Taylor Swift

Questions/issues re:Tapatalk 1. For some reason in certain threads the page numbers at the top don't show up. Any reason that happens? 2. Some of the smileys don't show up as smileys but just as the code. 3. Can't access the last post in some threads. Clicking the thread takes me to the first post instead. But anyway, this is genius. Thanks Rich and the moderating team Today has been a giant leap for N-O-kind.

Posting from my iPhone. Rich, this is fucking awesome :fwap: No more wap

:lol: at johnny

I hope Marveaux and Santon get starts, but I can see Pardew continue with Taylor at LB, with our only change being Obertan or Lovenkrands dropping to the bench with Marveaux starting. I'd like to see Ba starting as well since he should be much fitter having had two full weeks to train. A lineup of Krul; Santon, Coloccini, Taylor, Simpson; Jonas, Tiote, Cabaye, Marveaux; Ba, Best would be sweet, but I'm expecting something like Krul; R Taylor, Coloccini, S Taylor, Simpson; Jonas, Tiote, Cabaye, Marveaux, Lovenkrands; Best, which would be disappointing.

rooney 3-0

rooney 2-0

They're insanely good

No. Still 1-0.

Carroll on, Bellamy on.

Begovic with three outstanding saves in about 15 seconds. Amazing stuff. Truly ridiculous.

3-0. We are Barcelona.

Robbie Fowler's in the crowd and he's joining in the wave

We've made the final qualifying stage a couple of times, IIRC. The last time was about 12 years ago. Anyway, we win this, we fuck the Saudis next month and we're a point away from qualifying for the final stage, again. Although the last time we qualified for the final stage we drew 4 and lost 4 Anyway, football is all about hope and today we're playing like Barcelona.

This is the qualification for the '14 WC, by the way. It's only been a year since the '10 WC but a loss tonight would realistically eliminate us from the '14 tourney

Soooo close to 3! Playing some beautiful football.

We're up 2-0 against Oman at HT. Fucking got cheated out of a point against the Aussies last week, but if we three points here then we're off and running. It'd be great if the Aussies beat the Saudis later today too.

But for all of Ashley's faults, he's not far away from being the best kind of owner that we can realistically hope for. I know everyone will point to Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs as clubs that invest in new players and are striving for Champions League football, but if you take a closer look at the way those clubs are run, you'll see that they're not so much different than the way we're being run. Spurs spend quite a lot money, but their revenue is also higher. However, now that they're not in the CL, you see the reports coming out that Harry has to sell before he buys, and that's why they practically gave away Jenas and Hutton for free: to reduce the wage bill. They posted an 18m profit for the last six months of 2010, but 22m of their revenue came from CL or things related to the CL. They won't be able to post such nice figures this year, which is why Harry hasn't much to spend. I think Spurs have one more shot at it financially. They might hesitate to give that shot to Redknapp, but they've probably got one more 30m bullet left, and then it'll be time to reload by selling Modric for 40m or something like that. Otherwise they won't be able to support the existing structure at the club. So they might seem like a club that's being run very well - indeed they are - but they're not sitting on a mountain of cash that's available to spend. They, too, are now restricted because of their failure to qualify for the CL. Take a look at Liverpool and you see a similar picture. Although they've spent big this summer, they have pretty much shot their load. Their wage bill will be through the roof and their revenue will not be able to sustain this kind of spending for long, unless they qualify for the CL in the next year or two. I've read a few interviews by John Henry and he's already mentioned how surprised he is at the way the finances work for football. He's a smart owner so he realizes that the top four is about to become a closed group, so the time to break in is now. I think we're all aware that the top 3 - Chelsea, Man Utd and City - are fixtures in the top four. Which leaves only one spot. And that's why Liverpool have gone for it now. If they fail, it won't be long before you see similar rhetoric from John Henry: 'wage bill too high', 'must reduce size of squad'. They'll face the same problems that every other club outside the CL faces. It's just a matter of time if they fail to qualify for the CL. There's no need to go on about Arsenal. Everyone knows the way they work. They post profits almost every year without fail, but they're only able to do so because they qualify for the CL year in year out. Their wages are ridiculously high - comparable to Man Utd's, I think - but they make a profit almost every transfer window. Even though they spent 40m yesterday, they still made a large profit this window. There are only five or six clubs in Europe that can consistently lose money: Chelsea, City, Malaga and maybe Roma. The rest have to survive by generating revenue. Which is why, realistically, having a different owner won't matter much in the long run. The best we can hope for is probably a Randy Lerner type, but how many owners are funding their clubs year-in year-out? Now back to the way we're run. We now have a very low cost structure. Our wage bill is probably very small. I think it'll be around 50% of our revenue, a ratio which only Man Utd can compete with (!). Our revenue continues to grow because the TV pot is getting progressively bigger, and our commercial income will grow when the contracts are up for renewal since we're once again an established Premiership club. We're on course to make a profit this year, after making about 50m last year including the Carroll money (just a guess, but I probably won't be far off). So we will be able to invest and bear the costs related to it. I don't know whether we'll have to wait until Ashley sells up or not, but we're in a position to invest sustainably because our costs are low. We'll probably make 25m minus whatever we spend in January. So the financial footing of the club is now very strong, whoever the owner is. We're probably one of the best clubs you could buy right now because there is room to grow. I don't really have a major point to make, except that for all of Ashley's faults, he's good with the finances and in the long run, with a more ambitious owner, we'll be able to compete without stretching ourselves and risking everything, something which a lot of clubs would have to do to compete with the top 4.

Ashley has so far invested 280m in the club, half of which was to acquire it, the other half to cover its losses over the past four years. Like Dave has said, the 140m used to acquire it was his own choice. I don't think the club or the fans should feel grateful that he took us over, since our feelings are determined by what happens on the pitch, and not off it. Now let's take a look at the other 140m. Half of that was the stadium expansion loan, which the club would have, in my opinion, been able to pay off gradually since the whole principal wasn't due for a good number of years. We would have been able to sustain ourselves. The other half - around 70m - is what Ashley has actually covered, and what I think would have put us in trouble if he didn't take us over. However, more than half of it was losses that occurred due to relegation, which was completely Ashley's own fault for not realizing the weaknesses in our squad and for the ridiculous four managerial changes in that horrible season. A conservative estimate is that relegation cost us 20-30m (revenue declined by 50m or so but that was balanced out by about 20m in outgoings and a reduction in the wage bill, IIRC). So, actually, what we should be grateful for is about 20-30m. Not much. It's still a sizable sum. But it's not much.

That is half right. He also paid 140m in CASH to Shepherd and the Halls for the club, so even if his initial loan is paid back through profits that the club makes, there is still the initial capital cost of 140m. I think his total investment in the club is around 280m. If he makes a 40m profit for the past year and uses that to reduce the debt, then his net investment in the club will still be north of 200m, which means that if he sells for anything less than that, he'll have made a loss. And for what it's worth, when you invest almost 300m in anything, you expect returns every year. He's obviously not had any return on his investment over the past 4 years, so there is an opportunity cost to factor into it. A rough estimate of his investment so far is probably around 350m (without taking into account last year's profits). Ashley borrow 140m ---> SJH pay 140m ----> Shepherd club owe 140m ---> SJH owe 140m-----> Ashley i think that's the case in the above scenario, i had no idea at all why you have the amount of 280m Umm, no. Ashley is St James' Holdings, so I'll just use it as Ashley. Ashley pays 140m to Shepherd and Hall to buy the club. The club has debt, which means the actual cost of the club was debt + 140m. The debt was around 60 or 70m, which means the cost to Ashley for buying the club was around 200m. The first couple of years, the club continues to lose money. Ashley has to invest his own money to cover this. The sum of this investment is 60m+. However, the debt that the club had originally had to be repaid instantly, so Ashley covered this as well. So Ashley lent 60m + 60m more to cover the debt, ergo the 130-140m that the club now owes Ashley. Add that to the 140m that Ashley paid Shepherd and Hall and you get 280m. Roughly, anyway.

That is half right. He also paid 140m in CASH to Shepherd and the Halls for the club, so even if his initial loan is paid back through profits that the club makes, there is still the initial capital cost of 140m. I think his total investment in the club is around 280m. If he makes a 40m profit for the past year and uses that to reduce the debt, then his net investment in the club will still be north of 200m, which means that if he sells for anything less than that, he'll have made a loss. And for what it's worth, when you invest almost 300m in anything, you expect returns every year. He's obviously not had any return on his investment over the past 4 years, so there is an opportunity cost to factor into it. A rough estimate of his investment so far is probably around 350m (without taking into account last year's profits). Does he have to disclose any of this? Is it possible to join the dots from the published accounts and find out exactly how the club was bought and who is owed the money? Sorry for sounding like an idiot I just want to understand where the club is financially. Yeah, you'll be able to see everything from the yearly accounts published. When he repays a bit of the debt back this year, it'll show up in the accounts as a smaller gross debt (which is what I expect to see). Our cashflow is probably not good yet because we're paying out transfers up front and selling in installments, but from a financial perspective, things are improving and the medium term future looks good (low wages, high revenue = profits). Maybe the cash-flow situation will actually look good because we got all the Carroll money up front. If that's the case then our overdraft will be significantly lower than the 36m that it was in the last set of accounts. The trouble is maintaining lower wages which is impossible to do for good players, so you either have to sell them and replace them with players whose wages are lower, or pay them more which will reduce the profit. I'm just giving you an objective look on the finances, by the way. It's obviously no fun as a fan to see negative net spending every window and us having to suffer through watching shite like Ameobi and Lovenkrands when we should realistically be watching the likes of Gameiro and Ruiz.

He spent 130+ million of his money to buy the club. Then he had to repay loans the previous owners had at the amount of around 70 million, and spend 66 million to keep the club going. He did this by loaning the club around 150 million from his own pocket. The first sum he will only get back if he sells the club, the second sum the club will have to repay him, but with no interest. Ok this kinda explains my last question. But is there anything to stop him getting the first sum back before he sells the club? If the club makes a profit every year and he's able to pay back all the debt, then the profits after that will be cash sitting in the club's coffers which is payable as dividends or used simply to increase the cost of the sale of the club. But that's far, far, far into the future. It won't happen. No Premiership club makes profits year after year after year. Owning a Premiership club isn't good for business.

That is half right. He also paid 140m in CASH to Shepherd and the Halls for the club, so even if his initial loan is paid back through profits that the club makes, there is still the initial capital cost of 140m. I think his total investment in the club is around 280m. If he makes a 40m profit for the past year and uses that to reduce the debt, then his net investment in the club will still be north of 200m, which means that if he sells for anything less than that, he'll have made a loss. And for what it's worth, when you invest almost 300m in anything, you expect returns every year. He's obviously not had any return on his investment over the past 4 years, so there is an opportunity cost to factor into it. A rough estimate of his investment so far is probably around 350m (without taking into account last year's profits).

Err, no. The shareholders got 138m from Ashley still, its just that the club is paying Ashley back everything he paid them. No. Not even fucking close to reality.

Umm, no. Ashley paid SJH and Shepherd a sum of money to buy the club and assume all of its debts. His mistake was not realizing that the debt had to be paid back immediately, which is why Ashley had to lend money to the club. He has invest 200m+ into the club. That's not something that can be doubted. He's probably trying to recoup a bit of that money, but if he sells for below 200m then he'll have made a loss.

These Stoke fans :lol: