Ishmael

You can't use the Napoli example without knowing their financial standing.

That's not just unpopular, it's as wrong as humanly possible.

Enjoying this discussion btw.

Eriksen going for 12m euros should be Tottenham's first port of call. Ta S.

Wait, so we're just targeting strikers cos we think we'll make money on them. Errrrrm, nope

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet. Do you or do you not accept that in today's top flight football, most if not all (other) clubs do not live within their means, and indeed many receive outside investment from their owners? If so, how do you expect us to compete with them long term? There's a balance to be struck here between financial awareness and controlled ambition, which is not only absolute, but also relative to our competitors, and we're nowhere near getting it right. If I was a shareholder of NUFC I would be delighted by Ashley's management, but I'm not. I'm a football fan, and I want to be entertained for the money and effort I put into the club, not support a balance sheet, but a team sheet. If Ashley does not understand the difference between a SD shop and NUFC he's even thicker than he looks. Do you thing living outside of your means is a viable long-term option? No. Is living within your means? Probably. OK, so we win there. And ofc, I will put the big assumption that we invest sufficiently and progress in lots of different areas. I'm a football fan too, but I'd rather support a well run club that operates within its means on money the club makes, which doesn't have to rely on some oil rich arab family whose fundamental purpose for ownership is to use the club as an advertising vehicle or on money made illegally from the fall of the Soviet Union. We'll be sitting handsomely in the lower leagues a few years down the line if we don't keep up with the competition, but hey ho, at least we'll have paid off our debt! We win indeed. As for that last sentence about not wanting an owner who uses the club as an advertising vehicle: are you for fucking real!? Haha, yeah. So irritated by MC that I forgot the SD garbage that is defacing our once great stadium.

"If by any chance Liverpool do accept a bid, and you move, I will find you and I will kill you.’’ http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eAv_6n_Gzlg/TKEsL4VwslI/AAAAAAAAFaQ/ZIfPMfKcNx4/s400/chav.jpg (best I could do)

A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas? Wont be a back-up if we go 4-4-fucking-2.

Ben Arfa, Marveaux, Sissoko *shudders* and Jonas are probably the "wide players." You're right though, we need to improve that area. But what do you prefer? Improve those four or improve the Cisse, Shola strike force?

And btw, I think you have to take the money. Bale will have set his golden boy sights on becoming the next galactico next season if not now, so he's not got a long term future in the club. You cannot guarantee if Bale's stock will be at the same dizzy, ridiculous, stupid heights its currently orbiting the Earth at now. You have to sell and build.

Spurs are down to 1 fit CB. Apparently Kaboul's knees have a touch of the Ledleys. So there's some heavy investment needed there.

We need wide players more than we need strikers. Do we? Cos I think we need both and if I had to rank the two in terms of importance then I guess I'd put a striker as our #1 priority. The club seem to agree. I mean, after Cisse it's the boy wonder and then we wonder...

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet. Do you or do you not accept that in today's top flight football, most if not all (other) clubs do not live within their means, and indeed many receive outside investment from their owners? If so, how do you expect us to compete with them long term? There's a balance to be struck here between financial awareness and controlled ambition, which is not only absolute, but also relative to our competitors, and we're nowhere near getting it right. If I was a shareholder of NUFC I would be delighted by Ashley's management, but I'm not. I'm a football fan, and I want to be entertained for the money and effort I put into the club, not support a balance sheet, but a team sheet. If Ashley does not understand the difference between a SD shop and NUFC he's even thicker than he looks. Do you thing living outside of your means is a viable long-term option? No. Is living within your means? Probably. OK, so we win there. And ofc, I will put the big assumption that we invest sufficiently and progress in lots of different areas. I'm a football fan too, but I'd rather support a well run club that operates within its means on money the club makes, which doesn't have to rely on some oil rich arab family whose fundamental purpose for ownership is to use the club as an advertising vehicle or on money made illegally from the fall of the Soviet Union.

Will be interesting to see what happens to all these posts talking about ambition if we land the two strikers we need.

Will be more to it that that, ofc.

Nothing when your club is essentially bank rolled by the Spanish government or banks or whatever.

Looking forward to Real Madrid facilitating two luxury players in a XI that includes two very attacking full backs.

Knowing our luck, we'll finalise the transfer/loan and he'll get banged up for the bang up.

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash. There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989 Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet.

Everton are a great example of a club up shit creek. Mortgaged the new TV money last season iirc.

Cos that's how it works.

Okay, so there are no bank loans, but how big is that loan to Ashley?

And look where we are now. How many million in bank loans and debts to Mike?

When clubs like Norwich are spending something close to that and still are looking to do more, it clearly is Yeah, cos Norwich have zero debt. They're one of the most financial sound clubs in England. Completely different.

One step closer to allowing Sunderland fans to watch it. Going to have to give them free broadband next. AMIRIGHT?