Parky

I'm not prepared to boycott the club either. And NUSC haven't suggested it. A boycott of food/drink/programs was in place at the consensus of most places (TF, The Mag etc.) which the NUSC endorsed once it was set up. Your confidence that the money we invest in the club will be re-invested in players is confusing though, considering Ashley has had four windows to spend some of that money and we're still in credit in the transfer market. He's only really managed to spend anything in one window...his first. you realise money going into the club pays for other stuff too? Yeah. But I was asking what made Blefuscu think it would be spent on transfers....since he expressed that hope, despite there being no indication it would in the past. She actually.... The thing I do see is that money will have to be paid for the day to day running of the club. If we are not putting money into the club through merchandising etc then the cost of the day to day running of the club has to come from somewhere. I didn't express any hope, it is just a reality. Ashley will have to put more money in to cover day to day costs (wages of non-playing staff ~ you know the ordinary folks of the north-east who do the shop work, office work, cleaning etc) and other costs involved leaving less to go towards players. Its just common sense that something has to give if we stop supporting the club financially and the transfers in of players will probably be it. Isn't toonlass the former well renowned and persisitent god botherer? What has that got to do with anything? Oh nothing.

I'm not prepared to boycott the club either. And NUSC haven't suggested it. A boycott of food/drink/programs was in place at the consensus of most places (TF, The Mag etc.) which the NUSC endorsed once it was set up. Your confidence that the money we invest in the club will be re-invested in players is confusing though, considering Ashley has had four windows to spend some of that money and we're still in credit in the transfer market. He's only really managed to spend anything in one window...his first. you realise money going into the club pays for other stuff too? Yeah. But I was asking what made Blefuscu think it would be spent on transfers....since he expressed that hope, despite there being no indication it would in the past. She actually.... The thing I do see is that money will have to be paid for the day to day running of the club. If we are not putting money into the club through merchandising etc then the cost of the day to day running of the club has to come from somewhere. I didn't express any hope, it is just a reality. Ashley will have to put more money in to cover day to day costs (wages of non-playing staff ~ you know the ordinary folks of the north-east who do the shop work, office work, cleaning etc) and other costs involved leaving less to go towards players. Its just common sense that something has to give if we stop supporting the club financially and the transfers in of players will probably be it. Isn't toonlass the former well renowned and persisitent god botherer?

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come. Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill. We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen. It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager. For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it. Is that true? Don't think I've seen it before. According to Mike Ashley it is... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/08/08/mike-ashley-exclusive-chronicle-interview-72703-21492315/ But he's been known to talk bollocks....which is exactly ther point. And where does he turn down offers of investment, exactly? The context of that quote was him announcing that he was looking for investors! "I'd tell them we'd look at it at the end of the season as there was no rush" Exactly. No refusal there at all. When you asked that tart out and she said "some other time" that was a knock back mate. I know you don't like to think so, but it was. Feeble. "There are some great people who come to our matches who sit in the corporate areas, and wouldn?t it be great to have local backing for what we are doing? ?Some of them would talk to me last season and say, ?Mike, is there an opportunity for us to come into the club again because we were shareholders in the plc previously??. Either they've invested since or he's knocked them back or he was making it up at the time. Which is it? Whatever it is, it's clearly not a refusal. In fact, it seems more like an invitation. He's inventing imaginary questions for himself in an attempt to attract people to the club? That reminds me of someone... So now you're saying it's lie. So it's still not a refusal. The girls must love you.

I'm not prepared to boycott the club either. And NUSC haven't suggested it. A boycott of food/drink/programs was in place at the consensus of most places (TF, The Mag etc.) which the NUSC endorsed once it was set up. Your confidence that the money we invest in the club will be re-invested in players is confusing though, considering Ashley has had four windows to spend some of that money and we're still in credit in the transfer market. He's only really managed to spend anything in one window...his first. you realise money going into the club pays for other stuff too? Yeah. But I was asking what made Blefuscu think it would be spent on transfers....since he expressed that hope, despite there being no indication it would in the past. How much are they paying you mate? Who? MENCAP

How much are they paying you mate?

The wages need to be looked at and I think they will come down very quickly when Owen, Viduka and Smith are gone. None of these three really give value for money with a combined wage of 230,000 a week give or take. On the one hand there is a need to balance the business I have no doubts about that, but as is shown at other clubs we need to keep refreshing the first team or we'll on be saving money to go down. That is the reality.

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come. Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill. We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen. It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager. For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it. Is that true? Don't think I've seen it before. According to Mike Ashley it is... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/08/08/mike-ashley-exclusive-chronicle-interview-72703-21492315/ But he's been known to talk bollocks....which is exactly ther point. And where does he turn down offers of investment, exactly? The context of that quote was him announcing that he was looking for investors! "I'd tell them we'd look at it at the end of the season as there was no rush" Wow! "No rush".

He replied to you. Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what? How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another? Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not? Is that the point or not?, no its not. Show me one comment where I claimed any Premiership team wasn't in debt. My very first comment was that debts are acceptable, but what isn't acceptable is a continuing debt which spirals out of control. Everton have a debt and costs they can afford, they made no loss last year and contrary to what you say there wages take up just short of 66% of there income. The year before it wasn't tho was it? ( I hadn't seen the 2008 accounts). But I had an inkling I'd find borrowing. No it was higher, wages were 75% of there turnover in 2006-2007. Though it has to be mentioned that had they not outsourced there catering ect it would have been around 66%. They lost £8 million in revenue due to outsourcing, I believe they did that to save on operating costs, I can only assume they were actually losing money on catering the year before The 2008 books looked cooked, no wonder there's a catering deficiency. Nah what happened in the 2008 books was a significant rise in revenue due to the new TV deal. Wages increased by £6 million a year but TV money increased over £20 million. Now we're getting somewhere. We got more money as well then?

He replied to you. Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what? How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another? I just read a couple of posts where you mentioned Villa, then had a go at Parky for discussing them. I didn't follow the conversation from the beginning tbh, sorry. Villa needed discussing as per recent statements tbf to me. If I find Villa's accounts I'll post them. But they seem to be far more difficult to find then for other clubs. I've given you Villa's profile from Deloittes.

He replied to you. Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what? How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another? Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not? Is that the point or not?, no its not. Show me one comment where I claimed any Premiership team wasn't in debt. My very first comment was that debts are acceptable, but what isn't acceptable is a continuing debt which spirals out of control. Everton have a debt and costs they can afford, they made no loss last year and contrary to what you say there wages take up just short of 66% of there income. The year before it wasn't tho was it? ( I hadn't seen the 2008 accounts). But I had an inkling I'd find borrowing. No it was higher, wages were 75% of there turnover in 2006-2007. Though it has to be mentioned that had they not outsourced there catering ect it would have been around 66%. They lost £8 million in revenue due to outsourcing, I believe they did that to save on operating costs, I can only assume they were actually losing money on catering the year before The 2008 books looked cooked, no wonder there's a catering deficiency.

He replied to you. Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what? How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another? I just read a couple of posts where you mentioned Villa, then had a go at Parky for discussing them. I didn't follow the conversation from the beginning tbh, sorry. Villa needed discussing as per recent statements tbf to me.

He replied to you. Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what? How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another? Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not? Is that the point or not?, no its not. Show me one comment where I claimed any Premiership team wasn't in debt. My very first comment was that debts are acceptable, but what isn't acceptable is a continuing debt which spirals out of control. Everton have a debt and costs they can afford, they made no loss last year and contrary to what you say there wages take up just short of 66% of there income. The year before it wasn't tho was it? ( I hadn't seen the 2008 accounts). But I had an inkling I'd find borrowing. Then they in their declared accounts reveal they have had to borrow from an external creditor (not even as cosy as us and MA) another 20m to balance the books. However these clubs dress up accounts wages are too high across the board and even Uefa are looking at debt to disqualify us from Europe. I take your point in so far as Everton are slightly better run than us...But it's close. I'll admit I was shocked at their numbers and Villa as the common consensus (myth) is they are doing it with balanced books (wrong). I'd say Fulham and West Ham are much closer to the wire.

Don't think Hull have debt as it goes. Shit.

He replied to you. Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what? How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another? Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not?

How did I get it wrong? PL clubs as a whole aren't in debt righto. Everton according to their own accounts have borrowed an extra 20m to balance the books (total risk now of 85m). That's hardly more well run than us is it? Ashley has played the debt card and people like you have fallen for it as if we're the only club that has debts. Then Lamb says we want to be like Arsenal sorry Villa...But then Villa have massive debts as well and can' t cover first team costs and have spent 80m on players over 2 years. Which is it to be? Please find a club that has no debt, no high wages, and doesn't spend on players and lives in the PL.

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? Deloittes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html Villa? 6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt. It's an issue across most clubs not just ours. But...but, but.... mackems.gif You what? That's Aston Villa you're quoting not Everton. Please take you're time, relax and concentrate a little bit and this discussion wouldn't have to go round in circles. I didn't want to mention Aston Villa, but I felt the need to as Llambiarse wants to now follow the Villa model.

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? Deloittes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html Villa? 6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt. It's an issue across most clubs not just ours. But...but, but.... mackems.gif It's a calculated risk over-spending in an effort to buy success, from the site you are quoting from the verdict is pretty scary on a lot of the clubs who are doing that. Buying big players on big wages doesn't guarantee anything you only have to look at the state we are in with a team full of bigshot high earners who failed to beat Hull in three attempts so far this season. From those accounts it shows their borrowing increased from 65m to 85m!!! ...and later they say as to higher tv income they broke even??? I think you're missing the simple point here. Debt shouldn't hinder investment in the FIRST TEAM and doesn't with most of our competition. Do you agree?

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? Shall we have a look at Villa's spending on players as a ratio against debt? Thought not.

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? Deloittes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html Villa? 6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt. It's an issue across most clubs not just ours. But...but, but.... mackems.gif

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So what's your point? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/oct/22/premierleague

Boro debt 85m Fulham debt 59m Man City pre takeover debt 147m Most PL clubs are running large debt. Not sure what you don't understand about this?

Asset strip? Do you know what asset stripping it? These people you're referring to are so clever they don't even realise this club is in financial meltdown. They seem to think every penny they put into the club should be free to spend on players. "Where's the season ticket money gone".. its been used to pay Damien fucking Duff you cretin! So what's the difference between us and the other 80% of the PL in debt? Having a debt isn't a problem as long as you can afford the interest ect. The problem is a debt that's spiralling out of control year after year. £35 million down a hole last year alone for fuck sake!! 80% of PL clubs are not bleeding anywhere near that kind of money. The majority of them would be bankrupt in no time if they did. I suggest you take a look at the accounts of other clubs. I have. Which clubs? The other clubs in the league that have been run into the ground? You can easily google PL clubs and their debt. Everton for instance. Wages higher than income. Surprised? I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. Villa. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. Blackburn 85% wages to turnover. 8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues. 9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio. 10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone. If you've got the 2008 accounts I'd be interested to see them. Everton Loss before tax -£9m Debts £59m Interest payable £3m 2007 only Ownership Everton Football Club Company Ltd

Asset strip? Do you know what asset stripping it? These people you're referring to are so clever they don't even realise this club is in financial meltdown. They seem to think every penny they put into the club should be free to spend on players. "Where's the season ticket money gone".. its been used to pay Damien fucking Duff you cretin! So what's the difference between us and the other 80% of the PL in debt? Having a debt isn't a problem as long as you can afford the interest ect. The problem is a debt that's spiralling out of control year after year. £35 million down a hole last year alone for fuck sake!! 80% of PL clubs are not bleeding anywhere near that kind of money. The majority of them would be bankrupt in no time if they did. I suggest you take a look at the accounts of other clubs. I have. Which clubs? The other clubs in the league that have been run into the ground? You can easily google PL clubs and their debt. Everton for instance. Wages higher than income. Surprised? I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. Villa. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. Blackburn 85% wages to turnover. 8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues. 9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio. 10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone. If you've got the 2008 accounts I'd be interested to see them.

So Ashley looking silly means that the NUSC can't look silly? I never said that. I said the NUSC have not had any negative press whatsoever that I know of. Several glowing reports of their passion and what Ashley could learn from it have appeared however. Telegraph and Times ran particularly sympathetic and constructive pieces. Think Simon 'you're a cunt' Bird did too. Mirror?

So Ashley looking silly means that the NUSC can't look silly? I never said that. I said the NUSC have not had any negative press whatsoever that I know of. Several glowing reports of their passion and what Ashley could learn from it have appeared however. Telegraph and Times ran particularly sympathetic and constructive pieces.