Falling apart - latest from True Faith

[Mick]

It was the post Robson spending that did the damage, before that the speculate to accumulate business model was both sustainable and working.

 

We had the same speculate to accumulate model post Robson. 

[Thespence]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned  the good memories will live ever.

 

Sticking my fingers in my ears?!?  A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see.

 

I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much.

 

As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent.

 

Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise. 

 

What parachute payments? They are the payments FL clubs get when they go down.

[fredbob]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned  the good memories will live ever.

 

Sticking my fingers in my ears?!?  A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see.

 

I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much.

 

As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent.

 

Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise. 

 

What parachute payments? They are the payments FL clubs get when they go down.

 

Sorry, i meant the payments you get depending on the place you finish. My bad, not that is was a major point.

[Thespence]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned  the good memories will live ever.

 

Sticking my fingers in my ears?!?  A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see.

 

I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much.

 

As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent.

 

Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise. 

 

What parachute payments? They are the payments FL clubs get when they go down.

 

Sorry, i meant the payments you get depending on the place you finish. My bad, not that is was a major point.

 

Chill out on yourself I was only asking

[Guest fading star]

It was the post Robson spending that did the damage, before that the speculate to accumulate business model was both sustainable and working.

 

We had the same speculate to accumulate model post Robson. 

And Souness was in charge of team building.

 

[fredbob]

People make this debt to be f***ing nightmare, we only got  it because we built the ground up & brought some f***ing brilliant players to Newcastle, helped keep players like Shearer at Newcastle. Of course some of it was spent badly but I would rather of seen good players, great teams than a tidy balance sheet.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

That was reality.

 

"Was" being the operative word.

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

Well this is the key bit, how much are we going to suffer? And if it costs us our prem status will those poor decisions in the past which have given us our past been worth it for the future?

 

Your original post was the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears. Its a very real issue which is well worth a discussion.

 

If we go down I would of still wanted to seen Shearer, Ginola, Sir Les, SBR & host of others & of course the ground being expaned  the good memories will live ever.

 

Sticking my fingers in my ears?!?  A lot of people get into SJP because some of that debt was used to rebuild the ground which worked out very expensive, of course we could of built a cheap stadia in Gateshead with few grants but I am glad we paid extra & stayed in the city centre as seeing SJP at the top the city is still a brilliant thing to see.

 

I think you're generalising the debt a bit too much.

 

As Mick#s pointing out, i think the damage was done with the Souness splurges, the big wages the decreased parachute payments and the lack of CL money. Its all added up, i dont htink the stadium debt was as big an issue as it had been secured against season ticket sales (which explains some PR stunts pre season ticket renewals) which are very consistent.

 

Once we got ourselves into a position where we had high wages, low performers and no CL there was no way to go, we couldnt even recoup much money of player sales. With SBR we did have high wages but we also had higher parachute payemtns and the CL campaign money. We'd also borrowed against our assets and the money was goona be difficult to raise. 

 

What parachute payments? They are the payments FL clubs get when they go down.

 

Sorry, i meant the payments you get depending on the place you finish. My bad, not that is was a major point.

 

Chill out on yourself I was only asking

 

[Mick]

And Souness was in charge of team building.

 

 

So the business model didn't work.

[Baggio]

It isn't as simple as saying spending on players that has put us in debt, for long periods we spent money on players and we could afford it because we were making a decent profit before player trading, the problems started happening when Shepherd let the wages to turnover ratio skyrocket which is whats crippling us.

 

Until that comes down then we will continue to struggle for cash.

[Thespence]

It isn't as simple as saying spending on players that has put us in debt, for long periods we spent money on players and we could afford it because we were making a decent profit before player trading, the problems started happening when Shepherd let the wages to turnover ratio skyrocket which is whats crippling us.

 

Until that comes down then we will continue to struggle for cash.

 

That is why Owen has to leave because there is going to be a dramatic drop in income next year. Viduka doing one as well, will help.

[Guest fading star]

So why did we offer him a four year contact extension?

 

[Thespence]

So why did we offer him a four year contact extension?

 

I ask myself the same question. It takes a big set of balls/stupidity to come out & say  "We are not offering our captain, record signing & current top goalscorer a new contract" best to make the effort & fail.

[Guest fading star]

So why did we offer him a four year contact extension?

 

I ask myself the same question. It takes a big set of balls/stupidity to come out & say  "We are not offering our captain, record signing & current top goalscorer a new contract" best to make the effort & fail.

Better to be honest.

[NE5]

 

Do you regret  having the good times, the players, teams & a manager like SBR that helped build the debt pile?

 

It is a shame large sums were wasted but I would rather of had them good years & suffer now than to never of had them at all & been yo-yoing like the mackems in a out town cheap as chips stadium.

 

The thing is, Sir Bobby probably cost us nothing or very little considering how much he spent and the improvement he made and the cash which that brought to the club.

 

never mind, your good old days of 2nd division football and not taking any chances are almost back, courtesy of good old Mike.

 

As spence has just said, yo-yo selling club here we come.

 

 

[madras]

I think I'm starting to realise where it all went wrong tbh.

 

Back around 2000, 2001 when the debt was larger than the turnover and the losses were over a third of the turnover, when we'd had 3 or 4 years outside the top 10, what we should have done was to cut back on signings, sell the likes of Dyer for a good profit, let injury prone Shearer's contract run down so he could leave on a free and we could get his high wages off the bill (after all, we had a ready made replacement coming through from the youth team). If it pissed off Robson and he left, no problem, we could have replaced him with someone like Dave Basset.

 

If only the old board had had the vision of Mike Ashley, just think how different it could have been. If only....

 

It's quite obvious what they (as in people who aren't you or NE5, that said your posts seem to mesh together anyway) are getting at, and it's completely fair and doesn't take much or anything away from their criticism of Ashley.

 

Hindsight. Almost on a par with mandiarse.....but not quite.

 

You show me one poster who said at the time we were playing in the san siro etc that we shouldn't have bought those players that took us there rather than run a solvent business ?

 

You will also find the same posters, for the most part, frothing over at the fat b****** for not buying more players and "splashing the cash" whenever we lost a game or two.

 

 

i'll show you plenty who said it when we bought luque etc.

 

as i've already posted the position we were in then is vastly different to the position fred left us in......i'll spell it out for you.

 

borrowing money when you have small debts and a sustaining business plan is ok, in some circumstances it is even preferable to raising cash in other ways.

 

borrowing year on year whan you have very high debt to turnover and have no business plan excepet to hope you become succesful is mindless.

 

why do you constantly cherry pick the highpoints and ignore the position we were left in ?

 

I'm not talking about Luque, you are cherry picking a bad signing as being indicative of the clubs whole philisophy. In actual fact, most people said that Luque was a good player/should have a chance. Not too many people agreed with me when I said that he was s**** the first time I saw him.

 

You have to accept that some players don;t work , or are poor buys, but you can't accept this in the same way as you also completely unrealistically can't accept that we don't appoint the right manager every time. In fact, in the last 4 years ie since Bobby Robson, only 5 clubs have had trophy winning managers. Do you still think everybody apart from us has appointed good managers in the last 4 years ? Why do you ignore the previous 12 years before that ? Fact is, as I've told you, they have been held accountable, they have gone, are you happy with the outcome or not ?

 

 

 

 

no. what i was pointing out was the timing, it came at a time when we weren't doing well and as many pointed out was vastly overpriced.

 

i do not ignore the previous 12 years.you know this,i've said they done well but they stopped doing well and didn't seem to me and others as if they were going to turn it round.

 

now again...i've asked you a few times and am yet to receive an answer......if you keep building debts year on year while being unsuccesful on the field and off...do you keep on going with that tactic until the banks call a halt ?

 

am i happy with the outcome.....could've been better but i'd rather what we have than what i envisage would have happened had it not changed.

 

you wanted rid of a board who backed their managers and had ambition, and they have been replaced by someone who won't back his managers. A good manager, backed by his board, will turn the club around, a good manager not backed by his board will move on and so you have no hope. It isn't "tactic", its having someone with the outlook to succeed, getting rid of them for someone who doesn't back their managers is like getting rid of a good goalscorer just because he has a bad run and replacing him with someone who will never be as prolific. No sense.

 

As you have said, the change has been made, and thats what we have got. Maybe next time, people will appreciate when we have a good board of directors, but I doubt it.

 

We wouldn't have gone into administration, but we certainly could if we are relegated and the crowds dive to what they did for years before 1992. As they nearly did. But nobody above the hard core 15-20000 supporters really cared.

 

As I said to fredbob, what is the way forward ? Do you think its cost cutting, relegation, and half the crowds as a result ?

 

 

 

 

so you do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

do you really think we are the only club with debts ?

 

 

 

Was that a yes or a no?

 

are you madras or are you trying to derail the thread ?

 

Do you think we should have taken Mike Ashleys direction, back in 2001, as UV has asked, rather than have those champions league runs etc ?

 

 

no we aren't the onlu club with debts. we are one of a group of clubs whose debts have reached a level that aren't sustainable and action is needed before it's too late.

 

in 2001 had we spent all of the sponsorship money a few years in advaance ?

 

had we hocked everything available ?

 

was our wage bill over 60 % of turn over ?

 

now please answer my original question......do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

have it your way. We will follow Mikes path, sell our best players, buy bargains from Hartlepool and hope to compete with the other big boys.

 

As UV has also said, what a shame we didn't have soopa mike instead of the fat b******, we would have had a solvent club in the championship instead of playing in the San Siro and you would have been wetting your knicks at having a solvent club.

 

Have you ever heard of the phrase "if you don;t take a shot you won't score a goal" ?

answer my question please.

 

I've answered it, and unlike some of the numpties, I suspect you know exactly what I mean so stop pretending you don't

 

 

can you provide a link to the answer you gave,i'm not taking the mick.  (no pun intended)

 

Back your managers and you have a chance, we got there in the first place through doing just that.

 

Choosing not to back your managers and compete at the level of the likes of Bristol City will leave you, eeeerrr, .......... well work it out.

 

I;ve said this on numerous occasions, there are too many links. I'm sure baggy will find one if you can't be arsed.

 

 

so you didn't really answer my question did you ?.

 

i asked ........"do you think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?"

 

I've told you. You're completely unrealistic.

 

NE5, i'm with you on a few things you say but you've lost it here big time...

 

Long standing debate, this one. We have stopped spending money now, and look where its taking us. See my previous post. How much of the banks money are Liverpool etc using ? Would you prefer a mid table, bottom half club, taking no risks and staying solvent to competing at the top end and filling the stadium and marketing the club like a top club ? My answer, is give me a board who show ambition and are prepared to have a crack at it anyday to one that settles for safe obscurity.

 

 

liverpools debt may be guaranteed by their owners as ours are by ashley...i don't think fred could have guaranteed that ammount.

 

 

you haven't directly answered the question........do think we should just keep using the banks money until we are succesful or bankrupt whichever comes first ?

 

all you say is you'll not get anywhere without spending which doesn't in any way answer my question about nhow long you keep on borrowing for. i have done you the service of answering you directly in the past,please accord me the same.

 

its a completely hypothetical question. You don't think you are going to go bankrupt do you ? You don't deliberately appoint a manager you think will make bad judgements ? So, as I said, give me a board who will have a crack at aiming for the top places, which we should be doing, rather than one that is afraid of it and opts for bottom of the table safety and solvency. As Ashley has taken that route, the results are there for you to see.

 

 

so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ?

 

you have to aim for success, if you doubt that, wait and see where Ashleys penny pinching and lack of ambition gets us.

 

Season ticket sales next year will be your first indication, especially if we are relegated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats not what i asked....i asked "so do you keep on borrowing no matter how long it takes to bring success ?"

 

 

(i'll give you my answer if you want..here goes........it's ok to borrow to chase the dream for a while(which we did and rightly so),from a position of low debt and well structured (which it was,well done shepherd and halls to this point) but when you do it so long that debts are almost half the value of the company,wages alone count for over 60% of that turnover and the company isn't actualy generating any surplus cash............then it's time to look at other ways as keeping going is gonna kill you)

 

 

[Mick]

 

never mind, your good old days of 2nd division football and not taking any chances are almost back, courtesy of good old Mike.

 

As spence has just said, yo-yo selling club here we come.

 

 

 

At least I'll have a club to support.

[macbeth]

I've had a go at trying to analyse the latest financial results at http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/

 

It is difficult to separate out who is to blame for what, if that is what people are looking to do.

 

The key issue is the wages the club is paying. The vast majority of the player contracts, and therefore their wages would be in place before Ashley bought the club, so it is unfair to blame him totally for the 10% rise in that. That our wages are £25m (55%) higher than Everton shows we have something wrong somewhere.

 

The summer signings in 2008 look to have been totally balanced by sales (to within £5000 !!!) which highlights Ashley's reluctance to spend money that isn't there.

 

The loss for the year of roughly £20m has had to be found from somewhere, and Ashley has put that money in. This is money just to stop the club going into administration, and is of no benefit to the quality of the first team squad.

 

Employing Chris Mort as chairman cost the club about £300k more than it cost to have Shepherd and Douglas Hall  do the same jobs the previous year. In the last year of Shepherd/Hall the club lost £34m (thirty four million), the first year of Ashley (with Mort) the club lost roughly £20m.

 

As ever I am 100% sure my site will have some small typos, and some glaring errors. Please let me know and I'll correct these !!

 

If anyoen wants a copy of the results then just email me and I'll send you one.

 

 

[Mick]

I've had a go at trying to analyse the latest financial results at http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/

 

It is difficult to separate out who is to blame for what, if that is what people are looking to do.

 

The key issue is the wages the club is paying. The vast majority of the player contracts, and therefore their wages would be in place before Ashley bought the club, so it is unfair to blame him totally for the 10% rise in that. That our wages are £25m (55%) higher than Everton shows we have something wrong somewhere.

 

The summer signings in 2008 look to have been totally balanced by sales (to within £5000 !!!) which highlights Ashley's reluctance to spend money that isn't there.

 

The loss for the year of roughly £20m has had to be found from somewhere, and Ashley has put that money in. This is money just to stop the club going into administration, and is of no benefit to the quality of the first team squad.

 

Employing Chris Mort as chairman cost the club about £300k more than it cost to have Shepherd and Douglas Hall  do the same jobs the previous year. In the last year of Shepherd/Hall the club lost £34m (thirty four million), the first year of Ashley (with Mort) the club lost roughly £20m.

 

As ever I am 100% sure my site will have some small typos, and some glaring errors. Please let me know and I'll correct these !!

 

If anyoen wants a copy of the results then just email me and I'll send you one.

 

 

 

Wrong thread although it isn't that obvious.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I've had a go at trying to analyse the latest financial results at http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2008/

 

It is difficult to separate out who is to blame for what, if that is what people are looking to do.

 

The key issue is the wages the club is paying. The vast majority of the player contracts, and therefore their wages would be in place before Ashley bought the club, so it is unfair to blame him totally for the 10% rise in that. That our wages are £25m (55%) higher than Everton shows we have something wrong somewhere.

 

The summer signings in 2008 look to have been totally balanced by sales (to within £5000 !!!) which highlights Ashley's reluctance to spend money that isn't there.

 

The loss for the year of roughly £20m has had to be found from somewhere, and Ashley has put that money in. This is money just to stop the club going into administration, and is of no benefit to the quality of the first team squad.

 

Employing Chris Mort as chairman cost the club about £300k more than it cost to have Shepherd and Douglas Hall  do the same jobs the previous year. In the last year of Shepherd/Hall the club lost £34m (thirty four million), the first year of Ashley (with Mort) the club lost roughly £20m.

 

As ever I am 100% sure my site will have some small typos, and some glaring errors. Please let me know and I'll correct these !!

 

If anyoen wants a copy of the results then just email me and I'll send you one.

 

 

 

I'd query that bit as I don't suppose Douglas Hall & Shepherd could have overseen the transition of the takeover.  The club probably got a lot more for their money being paid to Freshfields than just being a run-of-the-mill football club chairman for 12 months.

[Offshore]

Perhaps if they had done something similar themselves then maybe we'd have been looking at our champions league runs stretching longer than 2.

 

 

what

 

 

If they hadn't  gone on a kamikazi spending spree, hoying money about when we didn't have it, then maybe our short stay at the top table would maybe have been longer.

 

 

 

and if they hadn't gone on a "spending spree", they would have been at the top table in the first place, I presume this will go in one ear and out the other.

 

You should have supported the club during the McKeag and Seymour years, you 'd have loved it. Then again, soopa mike will drag us down to that level pretty soon now

 

 

The reason I brought this up was I think they'd already done this - have a relatively fallow year spending wise - during Dalglish's reign I think (and this is off the top of my head, mind) that they'd but a reasonable brake on spending as we had Pearce, Rush and Barnes all playing.

 

My point, is that if they'd taken stock after the SBR reign then perhaps they'd have come up the other side better off. Instead they saw the bright lights and continued to chase after them throwing cash out that we couldn't afford then and still can't.

 

 

Oh, and don't know about Seymour, but deffo McKeag....1977'ish for me.

 

I said at the time that the money they allowed Souness to spend - and throw away through kicking out Bellamy and Robert - would bite us on the arse. Lots of people disagreed though, and said he was doing the right thing, backed what he was doing, and insisted he would come out of the other end as the new Alex Ferguson. A notable supporter of this was mandiarse, one of the biggest supporters of what Souness was doing in fact.

 

Thats the thing though, we're NOW finally having to pay for the excessive spending of the club chasing the dream. They unfortunately continued gambling on the fact that it had worked before then it would again, and again, and again without taking any steps when they could and should have.

 

The end result has left us with an accumulated debt during a banking recession - while the previous board could not be expected to second-guess that, the fact that they ok'd all the spending in the first place has greatly contributed to our present predicament.

 

 

The rest of those who supported the spending spree will by and large be the same people who now say they shouldn't have done it.

 

If you put a poll up on here asking 'who wants the club to spend £xxm every season?' I think you'll not find many, if any, who'd not want that.

 

We're fans at the end of the day, all we really care about is what happens on the pitch, we want the best players, we want the best results, we want to win things.

 

No-one outside the club would have been aware of the debt building up, so we, quite naturally, didn't care or presumed that we'd always be ok.

 

Fact is, re your earlier post, even if you are in a good position, you've got to keep competing to stay there too, no different to if you are in a worse or poor position, you need to compete to get there in the first place. My point remains, football is an expensive business, if you aren't prepared to risk losing money you are in the wrong game, and Ashleys cost cutting will only take us one way.

 

 

Can't disagree with you saying that if we're in a good position and don't improve then you'll end up going backwards. However, being in a good position isn't just determined by your league position.

 

If you earn £40k and spend £50k each year on a fantastic lifestyle, there come's a time when you have to take a good hard look at yourself and take action. You can either earn more, or spend less - at least until you get your debt cleared or under reasonable control. Same goes for football.

 

Football is indeed an expensive business, one which our Mr Ashley is finding out the hard way, he's done a shitload of things wrong including not doing due dilligence - but at least he's now trying, correct the finances.

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Compare the finances involved at this club 15 years ago to those being bandied around today.

 

The world has completely changed and so have the parameters of running a football club.

[NE5]

 

never mind, your good old days of 2nd division football and not taking any chances are almost back, courtesy of good old Mike.

 

As spence has just said, yo-yo selling club here we come.

 

 

 

At least I'll have a club to support.

 

 

unlike decades of your good old days pre-`1991 when the club almost folded due to decades of it being run like the way  your man Mike has run it so far.

 

Next on the agenda, is Selling our best players to balance the books, until the Halls and Shepherd saved it, and the likes of you were attracted back to pumpng money into the club again 

 

Still, I'm sure that your man Mike has improved the club on the pitch from being regular qualifiiers for europe, more time than evey everybody

but 4 other clubs in fact,

 

 

[Guest AFHorn82]

Where's Santiago Munez when you really need him?

[madras]

 

never mind, your good old days of 2nd division football and not taking any chances are almost back, courtesy of good old Mike.

 

As spence has just said, yo-yo selling club here we come.

 

 

 

At least I'll have a club to support.

 

 

unlike decades of your good old days pre-`1991 when the club almost folded due to decades of it being run like the way  your man Mike has run it so far.

 

Next on the agenda, is Selling our best players to balance the books, until the Halls and Shepherd saved it, and the likes of you were attracted back to pumpng money into the club again 

 

Still, I'm sure that your man Mike has improved the club on the pitch from being regular qualifiiers for europe, more time than evey everybody

but 4 other clubs in fact,

 

 

so then........do you keep borrowing from the banks until you are succesful or bankrupt, whichever comes first ? at which point do you think it would be dangerous to continue borrowing as i think we reached that point ?

[Thespence]

Atm we need to borrow to stay in the PL.

[mrmojorisin75]

Atm we need to borrow to stay in the PL.

 

yeah i'd say that's a fair assessment, maybe now the question should be posed as:

 

we have reached the point where further borrowing is required to keep us in the premier league, are we going to do it?

 

sadly, i think the answer is going to be no