So who's going to buy the club?

[brummie]

Worth 3.3 billion

 

who?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Rupert

3.3 Billion is not enough,  He'll have hardly any free cash flow after (if) he invests in the club.  It's about the same as Ashley when he took over.

 

Ha ha.

 

Does anyone think any investor is going to invest the major part of their wealth in some football club they'd probably never heard of until it got trendy to invest in football clubs?

 

Assuming revenues of at least 30m from TV rights, plus other income, plus a readiness to back the manager to the tune of a decent extra wad when he needs it, it does not need to cost hundreds of millions every year to develop a successful club.

 

Oh, hang on, are you serious? I've just realised you may have been joking.

[Guest Edd]

"We've earmarked money for transfers, money to buy the club and money to deal with the various deep-rooted issues behind the club like the academy.

 

"A budget has been put in place and my instructions are that they do not want to go over that budget."

 

Sounds great.

 

I have to say, I disagree with that sentiment.  I like what they're saying - they're proposing a sensible business plan, and they seem like they want to run the club sensibly.  If they are going to do that - and if will pump all the money turned over by the club back into the club - plus some more if they can raise it - then it's more than enough for me!

 

Isn't that what Ashley said he'd do?

 

Isn't that also the sensible way to do it? We can't all expect to be the next Man City (although, to be honest, Man City were last the 'next big thing' last season and that turned out to be bollocks).

 

Ashley said he would go one step further and also put in £20m of his own money yearly.  Even if that's a sensible plan though certain people can't be seen agreeing to it because since Keegen walked Ashley is teh evil and eats babies and stuff.

[Bad Mongo]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

[Teasy]

"We've earmarked money for transfers, money to buy the club and money to deal with the various deep-rooted issues behind the club like the academy.

 

"A budget has been put in place and my instructions are that they do not want to go over that budget."

 

Sounds great.

 

What do you mean?  Do you expect the guy to say "We've made a bid, and if Ashley doesn't like it well, he can have some more money!  We're perfectly prepared to be drawn into a bidding war, money is no object, actually fuck it, can we pay £600 million please mr fat man?"

[Guest gggg]

"We've earmarked money for transfers, money to buy the club and money to deal with the various deep-rooted issues behind the club like the academy.

 

"A budget has been put in place and my instructions are that they do not want to go over that budget."

 

Sounds great.

 

I have to say, I disagree with that sentiment.  I like what they're saying - they're proposing a sensible business plan, and they seem like they want to run the club sensibly.  If they are going to do that - and if will pump all the money turned over by the club back into the club - plus some more if they can raise it - then it's more than enough for me!

 

Isn't that what Ashley said he'd do?

 

Isn't that also the sensible way to do it? We can't all expect to be the next Man City (although, to be honest, Man City were last the 'next big thing' last season and that turned out to be bollocks).

 

Ashley said he would go one step further and also put in £20m of his own money yearly.  Even if that's a sensible plan though certain people can't be seen agreeing to it because since Keegen walked Ashley is teh evil and eats babies and stuff.

 

He can talk all he likes but the fact is in three transfer windows we've spent less than most Championship teams.

 

These Nigerians sound fine to me if they do what they say and invest all of the clubs money back in for transfers etc (And actually do it) That should be enough to put us ahead of most clubs in this league bar the ones with sugar daddies, and they wont be around forever. We should at least be nowhere near relegation.

[Teasy]

"We've earmarked money for transfers, money to buy the club and money to deal with the various deep-rooted issues behind the club like the academy.

 

"A budget has been put in place and my instructions are that they do not want to go over that budget."

 

Sounds great.

 

I have to say, I disagree with that sentiment.  I like what they're saying - they're proposing a sensible business plan, and they seem like they want to run the club sensibly.  If they are going to do that - and if will pump all the money turned over by the club back into the club - plus some more if they can raise it - then it's more than enough for me!

 

Isn't that what Ashley said he'd do?

 

Isn't that also the sensible way to do it? We can't all expect to be the next Man City (although, to be honest, Man City were last the 'next big thing' last season and that turned out to be bollocks).

 

Ashley said he would go one step further and also put in £20m of his own money yearly.  Even if that's a sensible plan though certain people can't be seen agreeing to it because since Keegen walked Ashley is teh evil and eats babies and stuff.

 

Yeah Ashley said he would, despite the fact he never did over the course of three transfer windows!  I backed Ashley as much as anyone and wanted to give him a chance, even after the window closed, but its clear now that he's full of shit.  Nobody hates Ashley because they wanted the club to spend more money then he said he'd make available, and Keegan certainly didn't leave because he wasn't happy with what Ashley said he'd do.  Its his actions that have pissed people off.

[James]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

[TRon]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

 

If you're honest with yourself though, you'll realise that if he doesn't have enough money to put into the club (i.e. at least 15-20m purely for transfers a year) then it's pointless him being here as we would just be standing still.

 

Which is why the club is for sale probably.

[Teasy]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

 

No it isn't, wages are well and truley covered by revenue, same goes for remaining payments on signings.  Look at our accounts before he took over, yes we were making losses.  But since then TV revenue has increased £20 million a season, wages have if anything, gone down not up.  There are now no payments to make on the stadium plus there are no dividends being paid out.  So where has all this extra expense come from?  There's always been payments owed on players, so that's nothing new.  How have we gone from making moderate losses with a revenue of £88 million to needing £125+ million per season to pay the bills?  Despite obvious cost cutting.  What happened did he leave the lights and gas on?  The mans a bullshiter!

[Dave]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

 

Should have completed due fucking dilligence then, perhaps?

 

I'm sick of hearing about the debts and shit he didn't know about tbh. If I buy a car without checking the thing and later find out it needs a shedload of work doing to it that's nobody's fault but my own.

[Syrette]

James didn't say he shouldn't have... he was just giving a reason as to why money might not have been spent. I think.

[James]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

 

Should have completed due fucking dilligence then, perhaps?

 

I'm sick of hearing about the debts and shit he didn't know about tbh. If I buy a car without checking the thing and later find out it needs a shedload of work doing to it that's nobody's fault but my own.

 

As far as I see it, it is going to be a problem for whoever comes in whether they knew about it or not. If you expect anyone to come in and not find their efforts hampered by that situation, you better fucking pray that they have the same bottomless resources of Abramovich.

[James]

James didn't say he shouldn't have... he was just giving a reason as to why money might not have been spent. I think.

 

Pretty much. Thanks.

[Dave]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

 

Should have completed due fucking dilligence then, perhaps?

 

I'm sick of hearing about the debts and shit he didn't know about tbh. If I buy a car without checking the thing and later find out it needs a shedload of work doing to it that's nobody's fault but my own.

 

As far as I see it, it is going to be a problem for whoever comes in whether they knew about it or not. If you expect anyone to come in and not find their efforts hampered by that situation, you better fucking pray that they have the same bottomless resources of Abramovich.

 

Eh? I'm saying if he'd done the thing properly he'd have known about it and could adjust his buyout offer accordingly, just like others will be doing now. Alternatively he could have paid it and not whinged about the fucker at every available opportunity.

 

It doesn't need bottomless resources at all, it needs basic competence. Every time Ashley moans about the debts he didn't know about, he's admitting he fucked up.

[Dave]

James didn't say he shouldn't have... he was just giving a reason as to why money might not have been spent. I think.

 

Pretty much. Thanks.

 

I wasn't having a go at you, FWIW. Just sick of reading about it, as I said.

 

Ashley can't use something he SHOULD have known about as an excuse for not spending as much on the team as he'd perhaps wanted to. That was HIS fuck up, nobody else's.

[Syrette]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

[Dave]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

[Syrette]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

 

No, but they did exist. Shepherd is to blame for them being there, Ashley is to blame for not researching this when he bought the club and then trying to use them as an excuse when he should have known about them from the start and worked a budget out around them.

[Dave]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

 

No, but they did exist. Shepherd is to blame for them being there, Ashley is to blame for not researching this when he bought the club and then trying to use them as an excuse when he should have known about them from the start and worked a budget out around them.

 

 

PS - pre-apology to Chez, considering I know nowt about big business and that, and are therefore not qualified to give an opinion.

[James]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

 

I reckon that all those hidden costs (wages, installments etc) would curtail the spending of Chris 'We need another £50m' Nathaniel's Nigerian consortium and anyone else coming into the club on a similar premise. I believe that unless someone with a bottomless pit comes in, it is a choice between racking up debt, or spending to a level that will not satisfy the majority of supporters.

[Bad Mongo]

No, people are disagreeing with it because it was evidently not true. Those 20 millions are nowhere to be seen.

 

Because it is being used to pay wages and installments for players like Owen and Luque.

 

No it isn't, wages are well and truley covered by revenue, same goes for remaining payments on signings.  Look at our accounts before he took over, we were making small loses (by small I mean a few million).  Since then TV revenue has increased £20 million a season and our wages have, if anything, gone down not up, plus there are now no payments to make on the stadium.  So where has all this extra expense come from?  We've gone from making small loses with a revenue of £88 million to needing £125+ million per season to pay the bills?, what happened did he leave the lights and gas on?  The mans a bullshiter!

 

Since everybody else is conveniently ignoring this comment, I'm just going to quote it.

[Dave]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

 

I reckon that all those hidden costs (wages, installments etc) would curtail the spending of Chris 'We need another £50m' Nathaniel's Nigerian consortium and anyone else coming into the club on a similar premise. I believe that unless someone with a bottomless pit comes in, it is a choice between racking up debt, or spending to a level that will not satisfy the majority of supporters.

 

But they're not hidden now are they? Nor would they be hidden from a thorough financial audit prior to completion of any sale.

 

If there are a shitload of outstanding debts to be paid etc, surely any bidder would simply take this into account, therefore allowing for it in any spending plans they may have? That's what Ashley singularly failed to do.

[johnnypd]

most clubs structure deals like that, nothing unusual there.

[Syrette]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

 

No, but they did exist. Shepherd is to blame for them being there, Ashley is to blame for not researching this when he bought the club and then trying to use them as an excuse when he should have known about them from the start and worked a budget out around them.

 

I wouldn't say Shepherd is to blame for them being there as such. Most premiership clubs buy players in installments these days. It's hardly anyone's fault that they are there, but it is someones fault if he doesn't research what he's getting himself in for.

 

I'm not going to get into a big discussion about this because finance and business is certainly not my forte but I've seen several pieces of evidence to suggest we overspent on certain players. Both in terms of wages and transfer fees - I'm aware most clubs buy their players in installments and I'm fine with that (the fact that Man City bought Robinho in one lump sum and no installments whatsoever was back page news and rightly so). As the man at the top, Shepherd is responsible for this in the same way Ashley is ultimately responsible for this debacle.

[madras]

Regardless of whether he should have known they were there or not, they existed, and that'll have affected his spending plans.

 

He should have been aware of them from the start and if he didn't bother to look in the first place then he's only got himself to blame.

 

As it was his mistake to overlook them, I don't agree that they are a valid reason for curtailing his spending plans. That's all I'm saying.

 

No, but they did exist. Shepherd is to blame for them being there, Ashley is to blame for not researching this when he bought the club and then trying to use them as an excuse when he should have known about them from the start and worked a budget out around them.

 

I wouldn't say Shepherd is to blame for them being there as such. Most premiership clubs buy players in installments these days. It's hardly anyone's fault that they are there, but it is someones fault if he doesn't research what he's getting himself in for.

 

I'm not going to get into a big discussion about this because finance and business is certainly not my forte but I've seen several pieces of evidence to suggest we overspent on certain players. As the man at the top, Shepherd is responsible for this in the same way Ashley is ultimately responsible for this debacle.

 

We may have overspent, but that's not the issue here is it. The issue is that we're still paying off installments of certain deals (not that we spent too much in the first place). That is how a lot of deals are structured (i.e. for Owen we would likely have spread the cost out over 4 seasons). If Ashley is to stupid to do his research and find this out, then it's not our problem (or Shepherds).

if so does that mean that the debt situation was worse than it appeared ?