Teasy

true about not being able to afford it. but he should get what he's due right or wrong. He should, though it shouldn't be anything near the silly numbers he's suing for. He can't expect the entire contract even if there was a good reason considering he did walk out and there's no way the three years he had left were worth £10m anyway. Hopefully he walks away with £3m and the ability to tell whoever he wants what happened, I'd be happy with that.

Not bothered at all about this, in fact I wish we'd left the kids on against Huddesfield in the last round and went out then.

Not sure Lovenkrands is good enough for anything other then backup on the Premiership and I'd also have big question marks over Simpson. Barton's been shit so far and I'd rather have a more creative player in the middle with Guthrie. Colo is question mark despite his good performances as is Jonas. However if we sell them we can hopefully get enough money from those transfers to replace them so it wouldn't be included in the £30m or so, so I've just left them in.

Five good players added to our current squad (minus Geremi and Butt) would make us a better side then last year unless we buy utter crocks, and I've little doubt we'd have stayed up last year with any half decent manager for the whole season. Harper New, Taylor, Colo, Enrique New, Guthrie, New, Jonas New New We may even end up selling one or two and replacing them with the money we bring in, like Colo or possibly Jonas. Either way we'd have the money necessary IMO. I bet if we look at the average expenditure of promoted teams that have stayed up over the last few years it'll be nowhere near £30m.

. . and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it. The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co. Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title - which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be. If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club? Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success. This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time. For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option. Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity. Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation. We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill. Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's). Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club). I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you? Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it? Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership if we get back up and push us on. What I'm saying is he won't need his own money to get new players and add to the wage bill because our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m). That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a big extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue. Are you telling me that £30m+ is not enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up? Obviously the season after we'll generate more cash and can use that to push on. As long as we don't do a Shepherd and take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table and sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need. If I'd known it's that easy, I'd have put in a bid myself. Seriously though, we will be in a much better financial position if we get promoted this season, you're right. Ashley would have basically taken the hit for Shepherd's mismanagement and we'd probably end up having screwed him over more than the other way around. The club might well be in the position to make a profit, but we all know it's not as simple as that, and no, I'm not sure that £30m is enough to keep us in the Premiership if it's supposed to cover fees and wages and everything else. Obviously running the club isn't easy but thats down to decision making rather then cash. That's why I've always said that what we should be concerned about with Moat is not his money but whether he's got the ability to make the correct decisions at the club. He has no experience outside of being a fan. IMO £30m plus a small loan of £10m would be more then enough to keep us up.

. . and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it. The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co. Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title - which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be. If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club? Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success. This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time. For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option. Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity. Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation. We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill. Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's). Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club). I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you? Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it? Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership IF we get back up and push us on. IF we were to go back up our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m). That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a bit extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue. £25m-£30m should be more then enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up. As long as we keep our ongoing costs to a reasonable level and don't do a Shepherd (take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table, sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus and spend all our 5 year sponsorship money in one month) we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need. With means we can push on each season. This is all without Moat finding a penny himself. Its quite possible he has backing and even £10m a season added to the money the club would bring in would put us in an excellent position to move forwards. Really the important question we need to ask about Moat is not how much money had has but is he knowledgeable enough to make the right decisions at the club.

. . and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it. The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co. Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title - which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be. If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club? Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success. This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time. For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option. Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity. Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation. We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be in profit each season before any new transfers, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill. In the last financial report we had a wage bill of £72m, paid £9m on interest for our debts before they went to Ashley and paid Allardyce and his cronies between £6m and £8m (can't remember the exact figure). We also had no sponsorship income due to Shepherd blowing our £4m per season deal in one go. Because of all that we lost £30m Next season we'd start off with a wage bill in the mid to low 30m range, almost no interest payments, no payout to sacked managers and a new sponsorship deal. All we'd really have to deal with IMO is the loss from this season. Which should have been greatly reduced due to the £26m we've made from transfers.

. . and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it. The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co. Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title - which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be. The huge income you mention means that the owner doesn't need to be able to "afford" to run the club. Unlike Everton, Villa or Man City this club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time. A rich generous owner would be nice though

"They got a massive profit for what they paid for me and they got 11-and-a-half years' service. " He makes it sound like he was doing it for free Remind us Shay, how much were you paid for those 11 and a half years of service? £15m?, £20m?

garth The point I was making is that you don't need massive personal wealth be able to spend on players at a club like this. In fact if its run well no personal investment is required at all (well apart from the fans personal investment ). As long as you keep the wage bill to a reasonable level this club will generate plenty of excess cash which can then be invested in players and used to pay interest on any necessary loans (obviously it won't be silly money like Man City but nobody expects that). Shepherd actually did that for some time, unfortunately he lost the plot and let the wage bill get to a stupid level in the last few years, which in the end is what fucked us.

I guess I'm just not convinced that Moat has the ability to spend on our team. I'm afraid we'll go from an owner who is unwilling to invest to one who is unable. Shepherd spent massive sums of money on the team without ever putting in a penny of his money (in fact he was taking large sums out for himself) so I don't see why Moat would find it hard to get finances for team building. As long as he keeps the wage bill relatively in check the club itself would generate money to spend on players.

We made hard work of the game, but in the end we could and should have scored a couple more.

Ah yes the Man Utd to Chelsea to Newcastle in the Championship move? I'm sure he'll be up for that. I know that would be almost as crazy as Sven-Goran Eriksson going to a league two club, just imagine that eh

7 is pretty shit like considering 1 means champions and 10 relegation

Why? All three teams have five wins, West Brom have one more draw then us but have had an easier run. Its clearly almost impossible to split us at the moment and that's while we've consistently had 4 first teamers missing.

We've been signing these "so called" proven and experienced internationals for ages already and where has it takes us? Should we sign unproven and inexperienced players who aren't good enough to play for their country instead?

Got my ticket today, surprised at the price. I mean I know its Plymouth, but every other game this season I've paid £20 for a level 7 balcony seat, today it was £15 By the way, is their really any chance of Jonas being back on Saturday?

One of the reasons - not the only one. Obviously yes, one big reason.

He is the reason we lost our last home match. The referee was the reason we lost our last home match.

Aye, it is definitely sound reasoning to criticise American and religious culture based on a parody site. To be fair the site itself is criticising America and its not as if its not similar to so many real nutsoid religions over their.

Fan wise no, trophy history no, stadium and training facilities no, Arabs yes.

I just hate it when the fabled 12 point lead is mentioned, its a falacy IMO and the media and everyone else have used it as a stick to beat us with for years. There was nothing we could do to stop Manure winning their delayed game that day or their game in hand. All we could do is keep the actual 6 point lead we had and of course we didn't which does fall on Keegans shoulders. Of course getting that lead in the first place also falls on his shoulders.

As far as I remember we were only 12 points ahead for a few hours before Manure played their next match. The lead was 9 points and Manure still had a game in hand which effectively made it only a 6 point lead. Still shouldn't have lost it like.

He's as crazy as a sack full of ferrets.

With the debt we're carrying, we seem to need big investment just to stay in the same place. Any club with terrible manangement is going to need more investment then normal just to stand still. Which is why some common sense and an idea about Football is much more important then lots of money (especially at a club with so much financial muscle of its own). Whether Moat actually has that is another question of course, but that's the question I'd be asking.