quayside

You didn't answer the bit about mid table. And the £40 million overdraft is a figure punted by the News of the World. You are right though that whoever buys the club needs to expect to find further funds to keep it going, certainly in the short term. However for someone who is prepared to do it properly and, importantly, can afford to do it properly £100 million gets you one of the best supported clubs in the country, and these are supporters who will actually turn up at the matches and not just watch it on tv. And judging from last season they will do that even when they don't have anything to believe in. Since you also get one of the best grounds in the country you are buying an infrastructure that will allow you to play at the highest level - and if you can do your job as owner and get it to that level by running the thing properly and investing in the squad sensibly you don't have all the crap of having to upgrade the facilties. It's an opportunity for sure. Going back to Ashley and his options it is hard not to look at anything he does with both scepticism and cynicism however I still see a sale as his best option.

£250 million already sunk - no way will he recover much of that if he does as you say. Barring any of the cracking conspiracy theories having any substance his best way out of this financially is to sell and limit the damage. Hes not going to recoup much of it whatever happens. Hes never going to get £100m and the value of the club is decreasing by the day. If he cant sell and he wont put any money in, how is he going to claw back any of his £250m? I think he could get £100 million for the club, but there could well be an issue if he's expecting to get that as well as getting all his debt back.

Well he has been through it before (surely that's a sign). Funny, when I met Graeme Souness who recently was sacked at the time, and I told him how I was a Newcastle supporter - He APOLOGIZED to me that it went the way it did and how things didn't work out at the club. Thats the thing with Souness. As s*** a manager as he is, and all of the stories of discipline etc, of all the stories about him with fans, 100% are about him are about him being a warm, likable and thoroughly decent bloke who will go out of his way for you. It's true. I've met him twice now and he is a courteous and friendly bloke with a surprisingly good sense of humour. Not what I was expecting at all.

Business success involves a hell of a lot of luck. Being in the right place at the right time with the right people around you can make even a complete moron a lot of money. With us, Ashley seemed to be content to rely on his luck rather than good management and his luck just ran out. The situation reminds me a bit of what happened with Alan Sugar a few years ago, when he bought Spurs. He ended up having to sack Terry Venables, who was the fans' favourite, and found himself out of control of his own business. Like Ashley, he was glad to get out in the end. The only criterion for success in a business is making money. With a football club, success is trophies and there's a degree of customer involvement and interest in decisions which would normally be entirely up to an owner. True. Tbh I can understand people thinking that Ashley is deliberately running the club down because his decision making is so catastrophic that it seems inconceivable that he thinks he is doing the right things. But he is a trader and a chancer who got lucky in a market he understands. He thinks that means he has ability to run something else which he doesn't understand and like others before him (Sugar being one as you say) he is very wrong. People like Ashley are used to making decisions in their own time and in their own way, those that work for him know that and set things up around him accordingly. But in a business like a football club decisions are absolutely time critical and success depends upon the assets of the club being moulded into a cohesive unit (and not being viewed as a potential profitable resale). Ashley, though rich, isn't really very clever at all and I have thought since the word go that he was completely out of his depth owning a Premiership club. I'd kind of agree with your conclusion that there's a different skill-set needed to run a football club, when compared with running a business, and that Ashley has fallen short. I don't think it's the time pressure factor that's significant though, and I wouldn't say that Ashley has necessarily been lucky in his business life, any more than Sugar was lucky. In business, they each saw opportunities neglected by other people and went for it hell for leather. The problem with a football club is that it is only partly a business. The other part is a kind of community institution in which the fans have a big influence, and in that respect it's like running a public service. The strain in running a public service is that you have the press, the government and the public on your back, demanding that you run things in a certain way, and you're not your own master. So a lot of what you would like to do has to be weighed up and compromises reached. So you get the worst of both worlds - you have to pick up the tab at the end of the day, but you don't get the free hand that you would get in business. Like you said, maybe Ashley just doesn't have the kind of brain that can anticipate that kind of difficulty and deal with it. He's also used to shunning the limelight, and may not have the kind of thick skin you need in that very public position. I didn't like Shepherd, but he did have the hide of a rhino when the criticism started flying. Strictly in the world of business, appointing Wise and Keegan together might have made a lot of sense. Keegan would produce an entertaining product for the customers and Wise would look after the long-term strategy and the finances. But in practice, that was a disaster. Keegan is more than an employee - he's a public figure with a lot of support and he wasn't averse to using that status to try to get what he wanted, despite what may have been written into his contract. Ashley has not been in control since that point, because he was never going to win a PR battle with Keegan. It's just not a situation that occurs in the business world. Great response bobyule. Just a couple of points of clarification: I don't know so much about Sugar but I think Ashley was lucky. The flotation valuation of Sports Direct was way in excess of reality as subsequent results have shown (pre recession too) and he coined nearly a £billion in cash on the back of that. Also my point about decisions in football being time critical was more to do with planning the timing of decisions so that they are made at the best time for the club, given that there is a clear cut season, transfer window, pre season training etc. The timing and significance of these is known well in advance. And if you do have an unexpected event (e.g KK departure and JFK illness) mid season it becomes a matter of urgency to sort something out quickly. The run of results under Hughton's stewardship post KK where we lost to Hull and Paul Ince's Blackburn at home was a case in point. Your second para on the difference between a football club and other businesses is about as good an analysis as I've ever read tbh. Sorry to go back to this, but I've just had a chance to read this thread. Lucky? Luck is where opportunity meets preparation. Luck isn't random. Luck is not building a business from nothing so that its worth £many millions, there is hard work and skill involved in that. Luck is when so called experts value that business at £2 billion when its worth half that at most. Luck is when a load of investors rely on that valuation and pile in to buy the available shares giving the owner nearly £1 billion in cash.

£250 million already sunk - no way will he recover much of that if he does as you say. Barring any of the cracking conspiracy theories having any substance his best way out of this financially is to sell and limit the damage.

Agree with all of that. But, after admin the club could be bought for peanuts.....You see my thinking? Not really. The only people who can put the club into administration are the creditors or the directors of the company, both of those bases are covered by Ashley. So he's the only one who can elect for administration and I don't know why he would. There is still the costs concerning running of the club (roughly 20m every 3 months) and monies owed on transfers £5m on Colo alone. It's complex but with MA refusing to put more money in.......I can only see him dropping the asking price to say 50m in the coming weeks. If I was a prospective buyer I hold all the cards and would wait it out. I'm no expert and just thinking aloud. OK - I can see your point but if a buyer decides to wait for administration the club he will eventually be buying is going to be an even bigger mess (points deduction, players not bought or sold, no manager, no pre season preparation etc).

Agree with all of that. But, after admin the club could be bought for peanuts.....You see my thinking? Not really. The only people who can put the club into administration are the creditors or the directors of the company, both of those bases are covered by Ashley. So he's the only one who can elect for administration and I don't know why he would.

I don't know if we've got any lawyers or insolvency experts who post on here. It's a complicated area and expert opinions would be interesting. Administration is basically the same process as Chapter 11 in the USA. It allows the company to carry on trading whilst giving it protection from its creditors. An administrator is appointed and his first priority is to find a solution to the company's problems that enable it to carry on trading. If he can't do that he tries to bring about a liquidation that gives the creditors the best possible return. Ashley is by far and away the major creditor of the club, although not the only one as there will be plenty of other people owed money as well. So why does the club need protecting from him? Also a solution to the problem would be a change of ownership and if you think the club has dropped in value since relegation then wait and see what would happen if it went into administration. If it ever got to liquidation you would then get a fire sale of the clubs assets so the money Ashley would get for the players etc would be a fraction of their worth. A further point is that the administration process is expensive, the administrator gets highly paid and his money comes out of the company as a preferred creditor, so basically another drain on the coffers. As it stands I can't see why this would do anything for Ashley, but I'm no expert and Ashley works in weird ways.

Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. His management choices were the worst. Had Robson left in the summer of 2004 and replaced with a top manager, we would not have been in solid decline ever since. Instead he sacks him early season and then brings in Greame Souness It's my opinion that the bit about summer is irrelevant. Had Robson been replaced by a decent manager at the time he was replaced we'd have been ok. Surely though the problem was that the timing was badly wrong, and there were no decent managers available 4 matches into a season? Maybe at the particular moment in time you are right. However, you appear to be against the idea of appointing a new manager early into the season when in fact Robson himself was appointed very early into a season and went on to do a fabulous job. Who the person is remains the most important part of it imo. After Gullit resigned we were fortunate that SBR was available and willing, and that is the way with unplanned managerial changes - you get a limited choice. We got lucky with SBR being in the market however having to go with Souness who, I'm fairly confident, was not first (or maybe even second) choice shows the risk. No one wants to change manager mid season, by definition it implies something has gone badly wrong. SBR's departure was a mess, it had already been decided by the board before the season started that 2004/2005 was to be his last. The handling of the communication of this was absolutely shocking and badly undermined the manager and the club. The disappointing start to the season was perhaps not so surprising in the circumstances.

Yup. These were the only significant mistakes made by Fred. He wasn't prepared to tackle the positions of Robson and Shearer at the right moment. His management choices were the worst. Had Robson left in the summer of 2004 and replaced with a top manager, we would not have been in solid decline ever since. Instead he sacks him early season and then brings in Greame Souness It's my opinion that the bit about summer is irrelevant. Had Robson been replaced by a decent manager at the time he was replaced we'd have been ok. Surely though the problem was that the timing was badly wrong, and there were no decent managers available 4 matches into a season?

He's never really understood the fact that decisions in football are time critical and you continually need to think and plan ahead. In his other business dealings he's obviously never had that pressure and done things in his own knee- jerk way and at his own speed. It's quite staggering to see how thick he is when operating outside his own sports retail orbit.

Horrible imagery tbh.

Daily Mail did say just that. Sounds like fat c*nts all pissing in the same cesspit tbh.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: • £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. • £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. • £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. • £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. • £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do. can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that. Sorry mate don't understand your reply there - unless its a response to Parky's post "Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it." immediately above your post. it was, i just happened to miss out the bit i was referring to. No worries

Regular European Football? One of the best grounds in Europe? Full houses? Breaking the world transfer record? Have you seen the list of clubs that have broken the WTR - Shepherd had real ambition, and delivered the goods for most of his tenure. He was a bit of dick and f***ed up badly when he replaced SBR with Souness, but he should be judged on his achievements not just the failings of the post SBR era. Well I could buy the chip shop down the road and pump a whole load of money into it and make it a sweet looking gastro pub. But 6 months later, I'd be re-mortgaging the house, the wife would have left, I'd have to declare bankrupcy, live on the street and hope skirges dog would give me some change. The European runs, the ground and the full houses are all from Sir John Hall. Its not like he built the place from the ground up, he just had to move his stuff into the penthouse and buy some furniture. Is this the same SJH who was the major shareholder until Ashley reared his ugly head? You think he just let Shepherd run the show do you? There’s a whole thread on this subject, the important issues are how much influence Shepherd would have, if he’s learnt from his mistakes and what benefits his experience might bring to the table. Yes, the same SJH who had to take over again temporarily when his son and FFS were stung by the fake Sheik from the NOTW... only to step aside again let them take their jobs back (though what Douglas' job was is anyones guess!) once the dust had settled. The same SJH who happily sat and let Shepherd appoint Souness, then Roeder, then Allardyce. Is it not alleged that it was SJH who wanted to get rid of Sir Bobby as well? Of course Shepherd is innocent, when he was at the club before he was nothing more than an insignificant pawn in a far reaching and highly sophisticated game of chess

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - Ill have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I havent seen it. Of course the club didnt go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do. can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that. Sorry mate don't understand your reply there - unless its a response to Parky's post "Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it." immediately above your post.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. Smoke and mirrors covering for a monumental cock-up by MA of not doing the appropriate checks and his outpourings were his get out clause for spending almost F*** all on players. The world of top flight football runs on debt. It is not like we were struggling for turnover. Yes - and because of that huge turnover we were the 13th richest club in the world don't you know, with accumulated trading losses of £92 million and only insolvent by £16 million or so. There are two separate issues - the state of the club pre Ashley and Ashley's catastrophic handling of it.

The trouble with discussions like this is that people think you are an Ashley apologist. I'm not. What he has done at the club has been indefensible and there can be no adequate excuse for it. He thought he was cleverer than he is, didn't understand what had bought, what it took to run it and finance it. An idiot (albeit a fairly rich one). But as the saying goes- if you can't afford the ride don't buy a ticket.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans. Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business. doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me. Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying. Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m. How do they continue??? maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt. (villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them) And Everton are for sale because Kenwright knows he and the current owners can't take it any further.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - Ill have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I havent seen it. Of course the club didnt go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do. Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it. I do live with it. But the discussion was about the financial state of the club pre Ashley and what its prospects of recovery were at that time assuming no change of ownership.

Extract from an interview with Souness by Richard Keys (SkySports January 2008: KEYS: In fairness to Freddy Shepherd, he gave you a few quid. And you did go and buy Michael Owen. SOUNESS: I would argue that point. My first choice was Nicolas Anelka and Luis Boa Morte. I spoke to the people in Turkey (Anelka was at Fenerbahce) and was told he could be bought, but I was told (by Newcastle) that he couldn't be bought. Instead of buying Anelka for £12million, we signed Albert Luque for £10m. And Michael Owen for £16m. KEYS: Were they your decisions? SOUNESS: No. No. I was told Albert Luque would cost £2m

The Carrick thing was in Robson's book too IIRC and Souness wasn't shy about telling the world how he was done over by Shepherd when it came to signing Anelka. I'd like to think Freddy is savvy enough to sue when he's being defamed. Souness wanted Anelka and Boa Morte. Shepherd brought in Owen and Luque. God help us ... Didn't Souness want Luque as well as Boa Morte and Anelka but said he was worth no more than £3 million? Luque defnitely said he was pursued by Shepherd throwing ridiculous wage offers at him and offering a huge fee to Deportivo. Also I seem to remember reading an interview with Souness when he said that Luque was not his signing. And whilst we are at it Roeder definitely said that Duff was not his signing, he was told about it after the event.

I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they? Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us. The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break. The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable. Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No. Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh. OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point. You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security. Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans: • £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016. • £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010. • £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground. • £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue. • £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground. Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed. Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club? The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap. Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it? On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?. I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do.

Fulham Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Ownership Mafco Holdings Limited, a Bermuda (tax haven) company, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed and his family Turnover £53.7m (up from £39.7m last year, a 35.2% increase) Gate and match-day £9.6m TV and broadcasting £34m Commercial activities £4.9m Sponsorship £3.6m Other operating income £1.6m Wage bill £39.3m (up from £35.2m the previous year, an 11.6% increase) Wages as proportion of turnover 73% Profit before tax £3.2m Debts £197m, included £174m owed to Al Fayed Interest payable £1.8m Highest paid director Unnamed: £228,083 State they're in Mohamed Al Fayed continued his extravagant funding of Fulham, increasing the loans from his companies to £174m, the second highest subsidy of any club by an owner behind Chelsea's Roman Abramovich. The loans are all interest free and during the year £9.5m was written off completely. Al Fayed, resident in Monaco, has had the reward this season of Fulham's highest ever finish, and he vehemently insists he has no intention of selling. Following your earlier post I Just had a look at Fulham's accounts at Companies House. Although some of the detail above is incorrect the gist of it is right, in that Fulham owes its existence to a huge loan from Al Fayed. I'll be honest I'm not sure where you are going with this one Parky. If you are saying that Ashley didn't lend the club enough for it to be able to invest properly in ther first team squad and hence survive in the Premiership - then it's hard to argue that point. But that isn't really what you said in the opening post...