Toonpack

Really? Spurs have sold for good prices (Carrick, Berbatov), but they are also near the top of the net transfer investment charts. For more info: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ I think you're missing the point, Spurs only spend what they can afford. That they have done very well in the last 10-years in maximising their off-field revenue which allows them to afford to 'invest' in the relatively high player turnover that they've had in the past 5 years, going from a mid-table 'cup team' to a Champs League challenger. So why am I missing the point? The suggestion was Spurs got to where they are by buying low and selling high, whilst gradually trying to improve the squad (like we are trying to do now). This is not the case, as that link suggests: Spurs have a net transfer spend of over 110 million in the last 8 years, which puts them fourth only behind Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool. I don't know if they are spending beyond their means or not: their turnover is certainly much higher than ours (almost double), so they must be doing something right, especially in the commercial revenue area. Anyway, to suggest Spurs got to where they are (regular CL contenders) by developing the squad through not spending more on incoming players than they got in from transfer fees for outgoing players and simply selling high and buying low is a myth. They're not. Spurs do not ever spend beyond what they can afford. They have no football related debt, their debt (what little they have) is all property/infrastructure related. They started their climb on the back of selling their "expensive" or best players and have continuously replaced them well. They've done it over several years, whether we can maintain our current "trading" record similarly is the question. Nett transfer spend as a measure of anything, taken in isolation, is a nonsense. They've made something like £30 Million profit in the last five years or so, after buying/selling.

I'm not writing Obertan off yet, Enrique and Collo were shit according to the consensus in their first year.

I would have been hugely pissed off if he hadn't gone down like a sack of shit, the game is built on cheating and diving at the slightest contact, Tiote didn't go down in siilar circumstances last year against Fulham (Murphy I think who then went on to run the game for them). I personally hate it, but it's part and parcel of the modern game, if someone is stupid enough to stick their head in your face you go down and make sure the ref sees it, no different to falling over when someone brushes past you.

Not really, if your first choice strikers are going to be away for a slab of the season at the ACN canny to have a replacement (even if borrowed)

I've been through 3 relegation since going to games and the worst by far was the relegation under Ashley, that season must go down as being the worst ever at Newcastle, it has nothing to do with any man love for Keegan but nice try at putting people down who are bothered by what happened. Was the relegation an accident waiting to happen? We have come close to it but that is no excuse for a relegation which is soley to do with the way that Ashley managed or allowed the club to be managed and had nothing to do with anything which had previously happened at the club. I call the Leazes that, my kids call it the Sir John Hall stand. We've been in better shape twice recently, not just when Keegan was here, we were also in better shape when Sir Bobby was here and that's just twice in recent times. Other than that, we've been in better shape quite a few times on the pitch and we've won 11 major trophies, we've won nothing under Ashley at this time, not that any of this has anything to do with the clubs finances. One would inevitably beget the other IMO. Apologies, I should have said "in the modern era".

Yep, but sadly some believe that is what really happened. Utter nonsense tbh.

The Keegan debacle was quite a major balls up and one which ended in us being relegated and adding quite a big chunk to the debt which he's covered with an interest free loan, he's getting no praise for that. The fact that the clubs history doesn't matter to you is a personal view and not one shared by many. I would say renaming the ground is about as big as anything that has negatively happened off the field to the club since it was formed. As for the club being in the best shape it's ever been in, it isn't arguable, it's been in better shape. The Keegan debacle is at the root of all the hate, some people can't get over the KK man love thing, and since then any stick will do, admittedly he's handily provided a few sticks himself. As for relegation, was an accident that had been waiting to happen for years (since post SBR tbh), our descent was inexorable (whilst we were getting skinter and skinter) he just f***ed up and made the descent a bit quicker. Fortunately he had the deep pockets to cover it. Since then though done bugger all wrong. History exists in people, superficially changing the name is nowt in my opinion, appreciate others feel different. How many call the Leazes end the SJH stand (it's only big if you let it be big) Arsenal built flats on their history and that was OK, we try and flog the ground name (to something which no-one will call it anyway) and it's blasphemy, aye OK. When's the club been in better shape, really, maybe the first Keegan spell, that's it. It's football that's the problem not NUFC, I like the fact the club is "stable" if FFP works (big IF) and HMRC follow through and really do get after football and the playing field levels, we are in great shape.

Maybe he should pay a few Mill a year and but also maybe charge interest on his loans, fairs fair an all that, eh ?? Maybe he could have just not injected any more money and watched his initial investment go up in smoke? Cut and run, not unheard of tbh. Seriously, what's the problem. Since the Keegan debacle, he's not put a foot wrong (ground renaming aside - and personally I'm "meh" on that). Arguably the club is in the best shape it has ever been.

Maybe he should pay a few Mill a year and but also maybe charge interest on his loans, fairs fair an all that, eh ??

Commercial revenue is way down on what it was when the takeover happened, as is matchday revenue. The TV deal is far higher than it was and our turnover has barely moved. I'm sure there was a quote when the stadium was being renamed from Llambais saying that the club has maximised its commercial revenue from current streams so needed to look for new ways to general money, like stadium renaming. Well that's quite obviously nonsense. I'm not saying they have done a bad job on the financial side of things overall, but we can do far better. Making the stadium look so cheap and tacky and packing the shop full of poor quality tat will hardly help the issue either. Our turnover is lower than Aston Villas. Now that we are breaking even, they really need to build the commercial side of the business, and that doesn't mean by following their current track. They could always hike ticket prices, quick way to do it. Since the Keegan debacle, and let's be honest that's where the hate REALLY comes from, they've hardly put a foot wrong IMO (naming rights, which is emotive to some and Meh! to others, aside).

The full accounts will tell the story, but costs are just costs at the end of the day, but the accounts cannot lie, it's a legal thing.

Wait, you're 5th best with a 60% wages to turnover (which is the recommended percentage), where does that leave the following 15? And I thought La Liga was f***ed Ticking timebomb. We are where UEFA insist you must be, come 2014 so the other 15 have not long to sort it out and we've been through our slash and burn phase and are nicely placed. Be good to see the full accounts but looks good.

A player bought for £10 million on a 5 year deal, gets charged to the accounts as a cost of £2Mill per year (cost/length of contract). The £10 mill comes out of ready cash. If that player is sold for £8Mill in his 4th year it would equal a profit of player trading of £6 Mill in that year (as his "book" value would be £2 Mill going into the final year of his contract) That's why to make a profit on a player you do not have to sell him for more than you originally paid.

I disagree. If anything, the impending requirement for ongoing cash injections (due to contracted wages in the future) would have been the key deterrent, not the level of debt, which was there for all to see. And even then, the club would have been able to find a buyer, albeit at a much lower (and more realistic price) than what Ashley paid for it. You reckon In the year before the sale they (the club) spent £6 million unsuccesfully trying to do just that. Anyone who did dilligence ran a mile.

That's far from proven

Apart for the reason he's been largely gash and totally lazy/disinterested.

An interesting perspective, long mind, but a good read: Firstly, let’s look at some of the myths. We’re told that the smaller clubs need the influx of cash generated by home games against the Old Firm every year. But how much is that really worth? Under the current SPL structure, there’s no guaranteed number of such fixtures each season. Aberdeen, for example, got just three last year (two against Rangers, one against Celtic), because they were in the bottom six of the league at the time of the “split”. In season 2010/11, the Dons had an average attendance at Pittodrie of just under 9,000. For the three Old Firm games, the average attendance was 13,378. That’s 4,504 extra punters through the gates per match, or a total for the season of 13,512. In other words, having Rangers and Celtic come to visit was effectively worth the equivalent of about 1.5 extra home games a year. (1.52, if you want to be picky.) Now, for a club on a tight budget like Aberdeen, 1.5 extra home games a season is a handy bit of cash. If we assume that the average spectator spends £40 on their ticket, programme, refreshments and whatnot, it’s over half a million quid in (gross) revenue. But it’s not the difference between life and death. It could be achieved just as easily by an extended cup run or qualification for Europe – things which are significantly more likely to happen if you take one or both of the Old Firm out of the picture. Indeed, just a modest amount of progress in Europe can effortlessly eclipse a season’s worth of Rangers and Celtic ties. In season 2007/08 Aberdeen reached the last 32 of the Europa League, which is very much the poor relation of UEFA’s club competitions compared to the cash cow of the Champions’ League. Getting to the last 32 of it isn’t exactly spectacular success, but it nevertheless brought the Dons four extra home games that season, which drew a total of 74,767 paying customers. Alert viewers will have noticed that even this humble adventure was therefore worth almost SIX TIMES as much to the Pittodrie club as an entire season of Old Firm fixtures, and that’s before you factor in the not-inconsiderable matter of extra TV money and participation bonuses, which would surely boost that multiplier to 10 or more. (It’s perhaps also worth noting that even the first-round first-leg tie against the unglamorous FC Dnipro of Ukraine attracted a larger crowd than any of 2010/11′s games against Rangers or Celtic, despite having thousands fewer away fans.) From this we can see that if a team like Aberdeen qualified for Europe just fractionally more often, as as result of the demise of one or both of the Old Firm making places more easily attainable – maybe once every five or six years – the rewards could easily eclipse the losses. But there’s more to it than that, because the Europa League jaunt had a knock-on effect on domestic attendances too. When Hearts came to Pittodrie in the middle of the Europa run, the gate was 14,000. The corresponding fixture in 2010/11, at roughly the same time of year, saw just 9,100 show up. In other words, a tiny glimpse of success saw attendance over 50% higher – exactly the same sort of boost delivered in a normal season by the visits of the Old Firm. Even two months after the Dons were knocked out of the tournament by Bayern Munich, a home game against Falkirk could pull a crowd of 11,484 – a comparable late-season match (vs Hibernian) in 2010/11 managed just 7,400. Of course, you could argue that the higher attendances in 2007/08 were a result of a better season in general (Aberdeen finished 4th that year, compared to 9th in 2011). But then, that’s the point – fans are much more likely to turn up to watch games in a competition where their team has a fighting chance of achieving something than in a league where they’re just making up the numbers. Take one or both of the Old Firm out of the league and you instantly make it far more competitive, which makes it far more exciting, which makes it far more attractive for people to come and watch. This isn’t just an idle theory. Within living memory, Scottish football has actually experienced an extended period where one or other of the Old Firm was in dire straits, and the result was a far more competitive league with substantially bigger attendances for the non-OF clubs. While this era is often dismissed as a brief Alex-Ferguson-inspired flicker in the mid-80s, it in fact lasted for almost 20 years. The first phase was around the creation of the old Scottish Premier Division, running from the tail end of the 1970s and right through the 1980s, before David Murray and his bottomless wallet turned up at Ibrox around the turn of the decade. Rangers were in a woeful state at the time, winning the league just once in a 10-season spell between 1979 and 1988, and with home crowds at Ibrox regularly dropping below 10,000. (One 1979 league game against Partick Thistle brought fewer than 2,000 loyal Gers fans to the stadium, and no, that’s not a typo – we really mean TWO thousand.) But it wasn’t just Celtic who took advantage – in four of the other nine seasons of that decade the league title went to the smaller clubs (Aberdeen three times, Dundee Utd once), and it would have been five if not for the most infamous last-day implosion in Scottish football history robbing Hearts of the 1985/86 flag. In other words, in a 10-team division fully 50% of the participants were mounting realistic challenges for the title – a feat probably never replicated anywhere else in the world in the history of football. The Scottish Premier Division was almost certainly the most competitive club league on the face of the planet, and such a healthy state of affairs was reflected on the broader stage. Aberdeen won the European Cup-Winners’ Cup (with an all-Scottish team) in 1983, defeating Bayern Munich and Real Madrid to secure the trophy, and also beat that year’s European Cup champions SV Hamburg to join the illustrious list of winners of the Super Cup. The next season Dundee United got to the semi-final of the European Cup (with the Dons making the Cup-Winners’ Cup semis), and three years later Jim McLean’s men reached the final of the UEFA Cup, knocking out Barcelona along the way but losing the final 2-1 to IFK Goteborg. The nature of Old Firm weakness changed between the late 1980s and the mid-1990s. David Murray had arrived at Rangers and was pouring money into the club, attracting big-name England internationals with the promise of European competition after English clubs were banned in the aftermath of Heysel. But while Rangers grew stronger Celtic weakened, and the Parkhead side hovered on the brink of bankruptcy for several years before being rescued by Fergus McCann in 1994. As a result, the Scottish Premier Division remained competitive. Although that sounds a daft assertion in the wake of Rangers’ nine-in-a-row of league triumphs (1989-97), the fact remains that four different teams finished in second place over the period, with Celtic not managing to do it until 1996. Rangers’ average margin of victory in the league race during the nine-season run was under 7 points, which contrasts sharply with the typical modern-day gap between the Old Firm and the rest of 30+ points. Indeed, over the entire 22-season lifespan of the old Premier Division, the Old Firm (in either order) took the top two spots just seven times, and five of those comprised the first two and last three seasons of the competition. Over a 17-year stretch in between, the Old Firm secured the 1 and 2 positions just twice. (Celtic-Rangers in 1978/79, and Rangers/Celtic in 1986/87.) In nine of the 22 seasons, the Old Firm couldn’t even both get into the top 3. The SPL era, on the other hand, has seen Tweedlehun and Tweedlydee cosily slice up first and second place in 12 of its 13 seasons (the only blip being Hearts pipping Rangers to the runner-up spot by a single point in 2005/06). Where the Scottish Premier Division was the most competitive league in the world, the SPL is now the least competitive, and therefore one of the least healthy. (During the life of the old SPD the Scotland international side qualified for World Cups in 1978, 1982, 1986 and 1998, and for European Championships in 1992 and 1996. Since the advent of the SPL in 1999, with the Old Firm hurling most of their money at foreign players, the national side hasn’t reached a single tournament finals.) Of course, the game has changed since the Premier Division. The SPL, Sky TV, Champions League and Bosman have all conspired – entirely by design – to make life harder for the smaller teams and cement the dominance of the bigger ones who can command higher TV audiences. Even this, though, is a slightly misleading picture. Media pundits are fond of pointing out that Sky’s interest in the SPL would plummet if it no longer had Old Firm games to offer its subscribers, and this is undoubtedly true. What nobody points out, however, is that the OF hog so much of the Sky money for themselves that even a massively-reduced deal from terrestrial broadcasters would be more evenly distributed in a notional post-Rangers world, and so would likely end up with the smaller teams seeing fairly similar amounts of money to what they get now. By way of illustration of the sort of sums involved, we examined the 2010 public accounts of Motherwell, who finished 6th in the SPL in 2010/11. Their total income from TV and radio was just over £1.2m. We’d imagine the bulk of that came from the Sky deal, but some will also be from elsewhere, eg the BBC rights to highlights packages and radio coverage. Arbitrarily, then, let’s say Sky is worth £1m a year to Motherwell, out of the total £16m that Sky pay the SPL every year. A typical home game at the average 2010/11 Fir Park attendance of 5,660 will generate something very roughly in the region of £225,000. If Sky disappeared and nobody took up the live-TV rights at all, the club would need to either play four extra home games OR attract an extra 1300 fans to each game to compensate, OR reduce its annual wage bill of a startling £3.3m, or some combination of the three. In a more competitive league with more chance of European football, that’s hardly an impossible dream – for reference, in 2007/08 when Motherwell finished 3rd their average attendance was around 1000 higher, at 6,600. The further 300 extra was achieved as recently as 2004/05. But even beyond that, the data in the early part of this feature (which is broadly reflected for all other Scottish sides, not just Aberdeen, but we’d be here all day if we were to list every one) proves that the crucial core principle remains the same – a team with a better chance of even the mildest definition of success, eg qualifying for Europe or reaching a domestic cup final, will see a large upshoot in its attendance figures, and more than enough to compensate for the less-frequent visits of Rangers/Celtic fans or a drop in TV money. And the prime driver of that increased prospect of success is the weakness (or absence) of at least one of the Old Firm. For all the commentators asserting that Scottish football would collapse – either in footballing terms or economic ones – should Rangers FC not make it out of season 2011/12 alive, the numbers simply don’t add up.

The 60's and the 80's FFS Kilmarnock got 15K in in the 90's (non O/F game) btw, but no-one's talking about "flocking in". The disparity to the old firm is ridiculous. They both have an over inflated perception of their importance within Scotland, ask any fan of any other club if they'd like them both gone or not (or any Chairman for that matter).

Are the rules different in Scotland? In England "footballing" creditors are the priority and HMRC have to fight for the money with the rest of the normal creditors, it's why Portsmouth escaped liquidation since they were able to pay pennies in the pound for their major debts. Whyte is the only secured creditor, HMRC will get nowt if they go into Administration as Whyte gets priority. Will be hilarious if they go out of business and have to start in the Scottish lower leagues. Would be even funnier to watch the spl fall apart, especially when "they don't need Rangers" They don't, or Celtic either. Be a much better league of those two f***ed off, ask any other teams fan up there. They'll loose nearly all tv money, you think sky/espn will pay money for Inverness v Kilmarnock? What about the money teams get for the away fans from both teams which most of the time is bigger than the home support? The fact Dunfermline took 12 fans to a game at Kilmarnock is a joke. With Rangers or Celtic the Spl would be a joke It's a joke with them in it, the TV deal is worth a total of £13 Mill a year, bugger all. It's costs as much to Police the "away" fans from the Old Firm as it does generate revenue. No Huns/Tims and the league would find it's own level and at least be competitive. Crowds would rise tbh. Ask a fan of any club outside the "evil twins" and see what they say/think, they would LOVE them both to dissappear. To clubs like Inverness, St johnstone and a few others then the tv money that they get at the moment is alot to them. How would the crowds rise if the old firm leave? Why arent they fans out supporting their teams at the moment when they play other teams apart from the old firm? Having no Rangers/Celtic may mean the league being more competative but it means less money all round. All the clubs would basically have a level playing field and they'd cut their cloth accordingly, less money would mean less foreign imports which would give local talent (such as it is) a chance. In 2002 (ish) all the other SPL teams chairmen voted to leave the league due to plans for disproportionate revenue sharing from TV (such as it is/was) the SPL bottled it. You ask why aren't fans supporting their teams now, I'd suggest, what is the point. The league would suffer short term but longer term it'd be so much better off it's untrue.

Are the rules different in Scotland? In England "footballing" creditors are the priority and HMRC have to fight for the money with the rest of the normal creditors, it's why Portsmouth escaped liquidation since they were able to pay pennies in the pound for their major debts. Whyte is the only secured creditor, HMRC will get nowt if they go into Administration as Whyte gets priority. Will be hilarious if they go out of business and have to start in the Scottish lower leagues. Would be even funnier to watch the spl fall apart, especially when "they don't need Rangers" They don't, or Celtic either. Be a much better league of those two f***ed off, ask any other teams fan up there. They'll loose nearly all tv money, you think sky/espn will pay money for Inverness v Kilmarnock? What about the money teams get for the away fans from both teams which most of the time is bigger than the home support? The fact Dunfermline took 12 fans to a game at Kilmarnock is a joke. With Rangers or Celtic the Spl would be a joke It's a joke with them in it, the TV deal is worth a total of £13 Mill a year, bugger all. It's costs as much to Police the "away" fans from the Old Firm as it does generate revenue. No Huns/Tims and the league would find it's own level and at least be competitive. Crowds would rise tbh. Ask a fan of any club outside the "evil twins" and see what they say/think, they would LOVE them both to dissappear.

But you'd need the company to be fully liquidated for that to happen surely? You can be certain HMRC won't sign any CVA. HMRC have filed for them to go into Admin now on their terms not Rangers terms. Yep, HMRC are getting REALLy pissed off with football clubs avoiding their liabilities. Not before time tbh.

Are the rules different in Scotland? In England "footballing" creditors are the priority and HMRC have to fight for the money with the rest of the normal creditors, it's why Portsmouth escaped liquidation since they were able to pay pennies in the pound for their major debts. Whyte is the only secured creditor, HMRC will get nowt if they go into Administration as Whyte gets priority. Will be hilarious if they go out of business and have to start in the Scottish lower leagues. Would be even funnier to watch the spl fall apart, especially when "they don't need Rangers" They don't, or Celtic either. Be a much better league of those two fucked off, ask any other teams fan up there.

It's just "modern football" in action. A team higher up the pecking order (in this case miles higher) comes in, makes bid and sits back waiting for the player and agent to inevitably agitate.

Doubt it, if the club can afford £10 Million for a player within the set % of turnover budget that's set, it'll pay it, if it can't it won't. That goes for any price/fee above or below £10 Million.

It'd better be a big fat zero