Shepherd Has His Say (Again)

[NE5]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever. I'm looking forward to having directors to deliver times as good, if not better. Shame Mike Ashley is vastly inferior to such a shit board that qualified for europe  more than any club bar 4 isn't it ?

 

 

[Parky]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd  £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is f***ing with you.

man city are now bankrolled by multi billionaires,villa are now backed by lerner.....watch the spending patterns of the rest you mention (in fact a grerat article last week about west ham...the pattern runs,at the time,sell McArtney and buy illunga. make a profit on the transfers and bring the player in on lower wages and if they've done their scouting work, and a few of their fans say this, get a better player to boot. seems the same may have been done re bellamy £14mill=£9mill out)

 

as for the first 4 you mention....lets see if they maintain that level without champs league football for a couple of years or do you think they'll cut their cloth accordingly ?

 

didn't man utd have nearly  a billion in debt...looks like they are making an effort to clear it.

 

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

 

Ashley is fuckin wid you.

[Guest toonlass]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

[NE5]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd  £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is fucking with you.

 

you have absolutely no chance of getting the Ashley backers [all the way to the 2nd division] to accept that.

 

 

[Parky]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Personally I blame him for the debt profile of all PL clubs.

 

Take a step back and smell the coffee rasta.

[Parky]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd  £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is fucking with you.

 

you have absolutely no chance of getting the Ashley backers [all the way to the 2nd division] to accept that.

 

 

 

Sheep.

[NE5]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Well, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, it wasn't worth 1.25m, now it is worth massively more than that. Who do you "blame" for that ?

 

 

[thomas]

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

Are they sustainable?  More importantly, were ours?  Could care less whether or not other clubs have debt or what it is - if it's unmanageable for them then they'll be put in administration at some point, be it 5 years or 15 or 50.

[NE5]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd  £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is fucking with you.

 

you have absolutely no chance of getting the Ashley backers [all the way to the 2nd division] to accept that.

 

 

 

Sheep.

 

and ostriches

 

 

[Parky]

Ashley has timed the financial statement and all his whinning and hysteria tactics to take peoples minds off the transfer window.

[Parky]

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

Are they sustainable?  More importantly, were ours?  Could care less whether or not other clubs have debt or what it is - if it's unmanageable for them then they'll be put in administration at some point, be it 5 years or 15 or 50.

 

 

Don't be silly.

[Guest toonlass]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Well, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, it wasn't worth 1.25m, now it is worth massively more than that. Who do you "blame" for that ?

 

 

 

I don't BLAME anyone for the increase in our worth. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we are in?

[thomas]

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

Are they sustainable?  More importantly, were ours?  Could care less whether or not other clubs have debt or what it is - if it's unmanageable for them then they'll be put in administration at some point, be it 5 years or 15 or 50.

Don't be silly.

Is that a 'yes', 'no' or 'I don't know'?

[Parky]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Well, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, it wasn't worth 1.25m, now it is worth massively more than that. Who do you "blame" for that ?

 

 

 

I don't BLAME anyone for the increase in our worth. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we are in?

 

Most PL clubs have tricky finances. What's your point?

[Parky]

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

Are they sustainable?  More importantly, were ours?  Could care less whether or not other clubs have debt or what it is - if it's unmanageable for them then they'll be put in administration at some point, be it 5 years or 15 or 50.

Don't be silly.

Is that a 'yes', 'no' or 'I don't know'?

 

PL wages aren't sustainable. That applies to all clubs.

[Guest toonlass]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Well, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, it wasn't worth 1.25m, now it is worth massively more than that. Who do you "blame" for that ?

 

 

 

I don't BLAME anyone for the increase in our worth. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we are in?

 

Most PL clubs have tricky finances. What's your point?

 

I want to know if NE5 accepts that part of the reason we find ourselves in the financial state we are in is because of Freddy Shepherd. Still waiting for a yes or no answer from him over 4 pages later. So NE5 yes or no?

[madras]

It's actually getting hilarious how everyone's trying to make NE5 admit that he's talking nonsense.

 

It's not happening. Ever. Give up.

 

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements.

 

When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ?

 

 

stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ?

 

would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ?

 

Lets go back to the appointment of Allardyce, and the point made by HTT, when he said that it was thought to be a good appointment at the time of someone waiting for a big job, coupled with the fact that his track record suggested he could build a pretty good side with little money. Whether he could make the top 4 is arguable, and we won't now know, but it suggested that the Halls and Shepherd were aware of this need, in the short term.

 

I'm pretty sure that their ultimate ambitions would have remained as high as they always were, which are much higher than Ashleys, and I'm also pretty sure that at the current moment in time, they wouldn't be sitting back and watching the team heading for relegation and try to reverse it.

 

Mind, the amount of u-turns by people who urged them to keep spending, and backed Souness in his spending spree, but now say how wrong it was, is quite amazing.

 

 

i'd reckon ashleys ambition was to do aswell as possible without running up massive debt.........your way sees everton of having a lack of ambition, a lack that sees them regularly finish well clear off ambitious freds outfit.

 

Everton are just the team doing the best for the moment of a whole load of clubs that don't have the big ambition that they should.

 

Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. If you are saying you would swap their last decade for ours, then I wouldn't agree, and if you are saying what they have done in the past decade is good enough for you, then thats up to you.   It;s this mistaken idea that you and others have that everybody else has done things better than us, and the grass is always greener. despite results to the contrary which is pretty daft like.

 

You thought the grass was greener when the Halls and Shepherd ran the club and now they have gone, we are sinking like a stone.

 

Has Shay Given gone yet ? All we need is Ashleys mouthpiece to come out again and say its "good business", and I'm sure a lot of gullible people will swallow it whole.

 

 

 

 

i'd swap their last 5 years for ours.

 

as for sinking like a stone i'll claim you are LYING if you think  it's only since fred left.

 

 

I'm not talking about the last 5 years, I'm talking about the entire tenure of the chairman you are slating, not part of it.

 

Do you still think having an owner who runs the club down is no different to having an owner(s) who have ambition and have shown it ?

 

Amazing.

 

 

and you know i wouldn't slag off the entire tenure in the same way forest fans wouldn't slag off cloughs entire tenure....but everyone i know says he should have gone before he did as he was damaging the club and wasn't going to improve it,same with fred. you know this and we've been here before.

 

the next bit.........where did i say it was no different. but i'll GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT ANSWER ANYWAY.......i don't think ashley is running the club down,he's changing the ethos as the ambitious plan as followed by fred was eventually leading to bankruptcy

 

so then...would you rack up debt year after year chasing the dream with no plan for if it fails ?

[NE5]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Well, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, it wasn't worth 1.25m, now it is worth massively more than that. Who do you "blame" for that ?

 

 

 

I don't BLAME anyone for the increase in our worth. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we are in?

 

do you mean the FACT that they increased the saleable value of the club by between 100-200million quid ? Or do you not consider this to be a "financial state"

 

We wont mention the FACT that, they gave us 15 years where only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, while they owned it, at this stage.

 

 

 

 

[Baggio]

West Ham, Portsmouth and Blackburn haven't spent any money in the transfer market either this year, in fact all of them have made a decent profit in terms of net spend this season because they can't afford to do anything else.

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make by them.

[Parky]

West Ham, Portsmouth and Blackburn haven't spent any money in the transfer market either this year, in fact all of them have made a decent profit in terms of net spend this season because they can't afford to do anything else.

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make by them.

 

West Ham are close to bankruptcy and the other two muppets are at the bottom of the table. Work it out.

[Guest toonlass]

No NE5, you haven't answered my question. Straight yes or no please. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial mess at this club? All you need to say is yes or no. No waffle, no hyperbole, no answering with a question. Just either yes or no.

 

I've told you. The directors who gave me the best - by far - 15 years supporting the club, get only credit from me for that. I'm not daft enough to think good times last forever.

 

 

 

But that is not answering the question. Its avoidance. Please answer my specific question with a yes or no. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we have found ourselves in?

 

Well, when the Halls and Shepherd took over the club, it wasn't worth 1.25m, now it is worth massively more than that. Who do you "blame" for that ?

 

 

 

I don't BLAME anyone for the increase in our worth. Do you accept that (even partially) Freddy Shepherd is to blame for the financial state we are in?

 

do you mean the FACT that they increased the saleable value of the club by between 100-200million quid ? Or do you not consider this to be a "financial state"

 

We wont mention the FACT that, they gave us 15 years where only 4 clubs qualified for europe more than us, while they owned it, at this stage.

 

 

 

 

 

And the debt that has been left to deal with? Do you accept that at least partially Freddy Shepherd has left us with that? Yes or no?

[madras]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd  £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is f***ing with you.

man city are now bankrolled by multi billionaires,villa are now backed by lerner.....watch the spending patterns of the rest you mention (in fact a grerat article last week about west ham...the pattern runs,at the time,sell McArtney and buy illunga. make a profit on the transfers and bring the player in on lower wages and if they've done their scouting work, and a few of their fans say this, get a better player to boot. seems the same may have been done re bellamy £14mill=£9mill out)

 

as for the first 4 you mention....lets see if they maintain that level without champs league football for a couple of years or do you think they'll cut their cloth accordingly ?

 

didn't man utd have nearly  a billion in debt...looks like they are making an effort to clear it.

 

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

 

Ashley is fuckin wid you.

you're right, we aint unique in having to change our way of doing things (you aren't as good a wum on here as the gen chat board)

[NE5]

It's actually getting hilarious how everyone's trying to make NE5 admit that he's talking nonsense.

 

It's not happening. Ever. Give up.

 

oh dear, I remember people saying that people like me were talking nonsense when we said Ashley was turning the club into a 2nd rate selling club again, and heading for relegation through selling players and looking for cheap replacements.

 

When exactly do you think we will match the european qualifications that we have seen for the last 15 years, under Ashleys strategy ?

 

 

stretch the question further and ask if fred would have matched the european qualifications we've seen for the last 15years ?

 

would he have just spent the banks money to try and emulate it ?

 

Lets go back to the appointment of Allardyce, and the point made by HTT, when he said that it was thought to be a good appointment at the time of someone waiting for a big job, coupled with the fact that his track record suggested he could build a pretty good side with little money. Whether he could make the top 4 is arguable, and we won't now know, but it suggested that the Halls and Shepherd were aware of this need, in the short term.

 

I'm pretty sure that their ultimate ambitions would have remained as high as they always were, which are much higher than Ashleys, and I'm also pretty sure that at the current moment in time, they wouldn't be sitting back and watching the team heading for relegation and try to reverse it.

 

Mind, the amount of u-turns by people who urged them to keep spending, and backed Souness in his spending spree, but now say how wrong it was, is quite amazing.

 

 

i'd reckon ashleys ambition was to do aswell as possible without running up massive debt.........your way sees everton of having a lack of ambition, a lack that sees them regularly finish well clear off ambitious freds outfit.

 

Everton are just the team doing the best for the moment of a whole load of clubs that don't have the big ambition that they should.

 

Thats all, nothing more and nothing less. If you are saying you would swap their last decade for ours, then I wouldn't agree, and if you are saying what they have done in the past decade is good enough for you, then thats up to you.   It;s this mistaken idea that you and others have that everybody else has done things better than us, and the grass is always greener. despite results to the contrary which is pretty daft like.

 

You thought the grass was greener when the Halls and Shepherd ran the club and now they have gone, we are sinking like a stone.

 

Has Shay Given gone yet ? All we need is Ashleys mouthpiece to come out again and say its "good business", and I'm sure a lot of gullible people will swallow it whole.

 

 

 

 

i'd swap their last 5 years for ours.

 

as for sinking like a stone i'll claim you are LYING if you think  it's only since fred left.

 

 

I'm not talking about the last 5 years, I'm talking about the entire tenure of the chairman you are slating, not part of it.

 

Do you still think having an owner who runs the club down is no different to having an owner(s) who have ambition and have shown it ?

 

Amazing.

 

 

and you know i wouldn't slag off the entire tenure in the same way forest fans wouldn't slag off cloughs entire tenure....but everyone i know says he should have gone before he did as he was damaging the club and wasn't going to improve it,same with fred. you know this and we've been here before.

 

the next bit.........where did i say it was no different. but i'll GIVE YOU A STRAIGHT ANSWER ANYWAY.......i don't think ashley is running the club down,he's changing the ethos as the ambitious plan as followed by fred was eventually leading to bankruptcy

 

so then...would you rack up debt year after year chasing the dream with no plan for if it fails ?

 

I don't think he is doing anything other than taking the piss, asset stripping the club, and running it down. Do we need to be relegated to ram this point home ?

 

So to that degree, he needs to find some money from somewhere to avoid the drop, which I'm sure the Halls and Shepherd would have done, and I'm sorry to have to tell you that i wouldn't have "blamed" them for it at all.

 

 

[Parky]

Just skimming PL finances...

 

Man Utd  £453m debt

Chelsea £620m debt

Arsenal £268m debt

Liv £105m debt5.

 

Everton: Failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season.

 

Villa.

However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Blackburn 85% wages to turnover.

 

8. Portsmouth: Portsmouth utilised 97.9 per cent of their 19,905 capacity stadium in the last season, although they are critically close to Deloitte's "danger level" by spending large amounts on their wage bill, without being able to support it with revenues.

 

9. Man City: City have the third highest net assets in the Premier League - £57 million at the end of the 2006/07 season, although they are £103 million in debt. However, they are in a comfortable position regarding their wage to revenue ratio.

 

10. West Ham: West Ham have £142 million of debt and, along with Newcastle, were the most notable under achiever with regards to wages in 2006/07. Their league position was 15, while they were they were outspent on wages by only five other clubs. This supports the view that the correlation between wages and on-pitch performance is weaker outside those clubs in the top four, and the relegation zone.

 

 

Plenty of debt and high wages to income ratios.

 

Ashley is f***ing with you.

man city are now bankrolled by multi billionaires,villa are now backed by lerner.....watch the spending patterns of the rest you mention (in fact a grerat article last week about west ham...the pattern runs,at the time,sell McArtney and buy illunga. make a profit on the transfers and bring the player in on lower wages and if they've done their scouting work, and a few of their fans say this, get a better player to boot. seems the same may have been done re bellamy £14mill=£9mill out)

 

as for the first 4 you mention....lets see if they maintain that level without champs league football for a couple of years or do you think they'll cut their cloth accordingly ?

 

didn't man utd have nearly  a billion in debt...looks like they are making an effort to clear it.

 

Just saying we ain't unique and debt and high wages is commonplace.

 

Ashley is fuckin wid you.

you're right, we aint unique in having to change our way of doing things (you aren't as good a wum on here as the gen chat board)

 

 

[Baggio]

West Ham, Portsmouth and Blackburn haven't spent any money in the transfer market either this year, in fact all of them have made a decent profit in terms of net spend this season because they can't afford to do anything else.

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make by them.

 

West Ham are close to bankruptcy and the other two muppets are at the bottom of the table. Work it out.

 

I think you're the one that needs to work out what your point is, you claim that Ashley is fucking with us because other clubs have high debt yet most are making big profits from selling players to get their finances together.

 

So how does those clubs selling players and making big profits on their net spend work out as Ashley fucking with us?