we lost nearly £60m in cash and assets. Yes we've come back up with a leaner wage bill (maybe £10m less per year then if we hadn't been relegated), but our debt is now significantly bigger. Club debt has stayed the same as ashley forked out for our losses in the championship. Yeah I meant the debt to Ashley.

Very little IMO. Had we stayed up most of the big earners were still in line to leave. I think Ashley was aiming for that season (with Owen/Viduka ect out of contract) to stop the losses, but it required Premiership Football to work. Had we stayed up we could have dropped the wage bill significantly but kept the players on lower wages like Bassong, or at least made money from them. As it is because of the relegation we lost £30m cash and all the profit from players like Bassong and Martins, so in effect we lost nearly £60m in cash and assets. We've come back up with a leaner wage bill (maybe £10m less per year then if we hadn't been relegated), but our debt is now significantly bigger. Of course he completely fucked things up by causing the problems that ended up getting us relegated. So instead he's had to put more money in and consolidate. The relegation has definitely brought a team spirit to a club were there hasn't been one for years mind, so it wasn't all bad. But it definitely wasn't good financially.

What you've said is basically what I've been saying. The main difference between what you're saying and what 80 is saying is that he believes Ashley will minimise costs and sell players on in order to siphon that money off to pay his loan. Rather then using that money to improve the side and try to push up the league.

I agree if we're in the Premier League around mid table we'll still get good crowds. I don't agree the fans will put up with anything. For instance I think crowds would have dwindled severely had we stayed in the Championship for more then a couple of seasons. Also if we do a West Brom, yoyo's between divisions as Ashley bleeds money away from the club we'd also lose significant numbers.

And positives? Financial stability is the only real positive so far. I'm not even sure I've said anything positive about Ashley in this thread.

You want me to describe the things Ashley has done that make me dislike him? The whole Keegan debacle, putting the club up for sale at the worst possible times, ignoring fans that only want answers. Wasting our chance to have mega rich owners through sheer big headed small time pig ignorance (his trip to Dubai and the Man City owners enquiry). Causing the disruption to the club that got us relegated. The mans done some totally idiotic and cuntish things and at times I've hated him. Doesn't mean I'm going to ignore reality in any given situation because he's involved.

What?

He lost £30m through that despite bringing in £30m in transfer money and cutting the wage bill in half. How did he not find it so bad then? But what your suggesting would turn us into a highly efficient little club. You seem to think that the advantage we hold over other clubs in revenue and stature will always be there no matter what. Mirror West Brom over the next 10 years and our name/stature and revenue will drop to their kind of levels.

A big waiting list yes, but a waiting list the same size as their average attendance?, I'll believe it when I see it.

You mistake Ashley sympathisers with people who actually think about the reality of a situation. If you only want to read comments from people who spout hatred for Ashley regardless of the facts then go and find some morons to talk to. I mean I could tell you that I hate a lot of the things Ashley has done and dislike him in general but I doubt you'd listen. Because to you anything but 100% hate for the fat man means I'm a "Mike Ashley sympathiser"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8595655.stm If we finish mid table, and with the high number of games we have on TV, we should easily get over £50m. Poor old Ashley, with income like that there's no hope for him getting his investment back. Aye add that to the almost £50m profit the club has made in transfer fees since 2006 and things are indeed pretty grim for Mike 'Oliver Twist' Ashley. He must have loaned the club £130 million for fun then. Its amazing how many times this kind of thing needs to be said isn't it? People seem to see money signs and forget the money that needs to be spent running the club, especially during a promotion season. Its amazing how often it needs to be pointed out that the future is not the past, and that television money has gone up and outgoings have gone down. Did he need to loan the money? Yes, no one suggested otherwise. Can he get it back? Yes. Nobody said he couldn't get it back. Just that the previous comments from you and colinmk ignore most of the facts and figures required to come to a sound conclusion on how easy that's going to be.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8595655.stm If we finish mid table, and with the high number of games we have on TV, we should easily get over £50m. Poor old Ashley, with income like that there's no hope for him getting his investment back. Aye add that to the almost £50m profit the club has made in transfer fees since 2006 and things are indeed pretty grim for Mike 'Oliver Twist' Ashley. He must have loaned the club £130 million for fun then. Its amazing how many times this kind of thing needs to be said isn't it? People seem to see money signs and forget the money that needs to be spent running the club, especially during a promotion season. Also no doubt that "almost £50m" figure includes the Carroll money, which we haven't had the chance to spend yet.

I don't know how you think your idea is at all risk free. It assumes that we can continually find good players for small fees and sell them on for big fees and then find more and sell them on and so on while managing to stay in the division, with the profit being siphoned away. Even if it was possible (finding those kind of players year after year) its an incredibly risky strategy, as it consistently destabilises the team while at the same time alienating fans to the point were they would simply stop coming. The value of the club would decrease and Ashley might still not even get all his investment back over the course of a decade as our revenues would dwindle away. Really the only main difference in my suggestion is that the money from player sales is put back in to improve the side in order to increase the value of the club. That doesn't cost extra money, as its only money the club is creating itself. If done right he can then sell and make his money back much quicker. I agree with your point about wages in the main. They should be kept below a certain percentage of our revenue, and if a player gets too big for his boots then yes we have to sell. However what I suggest would be that all money generated by the club is reinvested in the club. That doesn't mean the wages have to go out of control, especially with more money left in the club to pay the bills. His investment is something like £250m isn't it? Even if he managed to sell a ruined Football club with a severely dwindling fanbase (as it would be with the strategy you're suggesting) for £100m. He'd then have to bring in £150m in profit from the club, hows he going to do that in less then 10 seasons? You've mentioned some random fee's their, but I don't see the relevance. A lot of those were acquired before he was even here, when we had a squad of expensive/highly thought of (but of course totally useless in the main) players. Also most of them ended up being sold, not to pay off his loan, but to try to keep the club going financially due to the fact that he'd gotten us relegated, and he actually still lost out anyway and had to add further to his loan to keep the club going.

Our comeback against Arsenal is quite obviously the game of the season so far.

No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. Of course that reasoning only works IF the team is kept as successful as before those players were sold. As obviously the value of a Football club is more then simply the value of its assets minus its debts. Trying the sell off the clubs best players every season, and replace them with more players you can sell for a profit the following season while keeping the club in the Premiership sounds like an unbelievably difficult way of going about getting his money back. Do you reckon he believes he can do that for the 8-10 consecutive seasons necessary to get his investment back?.. Would he even want to spend that amount of time slowly dripping the money back into his personal account? Surely the better way would be to try his best to improve the value of the club, through financial stability and improved performances on the pitch, to the point where he can sell it on. As hard as that could be its not going to be as risky or arduous as your suggestion.

That will be considered outside of normal turnover. nessy's right again, doesn't count nor does work on youth facilities, not sure on training ground but assume thats covered too So basically money men will need to expand facilities to increase turnover. Can they buy businesses and add them to turnover? No because it will only include the accounts of the football club itself. let's not forget only counts for clubs in Europe so anyone wanting to get to that position can still do what they want as long as they sort themselves out before playing in Europe. Yeah, though they'd actually have to sort the finances out the season before they play in Europe. Not an easy task for a club with an owner trying to pump massive money in to win things quick. Getting into Europe is what helps balance the books for that kind of club, so if you have to try to balance them before getting in, you then have to look at cutting costs instead. Which means your then less likely to qualify in the first place, as cutting costs invariable means lowering the wage bill.

A Birmingham fan says we have very average players?