Shak Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 To be fair, the three players Allardyce spent any significant money on were Barton, Smith and Enrique. Would you have felt comfortable giving him much more money? He was unlucky with certain things, nobody can be expected to turn things around in 8 months. But in the time he was here he really didn't do himself any favours at all, so trying to totally absolve himself of blame is completely ridiculous. Barton is a gamble, Enrique shows he could made it in the EPL while Smith is plain s***---but Ashley's shirt and the captaincy seems to show it's his personal favour rather than Sam's. Not backing SA but together with Beye and Faye, are his signings really that bad? My point was more about his ability to spend big money, we know he can find solid, bargain type players. And his big money signings have all failed miserably thus far, although Enrique I do agree can still be a good player for us one day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 haha u don't even take in the facts, COS UR RIGHT AND EVERY1 else in wrong our debts like our massive overdraft of 20 million we're due to be paid by october this year the financial website set-up by some1 on here said that allardyce had NOTHING TO SPEND in the summer, allardyce was brought in cos of him being able to get good players on free's SO f*** OFF other ppl can make comments as well Utterly clueless. You cant even string a sentence together nevermind a coherent argument. clueless, u not even taking in other ppls views, if u don't like them then fuck off are fat fred's arselicker lyk? Respond to the point about £800m of debt at Man U, £350m at Liverpool and Arsenal and i'll take back the comment about you being clueless. No, i wont fuck off either Arsenal were a profit making club anyway who borrowed money to finance a new stadium, while they are in debt from that their turnover has risen to cover the repayments comfortably, the expansion has made their income went up 46% from £137.2 million to £200.8 million with, before player trading they made a profit of over £50 million. Man Utd are similar except their debt was ran up by the Glazers takeover, a debt that big can't be healthy but a profit of £59.6 million more than covers their repayments. We on the other hand didn't have debts as large as these, but we were not a profit making club and our debt level continued to rise every year so I can't see how pointing to bigger, profit making clubs who seem to be ran better takes away from the fact we were struggling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 they we're solved in the summer anycase how can you defend allardyce, when we are much worse off than last season: where roeder had: a huge injury list less money more games (uefa cup) and why did roeder get sacked, because he wasn't get the best from the players Err...no, I'm not defending, I just find SA's quote interesting. What he said is like he was "cheated" to Newcastle. To be fair if what Mort said is true, Freddy is correct to bring in SA because we must sold some players and bought in a few cheaps in order to survive. And if this is the case, I don't think SA is required to play sexy football originally. And after the acquisition, SA was given a few million pounds (the net spending) to strengthen the squad and now because he was no longer under pressure to sell players, everyone in the club demands attacking football while actually the players are nearly the same. No matter how s*** Barton and Smith were, you couldn't deny they are at the same level with Parker and Ameobi. The squad wasn't improved a lot, Owen and Duff were not available, Given was simply f***** off. There are too much negatives within the squad even after Ashley's acquisition and if we consider what SA did with those few million pounds I didn't think it's that bad. Faye, Beye and Enrique definitely has a future and our defense no longer need critical improvement (Given perhaps). What you can really criticize is his inability to bring in players like Okocha (lots of luck is required) and build up attacking plays. But to be fair SA is get used to defensive tactics so why criticize him for that? It is not Freddy's fault either to employ SA under that circumstances. The whole mess is not purely their fault. It's the timing of acquisition, the decision to retain SA by Ashley WITH NOT MUCH FINANCIAL BACKUP, and the timing of sacking that caused us so much troubles. People are backing Kev by saying major investment is required as the players are too s***---this should applied to SA also right? I am very disappointed by Kev's appointment because he is not the right one, but anyway, even though Ashley has helped us a lot in clearing the debt, he is the one who should bear the responsibility for this mess. One point SA is right---the more we analyzed, the more we think failure is a must. It's no longer the problem of ability, but the strange situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 haha an economist SURPRISE SURPRISE, then don't know much then cos we had unsecured debt, which needed to be paid back, and the club has made losses for the last 3 seasons after transfer trading we needed to find 20 million to payback the overdraft (i think everyone but you knows that you need to pay off an overdraft or the bank comes crawling) + the club asked for a new loan last season and got refused as the orginal debt was 45 million and in 5 years increased to over 100 million so if u think the club losing 10m + a season can't go in administration, then i think you should be sacked from your job Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 haha u don't even take in the facts, COS UR RIGHT AND EVERY1 else in wrong our debts like our massive overdraft of 20 million we're due to be paid by october this year the financial website set-up by some1 on here said that allardyce had NOTHING TO SPEND in the summer, allardyce was brought in cos of him being able to get good players on free's SO f*** OFF other ppl can make comments as well Utterly clueless. You cant even string a sentence together nevermind a coherent argument. clueless, u not even taking in other ppls views, if u don't like them then fuck off are fat fred's arselicker lyk? Respond to the point about £800m of debt at Man U, £350m at Liverpool and Arsenal and i'll take back the comment about you being clueless. No, i wont fuck off either Arsenal were a profit making club anyway who borrowed money to finance a new stadium, while they are in debt from that their turnover has risen to cover the repayments comfortably, the expansion has made their income went up 46% from £137.2 million to £200.8 million with, before player trading they made a profit of over £50 million. Man Utd are similar except their debt was ran up by the Glazers takeover, a debt that big can't be healthy but a profit of £59.6 million more than covers their repayments. We on the other hand didn't have debts as large as these, but we were not a profit making club and our debt level continued to rise every year so I can't see how pointing to bigger, profit making clubs who seem to be ran better takes away from the fact we were struggling. Debt repayments are included in the P&L for a start. The income streams that financers look at are future ones, not past ones. A venture capitalist wouldnt invest in anything if the past was a reflection of the future. No, am sure the club wasnt as healthy as it could have been but saying that a premier league club with income from 52,000 paying fans, sky money, overseas broadcasting rights and merchandising with a significant extra boost from the new TV deal was about to go into administration is, imo, talking shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 they we're solved in the summer anycase how can you defend allardyce, when we are much worse off than last season: where roeder had: a huge injury list less money more games (uefa cup) and why did roeder get sacked, because he wasn't get the best from the players Err...no, I'm not defending, I just find SA's quote interesting. What he said is like he was "cheated" to Newcastle. To be fair if what Mort said is true, Freddy is correct to bring in SA because we must sold some players and bought in a few cheaps in order to survive. And if this is the case, I don't think SA is required to play sexy football originally. And after the acquisition, SA was given a few million pounds (the net spending) to strengthen the squad and now because he was no longer under pressure to sell players, everyone in the club demands attacking football while actually the players are nearly the same. No matter how s*** Barton and Smith were, you couldn't deny they are at the same level with Parker and Ameobi. The squad wasn't improved a lot, Owen and Duff were not available, Given was simply f***** off. There are too much negatives within the squad even after Ashley's acquisition and if we consider what SA did with those few million pounds I didn't think it's that bad. Faye, Beye and Enrique definitely has a future and our defense no longer need critical improvement (Given perhaps). What you can really criticize is his inability to bring in players like Okocha (lots of luck is required) and build up attacking plays. But to be fair SA is get used to defensive tactics so why criticize him for that? It is not Freddy's fault either to employ SA under that circumstances. The whole mess is not purely their fault. It's the timing of acquisition, the decision to retain SA by Ashley WITH NOT MUCH FINANCIAL BACKUP, and the timing of sacking that caused us so much troubles. People are backing Kev by saying major investment is required as the players are too s***---this should applied to SA also right? I am very disappointed by Kev's appointment because he is not the right one, but anyway, even though Ashley has helped us a lot in clearing the debt, he is the one who should bear the responsibility for this mess. he did have financial backing, ALLARDYCE ACTUALLY SAID HE HAD MORE MONEY BUT WAS HAPPY WITH THE SQUAD, so he is making excuses ashley should be commended for not giving him more money, as my nana could of done a better job than him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 haha an economist SURPRISE SURPRISE, then don't know much then cos we had unsecured debt, which needed to be paid back, and the club has made losses for the last 3 seasons after transfer trading we needed to find 20 million to payback the overdraft (i think everyone but you knows that you need to pay off an overdraft or the bank comes crawling) + the club asked for a new loan last season and got refused as the orginal debt was 45 million and in 5 years increased to over 100 million so if u think the club losing 10m + a season can't go in administration, then i think you should be sacked from your job How do you stop the drool from ruining your keyboard? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shaun11177 Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The club owed at the end of June 2007-70m which was to be paid by 2016-the lender invoked a clause in the contract and we had to pay 45m within 2 months+there was other debts due-basically on money we owed for transfers of 13m. Therefore Ashley put in 75m to cover the debts and give us some working capital. Was the club going under-slowly but surely yes. The interest payments were up to 8m a year-no problem if you are in the Champions Lge. The club was generating no money for transfers and the wage bill was/is out of control. Dont remember any players that Allardyce said the new owners refused to sign. Fact is they didnt want to come here for whatever reason be it Woodgate or Distin or Silvestre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 he did have financial backing, ALLARDYCE ACTUALLY SAID HE HAD MORE MONEY BUT WAS HAPPY WITH THE SQUAD, so he is making excuses ashley should be commended for not giving him more money, as my nana could of done a better job than him You really believe this quote? Ashley admits that he "just want to give SA a little chance, and if things aren't going well then sack him". And is SA stupid enough to criticize the new boss just a few months after starting his job? You can believe that, I won't. It's purely nonsense as Ashley is a businessman---he won't make such silly mistakes. Ashley should make his mind up regarding SA's future rather than "give him a try, just a try". What sort of thinking is this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The club owed at the end of June 2007-70m which was to be paid by 2016-the lender invoked a clause in the contract and we had to pay 45m within 2 months+there was other debts due-basically on money we owed for transfers of 13m. Therefore Ashley put in 75m to cover the debts and give us some working capital. Was the club going under-slowly but surely yes. The interest payments were up to 8m a year-no problem if you are in the Champions Lge. The club was generating no money for transfers and the wage bill was/is out of control. Dont remember any players that Allardyce said the new owners refused to sign. Fact is they didnt want to come here for whatever reason be it Woodgate or Distin or Silvestre. Deloitte say that a wages/turnover ratio of 50-60% is about right for a prem club, in which case against whose standards are you judging our wage bill as being 'out of control'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Deloitte say that a wages/turnover ratio of 50-60% is about right for a prem club, in which case against whose standards are you judging our wage bill as being 'out of control'? They said 50% originally but now state that wages to turnover have stabilised at between 60% to 65%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Deloitte say that a wages/turnover ratio of 50-60% is about right for a prem club, in which case against whose standards are you judging our wage bill as being 'out of control'? They said 50% originally but now state that wages to turnover have stabilised at between 60% to 65%. They also said it was not a hard and fast rule and that deviations from this could clearly be warranted in many circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Deloitte say that a wages/turnover ratio of 50-60% is about right for a prem club, in which case against whose standards are you judging our wage bill as being 'out of control'? They said 50% originally but now state that wages to turnover have stabilised at between 60% to 65%. They also said it was not a hard and fast rule and that deviations from this could clearly be warranted in many circumstances. Cheers I never knew that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The fact is that the club had less money coming in than that going out, we were and probably still are making a loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Allardyce: "I was too big for Newcastle" Former Newcastle boss and fat tosser Sam Allardyce has rounded on his former club in a sensational attack. He told The People: "The usual rubbish that goes when someone like me is sacked from a club like Newcastle is that that job was too big for me. That's just not true. "If I'm honest the reverse is probably true. Newcastle probably wasn't big enough for me - it didn't live up to my ambitions in the short time that I was there. And because it didn't do that the club missed a chance to realise its own ambitions. I couldn't sit in the seats provided as i'm too fat, and my head didn't fit through over 80% of the doors at the stadium, i was literally too big for the club. "The more I analyse it, the more I come to the conclusion that it was never about me or results and we have seen that the appointment on Dennis Wise and various others. "It was about things they wanted to put in place." http://www.sunderlandecho.com/nufc/Allardyce-34I-was-too-big.3762932.jp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now