Mr Ashley and Ambition

[johnnypd]

How daft does the "All you've got to do is back the manager" posts look now after the accounts were filed.

 

How so?

 

Because the club would have gone into administration if Ashley hadn't said he would keep financing the club it is that bad and even without spending money on transfers the club is still not making a profit, how much more do you want the financial state of the club to be pointed out?

 

Yet people chirp up about how much better we would have been if Shepherd was still here showing ambition by borrowing more money to try and move us up the league, do these people have no grasp on reality?

 

the accounts are from last year. i'd imagine without interest payments and the financing costs (£14m?) that we'll be making a day to day profit in 08-09 instead of a slight £2.2m loss. not that all our transfer funds should come from club profits, there's plenty of clubs making losses that still spend, most premiership clubs in actual fact. you have to spend to improve on the pitch, you have to invest money to get the greater turnover in the future. not investing will lead to stagnation at best and decline at worst.

 

Didn't you claim that we should have made a £20 million profit last year that we should have had last Summer? Not being funny you haven't got a clue what the club should or shouldn't have.

 

If any of the fat Fred bum boys want to tell me how we would be better off under him if he was still here then fire away, taking into account that Ashley has had to guarantee to finance us to stop us going into administration and having a -12 point deduction, the club making a loss before we even spend money in the transfer market and that we had already taken loans out against the stadium and the training ground.

 

i looked at extra tv payments and reduced expenditure on debts. the first increased our income minus uefa cup money from 0607. the latter doesnt apply til this year as we were making interest and one off financial payments in the last accounts.

 

it may have passed you by that im not a 'fat fred' bumboy. once again the deflection tactic comes into play.

 

I didn't say you were, it was an open question to the people who think we would still have been better off if he was here, it's still open too if any of them want to try answering it.

 

Like I said, you didn't know what the clubs financial situation was and like many others it's been an eye opener for you.

 

Sunderland have a big debt in relation to their turnover, that they are still paying interest on, have made financial losses, yet spent over £70m net on transfers in the same time that Ashley has spent almost nothing. they took the policy of spending on transfers first to improve their on pitch results and reap the financial rewards that come as a consequence of that, and using the increased income to tackle debts later. some of our drop in revenue ie match day is directly caused by our lack of ambition. and had ashley backed keegan financially and in decisions i think we'd have a good chance of becoming a regular UEFA cup side again starting this or next season which would begin to improve our income. now the prospect of relegation this or next season seems much more likely and will probably cause a gradual decline in income.

[Baggio]

How daft does the "All you've got to do is back the manager" posts look now after the accounts were filed.

 

How so?

 

Because the club would have gone into administration if Ashley hadn't said he would keep financing the club it is that bad and even without spending money on transfers the club is still not making a profit, how much more do you want the financial state of the club to be pointed out?

 

Yet people chirp up about how much better we would have been if Shepherd was still here showing ambition by borrowing more money to try and move us up the league, do these people have no grasp on reality?

 

the accounts are from last year. i'd imagine without interest payments and the financing costs (£14m?) that we'll be making a day to day profit in 08-09 instead of a slight £2.2m loss. not that all our transfer funds should come from club profits, there's plenty of clubs making losses that still spend, most premiership clubs in actual fact. you have to spend to improve on the pitch, you have to invest money to get the greater turnover in the future. not investing will lead to stagnation at best and decline at worst.

 

Didn't you claim that we should have made a £20 million profit last year that we should have had last Summer? Not being funny you haven't got a clue what the club should or shouldn't have.

 

If any of the fat Fred bum boys want to tell me how we would be better off under him if he was still here then fire away, taking into account that Ashley has had to guarantee to finance us to stop us going into administration and having a -12 point deduction, the club making a loss before we even spend money in the transfer market and that we had already taken loans out against the stadium and the training ground.

 

i looked at extra tv payments and reduced expenditure on debts. the first increased our income minus uefa cup money from 0607. the latter doesnt apply til this year as we were making interest and one off financial payments in the last accounts.

 

it may have passed you by that im not a 'fat fred' bumboy. once again the deflection tactic comes into play.

 

I didn't say you were, it was an open question to the people who think we would still have been better off if he was here, it's still open too if any of them want to try answering it.

 

Like I said, you didn't know what the clubs financial situation was and like many others it's been an eye opener for you.

 

Sunderland have a big debt in relation to their turnover, that they are still paying interest on, have made financial losses, yet spent over £70m net on transfers in the same time that Ashley has spent almost nothing. they took the policy of spending on transfers first to improve their on pitch results and reap the financial rewards that come as a consequence of that, and using the increased income to tackle debts later. some of our drop in revenue ie match day is directly caused by our lack of ambition. and had ashley backed keegan financially and in decisions i think we'd have a good chance of becoming a regular UEFA cup side again which would begin to improve our income.

 

That's really nice of you to tell me all this Johnny but it has fuck all to do with what I said.

 

Now you mention it I was under the impression that the money Sunderland spent on players was from a share option when Drummaville took over and the money spent last Summer was from more shares being released.

[OzzieMandias]

Perhaps Johnny can show us the mackems' accounts and then we can find someone who actually understands them to help him discuss the facts.

[jimmymag]

How daft does the "All you've got to do is back the manager" posts look now after the accounts were filed.

 

How so?

 

Because the club would have gone into administration if Ashley hadn't said he would keep financing the club it is that bad and even without spending money on transfers the club is still not making a profit, how much more do you want the financial state of the club to be pointed out?

 

Yet people chirp up about how much better we would have been if Shepherd was still here showing ambition by borrowing more money to try and move us up the league, do these people have no grasp on reality?

 

the accounts are from last year. i'd imagine without interest payments and the financing costs (£14m?) that we'll be making a day to day profit in 08-09 instead of a slight £2.2m loss. not that all our transfer funds should come from club profits, there's plenty of clubs making losses that still spend, most premiership clubs in actual fact. you have to spend to improve on the pitch, you have to invest money to get the greater turnover in the future. not investing will lead to stagnation at best and decline at worst.

 

Didn't you claim that we should have made a £20 million profit last year that we should have had last Summer? Not being funny you haven't got a clue what the club should or shouldn't have.

 

If any of the fat Fred bum boys want to tell me how we would be better off under him if he was still here then fire away, taking into account that Ashley has had to guarantee to finance us to stop us going into administration and having a -12 point deduction, the club making a loss before we even spend money in the transfer market and that we had already taken loans out against the stadium and the training ground.

 

i looked at extra tv payments and reduced expenditure on debts. the first increased our income minus uefa cup money from 0607. the latter doesnt apply til this year as we were making interest and one off financial payments in the last accounts.

 

it may have passed you by that im not a 'fat fred' bumboy. once again the deflection tactic comes into play.

 

I didn't say you were, it was an open question to the people who think we would still have been better off if he was here, it's still open too if any of them want to try answering it.

 

Like I said, you didn't know what the clubs financial situation was and like many others it's been an eye opener for you.

 

Sunderland have a big debt in relation to their turnover, that they are still paying interest on, have made financial losses, yet spent over £70m net on transfers in the same time that Ashley has spent almost nothing. they took the policy of spending on transfers first to improve their on pitch results and reap the financial rewards that come as a consequence of that, and using the increased income to tackle debts later. some of our drop in revenue ie match day is directly caused by our lack of ambition. and had ashley backed keegan financially and in decisions i think we'd have a good chance of becoming a regular UEFA cup side again starting this or next season which would begin to improve our income. now the prospect of relegation this or next season seems much more likely and will probably cause a gradual decline in income.

 

That was Leeds United's business plan under Peter Ridsdale. It's called punting the future of the club. Hopefully the Mackem's will go the same way as Leeds.

 

I agree with Callimag that Ashley probably saved us from a similar fate because Fat Fred was following the Ridsdale model and we wouldn't have survived the current economic crisis.

 

However, under Ashley's ownership I think we will suffer a long, slow, lingering slide into lower division mediocrity.

[fredbob]

How daft does the "All you've got to do is back the manager" posts look now after the accounts were filed.

 

How so?

 

Because the club would have gone into administration if Ashley hadn't said he would keep financing the club it is that bad and even without spending money on transfers the club is still not making a profit, how much more do you want the financial state of the club to be pointed out?

 

Yet people chirp up about how much better we would have been if Shepherd was still here showing ambition by borrowing more money to try and move us up the league, do these people have no grasp on reality?

 

the accounts are from last year. i'd imagine without interest payments and the financing costs (£14m?) that we'll be making a day to day profit in 08-09 instead of a slight £2.2m loss. not that all our transfer funds should come from club profits, there's plenty of clubs making losses that still spend, most premiership clubs in actual fact. you have to spend to improve on the pitch, you have to invest money to get the greater turnover in the future. not investing will lead to stagnation at best and decline at worst.

 

Didn't you claim that we should have made a £20 million profit last year that we should have had last Summer? Not being funny you haven't got a clue what the club should or shouldn't have.

 

If any of the fat Fred bum boys want to tell me how we would be better off under him if he was still here then fire away, taking into account that Ashley has had to guarantee to finance us to stop us going into administration and having a -12 point deduction, the club making a loss before we even spend money in the transfer market and that we had already taken loans out against the stadium and the training ground.

 

i looked at extra tv payments and reduced expenditure on debts. the first increased our income minus uefa cup money from 0607. the latter doesnt apply til this year as we were making interest and one off financial payments in the last accounts.

 

it may have passed you by that im not a 'fat fred' bumboy. once again the deflection tactic comes into play.

 

I didn't say you were, it was an open question to the people who think we would still have been better off if he was here, it's still open too if any of them want to try answering it.

 

Like I said, you didn't know what the clubs financial situation was and like many others it's been an eye opener for you.

 

Sunderland have a big debt in relation to their turnover, that they are still paying interest on, have made financial losses, yet spent over £70m net on transfers in the same time that Ashley has spent almost nothing. they took the policy of spending on transfers first to improve their on pitch results and reap the financial rewards that come as a consequence of that, and using the increased income to tackle debts later. some of our drop in revenue ie match day is directly caused by our lack of ambition. and had ashley backed keegan financially and in decisions i think we'd have a good chance of becoming a regular UEFA cup side again starting this or next season which would begin to improve our income. now the prospect of relegation this or next season seems much more likely and will probably cause a gradual decline in income.

 

That was Leeds United's business plan under Peter Ridsdale. It's called punting the future of the club. Hopefully the Mackem's will go the same way as Leeds.

 

I agree with Callimag that Ashley probably saved us from a similar fate because Fat Fred was following the Ridsdale model and we wouldn't have survived the current economic crisis.

 

However, under Ashley's ownership I think we will suffer a long, slow, lingering slide into lower division mediocrity.

 

Do you thinkour squad is one of the worst 3 squad in the league?

[CaliMag]

Do you thinkour squad is one of the worst 3 squad in the league?

 

No. But then I don't think Leeds was either. Its not just the squad, its a number of things like morale, the fans booing the team (or being silent), and the Manager (who is merely a reflection of the ownership ATM).

[fredbob]

Do you thinkour squad is one of the worst 3 squad in the league?

 

No. But then I don't think Leeds was either. Its not just the squad, its a number of things like morale, the fans booing the team (or being silent), and the Manager (who is merely a reflection of the ownership ATM).

 

Fair point.

[Mowen]

Do you thinkour squad is one of the worst 3 squad in the league?

 

No. But then I don't think Leeds was either. Its not just the squad, its a number of things like morale, the fans booing the team (or being silent), and the Manager (who is merely a reflection of the ownership ATM).

 

Pretty much every set of home fans will boo a poor performance at home now. We're far from the worst offenders.

[NE5]

Perhaps Johnny can show us the mackems' accounts and then we can find someone who actually understands them to help him discuss the facts.

 

perhaps you could input some relevant information into ANY thread anywhere, especially the one where I've asked you on numerous occasions what you think of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards, when you criticised the appointments. Would you like me to bump it for you rather than ruin this one ?

[Dr Venkman]

Perhaps Johnny can show us the mackems' accounts and then we can find someone who actually understands them to help him discuss the facts.

 

perhaps you could input some relevant information into ANY thread anywhere, especially the one where I've asked you on numerous occasions what you think of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards, when you criticised the appointments. Would you like me to bump it for you rather than ruin this one ?

 

seriously, piss off with that

[fredbob]

Perhaps Johnny can show us the mackems' accounts and then we can find someone who actually understands them to help him discuss the facts.

 

perhaps you could input some relevant information into ANY thread anywhere, especially the one where I've asked you on numerous occasions what you think of appointing a manager who won 4 titles with 2 different clubs and 3 manager of the year awards, when you criticised the appointments. Would you like me to bump it for you rather than ruin this one ?

 

 

What do you think of appointing a manager who won 3 titles 8 domestic cups with 4 different clubs?