ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Nope £146m Yeah, not £146Billion. [/Pedantry] Ah right sorry, I did that cause I thought some people might have though 146,712 was just one hundred and forty six thousand seven hundred and twelve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Obviously people will see the small picture and complain about the wages ratio for example, and it's worth worrying about for sure but unfortunately it's all some will see. I'd like someone to tell me how this could have been avoided in order to recover from the error of Souness? The problem comes back to the shite management of that one bloke, the booting out of good players he couldn't manage and the signing of players we didn't need. In the end we needed to splash out on Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Just my opinion. The finances need to be considered with an eye on how it's come about and what the alternative may have been. It's not that simple. True I believe after this season the wage ratio will drop because of player sales but the problem is we are simply spending too much money. We spend over £3m getting shot of Souness. We spend over £2m a year on staff wages (non players) someone needs to go through the club and get rid of some of the daft spending cause I have no doubt in parts we are being run like leeds where they had something daft like 250,000 a year going out on fish. Looking at just the wage ratio isn't all we can do but look at the club debts, the club needs to start brining in the correct players who we know have a better chance of doing well and stop wasting cash. The statement actually says at the top that the board has the final say on player purchases so they are to blame if they agree to waste cash we don't have. Peter Risdale is a great example of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Not 100% sure how the signing of Owen and playing 10 game prevented relegation, i think it was more the change of a manager which encouraged the players to push on. Owen so far has been a waste of money and I don't think anyone can argue that fact. Granted we weren't to know that but it's true. The club I have no doubts will not sack Roeder, thats not to say however that he will get a new contract. He was given a 2 year contract and I believe that is all he will get. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 It must have been a money saving exercise to close the bar for home fans in the Leazes on Wednesday and send us in to drink with the Pompey fans. :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Obviously people will see the small picture and complain about the wages ratio for example, and it's worth worrying about for sure but unfortunately it's all some will see. I'd like someone to tell me how this could have been avoided in order to recover from the error of Souness? The problem comes back to the shite management of that one bloke, the booting out of good players he couldn't manage and the signing of players we didn't need. In the end we needed to splash out on Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Just my opinion. The finances need to be considered with an eye on how it's come about and what the alternative may have been. It's not that simple. True I believe after this season the wage ratio will drop because of player sales but the problem is we are simply spending too much money. We spend over £3m getting shot of Souness. We spend over £2m a year on staff wages (non players) someone needs to go through the club and get rid of some of the daft spending cause I have no doubt in parts we are being run like leeds where they had something daft like 250,000 a year going out on fish. Looking at just the wage ratio isn't all we can do but look at the club debts, the club needs to start brining in the correct players who we know have a better chance of doing well and stop wasting cash. The statement actually says at the top that the board has the final say on player purchases so they are to blame if they agree to waste cash we don't have. Peter Risdale is a great example of this. I bet £2m a year on non player staff wages is next to nothing when I assume it covers coaching and medical staff, backroom people and scouts etc. If anything we could do with spending more on these people to get a better return on the players we have. I doubt we have any real waste we can trim, I expect the club is well run in that respect. In terms of Souness, that's £3m well spent given the mistake in agreeing to his original contract. If he had any sort of self respect or conscience he and his cronies would have accepted a reduced pay off for the appalling job he did, but sadly life's not like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Obviously people will see the small picture and complain about the wages ratio for example, and it's worth worrying about for sure but unfortunately it's all some will see. I'd like someone to tell me how this could have been avoided in order to recover from the error of Souness? The problem comes back to the shite management of that one bloke, the booting out of good players he couldn't manage and the signing of players we didn't need. In the end we needed to splash out on Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Just my opinion. The finances need to be considered with an eye on how it's come about and what the alternative may have been. It's not that simple. True I believe after this season the wage ratio will drop because of player sales but the problem is we are simply spending too much money. We spend over £3m getting shot of Souness. We spend over £2m a year on staff wages (non players) someone needs to go through the club and get rid of some of the daft spending cause I have no doubt in parts we are being run like leeds where they had something daft like 250,000 a year going out on fish. Looking at just the wage ratio isn't all we can do but look at the club debts, the club needs to start brining in the correct players who we know have a better chance of doing well and stop wasting cash. The statement actually says at the top that the board has the final say on player purchases so they are to blame if they agree to waste cash we don't have. Peter Risdale is a great example of this. Of course the Board has the FINAL say, but that's far too simplistic. It seems you're absolving O'Leary of any responsibility in the signing of players for Leeds, and of Souness for creating the situation at Newcastle of good players leaving for next to nowt and players we didn't need then being required to be brought in as supposed replacements. In the end, this route you're going down calls into question the need for a team manager at all. Why not just leave it all to the Board since you're putting the responsibility for managers selection of players onto them anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Obviously people will see the small picture and complain about the wages ratio for example, and it's worth worrying about for sure but unfortunately it's all some will see. I'd like someone to tell me how this could have been avoided in order to recover from the error of Souness? The problem comes back to the shite management of that one bloke, the booting out of good players he couldn't manage and the signing of players we didn't need. In the end we needed to splash out on Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Just my opinion. The finances need to be considered with an eye on how it's come about and what the alternative may have been. It's not that simple. True I believe after this season the wage ratio will drop because of player sales but the problem is we are simply spending too much money. We spend over £3m getting shot of Souness. We spend over £2m a year on staff wages (non players) someone needs to go through the club and get rid of some of the daft spending cause I have no doubt in parts we are being run like leeds where they had something daft like 250,000 a year going out on fish. Looking at just the wage ratio isn't all we can do but look at the club debts, the club needs to start brining in the correct players who we know have a better chance of doing well and stop wasting cash. The statement actually says at the top that the board has the final say on player purchases so they are to blame if they agree to waste cash we don't have. Peter Risdale is a great example of this. you thought Glen had his own NUFC cheque book? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 No I think they come under team management total staff costs was £52m apparently which is up £2m on last year but then I think that's total staff costs including player wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Of course the Board has the FINAL say, but that's far too simplistic. It seems you're absolving O'Leary of any responsibility in the signing of players for Leeds, and of Souness for creating the situation at Newcastle of good players leaving for next to nowt and players we didn't need then being required to be brought in as supposed replacements. In the end, this route you're going down calls into question the need for a team manager at all. Why not just leave it all to the Board since you're putting the responsibility for managers selection of players onto them anyway? No of course not, I am however blaming the board for bringing in manager who has such little ability and caused these problems. Granted they backed the manager but they then can't blame manager purchases for the state of finances which they backed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 you thought Glen had his own NUFC cheque book? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canny_Fettle Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Do my eyes decieve me "The board is not proposing a dividend at this time" I expect this to change. In fact I'm wrong but I don't really understand it enough to understand the difference. Apparently our total liabilities are £146,712m of which 67,686 is current and 79,026 is non current. Anyone care to explain that one ? Current liabilities are creditors due in the next 12 months; non-current liabilities are creditors due 12 months and beyond. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Not 100% sure how the signing of Owen and playing 10 game prevented relegation, i think it was more the change of a manager which encouraged the players to push on. Owen so far has been a waste of money and I don't think anyone can argue that fact. Granted we weren't to know that but it's true. The club I have no doubts will not sack Roeder, thats not to say however that he will get a new contract. He was given a 2 year contract and I believe that is all he will get. Hindsight. If you don't see the signing of Owen at the time he was signed as being acknowledgement of a lack of goals in the team bringing about a worry of relegation then I think you need to reconsider. In the end, with Souness as manager and without Owen (which was a large part of the season ) we would have been in serious trouble but of course Souness was sacked in the end to avoid that situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Not 100% sure how the signing of Owen and playing 10 game prevented relegation, i think it was more the change of a manager which encouraged the players to push on. Owen so far has been a waste of money and I don't think anyone can argue that fact. Granted we weren't to know that but it's true. The club I have no doubts will not sack Roeder, thats not to say however that he will get a new contract. He was given a 2 year contract and I believe that is all he will get. Hindsight. If you don't see the signing of Owen at the time he was signed as being acknowledgement of a lack of goals in the team bringing about a worry of relegation then I think you need to reconsider. In the end, with Souness as manager and without Owen (which was a large part of the season ) we would have been in serious trouble but of course Souness was sacked in the end to avoid that situation. aye cos Owen was the only available striker on the market blueyes.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Of course the Board has the FINAL say, but that's far too simplistic. It seems you're absolving O'Leary of any responsibility in the signing of players for Leeds, and of Souness for creating the situation at Newcastle of good players leaving for next to nowt and players we didn't need then being required to be brought in as supposed replacements. In the end, this route you're going down calls into question the need for a team manager at all. Why not just leave it all to the Board since you're putting the responsibility for managers selection of players onto them anyway? No of course not, I am however blaming the board for bringing in manager who has such little ability and caused these problems. Granted they backed the manager but they then can't blame manager purchases for the state of finances which they backed. Of course they can, but if that's your position it still indicates that a team manager isn't required, unless you're going to pile 100% credit on the Board when the manager gets it right, which is very unlikely as nobody would be thinking about the Board in that scenario. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Exactly, we went for a hollywood signing and broke the bank in terms of wages and transfer fees to get him rather than going for someone like Andy Johnstone who would have come into the squad and done a job for half the price. Owen was signed at the start of the season if you remember way before we knew how bad things really were going to get. We needed strikers yes but we were then left with the fact we had no replacement for Shearer cause we had no cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Of course the Board has the FINAL say, but that's far too simplistic. It seems you're absolving O'Leary of any responsibility in the signing of players for Leeds, and of Souness for creating the situation at Newcastle of good players leaving for next to nowt and players we didn't need then being required to be brought in as supposed replacements. In the end, this route you're going down calls into question the need for a team manager at all. Why not just leave it all to the Board since you're putting the responsibility for managers selection of players onto them anyway? No of course not, I am however blaming the board for bringing in manager who has such little ability and caused these problems. Granted they backed the manager but they then can't blame manager purchases for the state of finances which they backed. Of course they can, but if that's your position it still indicates that a team manager isn't required, unless you're going to pile 100% credit on the Board when the manager gets it right, which is very unlikely as nobody would be thinking about the Board in that scenario. I'll be more than happy to praise the board if they bring in the correct manager. In this day and age a manager isn't there for player transfers and the like the problem is the board decided they would be the directors of football instead of bringing in someone to do the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Not 100% sure how the signing of Owen and playing 10 game prevented relegation, i think it was more the change of a manager which encouraged the players to push on. Owen so far has been a waste of money and I don't think anyone can argue that fact. Granted we weren't to know that but it's true. The club I have no doubts will not sack Roeder, thats not to say however that he will get a new contract. He was given a 2 year contract and I believe that is all he will get. Hindsight. If you don't see the signing of Owen at the time he was signed as being acknowledgement of a lack of goals in the team bringing about a worry of relegation then I think you need to reconsider. In the end, with Souness as manager and without Owen (which was a large part of the season ) we would have been in serious trouble but of course Souness was sacked in the end to avoid that situation. aye cos Owen was the only available striker on the market blueyes.gif Not sure what you expect in reply to the typical sarcasm like, so are you trying once againi to derail a thread? Souness decided to sign Owen, I've never said or implied Owen was the only striker on the market. I'm stating the fact that we signed Owen, and that's it. Are you suggesting the Board should have told Souness to sign someone else, therefore opening the door to the criticism of interference in team affairs that people get so agitated about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Kitman you do realise this has all started because of you don't you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 you did notice the bit about the board setting up everything possible for the POTENTIAL for success? i.e. actually achieving success is down to other people.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Invicta_Toon Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Owen otherwise in the big picture scenario we risked relegation, which would of course put the club in a much worse situation today than we see right now. Not 100% sure how the signing of Owen and playing 10 game prevented relegation, i think it was more the change of a manager which encouraged the players to push on. Owen so far has been a waste of money and I don't think anyone can argue that fact. Granted we weren't to know that but it's true. The club I have no doubts will not sack Roeder, thats not to say however that he will get a new contract. He was given a 2 year contract and I believe that is all he will get. Hindsight. If you don't see the signing of Owen at the time he was signed as being acknowledgement of a lack of goals in the team bringing about a worry of relegation then I think you need to reconsider. In the end, with Souness as manager and without Owen (which was a large part of the season ) we would have been in serious trouble but of course Souness was sacked in the end to avoid that situation. aye cos Owen was the only available striker on the market blueyes.gif Not sure what you expect in reply to the typical sarcasm like, so are you trying once againi to derail a thread? Souness decided to sign Owen, I've never said or implied Owen was the only striker on the market. I'm stating the fact that we signed Owen, and that's it. Are you suggesting the Board should have told Souness to sign someone else, therefore opening the door to the criticism of interference in team affairs that people get so agitated about? BANTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Souness decided to sign Owen, I've never said or implied Owen was the only striker on the market. I'm stating the fact that we signed Owen, and that's it. Are you suggesting the Board should have told Souness to sign someone else, therefore opening the door to the criticism of interference in team affairs that people get so agitated about? Why would this be a problem, the Liverpool board said he was going to cost to much why couldn't ours? We should never break the bank for a player, if we can afford a player and we can cover the signing with the income then fine but we couldn't with Owen hence our now stupid loans we have. Still waiting for someone to explain current and non current. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 The problem comes back to the shite management of that one bloke. Once again, HTL can only focus on the small picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 £800,000 spent acquiring Souness from Blackburn. Ouch. Also interesting to note that these results are only based on 11 months, rather than 12. This means some figures look better and some worse than usual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Kitman you do realise this has all started because of you don't you It wasn't me, officer, I was at home watching the telly at the time :jesus: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 In fact I'm wrong but I don't really understand it enough to understand the difference. Apparently our total liabilities are £146,712m of which 67,686 is current and 79,026 is non current. Anyone care to explain that one ? I believe a current liability is repayable in less than one year, non current is repayable after one year 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