Falling apart - latest from True Faith

[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.

[OzzieMandias]

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....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

 

He also spent his first couple of seasons selling and buying to get the wage bill down and balance the books.

[fredbob]

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....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

 

He also spent his first couple of seasons selling and buying to get the wage bill down and balance the books.

 

We also had assets to borrow money against.

[UV]

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....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

 

Not to mention we had around £40 million in the bank from the float which was used to subsidise the loses.

 

I can see it being a kick in the bollocks for some to find out that it's only Ashley's promise to continue financing us that is keeping us out of administration when they've tried to paint the picture that all was well and he's in fact been creaming off our massive profits but they've got to try and get their head around the state the old board left us in.

 

£40m in the bank? Where's that from? I don't have the accounts from back then but I'm taking figures from nufc-finances website.

 

The net debt in 2000 was £47m and in 2001 was £67m

Turnover in 2000 was £45m and in 2001 was £55m

The loss in 2000 was £15.5m and in 2001 was £8.9m

 

Those figures paint a much more gloomy picture than the one Ashley inherited.

 

I can see it being a kick in the bollocks for some to realise that adopting the policy Mike Ashley is currently pursuing back in 2001 would almost certainly have meant we did not enjoy the football we subsequently did, but they've got to try and get their head around the fact that the consequences of under investment can be worse than the consequences of speculative over investment.

[Baggio]

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....

 

Don't think the comparison is quite fair tbh. I'm certain our wages were less than 50% of turnover until near the end of SBRs reign, would have been down around 45% then, rather than the 65%ish that seems to have been mentioned in this thread. I think our financial situation is worse than it was back then, and whilst the need for investment in the first team is abundently clear, I think it will be slightly harder to turn around than it was last time (and it took a couple of years then, too).

 

Another huge dissimilarity is that then we had a world class manager, who knew the game inside out, had contacts in most major football playing nations in the world and was someone you could trust with money, even if he did get the odd one wrong. He was also afforded a fair amount of time before he did get it right.

 

Not to mention we had around £40 million in the bank from the float which was used to subsidise the loses.

 

I can see it being a kick in the bollocks for some to find out that it's only Ashley's promise to continue financing us that is keeping us out of administration when they've tried to paint the picture that all was well and he's in fact been creaming off our massive profits but they've got to try and get their head around the state the old board left us in.

 

£40m in the bank? Where's that from? I don't have the accounts from back then but I'm taking figures from nufc-finances website.

 

The net debt in 2000 was £47m and in 2001 was £67m

Turnover in 2000 was £45m and in 2001 was £55m

The loss in 2000 was £15.5m and in 2001 was £8.9m

 

Those figures paint a much more gloomy picture than the one Ashley inherited.

 

I can see it being a kick in the bollocks for some to realise that adopting the policy Mike Ashley is currently pursuing back in 2001 would almost certainly have meant we did not enjoy the football we subsequently did, but they've got to try and get their head around the fact that the consequences of under investment can be worse than the consequences of speculative over investment.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970301/ai_n14091020

[NE5]

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 ?

 

 

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Why more gloomy? The losses and debts are now much higher.

[fredbob]

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 ?

 

 

 

 

 

No, i asked you what the way forward is - all i got was "back my manager" and not much else.

[UV]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970301/ai_n14091020

 

1997, pre stadium extension. I'm talking about 2000-1

[UV]

Why more gloomy? The losses and debts are now much higher.

 

Not relative to turnover.

[Baggio]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970301/ai_n14091020

 

1997, pre stadium extension. I'm talking about 2000-1

 

What does that matter?

 

It was used to subsidise the business in the future, since Mcbeth predicted all of our money troubles a few years back perhaps we should look up some of his old posts as he always claimed the club was ran well up until 2003.

 

EDIT - Funnily enough he seems to think that the club had money in the bank back in 2003 compared to a £20 million overdraft 4 years later, strange that would be the case if we were much worse off back in 2001 than we are now.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,45529.msg1028490.html#msg1028490

 

Out of interest UV, if Ashley wasn't here and Shepherd and Hall was which one of them do you think would guarantee on financing us so that we could carry on without slipping into administration which is what the accountants on here claim Ashley has done?

[UV]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970301/ai_n14091020

 

1997, pre stadium extension. I'm talking about 2000-1

 

What does that matter?

 

It was used to subsidise the business in the future, since Mcbeth predicted all of our money troubles a few years back perhaps we should look up some of his old posts as he always claimed the club was ran well up until 2003.

 

It matters because you said we had £40m in the bank when I was talking about a period when the net debt was larger than the turnover.

 

Are you or anyone who supports Ashley's lack of spending on the squad denying that if he had bought the club in 2000 and done the same things back then that you would not have used those accounts and the same arguments that are being used now to justify his actions? Do you think if we had followed a similar course back then and sold the likes of Dyer, rid the wage bill of Shearer, not spent money on trophy players like Robert, brought in someone with no experience to buy and sell players for Robson, that we would ever have achieved the positions we did in Robson's time (assuming he'd stuck around)?

[ChezGiven]

Why more gloomy? The losses and debts are now much higher.

 

Not relative to turnover.

 

The debt to turnover ratios look about the same to me.

[Baggio]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970301/ai_n14091020

 

1997, pre stadium extension. I'm talking about 2000-1

 

What does that matter?

 

It was used to subsidise the business in the future, since Mcbeth predicted all of our money troubles a few years back perhaps we should look up some of his old posts as he always claimed the club was ran well up until 2003.

 

It matters because you said we had £40m in the bank when I was talking about a period when the net debt was larger than the turnover.

 

Are you or anyone who supports Ashley's lack of spending on the squad denying that if he had bought the club in 2000 and done the same things back then that you would not have used those accounts and the same arguments that are being used now to justify his actions? Do you think if we had followed a similar course back then and sold the likes of Dyer, rid the wage bill of Shearer, not spent money on trophy players like Robert, brought in someone with no experience to buy and sell players for Robson, that we would ever have achieved the positions we did in Robson's time (assuming he'd stuck around)?

 

Funnily enough I seem to remember Robson not spending much net for the best part of 2 years while he shifted the high wage earners off the books like Maric and Ferguson, unless my selective memory is kicking in again which is similar to what we should be doing now.

 

Yet so far you've cried about everything, if memory serves correct you kicked up a big fuss about him trying to lower the wage bill and slaughtered his attempts at setting the club up a scouting network which is better than the one scout we had under Roeder, simply because he hasn't followed Shepherd's way of throwing money at the problem even when we clearly couldn't afford it at the end.

 

I'll ask you again as I edited my post while you were replying - If Ashley wasn't here and Shepherd and Hall was which one of them do you think would guarantee on financing us so that we could carry on without slipping into administration which is what the accountants on here claim Ashley has done?

[UV]

Why more gloomy? The losses and debts are now much higher.

 

Not relative to turnover.

 

The debt to turnover ratios look about the same to me.

 

You're right yes about the same, but slightly worse. I should revise what I said to "more gloomy" rather than "much more gloomy".

 

The point is though if you advocate the prudent approach now, you must surely also say we should have taken the prudent approach back then too, and hence are happy to almost certainly have given up the achievements of 01-04 for the sake of more assured short term financial security, but at the increased risk (as now) of relegation.

 

[fredbob]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970301/ai_n14091020

 

1997, pre stadium extension. I'm talking about 2000-1

 

What does that matter?

 

It was used to subsidise the business in the future, since Mcbeth predicted all of our money troubles a few years back perhaps we should look up some of his old posts as he always claimed the club was ran well up until 2003.

 

EDIT - Funnily enough he seems to think that the club had money in the bank back in 2003 compared to a £20 million overdraft 4 years later, strange that would be the case if we were much worse off back in 2001 than we are now.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,45529.msg1028490.html#msg1028490

 

Out of interest UV, if Ashley wasn't here and Shepherd and Hall was which one of them do you think would guarantee on financing us so that we could carry on without slipping into administration which is what the accountants on here claim Ashley has done?

 

To be fair, if Shepherd and Hall were still here the the buyout clause wouldnt be triggered and they wouldnt have to pay off some of the debt straight away, we'd still be losing lots in interest but i imaginethe general consensu would be that Sheherd would find some finance from somewhere and gamble one more time with Allardyce. Not sure how viable that would be but either way he'd be driving the club into more debt shoudl Allardyce not get to the CL straight away...

[fredbob]

Why more gloomy? The losses and debts are now much higher.

 

Not relative to turnover.

 

The debt to turnover ratios look about the same to me.

 

You're right yes about the same, but slightly worse. I should revise what I said to "more gloomy" rather than "much more gloomy".

 

The point is though if you advocate the prudent approach now, you must surely also say we should have taken the prudent approach back then too, and hence are happy to almost certainly have given up the achievements of 01-04 for the sake of more assured financial security.

 

 

Does it not occur to you that this "prudent" approach is a reaction to the mismanagement of the past? Its a solution to a very real problem which wasnt the case back then when we did have source of finance.

[Doug]

Why more gloomy? The losses and debts are now much higher.

 

Not relative to turnover.

 

The debt to turnover ratios look about the same to me.

 

You're right yes about the same, but slightly worse. I should revise what I said to "more gloomy" rather than "much more gloomy".

 

The point is though if you advocate the prudent approach now, you must surely also say we should have taken the prudent approach back then too, and hence are happy to almost certainly have given up the achievements of 01-04 for the sake of more assured financial security.

 

 

Does it not occur to you that this "prudent" approach is a reaction to the mismanagement of the past? Its a solution to a very real problem which wasnt the case back then when we did have source of finance.

I am sure some people in here think there is a money tree where it can ne plucked from forever, They talk about millions as if it were loose change in the arse pocket.

[Guest Phil K]

I am sure some people in here think there is a money tree where it can ne plucked from forever, They talk about millions as if it were loose change in the arse pocket.

Think small, you ARE small.

If clubs with smaller attendances can do it, a LOT less money coming in, then we should be able to.

[Baggio]

I am sure some people in here think there is a money tree where it can ne plucked from forever, They talk about millions as if it were loose change in the arse pocket.

Think small, you ARE small.

If clubs with smaller attendances can do it, a LOT less money coming in, then we should be able to.

 

I'm sure they have A LOT less money going out too tbf.

[fredbob]

I am sure some people in here think there is a money tree where it can ne plucked from forever, They talk about millions as if it were loose change in the arse pocket.

Think small, you ARE small.

If clubs with smaller attendances can do it, a LOT less money coming in, then we should be able to.

 

Simple solution to a simple problem.

[Doug]

I am sure some people in here think there is a money tree where it can ne plucked from forever, They talk about millions as if it were loose change in the arse pocket.

Think small, you ARE small.

If clubs with smaller attendances can do it, a LOT less money coming in, then we should be able to.

No one wants to be small, but everyone wants to be able to survive in order to become big. Open your eyes to the real world around you now. Have you not seen what is happening that is impacting on every aspect of life due to people spending what they havent got. Even the banks themselves are going bust.

 

[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 ?

[NE5]

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 ?

 

 

[Baggio]

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?