Were we unstable?

[Guest Stephen927]

Not worthy of a new thread so probably could go in here, but just seen the Arsenal chairman on Setanta News there moaning about how players join them on a 4-year contract and then 6 months-2 years later come demanding a payrise...well surely when you scrimp in the bargain basement like they do picking up players from French Leagues, etc. on low wages, once they've cracked the Premiership and realise that they are on a par with other higher paid players that they're playing alongside or against, that's naturally going to happen isn't it?

 

I have to say that I was shocked Arsenal's wage bill was just a few million lower than Man U's.

 

Arsenals squad is quite big isn't it, full of youngsters like Gilbert, Gibbs, Van der Berg, Nordveit. Wouldn't be surprised if their wage bill was quite high, though they are quite strict with how much they pay in wages for individual players, this will be taken into account with how many youngsters they have on the bill.

 

Isn't this the way many are suggesting we should go though? Most are using it as an argument on how we will cut the wage bill.

 

To be fair our wage bill is so high because we've paid over the odds for players like Emre and Smith when they're contribution to the team has been very limited.

 

I'm not sure, I think most people say we should cut the wage bill on overpaid 'stars' like Duff.

[mrmojorisin75]

pretty much the response i expected NE5...but your response would have been a little different i'd guess if abramovic HADN'T come along i'd guess but we'll never know

 

suppose i could ask the question of leeds eh?  they backed their manager to the detriment of the club, do you think you'd hear leeds fans complaining about that period?  they'd more than likely tell you it was great at the time but seeing as it totally f***ed the club they'd maybe rather not have had that champions league semi final to show for it

 

one thing i find amusing is your ridiculing someone in another thread about "hindsight signings" yet you're saying in this post that chelsea fans wouldn't be complaining 'cause they had some good times and won some cups in the past when their club was on the brink of financial collapse...it's only hindsight that makes that period good for the club, had things gone the other way it might very well have been seen as the creating darkest in their history

 

finally, and this is for UV too, abramovic bought chelski after spurs told him to beat it so they weren't as attractive as all that were they?  he probably knew they were there for the taking due to their financial situation and they were in london with decent facilities...if it was an attractive, successful side he wanted why not buy arsenal or man utd?  same goes for ashley really...our share price was low due to the recent poor results and perceived (put that in for you) bad financial state of the club and he saw an opportunity to buy a great club for a reasonable amount of money, ostensibly; he was then bitten in the arse by the debt

 

anyway seems like i'm trying to turn this into an old board argument, and i'm not, honestly

 

another question though; are everton giving it a go at the moment?  'cause i agree it's better to try than not to try but what do you consider "having a stab"?  seems to me they're trying to break into the top four by buying and developing players, and you can't say they're not paying big fees either really can you?  so would you be happy with an everton-esque approach?  or for us to have a stab do we have to spend beyond our means?  or ask yourself the same question about aston villa maybe?

 

i'm guessing i already know the answer to that one too

 

quick reply, but if we had won just one Cup Final, by virtue of playing the smoggies instead of the premiership champions, would your perspective of the Halls and Shepherd be different ?

 

And yet, the Champions League is supposed to be the be all and end all these days ?

 

Leeds fans were in their element during those European Cup semi final days etc, they would hardly have been anything else. The ones I know were anyway. They also condemn Ridsdale for BORROWING money to buy too many players. They know they aren't big enough for that, they certainly know they don't have the support of Newcastle.

 

As for Everton, its taken them 6 years (SIX) to get to 5th in the league, at least 4 of those were watching Allardyce type stuff, and we already know the answer to the question would we really want to watch that for 4 years.

 

And they aren't challenging their neighbours, nothing like it, and when they upgrade their wooden delapitated stadium, they will be in debt   Maybe it won't stop them from winning a cup or two though, just like the current top 4 clubs though

 

Anyway mate, your're cherry picking, the vast majority of clubs aren't successful because they don't spend money, not vice versa, I held up the mackems as an example. They are a big club too you know ?

 

 

 

I'M cherry picking, ME??  masterful, masterful mate

 

it's taken liverpool over a decade of big spending to scrape 4th every year mate, and everton making 5th in SIX years (i'll ignore that 4th place they had just in homage to you) is considered bad by you?  don't bother wheeling out the cup wins 'cause i know already

 

amazing...i was always under the impression you had unrealistic ambitions for the club and you've just confirmed them, just how much bigger than leeds do you actually think we are?  if you think under the old board or new NUFC getting back to anywhere near the top 4-5 by spending big alone then you are severely deluded, it's unsustainable for a club our size in the current circumstances of the 2008 EPL

 

we had 80m of debt did we not?  and we'd have needed to increase that debt significantly to even come close to the top five, but yeah EVERTON are the mugs

 

[Dave]

In terms of support (size), I reckon Leeds are quite similar to us tbh.

[UV]

Everton have a large local support, their all time average attendance is on par with ours. What have their board done to harness that?

 

If I were an Everton fan I think I'd be proud of what we'd achieved on a limited budget, but be very pissed of that we'd HAD to do it on a limited budget.

[mrmojorisin75]

I don't think we were ever in a position where we couldn't have survived a relegation. We would have had to have shed a lot of the high earners of course, but most would leave of their own accord anyway, and this would be true of any long standing premiership team who got relegated. I think it's fair to rely on the fact that the gates would not have dropped significantly for a good few seasons; we would still get an average of 40k at least I'm sure and that would have given us time to stablilise the club at a different revenue level in the Championship.

 

Man United, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Arsenal however are in a FAR more precarious position should they get relegated. They are in so much debt they would never be able to stablilise their clubs in the Championship, and would therefore have to either go bankrupt or go even further and further into debt until they got back into the Premiership. Even then Liverpool, Chelsea, and Arsenal would struggle until they were back in the CL (Man U's revenues are not so dependent on it, so they would probably be okay). If anyone is at risk of "doing a Leeds" it's those clubs. Of course, they're the "big 4" and that could never ever happen.

 

On Chelsea under Bates - I stand to be corrected with facts and figures, but as I alluded to above, I'm as dubious of the doomongering about Chelsea's imminent bankruptcy as I am about ours.

 

On Abramovich - I guess he must have wanted a bit of a challenge as we know he could easily have bought Man U or Arsenal with the money he has, and at the end of the day he would have had to spend less on them than he has over the years on Chelsea. He also must have wanted a club in London if he went for Spurs & Chelsea, as I'd have said us, Liverpool or maybe Villa were the best positioned clubs at the time which would still have presented a challenge for him. Who knows what his thinking was, he didn't pick Fulham, Charlton or West Ham though.

 

On takeovers in general - Chelsea, Man U, Portsmouth, Villa, West Ham & Liverpool all got taken over before us. Is that a sign that they were all well run or badly run? I'm not sure what your point is.

 

On Ashley - If he was unaware of the state of the club's finances before he took over, then that's his own lookout, but if an extra £20-30m of debt was going to seriously knock his plans, then he's in the wrong game. Relegation last season would have knocked a hell of a lot more than that off the price of the club, and conversely a European place would have added more than that onto it (to be clear I mean club worth here, not revenue).

 

Everton - cherry picking here - there are plenty of clubs run like Everton who don't get anywhere near Europe let alone the CL. However if Everton do get anywhere near the CL it will be down to the manager far more than the board. I will say fair play to them for not panicking in that season when they went from 4th to hovering around the relegation places for a lot of the season, but it's easier to do that when you've had a few good years out of a manager and know you're unlikely to be able to attract better when you're as tight with your money as they are.

 

 

cherry picking again eh?  jesus...so using a good example to make a point is cherry picking is it?  by the way i never said WE were anywhere near bankruptcy, just that our finances were in a poor state...use bolton, blackburn & villa as teams who have either made europe or come very close in the same way, punching above their weight but still getting close or actually doing it

 

don't bother saying "so we should have the same ambition as blah blah fucking blah" 'cause it's been said before

 

i think you're very, very wrong about our fortunes should we have ever been relegated mate...our players are worth shite NOW so what would they be worth should we have ended up div one?  and that's the only feasible way we'd have dented the 80m ain't it?  by selling

 

also i'm no expert but it was well reported at the time chelsea were about fucked...reports varied but a week from being unable to operate was mentioned; i remember it so well because it was rumoured that we were hovering about looking at terry and other clubs at lampard once they hit the wall

 

"On takeovers in general - Chelsea, Man U, Portsmouth, Villa, West Ham & Liverpool all got taken over before us. Is that a sign that they were all well run or badly run? I'm not sure what your point is." - i'm sure what your point is either; portsmouth are a nothing club, villa were run down for years, west ham were recovering from a relegation/promotion fiasco so who knows about their finances?

 

never said anything about about the extra debt doing anything to ashleys intentions, merely pointing out he was bitten by it, which he was...i have no idea of his intentions, neither do you

 

as for everton of course it's the manager but it also has quite a lot to do with selling rooney - they were in financial trouble also when they sold him but did it to secure their long term future...seemed to work out pretty well for them in the end?  but big clubs don't sell do they?

 

prior to ashley we had the debt and wage bill of a CL team and the players for a relegation struggle, that's the start and end of it mate...you wanna put a gold plated finish on a turd knock yourself out, it's still a turd when you scratch the surface

[Dave]

In Shepherd's final season at the helm we had the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League and finished thirteenth. Only West Ham had a comparable difference in these two rankings.

 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

How anyone can argue that was not a worryingly unhealthy state of affairs is beyond me.

[mrmojorisin75]

In Shepherd's final season at the helm we had the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League and finished thirteenth. Only West Ham had a comparable difference in these two rankings.

 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

How anyone can argue that was not a worryingly unhealthy state of affairs is beyond me.

 

yeah but we gave it a shot don't you know?

 

the whole things comparable to an addicted gambler who starts by spending the money he actually has, when he loses that he takes out debt in a bid to recover what he's already lost, then he goes to a loan shark to cover the full amount in one easy lumpsum - the next logical step is he gets his kneecaps shot off...thanks to ashley we probably avoided the kneecapping!!!!

 

[don't bother NE5/UV i already know it's not a perfect comparison]

[UV]

cherry picking again eh?  jesus...so using a good example to make a point is cherry picking is it?

 

Eh, yes. That's the exact meaning of it. Using the best example out of a bunch of teams using the same approach is cherry picking. It's like using Solano as a justification for buying loads of cheap South American players and ignoring the many more cheap South American players who have failed in the Premiership.

 

Why not compare us to Boro, Charlton, Fulham, Man City, etc, etc?

 

i think you're very, very wrong about our fortunes should we have ever been relegated mate...our players are worth s**** NOW so what would they be worth should we have ended up div one?  and that's the only feasible way we'd have dented the 80m ain't it?  by selling

 

Why would we have to suddenly make the debt disappear? It was manageable. The club was sustainable for a couple of years until we reduced the wage bill to a level suitable for the Championship. If we halved the wage bill (easily done if necessary after a few years) we'd turn a profit on gate receipts alone.

 

Half the debt was manageable stadium expansion debt by the way. I'm hoping you're not going to argue we shouldn't have taken that on.

 

also i'm no expert but it was well reported at the time chelsea were about f***ed...reports varied but a week from being unable to operate was mentioned; i remember it so well because it was rumoured that we were hovering about looking at terry and other clubs at lampard once they hit the wall

 

Like I said, back it up with facts and figures and I'll listen. It was "well reported" that we were fucked too. Selling a couple of players whilst not desirable is also not financial ruin.

 

 

I've cherry picked your post for the bits that were worthy of a response.

[UV]

In Shepherd's final season at the helm we had the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League and finished thirteenth. Only West Ham had a comparable difference in these two rankings.

 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

How anyone can argue that was not a worryingly unhealthy state of affairs is beyond me.

 

So are you arguing that once you drop out of the CL places you should immediately and drastically cut your wage bill, and when you have a poor season devastated by injury you should cut it even further? Is this the stability you're after? Basing you wage bill on a single year's league position rather than an average position or level of achievement over a number of years (ie in Europe every other year on average)?

[Dave]

In Shepherd's final season at the helm we had the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League and finished thirteenth. Only West Ham had a comparable difference in these two rankings.

 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7424134.stm

 

How anyone can argue that was not a worryingly unhealthy state of affairs is beyond me.

 

So are you arguing that once you drop out of the CL places you should immediately and drastically cut your wage bill, and when you have a poor season devastated by injury you should cut it even further? Is this the stability you're after? Basing you wage bill on a single year's league position rather than an average position over a number of years?

 

That's exactly what I am arguing, yes.

 

We'd not been anywhere near the CL places for the previous three years. So why were we continuing to pay out beyond our means and station? Does it not say something to you that nobody else on that table (barring West Ham) was paying out as much for so little reward?

 

I'm not saying we should have done this or that, I'm just making the point that the finances were (and probably still are) a concern, backed up by the figures in that link. As I said, I don't know how anyone can dispute them.

[mrmojorisin75]

cherry picking again eh?  jesus...so using a good example to make a point is cherry picking is it?

 

Eh, yes. That's the exact meaning of it. Using the best example out of a bunch of teams using the same approach is cherry picking. It's like using Solano as a justification for buying loads of cheap South American players and ignoring the many more cheap South American players who have failed in the Premiership.

 

Why not compare us to Boro, Charlton, Fulham, Man City, etc, etc?

 

i think you're very, very wrong about our fortunes should we have ever been relegated mate...our players are worth s**** NOW so what would they be worth should we have ended up div one?  and that's the only feasible way we'd have dented the 80m ain't it?  by selling

 

Why would we have to suddenly make the debt disappear? It was manageable. The club was sustainable for a couple of years until we reduced the wage bill to a level suitable for the Championship. If we halved the wage bill (easily done if necessary after a few years) we'd turn a profit on gate receipts alone.

 

Half the debt was manageable stadium expansion debt by the way. I'm hoping you're not going to argue we shouldn't have taken that on.

 

also i'm no expert but it was well reported at the time chelsea were about f***ed...reports varied but a week from being unable to operate was mentioned; i remember it so well because it was rumoured that we were hovering about looking at terry and other clubs at lampard once they hit the wall

 

Like I said, back it up with facts and figures and I'll listen. It was "well reported" that we were f***ed too. Selling a couple of players whilst not desirable is also not financial ruin.

 

 

I've cherry picked your post for the bits that were worthy of a response.

 

worthy of a response, listen to you man...who the fuck do you think YOU are like?

 

i'll ask you though - point me to the teams who have successfully reached and sustained european football by spending big OTHER than manu, liverpool, arsenal & chelsea since abramovic...

 

there aren't any, so you CAN'T cherry pick any can you?  not even we managed to sustain it...everton have managed to sustain a CHALLENGE for the top four for a couple of seasons now, blackburn a challenge for europe under hughes and the same for villa/pompey recently without breaking the bank...but then i've only named you 5 clubs out of a possible 20 there so i'm cherry picking still i guess...

 

the part you seem unable to grasp is they're doing it in a SUSTAINABLE way and thus have a chance to keep it going

 

the debt we had was manageable with a 50,000+ crowd each home game, PL money in the 10's of millions and associated sponsorship etc....  unless you bounce back up i'm sure the landscape for a club with 80m or so debt would change VERY quickly my friend, very quickly indeed...leeds again anyone?  helloooooooo!

 

i haven't got the time to trawl for facts and figures on chelski's debt, but it's like the wind mate, because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I think its a bit more than that. Not a problem in the short term, but if RA decides he's had enoughski then they are in the shitski

 

edit eh, where did that post go quoting Chelskis debt???

[mrmojorisin75]

Chelsea owe something like £580 million to Abramovich. Interest-free.

 

saw a bit about that the other day but never read the story, he's not donating the money right?  it's interest free loans...

 

imagine if that story came out about us in the press...it'd be mental, as it's chelski you hear nowt about it

 

wonder what the implications are there, if any

[Guest pont-toon]

in reality he will never see that money again

 

he may regain part of it through either selling the club and/or taking a share of the annual profit. (when they eventually do run into profit!)

 

 

much the same position (obviously on a different scale) to wor Micky Ash

[NE5]

pretty much the response i expected NE5...but your response would have been a little different i'd guess if abramovic HADN'T come along i'd guess but we'll never know

 

suppose i could ask the question of leeds eh?  they backed their manager to the detriment of the club, do you think you'd hear leeds fans complaining about that period?  they'd more than likely tell you it was great at the time but seeing as it totally f***ed the club they'd maybe rather not have had that champions league semi final to show for it

 

one thing i find amusing is your ridiculing someone in another thread about "hindsight signings" yet you're saying in this post that chelsea fans wouldn't be complaining 'cause they had some good times and won some cups in the past when their club was on the brink of financial collapse...it's only hindsight that makes that period good for the club, had things gone the other way it might very well have been seen as the creating darkest in their history

 

finally, and this is for UV too, abramovic bought chelski after spurs told him to beat it so they weren't as attractive as all that were they?  he probably knew they were there for the taking due to their financial situation and they were in london with decent facilities...if it was an attractive, successful side he wanted why not buy arsenal or man utd?  same goes for ashley really...our share price was low due to the recent poor results and perceived (put that in for you) bad financial state of the club and he saw an opportunity to buy a great club for a reasonable amount of money, ostensibly; he was then bitten in the arse by the debt

 

anyway seems like i'm trying to turn this into an old board argument, and i'm not, honestly

 

another question though; are everton giving it a go at the moment?  'cause i agree it's better to try than not to try but what do you consider "having a stab"?  seems to me they're trying to break into the top four by buying and developing players, and you can't say they're not paying big fees either really can you?  so would you be happy with an everton-esque approach?  or for us to have a stab do we have to spend beyond our means?  or ask yourself the same question about aston villa maybe?

 

i'm guessing i already know the answer to that one too

 

quick reply, but if we had won just one Cup Final, by virtue of playing the smoggies instead of the premiership champions, would your perspective of the Halls and Shepherd be different ?

 

And yet, the Champions League is supposed to be the be all and end all these days ?

 

Leeds fans were in their element during those European Cup semi final days etc, they would hardly have been anything else. The ones I know were anyway. They also condemn Ridsdale for BORROWING money to buy too many players. They know they aren't big enough for that, they certainly know they don't have the support of Newcastle.

 

As for Everton, its taken them 6 years (SIX) to get to 5th in the league, at least 4 of those were watching Allardyce type stuff, and we already know the answer to the question would we really want to watch that for 4 years.

 

And they aren't challenging their neighbours, nothing like it, and when they upgrade their wooden delapitated stadium, they will be in debt   Maybe it won't stop them from winning a cup or two though, just like the current top 4 clubs though

 

Anyway mate, your're cherry picking, the vast majority of clubs aren't successful because they don't spend money, not vice versa, I held up the mackems as an example. They are a big club too you know ?

 

 

 

I'M cherry picking, ME??  masterful, masterful mate

 

it's taken liverpool over a decade of big spending to scrape 4th every year mate, and everton making 5th in SIX years (i'll ignore that 4th place they had just in homage to you) is considered bad by you?  don't bother wheeling out the cup wins 'cause i know already

 

amazing...i was always under the impression you had unrealistic ambitions for the club and you've just confirmed them, just how much bigger than leeds do you actually think we are?  if you think under the old board or new NUFC getting back to anywhere near the top 4-5  by spending big alone then you are severely deluded, it's unsustainable for a club our size in the current circumstances of the 2008 EPL

 

we had 80m of debt did we not?  and we'd have needed to increase that debt significantly to even come close to the top five, but yeah EVERTON are the mugs

 

 

err.......Liverpool have been winning trophies since 1958, when Shankly took over as manager. During that time, they have ALWAYS set high standards of footballer, and paid the money when they wanted the absolute top player.

 

As UV has also said, loads of clubs are run like Everton, and get precisely nowhere, so you are cherry picking.

 

Would you really swap our last decade - and a further 5 if you like - with Evertons ?

 

I think we are a canny bit bigger than Leeds. We always were, until Don Revie took them over at the same time as McKeag, Westwood etc ran us into the ground for 40 years taking us in the opposite direction.

 

Also - they were massively in debt and that is WITHOUT doing anything to their council owned crap stadium.

 

Do you think that these clubs are going to be able to carry on for decades with the stadiums and avoid going into this crippling debt that you appear to think prevents clubs from winning trophies - I've quoted the top 4 already as role models, I have no idea why you want to choose mediocre teams as role models instead.

 

THAT is what I call unrealistic ambitions and belief in your club.

 

Makes me wonder how many people on here really understand what mediocrity is all about, my guess is not too many.

 

By the way, please point out where I have EVER said that ANY of the top clubs - ie meaning us as in following the way they do it - have done what they have done "by spending big alone"

 

 

[NE5]

cherry picking again eh?  jesus...so using a good example to make a point is cherry picking is it?

 

Eh, yes. That's the exact meaning of it. Using the best example out of a bunch of teams using the same approach is cherry picking. It's like using Solano as a justification for buying loads of cheap South American players and ignoring the many more cheap South American players who have failed in the Premiership.

 

Why not compare us to Boro, Charlton, Fulham, Man City, etc, etc?

 

i think you're very, very wrong about our fortunes should we have ever been relegated mate...our players are worth s**** NOW so what would they be worth should we have ended up div one?  and that's the only feasible way we'd have dented the 80m ain't it?  by selling

 

Why would we have to suddenly make the debt disappear? It was manageable. The club was sustainable for a couple of years until we reduced the wage bill to a level suitable for the Championship. If we halved the wage bill (easily done if necessary after a few years) we'd turn a profit on gate receipts alone.

 

Half the debt was manageable stadium expansion debt by the way. I'm hoping you're not going to argue we shouldn't have taken that on.

 

also i'm no expert but it was well reported at the time chelsea were about f***ed...reports varied but a week from being unable to operate was mentioned; i remember it so well because it was rumoured that we were hovering about looking at terry and other clubs at lampard once they hit the wall

 

Like I said, back it up with facts and figures and I'll listen. It was "well reported" that we were f***ed too. Selling a couple of players whilst not desirable is also not financial ruin.

 

 

I've cherry picked your post for the bits that were worthy of a response.

 

worthy of a response, listen to you man...who the fuck do you think YOU are like?

 

i'll ask you though - point me to the teams who have successfully reached and sustained european football by spending big OTHER than manu, liverpool, arsenal & chelsea since abramovic...

 

there aren't any, so you CAN'T cherry pick any can you?  not even we managed to sustain it...everton have managed to sustain a CHALLENGE for the top four for a couple of seasons now, blackburn a challenge for europe under hughes and the same for villa/pompey recently without breaking the bank...but then i've only named you 5 clubs out of a possible 20 there so i'm cherry picking still i guess...

 

the part you seem unable to grasp is they're doing it in a SUSTAINABLE way and thus have a chance to keep it going

 

the debt we had was manageable with a 50,000+ crowd each home game, PL money in the 10's of millions and associated sponsorship etc....  unless you bounce back up i'm sure the landscape for a club with 80m or so debt would change VERY quickly my friend, very quickly indeed...leeds again anyone?  helloooooooo!

 

i haven't got the time to trawl for facts and figures on chelski's debt, but it's like the wind mate, because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there

 

if you don't take buy a ticket, you don't win the raffle.

 

Pretty much like most of the clubs that you HAVEN'T mentioned. Thats cherry picking. And the difference between us and all of those, is we have the bigger support and are able to risk buying a ticket, unless we are run like a shite little corner shop like most of the truly mediocre clubs which is being advocated by many people including yourself.

 

I've quoted you examples, clubs getting absolutely nowhere [including our own for decades] that SHOW you that my first statement is correct.

 

Why not explain why the top 4 clubs have spent all the money that they have done if its not necessary to do it, like you say ?

 

Do you think we shouldn't have expanded the stadium ? Or do you think we should have saved up for it instead ?

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

pretty much the response i expected NE5...but your response would have been a little different i'd guess if abramovic HADN'T come along i'd guess but we'll never know

 

suppose i could ask the question of leeds eh?  they backed their manager to the detriment of the club, do you think you'd hear leeds fans complaining about that period?  they'd more than likely tell you it was great at the time but seeing as it totally f***ed the club they'd maybe rather not have had that champions league semi final to show for it

 

one thing i find amusing is your ridiculing someone in another thread about "hindsight signings" yet you're saying in this post that chelsea fans wouldn't be complaining 'cause they had some good times and won some cups in the past when their club was on the brink of financial collapse...it's only hindsight that makes that period good for the club, had things gone the other way it might very well have been seen as the creating darkest in their history

 

finally, and this is for UV too, abramovic bought chelski after spurs told him to beat it so they weren't as attractive as all that were they?  he probably knew they were there for the taking due to their financial situation and they were in london with decent facilities...if it was an attractive, successful side he wanted why not buy arsenal or man utd?  same goes for ashley really...our share price was low due to the recent poor results and perceived (put that in for you) bad financial state of the club and he saw an opportunity to buy a great club for a reasonable amount of money, ostensibly; he was then bitten in the arse by the debt

 

anyway seems like i'm trying to turn this into an old board argument, and i'm not, honestly

 

another question though; are everton giving it a go at the moment?  'cause i agree it's better to try than not to try but what do you consider "having a stab"?  seems to me they're trying to break into the top four by buying and developing players, and you can't say they're not paying big fees either really can you?  so would you be happy with an everton-esque approach?  or for us to have a stab do we have to spend beyond our means?  or ask yourself the same question about aston villa maybe?

 

i'm guessing i already know the answer to that one too

 

quick reply, but if we had won just one Cup Final, by virtue of playing the smoggies instead of the premiership champions, would your perspective of the Halls and Shepherd be different ?

 

And yet, the Champions League is supposed to be the be all and end all these days ?

 

Leeds fans were in their element during those European Cup semi final days etc, they would hardly have been anything else. The ones I know were anyway. They also condemn Ridsdale for BORROWING money to buy too many players. They know they aren't big enough for that, they certainly know they don't have the support of Newcastle.

 

As for Everton, its taken them 6 years (SIX) to get to 5th in the league, at least 4 of those were watching Allardyce type stuff, and we already know the answer to the question would we really want to watch that for 4 years.

 

And they aren't challenging their neighbours, nothing like it, and when they upgrade their wooden delapitated stadium, they will be in debt   Maybe it won't stop them from winning a cup or two though, just like the current top 4 clubs though

 

Anyway mate, your're cherry picking, the vast majority of clubs aren't successful because they don't spend money, not vice versa, I held up the mackems as an example. They are a big club too you know ?

 

 

 

I'M cherry picking, ME??  masterful, masterful mate

 

it's taken liverpool over a decade of big spending to scrape 4th every year mate, and everton making 5th in SIX years (i'll ignore that 4th place they had just in homage to you) is considered bad by you?  don't bother wheeling out the cup wins 'cause i know already

 

amazing...i was always under the impression you had unrealistic ambitions for the club and you've just confirmed them, just how much bigger than leeds do you actually think we are?  if you think under the old board or new NUFC getting back to anywhere near the top 4-5  by spending big alone then you are severely deluded, it's unsustainable for a club our size in the current circumstances of the 2008 EPL

 

we had 80m of debt did we not?  and we'd have needed to increase that debt significantly to even come close to the top five, but yeah EVERTON are the mugs

 

 

err.......Liverpool have been winning trophies since 1958, when Shankly took over as manager. During that time, they have ALWAYS set high standards of footballer, and paid the money when they wanted the absolute top player.

 

As UV has also said, loads of clubs are run like Everton, and get precisely nowhere, so you are cherry picking.

 

Would you really swap our last decade - and a further 5 if you like - with Evertons ?

 

I think we are a canny bit bigger than Leeds. We always were, until Don Revie took them over at the same time as McKeag, Westwood etc ran us into the ground for 40 years taking us in the opposite direction.

 

Also - they were massively in debt and that is WITHOUT doing anything to their council owned crap stadium.

 

Do you think that these clubs are going to be able to carry on for decades with the stadiums and avoid going into this crippling debt that you appear to think prevents clubs from winning trophies - I've quoted the top 4 already as role models, I have no idea why you want to choose mediocre teams as role models instead.

 

THAT is what I call unrealistic ambitions and belief in your club.

 

Makes me wonder how many people on here really understand what mediocrity is all about, my guess is not too many.

 

By the way, please point out where I have EVER said that ANY of the top clubs - ie meaning us as in following the way they do it - have done what they have done "by spending big alone"

 

 

 

fair enough on the spending big alone thing, they don't just do that, but then i don't recall saying YOU said it either, perhaps implied it was your primary or maybe ONLY judgement on how well a football club is run

 

just out of interest are you not cherry picking your favourite decade of the clubs history and trotting it out to suit you in every situation?  you're the guy who always refers to a decade so when did that start?  92?  94? 96?  whenever you're starting it add ten then start the argument with the new decade; so 2002, 2004, 2006 onwards?  all ratshit basically in the grand scheme of things when you start that "decade"

 

would you swap our last decade with evertons in the 1980's?  such a question is just as relevant and meaningless  as when you reference liverpool circa 1958 and leeds under revie while at the same time talking about our last decade?  laughable...

 

i'll combine both your replies into one with the next bit; don't try and tell me what i advocate, i'll say it myself when i have an opinion...i raised this whole point about the balance between succeeding and financial sense/suicide (call it what you will) - i don't deal in absolutes, idiots do that, so i can see the virtue of running a club the way everton do, the way blackburn do; it doesn't mean i automatically think we should copy everything they do

 

as i've told you in the past i think there's a certain strength to your argument about building on the potential of the club; to me we had 2 times to do that, under keegan mk1 and robson and we basically fucked them both up with the best of intentions...you might think we're as big you do but cementing our place on either of those occaisions would have sealed it - as it is in everywhere else but your mind we're seen as a bit of a failure all round, a bit of a joke to many

 

just so we're clear this is what i think - we had a go, a good go at success and i applaud shepherd/hall or whoever you want to name for it, i had some of my best footballing moments during the period and i doubt i'd swap them for anything...i remember walking out of wembley after arsenal turned us over and thinking how glorious we were in failure and how numb they were in victory, i'm not sure i'd swap places with them then to be honest 'cause being us is something they'll never understand

 

THAT SAID there surely has to come a point where it became clear that the money we spent in this over a decade had caught up to us and realism needed to kick in, if you can't see that i pity you, but 80m in debt with an out of control wage bill and a team utterly unable to get out of the bottom half isn't gonna fix itself overnight is it? if i hold everton up as an example of anything it's of a club who were riddled in debt and stuck to a plan that's got them from the brink of relegation to europe in a few years, surely you can see that this is our only hope short term?  we need to get to a point where have a decent balanced squad and can spend on the big players to make our claim AGAIN...if we go out now and spend 50m on 3 magnificent players or whatever i simply think we'll end up back where we were 'cause the squad is imbalanced and weak

 

it's what needed to happen under bobby - he spent 3 (?) seasons balancing the books and building a nice tidy squad then hit us with the summer of robert and bellamy and we took off again and the spending started, THIS is all i'm advocating

[UV]

Everton:  Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average.

 

In 2005/06 16 Premiership clubs recorded operating profits. In 2006/07 half that number - eight clubs - recorded an operating profit. These were five well-established clubs with strong support - Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and Newcastle - together with the three promoted clubs (Reading, Sheffield United and Watford).

[mrmojorisin75]

Everton:  Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average.

 

In 2005/06 16 Premiership clubs recorded operating profits. In 2006/07 half that number - eight clubs - recorded an operating profit. These were five well-established clubs with strong support - Manchester United, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and Newcastle - together with the three promoted clubs (Reading, Sheffield United and Watford).

 

and the point you're trying to make is?

 

everton failed to etc... despite NOT spending vast sums of money on transfers in the years before that and having a higher league placing than us, yet we (with the bigger wage bill and shitter players) finishing bottom half (or was it 7th that year?) could do what exactly with our debt?  yet everton acheived a european finish with debt, so isn't good in your book?  they were punching their weight, no?

 

the second one: what were the league positions of the other non-promoted clubs named there?  3 of them finished in CL spots, spurs i can't be bothered to look up but either 5th or lower despite spending fucksites of money and us, bottom half of the table?  or was that roeders 7th place, the blip on our recent run of bottom half finishes?

 

we're not gonna agree, i have a point i'm making and i think i've made it to death, i haven't a clue what you're on about...spending is good, spending is bad, we spent too much, we spent too little, we should spend now, we should not spend now, we've got a nice stadium everton haven't, debt is good, debt is bad??

 

blah-dee-fucking-blah

 

 

[brummie]

I don't see the relevance of what order clubs were taken over in.

 

Villa only got taken over because Ellis decided he wanted to sell. We campaigned against him for years and years, and he always said he'd be taken out of Villa Park in a box.

 

In the end, he left sooner, but only when he decided he wanted to, and he only decided that because he'd had five operations to fight cancer in just over 12 months. He won.

 

Clubs only get sold if the people owning the major chunks of shares want to sell, no matter how attractive they are.

[NE5]

pretty much the response i expected NE5...but your response would have been a little different i'd guess if abramovic HADN'T come along i'd guess but we'll never know

 

suppose i could ask the question of leeds eh?  they backed their manager to the detriment of the club, do you think you'd hear leeds fans complaining about that period?  they'd more than likely tell you it was great at the time but seeing as it totally f***ed the club they'd maybe rather not have had that champions league semi final to show for it

 

one thing i find amusing is your ridiculing someone in another thread about "hindsight signings" yet you're saying in this post that chelsea fans wouldn't be complaining 'cause they had some good times and won some cups in the past when their club was on the brink of financial collapse...it's only hindsight that makes that period good for the club, had things gone the other way it might very well have been seen as the creating darkest in their history

 

finally, and this is for UV too, abramovic bought chelski after spurs told him to beat it so they weren't as attractive as all that were they?  he probably knew they were there for the taking due to their financial situation and they were in london with decent facilities...if it was an attractive, successful side he wanted why not buy arsenal or man utd?  same goes for ashley really...our share price was low due to the recent poor results and perceived (put that in for you) bad financial state of the club and he saw an opportunity to buy a great club for a reasonable amount of money, ostensibly; he was then bitten in the arse by the debt

 

anyway seems like i'm trying to turn this into an old board argument, and i'm not, honestly

 

another question though; are everton giving it a go at the moment?  'cause i agree it's better to try than not to try but what do you consider "having a stab"?  seems to me they're trying to break into the top four by buying and developing players, and you can't say they're not paying big fees either really can you?  so would you be happy with an everton-esque approach?  or for us to have a stab do we have to spend beyond our means?  or ask yourself the same question about aston villa maybe?

 

i'm guessing i already know the answer to that one too

 

quick reply, but if we had won just one Cup Final, by virtue of playing the smoggies instead of the premiership champions, would your perspective of the Halls and Shepherd be different ?

 

And yet, the Champions League is supposed to be the be all and end all these days ?

 

Leeds fans were in their element during those European Cup semi final days etc, they would hardly have been anything else. The ones I know were anyway. They also condemn Ridsdale for BORROWING money to buy too many players. They know they aren't big enough for that, they certainly know they don't have the support of Newcastle.

 

As for Everton, its taken them 6 years (SIX) to get to 5th in the league, at least 4 of those were watching Allardyce type stuff, and we already know the answer to the question would we really want to watch that for 4 years.

 

And they aren't challenging their neighbours, nothing like it, and when they upgrade their wooden delapitated stadium, they will be in debt   Maybe it won't stop them from winning a cup or two though, just like the current top 4 clubs though

 

Anyway mate, your're cherry picking, the vast majority of clubs aren't successful because they don't spend money, not vice versa, I held up the mackems as an example. They are a big club too you know ?

 

 

 

I'M cherry picking, ME??  masterful, masterful mate

 

it's taken liverpool over a decade of big spending to scrape 4th every year mate, and everton making 5th in SIX years (i'll ignore that 4th place they had just in homage to you) is considered bad by you?  don't bother wheeling out the cup wins 'cause i know already

 

amazing...i was always under the impression you had unrealistic ambitions for the club and you've just confirmed them, just how much bigger than leeds do you actually think we are?  if you think under the old board or new NUFC getting back to anywhere near the top 4-5  by spending big alone then you are severely deluded, it's unsustainable for a club our size in the current circumstances of the 2008 EPL

 

we had 80m of debt did we not?  and we'd have needed to increase that debt significantly to even come close to the top five, but yeah EVERTON are the mugs

 

 

err.......Liverpool have been winning trophies since 1958, when Shankly took over as manager. During that time, they have ALWAYS set high standards of footballer, and paid the money when they wanted the absolute top player.

 

As UV has also said, loads of clubs are run like Everton, and get precisely nowhere, so you are cherry picking.

 

Would you really swap our last decade - and a further 5 if you like - with Evertons ?

 

I think we are a canny bit bigger than Leeds. We always were, until Don Revie took them over at the same time as McKeag, Westwood etc ran us into the ground for 40 years taking us in the opposite direction.

 

Also - they were massively in debt and that is WITHOUT doing anything to their council owned crap stadium.

 

Do you think that these clubs are going to be able to carry on for decades with the stadiums and avoid going into this crippling debt that you appear to think prevents clubs from winning trophies - I've quoted the top 4 already as role models, I have no idea why you want to choose mediocre teams as role models instead.

 

THAT is what I call unrealistic ambitions and belief in your club.

 

Makes me wonder how many people on here really understand what mediocrity is all about, my guess is not too many.

 

By the way, please point out where I have EVER said that ANY of the top clubs - ie meaning us as in following the way they do it - have done what they have done "by spending big alone"

 

 

 

fair enough on the spending big alone thing, they don't just do that, but then i don't recall saying YOU said it either, perhaps implied it was your primary or maybe ONLY judgement on how well a football club is run

 

just out of interest are you not cherry picking your favourite decade of the clubs history and trotting it out to suit you in every situation?  you're the guy who always refers to a decade so when did that start?  92?  94? 96?  whenever you're starting it add ten then start the argument with the new decade; so 2002, 2004, 2006 onwards?  all ratshit basically in the grand scheme of things when you start that "decade"

 

would you swap our last decade with evertons in the 1980's?  such a question is just as relevant and meaningless  as when you reference liverpool circa 1958 and leeds under revie while at the same time talking about our last decade?  laughable...

 

i'll combine both your replies into one with the next bit; don't try and tell me what i advocate, i'll say it myself when i have an opinion...i raised this whole point about the balance between succeeding and financial sense/suicide (call it what you will) - i don't deal in absolutes, idiots do that, so i can see the virtue of running a club the way everton do, the way blackburn do; it doesn't mean i automatically think we should copy everything they do

 

as i've told you in the past i think there's a certain strength to your argument about building on the potential of the club; to me we had 2 times to do that, under keegan mk1 and robson and we basically fucked them both up with the best of intentions...you might think we're as big you do but cementing our place on either of those occaisions would have sealed it - as it is in everywhere else but your mind we're seen as a bit of a failure all round, a bit of a joke to many

 

just so we're clear this is what i think - we had a go, a good go at success and i applaud shepherd/hall or whoever you want to name for it, i had some of my best footballing moments during the period and i doubt i'd swap them for anything...i remember walking out of wembley after arsenal turned us over and thinking how glorious we were in failure and how numb they were in victory, i'm not sure i'd swap places with them then to be honest 'cause being us is something they'll never understand

 

THAT SAID there surely has to come a point where it became clear that the money we spent in this over a decade had caught up to us and realism needed to kick in, if you can't see that i pity you, but 80m in debt with an out of control wage bill and a team utterly unable to get out of the bottom half isn't gonna fix itself overnight is it? if i hold everton up as an example of anything it's of a club who were riddled in debt and stuck to a plan that's got them from the brink of relegation to europe in a few years, surely you can see that this is our only hope short term?  we need to get to a point where have a decent balanced squad and can spend on the big players to make our claim AGAIN...if we go out now and spend 50m on 3 magnificent players or whatever i simply think we'll end up back where we were 'cause the squad is imbalanced and weak

 

it's what needed to happen under bobby - he spent 3 (?) seasons balancing the books and building a nice tidy squad then hit us with the summer of robert and bellamy and we took off again and the spending started, THIS is all i'm advocating

 

I'm not cherrry picking anything. My point is that to succeed and sustain success, you MUST have players the top 4 want themselves, and this means buying players for the top fees, or they will ( key point ).  As I keep saying, they haven't spent the money themselves if they didnt' think it was necessary. As a slight aside, the best team we have had at Newcastle in the last 50 years was also done by spending like the other big boys. If nothing else in what is being said here can be taken on board by you - perhaps because you are younger - then surely you can grasp this particular truth ?

 

You will not challenge these teams by taking the approach the also rans take ie leaving the big players to someone else. With a good manager it will take you so far and thats all.

 

A club with the 3rd biggest crowd in the UK ? Well there is something wrong if they can't compete with the other big boys. I know the reason why you and others reject this, its just because you feel the need to reject everything the fat bastard did, just because he's the fat bastard. Thats true and you know it.

 

Which brings me onto your point about the last 10 or 15 years. Personally, I see it as 15 years, but as a lot of people seem to split the era of the Halls and Shepherd into 2 parts - which I don't because nothing really changed other than the figurehead and spokesperson of the group - I do this just to humour them and point out that the past decade wasn't really so bad as they make out.

 

It's pretty obvious that SJH was far better at PR than Shepherd, but personally, I don't give a monkeys for PR. The only PR that concerns me is winning, and 52000 fans every home game - over half of which weren't interested in the club for years previously - must have been attracted by something.

 

Basically, if you are saying the expansion of the stadium was a bad move, then you are massively wrong. There is just no way that anybody can say that this was not a long awaited and excellent move by the club. Add to that the new training academey, facilities etc.

 

I would have certainly swapped our decade in the 1960's, 70's and 80's with Everton, I'd have done that before you could say Gordon Lee, but no way would i have swapped the last 15 years. Not a chance.

 

I don't disagree that we messed Keegan up the first time, but its rather strange that nobody mentions this, this is probably because it was the major shareholders decision to take the club onto the stock exchange though and unfortunately, as with Ashley, it seems some people are beyond criticism whereas others are damned whatever they do.

 

I'm not denying that things went wrong with the appointment of Souness, and never have. Others on here supported him until the end though so there is no point in telling me that the club spent money on shit players and undersold good players, because I was one who said it was going to happen.

 

When you talk about realism, you should realise that nobody appoints the "right" manager all the time, thats why the top 4 clubs haven't always been the top 4 and they won't remain so either.  That is realistic. You have to accept that everybody makes mistakes. When it comes down to it in the end though, you are better off with an ambitous board that will reach out rather than one playing the prudency game and operating a "sell to buy" policy.

 

Are you prepared to see the club lose top players, and lose out to top players, by capping wages in future ? Do you seriously think that a club like us with the support we have should be operating at the lower levels of the likes of Portsmouth and blackburn ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

I don't know the full facts about Chelsea's finances, but if they were as close to bankruptcy as we were before Ashley, then I don't think they really had much to worry about. Yes they may have had to reign in spending for a bit (as would we)

 

So we'd have to reign in our spending while being a bottom half club?

 

How long do you think we would have lasted under these circumstances in the Premiership when you've already pointed out in other treads the amount the likes of Sunderland and Fulham were spending?

[Baggio]

Are you prepared to see the club lose top players, and lose out to top players, by capping wages in future ? Do you seriously think that a club like us with the support we have should be operating at the lower levels of the likes of Portsmouth and blackburn ?

 

How does bringing in a sensible wage structure have us operating at the levels of Blackburn and Portsmouth?

 

As far as I'm aware we've offered Owen a contract worth £80,000 per week, how many clubs outside the top 4 do you think have a player on their books earning that much?

[OzzieMandias]

Personally, I see it as 15 years, but as a lot of people seem to split the era of the Halls and Shepherd into 2 parts - which I don't because nothing really changed other than the figurehead and spokesperson of the group

 

plc. Huge, massive change. You were asleep and didn't notice?

 

It's pretty obvious that SJH was far better at PR than Shepherd, but personally, I don't give a monkeys for PR. The only PR that concerns me is winning

 

Shepherd wasn't much good at that either.

 

you should realise that nobody appoints the "right" manager all the time

 

Aye, but one successful appointment out of five is a piss-poor record. Stop making flimsy excuses and face the fact, for once.

[NE5]

Are you prepared to see the club lose top players, and lose out to top players, by capping wages in future ? Do you seriously think that a club like us with the support we have should be operating at the lower levels of the likes of Portsmouth and blackburn ?

 

How does bringing in a sensible wage structure have us operating at the levels of Blackburn and Portsmouth?

 

As far as I'm aware we've offered Owen a contract worth £80,000 per week, how many clubs outside the top 4 do you think have a player on their books earning that much?

 

where has Modric gone ?

 

Owen will leave if his wages are cut