Mort: I’m in charge

[Minhosa]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes youre right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think theyve dropped a massive bollock but theyll have to live with that decision.

 

You could be onto something there, Mick.

 

I wonder how much Sports Direct are paying us in advertising revenue.

 

There is a vast difference in NUFC not making any advertising money out of Sports Direct and actually paying money for an empty warehouse.........that happened to belong to the Chairmans brother.

 

Spending season ticket holders money on a fucking scam involving family. Nice.

 

Sorry like.

 

Its Ashleys club.........he own's it and he's not answerable to various shareholders like FFS was. Nor has he spent season tickets holders money on stuff without integrity.

 

If he want's to stick a banner on the empty roof of one of the stands I couldn't give a fuck tbh.

[UV]

I wonder how much Sports Direct are paying us in advertising revenue.

 

There is a vast difference in NUFC not making any advertising money out of Sports Direct and actually paying money for an empty warehouse.........that happened to belong to the Chairmans brother.

 

Spending season ticket holders money on a f****** scam involving family. Nice.

 

Sorry like.

 

Its Ashleys club.........he own's it and he's not answerable to various shareholders like FFS was. Nor has he spent season tickets holders money on stuff without integrity.

 

If he want's to stick a banner on the empty roof of one of the stands I couldn't give a f*** tbh.

 

I'm talking about the Sports Direct adverts on the boards around the pitch. If Sports Direct are not paying advertising revenue or not paying the full going rate (I'm not saying they're not as I don't know) then that's denying the club revenue from elsewhere which adds up to the same at the end of the day.

[ChezGiven]

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

 

When discussing club finances with Macbeth, he told me that company debt was just like holding individual debt. This was quite a revelation for me as it suggested he hadnt the first clue about finance. His figures were therefore, in my eyes not that reliable.

 

Debt is basically capital (with a charge). Sometimes its the best source of capital too. People (idiots) in this thread whingeing on about debt clearly dont have the first clue about fundamental financial principles.

 

Why is the debt an issue when the top 4 all have bigger debts? Surely a debt means that the "ongoing concern" is of sound structure and that the lenders are prepared to hand over the capital? The ability to raise finance through this way is the signal of solid underlying performance in the business model. Arsenal raised a massive debt because the lenders believed in the business. Its a signal of strength not weakness.

 

If people dont get that statement they should refrain from commenting on the club's finances.

 

[Tooj]

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

 

When discussing club finances with Macbeth, he told me that company debt was just like holding individual debt. This was quite a revelation for me as it suggested he hadnt the first clue about finance. His figures were therefore, in my eyes not that reliable.

 

Debt is basically capital (with a charge). Sometimes its the best source of capital too. People (idiots) in this thread whingeing on about debt clearly dont have the first clue about fundamental financial principles.

 

Why is the debt an issue when the top 4 all have bigger debts? Surely a debt means that the "ongoing concern" is of sound structure and that the lenders are prepared to hand over the capital? The ability to raise finance through this way is the signal of solid underlying performance in the business model. Arsenal raised a massive debt because the lenders believed in the business. Its a signal of strength not weakness.

 

If people dont get that statement they should refrain from commenting on the club's finances.

 

 

 

[indi]

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

 

When discussing club finances with Macbeth, he told me that company debt was just like holding individual debt. This was quite a revelation for me as it suggested he hadnt the first clue about finance. His figures were therefore, in my eyes not that reliable.

 

Debt is basically capital (with a charge). Sometimes its the best source of capital too. People (idiots) in this thread whingeing on about debt clearly dont have the first clue about fundamental financial principles.

 

Why is the debt an issue when the top 4 all have bigger debts? Surely a debt means that the "ongoing concern" is of sound structure and that the lenders are prepared to hand over the capital? The ability to raise finance through this way is the signal of solid underlying performance in the business model. Arsenal raised a massive debt because the lenders believed in the business. Its a signal of strength not weakness.

 

If people dont get that statement they should refrain from commenting on the club's finances.

 

 

True, but it's not quite that simple though, is it Chez.

 

If lenders are still prepared to lend then that's probably a good sign about the club's financial position, but it's not like lenders are omnipotent is it, they have lent to failing businesses in the past (a football example would be Leeds and apparently Chelsea pre-Abramovic), and pretty much every organisation that's ever gone out of business in the history of the world has done so due to being unable to pay its debts. So having debt is not necessarily a sign of financial security, but being able to borrow probably is, there is a difference.

[ChezGiven]

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

 

When discussing club finances with Macbeth, he told me that company debt was just like holding individual debt. This was quite a revelation for me as it suggested he hadnt the first clue about finance. His figures were therefore, in my eyes not that reliable.

 

Debt is basically capital (with a charge). Sometimes its the best source of capital too. People (idiots) in this thread whingeing on about debt clearly dont have the first clue about fundamental financial principles.

 

Why is the debt an issue when the top 4 all have bigger debts? Surely a debt means that the "ongoing concern" is of sound structure and that the lenders are prepared to hand over the capital? The ability to raise finance through this way is the signal of solid underlying performance in the business model. Arsenal raised a massive debt because the lenders believed in the business. Its a signal of strength not weakness.

 

If people dont get that statement they should refrain from commenting on the club's finances.

 

 

True, but it's not quite that simple though, is it Chez.

 

If lenders are still prepared to lend then that's probably a good sign about the club's financial position, but it's not like lenders are omnipotent is it, they have lent to failing businesses in the past (a football example would be Leeds and apparently Chelsea pre-Abramovic), and pretty much every organisation that's ever gone out of business in the history of the world has done so due to being unable to pay its debts. So having debt is not necessarily a sign of financial security, but being able to borrow probably is, there is a difference.

 

If there is no change to the underlying business model (season ticket sales, shirst sales, money from tv rights, internet based revenues) then it is a signal of strength.

 

I didnt precise this point because its clear that the model is sound. Having a debt but no revenue is obviously not very good. Perhaps i should have made that clear, given the level of understanding demonstrated in this thread.

 

Far better raising capital this way than through equity (for this type of business model anyway).

 

I hope people are a bit clearer now.

[indi]

Chez, forgive me if you've already explained this - I've been ignoring this thread for a while because it had become a bit of a tedious read, but your post sparked my interest - but what makes you so sure that the business model is sound, given that similar models have failed at football clubs in the past and are currently failing at a number of clubs as well? Having a good business model is one thing, having the skill to put it into practice is another. To be honest, I'm not that sure the previous management had either.

[ChezGiven]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were fucked.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

[Taylor Swift]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were fucked.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

 

But didn't we have a ridiculously high wage-turnover ratio? Something like 60% wasn't it? This was about a year before Fred left iirc. And isn't that percentage higher than the 'safe' percentage, which is 50% iirc. So, there was a model out there, a model that most clubs seemed to have followed and yet we were one of a select few who didn't (the other being Chelsea but they're an anomaly) follow this suggested model. Our wages were still sky-high and we did operate as a CL club, much similar to Leeds when their freefall began, but we weren't. We don't even have European football to generate the revenue that would have allowed us to spend money this year!

 

I think Shepherd did a decent job overall, but it seems some folks are forgetting the state of the club at the very end which imo is the key phase. We'd spent the Northern Rock money before it had even arrived, our wages were at CL clubs levels and we don't have European football this year, and if Fred had stayed, European football next year would have been unlikely as well. The finances were not in the healthiest state and our spending wouldn't and hasn't been risks that we could afford to take. Spunking £16m on Owen has set us back a lot, and any money spent by BS this summer with Shepherd in charge would have been money that we didn't have and looked unlikely to have for a couple of years at least. That was the position the club was in, and all the signs were pointing at things becoming worse. That's also another key element - we were headed downhill and Shepherd looked and acted like he didn't know what to do about it (the statements before appointing Souness then Roeder shows this, and then of course the 'I'll back the manager because we've always done' speech that he gives during the middle of every transfer window).

[Dr Venkman]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Naive young fool. Do you seriously think a few hundred grand a year is the difference between us challenging Chelsea.

 

Priceless.

 

mackems.gif

 

You have a lot to learn about life lad, if you think people in business don't do this sort of thing everywhere.

 

Fantastically hilarious.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer you not to bother me again.

 

 

 

oh dear

 

Another decent post from you. No lies, no misrepresentation. Keep it up.

 

i love you

[ChezGiven]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were fucked.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

 

But didn't we have a ridiculously high wage-turnover ratio? Something like 60% wasn't it? This was about a year before Fred left iirc. And isn't that percentage higher than the 'safe' percentage, which is 50% iirc.

 

Source for the 60% figure?

 

The 50% is just a benchmark. It means nothing in reality.

 

This isnt about wages, its about debt and capital and the servicing of debt on the basis of future income streams. None of our debt was held against predicted CL revenue streams. It therefore means it was serviced on the existing business model.

[NE5]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes you’re right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think they’ve dropped a massive bollock but they’ll have to live with that decision.

 

Makes a nice change to see you giving a balanced and agenda-free comment. What you actually say here, hits the nail on the head too.

 

Baggio thinks he knows everything though, having seen NUFC play 100 times at 27. I'd seen NUFC play 100 times by the time I was 13 or 14.

 

 

[NE5]

Your desperation not to give credit to Shepherd simply for being a fat b****** who eats all the pies is incredible. Sir John Hall would not have appointed Keegan. It was someone else's idea. End of story, really.

 

For all we know, if Shepherd had been the major shareholder, the club may not have gone PLC and lost Keegan ? This also, is a supposition, exactly the same as the ones you make ?

 

Ref your "business" comments, I will repeat. I don't think many companies would complain if their "business" was the 5th most marketable in the country over a time span of a decade.

 

Lastly, I have never defended the appointment of Souness, I despised him for years and never wanted this appointment, however there were many people on this forum who DID defend him and said we should stick with him. So you are addressing these comments at the wrong person.

 

What is your opinion on the planned ground development of Liverpool BTW, do you think they should stay at Anfield, or do you think expanding stadiums are "good business decisions", even when they bring about debts ? Or is it different when they aren't fat bastards that eat all the pies 

 

No, I dont dislike Shepherd because hes fat and eats pies - please stop making up arguements because you have nothing to reply with.

 

I dislike him because he was clearly incompetent at running the club - you say a football club isnt like a high street store (clearly youre no expert on business), likewise its not a scrap metal business either. Yes, we did have some successful times under Shepherd, and kudos to him for that, but like any business, its possible for an organisation to do well even with an incompetent manager in charge. Im sure you dont think about that when you moan about the government or prime minister in this country, ignoring the fact that overall the UK is in a good position financially and in terms of its standard of living compared to the majority of other countries in the world. Same logic, fundamentally flawed of course, since you dont compare the UK to Somalia to judge the performance of the government as the resources are completely different. But hey, your logic is fine in your own little world.

 

Shepherd was an embarassment, and clearly out of touch with football. The type of chairman whod come out with comments like "HEHEHE where are Robert and Bellamy now?", when Bellamy later went on to playing for Liverpool in the CL whilst we were getting hammered by Birmingham in the FA Cup. The type of chairman who would speak before he would think, the type of chairman who constantly lied throughout his time here - pleasant suprise, having to appoint a good manager after Souness because by his own words it was his last chance, etc. The type of chairman who would call an attempt by fans to promote a good manager to him as a gambling scam.

 

Irrespective of arguements before Sir Bobby's dismissal, you cant deny that Shepherd lost the plot completely at that stage, making idiotic decision after idiotic decision. Declaring Robson was a dead man walking, sacking him early into a new season with noone lined up then looking at the likes of Bruce and Venables whilst our competition at the time had already signed one of the best managers from Spain, then backing Souness with money despite the club's debts, sacking him a day after the transfer window closed despite Souness clearly needing the sack long before then, appointing Roeder after lying to us about getting a top manager in this time, etc.

 

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Shepherd's chairmanship.

 

As for your comment about debt and transfer money, I dont think you understand my stance. My problem isnt with the fact that we were in debt, nor the fact that we were attempting to get out of the hole we had dug ourselves into (awful team on the pitch) by spending lavishly on players. The problem I had is that firstly, Shepherd signed his own targets by refusing to fund the managers' preferred ones (not wise for a man who thinks Souness is a good manager), and secondly, that he thought Souness was the man worthy of gambling the club's finances. Only an utter idiot of a chairman would have given Sounses the job in the first place, but then to give him the keys to the treasury, let him be the one who spends big despite the debts? Madness, idiotic, but that was Shepherd - out of touch.

 

And as for the small minority of people who thought Souness deserved a chance, thats just you sidestepping the issue again. Who's talking about them here? The point is that nearly everyone knew Souness was a s*** manager, except for Shepherd - those who backed him only did so because he was already in the job, and thats what fans are meant to do. Everyone knew how it would end, Blackburn fans were falling over themselves and laughing for pete's sake, yet Shepherd appointed him then tasked him with spending big. Again, dont side step the issue, the man was an idiot for making that appointment and all the decisions that went with it. A non-idiotic board was scouring the globe looking for a good manager, ours was holding interviews with Venables and Bruce. Jesus wept.

 

You still insist that one man ran the football club, if that isn't an agenda, I don't know what is.

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

How do you know we didn't have a manager lined up to replace Bobby Robson ? What difference does the "timing" make ? We've been through this before, so do you think that we should have stuck with Gullit and not replaced him with Bobby Robson because it was "the wrong time" ? What utter bollocks. What good has Allardyce having the summer did him so far ? More utter bollocks, but hey, keep spouting the cliches in your quest to discredit the old board at every opportunity.

 

Dogless Hall said that sacking Bobby Robson was the right decision, by the way, not Shepherd. I don't suppose that will alter your "opinion" that it was Shepherd though.

 

Terry Venables is one of the highest regarded coaches in the game by the way, and to this date is the last English manager to manage a team that reached the European Cup Final. Just thought I would tell you that.

 

Do you think the Birmingham and Wigan chairman are better than Shepherd and Hall for appointing Bruce ? Don;t let facts spoil your "opinion" though.

 

I see you have moved this on from discussing the spending of money now, as your total hypocrisy has been shown.

 

 

 

If you also still insist that football is the same as a high street business, please tell us what high street business would be unhappy to achieve the 5th best results in the country over a decade ?

 

In the past ten years, didnt we fininsh 13th, 11th, 11th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 14th, 7th, 13th? Hardly 5th best results.

 

How many businesses do you think look at the current state of business with the context being what has been achieved in the past??

 

You're really struggling to grasp this concept.

 

I mean, how many businesses try and justify mistakes made in the present with arguments such as "we did well in 96", "94 was a good year", "you should of seen the state of the business in 87".

 

Just out of interest, where do you think nufc stood as a club before Shepard took a direct involvlement, i.e became chairmen?

 

Who do you think is accountable for the digression of the business?

 

Do you think the past achievemnts of those in charge are relevant to the digression of the current state?

 

I suggest you look at our league positions for the 30 years previous to this.

 

If you don't understand that this shows how far forward the club moved, then I'm sorry, but its your problem.

 

 

 

Oh dear, again, you fail to see the club in a modern context. You're treating the club as though it will end tomorrow. If it did, then by all means, the old board achieved astonishing things, and deserve all the plaudits. But in the modern context the DAY they left the club, they left it in a precariuos situation, both financially and footballing wise due to some horrendous decisions. It undermined all there other achievements. Although not their greatest one.

 

Please tell us how we aren;t doing so well, as the new board are the bestest board in the world and don't do anything wrong, and the old board did nothing other than mess everybody around and were the most incompetent board that ever run a football club and absolutely anybody else would be miles better  mackems.gif

 

The more you say the more it is clear that you have been having this debate for many years, like i said earlier, you dont have to paint me with the same tar brush as everyone else. Like ive said before, i happen to think the old board achieved amazing things, things which will not probably be seen for a long long time.

 

I just happen to have a ruthless opinion on the everall success of a business and therefore the board becasue i happen to understand business.

 

You may think you do, but you don't understand how football works though, if you don't understand the concept of speculating to accumulate in football. You only have to look at how the top 4 operate, shame you aren't.

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes you’re right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think they’ve dropped a massive bollock but they’ll have to live with that decision.

 

Makes a nice change to see you giving a balanced and agenda-free comment. What you actually say here, hits the nail on the head too.

 

Baggio thinks he knows everything though, having seen NUFC play 100 times at 27. I'd seen NUFC play 100 times by the time I was 13 or 14.

 

 

That is effing GOLD DUST! Honestly man, you dig your own grave time after time!

[NE5]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes youre right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think theyve dropped a massive bollock but theyll have to live with that decision.

 

You could be onto something there, Mick.

 

I wonder how much Sports Direct are paying us in advertising revenue.

 

There is a vast difference in NUFC not making any advertising money out of Sports Direct and actually paying money for an empty warehouse.........that happened to belong to the Chairmans brother.

 

Spending season ticket holders money on a fucking scam involving family. Nice.

 

Sorry like.

 

Its Ashleys club.........he own's it and he's not answerable to various shareholders like FFS was. Nor has he spent season tickets holders money on stuff without integrity.

 

If he want's to stick a banner on the empty roof of one of the stands I couldn't give a fuck tbh.

 

nice line. Some of us dont' give a fuck about a warehouse arrangement either. As it happens I don't give a toss about either that, or adverts for Sports Direct. If anything, I wouldn't be happy with replacing the clubs badge with a Sports Direct banner, but just to be consistent in my points of view - unlike some people in this thread - I don't really give a toss if he backs his managers and even better if the team are winning.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

 

When discussing club finances with Macbeth, he told me that company debt was just like holding individual debt. This was quite a revelation for me as it suggested he hadnt the first clue about finance. His figures were therefore, in my eyes not that reliable.

 

Debt is basically capital (with a charge). Sometimes its the best source of capital too. People (idiots) in this thread whingeing on about debt clearly dont have the first clue about fundamental financial principles.

 

Why is the debt an issue when the top 4 all have bigger debts? Surely a debt means that the "ongoing concern" is of sound structure and that the lenders are prepared to hand over the capital? The ability to raise finance through this way is the signal of solid underlying performance in the business model. Arsenal raised a massive debt because the lenders believed in the business. Its a signal of strength not weakness.

 

If people dont get that statement they should refrain from commenting on the club's finances.

 

 

Very well put. I wait for the wannabee financial experts to comment.

 

 

[NE5]

It doesn't matter that the chairman bought a warehouse off the club cheap and was happy to rip the club off by renting it back? mackems.gif

 

Yes you’re right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, I'd go as far as to say its good business practice, and all good companies should do it.

 

The puzzling thing for me is that the new people have cancelled the agreement instead of taking full advantage of this best business practice, I think they’ve dropped a massive bollock but they’ll have to live with that decision.

 

Makes a nice change to see you giving a balanced and agenda-free comment. What you actually say here, hits the nail on the head too.

 

Baggio thinks he knows everything though, having seen NUFC play 100 times at 27. I'd seen NUFC play 100 times by the time I was 13 or 14.

 

 

That is effing GOLD DUST! Honestly man, you dig your own grave time after time!

 

I'll give you a chance to actually say something worthwhile for once. Are you going to dispute that ?

 

 

[Taylor Swift]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were fucked.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

 

But didn't we have a ridiculously high wage-turnover ratio? Something like 60% wasn't it? This was about a year before Fred left iirc. And isn't that percentage higher than the 'safe' percentage, which is 50% iirc.

 

Source for the 60% figure?

 

The 50% is just a benchmark. It means nothing in reality.

 

This isnt about wages, its about debt and capital and the servicing of debt on the basis of future income streams. None of our debt was held against predicted CL revenue streams. It therefore means it was serviced on the existing business model.

 

The end-of-year financial figures that the club releases. According to macbeth's site, it was 58% in 2005 and rose to 68% in 2006!

 

IIRC our debt is set against season-ticket sales, so that surely would have been affected. We definitely didn't sell all our season tickets from last year and I believe that we haven't sold out for this year as well. We haven't sold out most of our home games last season, and haven't been doing it this season. Take this and the signs of Freddie desperately trying to spend money to fill those seats and you have a disaster of Leeds-proportion waiting to happen. Honestly, we weren't heading in the right direction and the problem wasn't being tackled in the right way. The fact that we spent the Northern Rock money before we even had it shows our desperate the club was at the time. Future revenue was being spent because if it hadn't, we would have been unable to pay off the debts (not enough tickets sold). There's two problems with that. First, the fact that we were in that state reflects how badly things were going, and secondly, spending that future revenue (and not succeeding) would have meant heading further down that route and taking an even bigger risk. All the signs were pointing to a big financial trouble imo, and that would have impacted the more important side, the football one, greatly, since we would have been able to spend a sum total of fuck all in future windows.

[Taylor Swift]

And wasn't this debt set up nearly 10 yrs ago? So when we raised that initial debt, we were in the top 2 (!), had consistent European football, filled the stadium every week and had a really bright future. So yes, we did have a good financial model and it worked (on and off the pitch), but that was 10 or so years ago. Things are quite different now and if Fred's still here, I would think that most sensible banks would turn him away if he came calling for a couple million £s.

 

Edit - I bet the bank we're still paying off now started sweating when the Northern Rock money was spent.

[ChezGiven]

Hang on. You're saying that because we are averaging 50,000 as opposed to 52,000 that the finances are therefore fucked.

 

Absurd statement.

 

The Northern Rock money is not a variable revenue stream and in strict financial terms had a higher value to the club when acquired all at once rather than in discounted revenue streams. No idea why the NR money is ever used in an argument about the club's finances. As the beneficiary of sponsorship, you prefer the money earlier rather than later because money later is worth less. This is fucking GCSE stuff this.

 

Future revenue was being spent because if it hadn't, we would have been unable to pay off the debts (not enough tickets sold)

 

What?

 

If that the fundamentals of your argument then basically there is nothing in what you have said that has changed my view on anything.

[Mick]

 

Unless I've missed something it's only slightly more than the average spend so far (around 10m), so I don't know why you keep going on about that.

 

Obviously you have missed something, you've missed that I keep "going on about that" because somebody keeps asking for the board to show ambition so I point out that they've shown more than the last chairman, if only 10% more.

 

 

If the team had been run into the ground so much by the previous managers/board, then surely initially it will take much more than the average previous spend just to get us back up to where the previous board were able to get us let alone better it? Either that or it will take a much longer time, very good scouting and even better management to build a team up from promising youth and cheap foreign undiscovered talent. Do you realistically think the supporters who are already starting to grumble in increasing numbers about Allardyce will have the patience to see that through without demanding changes? Do you think any future manager will be allowed the time to do it that way? I personally doubt it because I believe expectations have been raised so high it will take either relegation or a decade of mid table finishes to lower them to a point the majority of supporters would be happy with that. You can blame the old board for that if you like.

 

The situation we're now in is almost a mirror image to when Bobby Robson took over the club.  Bobby had nothing to spend back then until his second season, what he did was spend £700k on Kevin Gallacher and he bought/loaned cheap foreign players to make up the numbers and get some bodies in, Allardyce has had to do the same because our squad was paper thin, something that the previous 2 managers both complained about while they reduced the squad size further.  Allardyce has been backed more that Bobby was in his first transfer window so he’s got a head-start.  Who is to say that he can’t have the same impact if he’s as good as some people think and he’s given the financial backing to be able to compete in the transfer market?

 

If we had the reported £100 million debt and have paid off £75 million of it then we've still got £25 million plus any that we're adding to it by making a loss which Macbeth predicted was £2 million per month.  The bottom club gets £30 million in prize money this season, the top team gets £50 million so if we finish mid-table then we can expect to get £40 million which will finally pay off all of our debts.

 

Serious question as I've not been following it, but where does this £100m debt figure come from? What did it consist of? I assume we've now fully paid off the stadium extension (45m?) but where's the other £55m come from? Is there any evidence of it other than just Mort's say so? I ask because even Macbeth didn't reckon the debt was anywhere near that much (didn't he say £20m or something), so how was this extra £35m hidden in the accounts?

 

If Macbeth said we had £20 million in debt then he was wrong so I doubt he said that.  We had a loan for £35,157,000 which was costing us 7.36% and we had another for £10,380,000 which was costing us 7.65%, these were due to run until September 2016 and were "The Mortgage."

 

The club accounts for 2006 can be found here http://www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk/staticFiles/ea/3d/0,,10278~81386,00.pdf

 

Here's an article from June this year where the takeover was being debated with a "football financial expert." not my description of him so I have no idea how true that is but he does mention £80 million debt and we've since been told that the surprise part of the debt was shown as future income but it had already been spent, we'd spent our future income from Northern Rock and Adidas.

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/news-archive/2007/06/08/what-will-the-new-owner-mean-to-the-club-and-fans-72703-19266683/

 

If the £100 million is bullshit then why did Shepherd not question the amount when he commented on the level of debt?  All he said was that the debt was manageable, at least that's all I remeber his saying.

 

[Mick]

I presume you are talking about Leeds? They acted like a CL club financially so once the CL revenue didnt arrive they were f*****.

 

Our debts were / are large but were set against stadium revenues etc. We also have 52k seats (so thats an extra £12m per year than Leeds) and we shift a lot of merchandise. Hence we appear high up the list of rich clubs and Leeds never did. We were 9th highest at one point.

 

That points to a sound underlying business performance. There are risks, as ever, in this model but fundamentally we have not raised capital on the basis of future revenues that are unsecured like CL TV money.

 

I suggest you read this:

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/09/25/without-takeover-united-could-well-have-folded-72703-19844203/

[Taylor Swift]

Hang on. You're saying that because we are averaging 50,000 as opposed to 52,000 that the finances are therefore fucked.

 

Absurd statement.

 

The finances were fucked already. We made a loss of £12m in the last fiscal year, our wages took up 68% of our revenue, we have no European football this year, had little last year (at least none in the latter stages where the stadium would have been filled and tickets would have cost a bit more) and looked like we weren't going to have any next year as well. We've also lacked decent cup runs that would have generated some tv money. We were still operating like a club which had European football. Where were we going to get some money? That's the main thing. We were heading backwards as a club and we couldn't fill the stadiums except for the 'top 4' matches. My point about the Northern Rock money was that it could have been used for day-to-day expenses, paying wages etc. But it was spent in one go, and that's my main gripe. And obviously we haven't had a decent return for the cash spent as well. How were we going to pay wages?

 

And if we couldn't spend, couldn't keep the 'top' players, how were we going to keep the stadium filled? And if we couldn't do that, where were we going to get the money to actually spend on new players? Could the club have afforded losing another £12m this year? It says a lot that we appointed Allardyce who's known for improving his team with spending little or no cash. That's a damning indictment on the financial state of the club if there ever was one.

[Parky]

There are clubs in the top 4 with far greater fianancial risks at the moment.

[Mick]

 

Source for the 60% figure?

 

The 50% is just a benchmark. It means nothing in reality.

 

This isnt about wages, its about debt and capital and the servicing of debt on the basis of future income streams. None of our debt was held against predicted CL revenue streams. It therefore means it was serviced on the existing business model.

 

The source for the 63% is Shepherd as he signed the 2006 accounts, how was the debt being serviced if it was increasing every year?