mrmojorisin75 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 We get a bigger crowd [now] than Liverpool so how do YOU think they have a bigger turnover and how do YOU think we can match and overtake them ? As a slight aside, what do you think was the reason we started to get a bigger crowd than Liverpool ? Simple fact that you and others just don't get is that NUFC have a support big enough to enable them to take the risks necessary sometimes, not exist at the level of poxy little clubs like pompey who are on a temporary high point. I understand you do it to run the old board down as your head is in the sand so far as they are concerned but thats your problem. But the role played by gate money in clubs' income these days is getting smaller and will continue to do so. There's a big difference between Liverpool and any one of Newcastle, Everton, Villa, Spurs etc etc, which is that there are millions of Liverpool shirt-wearing television fans across the world. There aren't millions of Newcastle fans in Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. That's one reason why talk of the top four being broken up is, in my opinion, fanciful. These clubs are global franchises. Whether Newcastle get 52k every week or 42k is immaterial, it won't make any difference if they start trying to compete with the big four. One day the top four will decide to negotiate their own foreign television deals instead of going with the collective, shared arrangement we have now, and when that happens we might as well all give up. NE5 will counter that, correctly, with the fact liverpool were a nothing club before shankly...then they speculated blah blah blah...they were successful, that's why those fans exist so NUFC should spend now, be successful and get the same totally ignores the reality of modern football though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 We get a bigger crowd [now] than Liverpool so how do YOU think they have a bigger turnover and how do YOU think we can match and overtake them ? As a slight aside, what do you think was the reason we started to get a bigger crowd than Liverpool ? Simple fact that you and others just don't get is that NUFC have a support big enough to enable them to take the risks necessary sometimes, not exist at the level of poxy little clubs like pompey who are on a temporary high point. I understand you do it to run the old board down as your head is in the sand so far as they are concerned but thats your problem. But the role played by gate money in clubs' income these days is getting smaller and will continue to do so. There's a big difference between Liverpool and any one of Newcastle, Everton, Villa, Spurs etc etc, which is that there are millions of Liverpool shirt-wearing television fans across the world. There aren't millions of Newcastle fans in Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. That's one reason why talk of the top four being broken up is, in my opinion, fanciful. These clubs are global franchises. Whether Newcastle get 52k every week or 42k is immaterial, it won't make any difference if they start trying to compete with the big four. One day the top four will decide to negotiate their own foreign television deals instead of going with the collective, shared arrangement we have now, and when that happens we might as well all give up. it would appear that you have already, if you think its impossible. Genuine question and observation is, why have so many people apparently gave up when we have a new owner etc, everything they said they wanted ? Especially when the season tickets are effectively reduced if you pay for the 3 years up front, by about 9%, now what sort of business sense is that ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 We get a bigger crowd [now] than Liverpool so how do YOU think they have a bigger turnover and how do YOU think we can match and overtake them ? As a slight aside, what do you think was the reason we started to get a bigger crowd than Liverpool ? Simple fact that you and others just don't get is that NUFC have a support big enough to enable them to take the risks necessary sometimes, not exist at the level of poxy little clubs like pompey who are on a temporary high point. I understand you do it to run the old board down as your head is in the sand so far as they are concerned but thats your problem. But the role played by gate money in clubs' income these days is getting smaller and will continue to do so. There's a big difference between Liverpool and any one of Newcastle, Everton, Villa, Spurs etc etc, which is that there are millions of Liverpool shirt-wearing television fans across the world. There aren't millions of Newcastle fans in Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. That's one reason why talk of the top four being broken up is, in my opinion, fanciful. These clubs are global franchises. Whether Newcastle get 52k every week or 42k is immaterial, it won't make any difference if they start trying to compete with the big four. One day the top four will decide to negotiate their own foreign television deals instead of going with the collective, shared arrangement we have now, and when that happens we might as well all give up. it would appear that you have already, if you think its impossible. Genuine question and observation is, why have so many people apparently gave up when we have a new owner etc, everything they said they wanted ? Especially when the season tickets are effectively reduced if you pay for the 3 years up front, by about 9%, now what sort of business sense is that ? Are you suggesting they don't know what they are doing in terms of discounting their product? You do actually know how Ashley made his money don't you mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 We get a bigger crowd [now] than Liverpool so how do YOU think they have a bigger turnover and how do YOU think we can match and overtake them ? As a slight aside, what do you think was the reason we started to get a bigger crowd than Liverpool ? Simple fact that you and others just don't get is that NUFC have a support big enough to enable them to take the risks necessary sometimes, not exist at the level of poxy little clubs like pompey who are on a temporary high point. I understand you do it to run the old board down as your head is in the sand so far as they are concerned but thats your problem. But the role played by gate money in clubs' income these days is getting smaller and will continue to do so. There's a big difference between Liverpool and any one of Newcastle, Everton, Villa, Spurs etc etc, which is that there are millions of Liverpool shirt-wearing television fans across the world. There aren't millions of Newcastle fans in Thailand, Malaysia and Japan. That's one reason why talk of the top four being broken up is, in my opinion, fanciful. These clubs are global franchises. Whether Newcastle get 52k every week or 42k is immaterial, it won't make any difference if they start trying to compete with the big four. One day the top four will decide to negotiate their own foreign television deals instead of going with the collective, shared arrangement we have now, and when that happens we might as well all give up. it would appear that you have already, if you think its impossible. Genuine question and observation is, why have so many people apparently gave up when we have a new owner etc, everything they said they wanted ? Especially when the season tickets are effectively reduced if you pay for the 3 years up front, by about 9%, now what sort of business sense is that ? Price elasticity is that shit Leazes baby! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Just noticed that title above NE5's avatar. lols mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 We could have folded, no point in arguing about it. Not saying we would have, but we certainly could have. this, totally and utterly any business CAN fold, but we wouldn't. Mort was talkig utter bollocks. never mentioned mort, talking from financial facts - we were on an unsustainable path...you'll never see the reality of that 'cause ashley bailed us out lots of younger lads also don't realise the position we were in in 1991. Now THAT is close to bankrputcy, and it is a million miles away from where we were a year ago. Shame I have had to keep pointing it out so often because people don't listen. This has been done before, chez given is a financial analyst and has also told you all that with the income and turnover generated by the club it was simply just not going to happen. A few others have also agreed with this. Why do you people take no notice of such things ? Mort is talking bollocks. It was just PR. The best PR is a winning team. They should get down to the job of backing the manager and getting back into the european slots at least, as quickly as possible, and not just for the financial benefits if you want to look at that before getting results on the pitch. Trouble is, those other pesky clubs - like Man City, Villa and Spurs - are our main rivals and are all looking like they actually understand how to do it. Like at Leeds? Like Liverpool ? As well as the clubs I've mentioned, and the other trophy winning clubs, but continue cherry picking if you like The trophy winning teams show you how to do it, if you think we should go down a different route, I find that pretty astonishing. But its up to you and to be honest there's not really anything else that can be said. It's been said enough times now. Watching the top players sign for the other major clubs isn't going to get anywhere, this is kids stuff. liverpool ? whom the latest details i could find had a turnover of 119.449 mill with a wagres ratio of 57.63% for 2005/6 whist ours was turnover of 82.882mill and a wages ratio of 61.6%. can you see why they can afford to carry more debt. ?.............i take it you aren't a mortgage advisor ? The simple answer to that is : http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:x_nkvbvZ3HBF7M:http://www.manutdpics.com/image/The-Treble-Trophies_1981.jpg lots of them over decades. that isn't an answer to what i asked.........liverpool can afford more debt because they have a higher turnover and more cash to finance the debt........can you understand this ? I was going to give this a miss as I've said my piece and as I know I'm right you aren't going to change my mind, but its called speculate to accumulate. We get a bigger crowd [now] than Liverpool so how do YOU think they have a bigger turnover and how do YOU think we can match and overtake them ? As a slight aside, what do you think was the reason we started to get a bigger crowd than Liverpool ? Simple fact that you and others just don't get is that NUFC have a support big enough to enable them to take the risks necessary sometimes, not exist at the level of poxy little clubs like pompey who are on a temporary high point. I understand you do it to run the old board down as your head is in the sand so far as they are concerned but thats your problem. One day the penny will drop with people like you. I'm telling you that if the club opts out of competing for the top players, then in 5 years down the line we will be further away from them than ever. If they impose restrictions on Keegan, then anything we will do while he is here will be down to him succeeding in spite of it, through knowing what he's doing, but we won't fulfill his potential. i agree but you can't just go on doing it infinitly can you. your ethos is just to keep spending till we are successful which i'm pretty sure if other clubs done it you'd say it was reckless or foolhardy (leeds on a major scale,luton recently with smaller numbers). at some point you have to stop and alter things. how liverpool got those trophies was built on foundations laid by shankly.........not a souness,roeder or allardyce. i'd rather keegan spent 20mill this summer than either of those 3 given 60mill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 does that really matter ? even if we'd won the league and champions league under shepherd if it comes to a point that we are going backwards and don't look like turning it round things have to change regardless of the past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. We had debt of £4.5 million and an income of £4 million in 1991, £550,000 of that debt was down to the failed share issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007 hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991 probably both playing the same scare game Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. No mate I was referring to you. I know I was because I did it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007 hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991 probably both playing the same scare game did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007 hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991 probably both playing the same scare game did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ? Superfan card played. NE5 wins. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago? See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently. and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they mackems.gif They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well. :idiot2 I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991. mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007 hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991 probably both playing the same scare game did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ? no i didn't. i thought the line being peddled by hall was a ruse and if it didn;t work the club would still go on(and guess what ?). i think i wasn't that impressed about the ammount of shares they were planning on keeping for themselves ie you put the money in but have no say. i did put money in to the buy a player fund of a few years earlier Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Since this isn't about anything really important can I talk about my penis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 only when you find it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorJ_01 Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 I'll get back to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ericz Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 NE5, what successes/progressions has the previous board brought in the past 3 - 5 years? And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs? Tottenham appointed Martin Jol and eventually Juan de Ramos, Liverpool appointed Raffael Benitez, Chelsea appointed Jose Mourinho... who did the previous board appoint? *say their names out loudly* I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all. They might have run out of ideas, they might have fail to adapt to today's world, sticking with their old methods of doing things, they might not have go on to upgrade their knowledge and themselves. Either way, it doesn't matter anymore. If something is inefficient and ineffective, it's time for a change. That is how the world goes today and how business goes today. We change and upgrade anything that is inefficient and ineffective. The same applies to players, manager and the board. As for the new board, if there's no successes/progressions over the next 3 - 5 years. I will say the same things too. In any case, the issue is done and dusted. The old board is gone and what remains is the new board. What matters now is the new board. You can choose to reminiscence and live in the past if you want to. Tell me, by you valiantly defending the previous board like that and maligning the new board, are you helping the current Newcastle United situation? Are you trying to dis-harmonise the support for the new board? or are you intentionally creating more controversies for the new board and in turn Newcastle United? What is your motive? Does buying the season ticket necessarily relates to supporting the club? And who knows whether have you genuinely bought them. Everybody can say he/she have renewed their tickets. Explain your motives for valiantly defending the previous board and maligning the current newly takeover board, in turn attempting to dis-harmonise confidence in the current board and at the expense of the club itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 liverpool ? whom the latest details i could find had a turnover of 119.449 mill with a wagres ratio of 57.63% for 2005/6 whist ours was turnover of 82.882mill and a wages ratio of 61.6%. can you see why they can afford to carry more debt. ?.............i take it you aren't a mortgage advisor ? Take Liverpool out of the CL in that year - the year they didn't actually qualify for it - and their turnover would have been reduced by around £20m. Their turnover was also boosted that year by loads of new "supporters" buying CL winner's merchandise. I make that a potential wages ratio of at least 70%. Disgraceful. I wonder if the scousers know how close they were to going bust, you should tell them how lucky they were they got those yanks in to steady the ship. That was also a year without European football for us too, the first for 3 years. UEFA competition would have given us maybe an extra £10m, making our wage ratio 55%. We were running at a level easily sustainable with European football on average every other season which is what we had under the old board. If we were on the brink before Ashley with a debt of £70m, after 1 year out of Europe, but with a massive TV money boost coming up, perhaps someone could explain to me how the club survived from 98-02 when we had a £40m debt, but due to only fleeting appearances in european competition and far lower TV revenues, only about half the revenue we did in 05-06. Not only did we survive, how did we manage during that period to spend nearly £10m each on the likes of Robert, Viana, and Woodgate, plus Bellamy, Jenas, Bramble, etc? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 ok then...... liverpool turnover 2004/5.....121.054mill 2003/4......92.576mill 2002/3.....102.504mill 2002/1.....98.668mill 2001/0.....82.155mill nufc turnover..... 2004/5.....87.087 2003/4.....90.468 2002/3.....90.449 2001/2.....70.558 2000/1.....54.916 they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I don't care how you guys want to argue it out but if there is no decent end-result after a certain period of time, say 3 - 5 years, then the previous board is no longer efficient and effective. What the previous board have done/achieved previously is in the past. There is no room for sentimental values. Sentimental values are left in the trophy room and that is all. 5 years, 02-07: 3 years in the PL top 7. 4 years in Europe. CL 2n'd group stage UEFA cup last 8, quarter-final, semi-final FAC quarter-final & semi-final Intertoto cup winners Not good enough. Good luck Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.f2d92e50efb89579ccca9ca610dd29c6.jpg)
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