Cheshire Mag Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 We were not as shit under FSA as we are now under JFK/Houghton, nowhere near, tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 We were not as s*** under FSA as we are now under JFK/Houghton, nowhere near, tbh. I can't remember any as bad as Derby away under Allardyce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 We were not as s*** under FSA as we are now under JFK/Houghton, nowhere near, tbh. I can't remember any as bad as Derby away under Allardyce. Derby at home under Allardyce was just as good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire Mag Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 We were not as s*** under FSA as we are now under JFK/Houghton, nowhere near, tbh. I can't remember any as bad as Derby away under Allardyce. True, going to Derby and saying he would be happy with a point is disgraceful, im no supporter of either FSA or JFK btw. Just think that FSA was a better manager for us than JFK is now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 We were not as s*** under FSA as we are now under JFK/Houghton, nowhere near, tbh. I can't remember any as bad as Derby away under Allardyce. True, going to Derby and saying he would be happy with a point is disgraceful, im no supporter of either FSA or JFK btw. Just think that FSA was a better manager for us than JFK is now. Don't get me wrong, I think that Fat Sam is, overall, a better manager. But he was completely the wrong man for us. If we had played shit and won he'd have been OK. If we'd have tried to win games and lost he'd have been OK. But to play dreary, shit football, to create a mindset where the team had already given up any thoughts of trying to win a game away from home, to continue playing players like Smith when Martins was available all led to his job here being a disaster. It might have worked at Bolton, where grinding results at Premiership survival was to be successful, but here it was doomed to failure. To quote James (the band, not the poster) If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we knew then what we know now, would supporters have been more accepting of Sam’s negative approach? Grinding out enough results to avoid relegation is, after all, pretty much Mr Ashley’s plan . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we knew then what we know now, would supporters have been more accepting of Sam’s negative approach? Grinding out enough results to avoid relegation is, after all, pretty much Mr Ashley’s plan . No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 So what was our operating loss for 07/08? £20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? That's frightening really. And there won't be an answer from anyone re your second edit. Haven't got the accounts to hand but the accumulated "cash" losses up to July 2007 were only funded in one way - external debt. And Ashley paid it off when he bought the club. As I recall £44 million was effectively the "mortgage" on the stadium and the rest of the £70 million of debt had funded the trading cash losses. There were any number of loans taken out secured on a variety of things, the one that sticks in my mind is the one secured on future season ticket revenue. How any of that debt would be perceived in the banking climate of 2009 is anyone's guess. So what happened to the £20m a season Ashley was supposed to be putting in. Would our operating loss have been £40m in 07/08 if he hadn’t put this £20m in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we knew then what we know now, would supporters have been more accepting of Sam’s negative approach? Grinding out enough results to avoid relegation is, after all, pretty much Mr Ashley’s plan . No. How would you have reacted if Ashley had cut out the Keegan bit and replaced Sam with JFK? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 So what happened to the £20m a season Ashley was supposed to be putting in. Would our operating loss have been £40m in 07/08 if he hadnt put this £20m in? Apart from the loans which Ashley paid off, we know he had put in an additional £30 million at the time our accounts were audited. We have no idea how much has been put in since that time, if anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 So what was our operating loss for 07/08? £20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? That's frightening really. And there won't be an answer from anyone re your second edit. Haven't got the accounts to hand but the accumulated "cash" losses up to July 2007 were only funded in one way - external debt. And Ashley paid it off when he bought the club. As I recall £44 million was effectively the "mortgage" on the stadium and the rest of the £70 million of debt had funded the trading cash losses. There were any number of loans taken out secured on a variety of things, the one that sticks in my mind is the one secured on future season ticket revenue. How any of that debt would be perceived in the banking climate of 2009 is anyone's guess. So what happened to the £20m a season Ashley was supposed to be putting in. Would our operating loss have been £40m in 07/08 if he hadnt put this £20m in? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we knew then what we know now, would supporters have been more accepting of Sam’s negative approach? Grinding out enough results to avoid relegation is, after all, pretty much Mr Ashley’s plan . No. How would you have reacted if Ashley had cut out the Keegan bit and replaced Sam with JFK? I'd have been as bemused as I was when JFK was announced. But it's a fucking stupid question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 So what was our operating loss for 07/08? £20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? That's frightening really. And there won't be an answer from anyone re your second edit. Haven't got the accounts to hand but the accumulated "cash" losses up to July 2007 were only funded in one way - external debt. And Ashley paid it off when he bought the club. As I recall £44 million was effectively the "mortgage" on the stadium and the rest of the £70 million of debt had funded the trading cash losses. There were any number of loans taken out secured on a variety of things, the one that sticks in my mind is the one secured on future season ticket revenue. How any of that debt would be perceived in the banking climate of 2009 is anyone's guess. So what happened to the £20m a season Ashley was supposed to be putting in. Would our operating loss have been £40m in 07/08 if he hadn’t put this £20m in? No. Where would the extra £20m of come from? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we knew then what we know now, would supporters have been more accepting of Sam’s negative approach? Grinding out enough results to avoid relegation is, after all, pretty much Mr Ashley’s plan . No. How would you have reacted if Ashley had cut out the Keegan bit and replaced Sam with JFK? I'd have been as bemused as I was when JFK was announced. But it's a f***ing stupid question Why’s that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Where would the extra £20m of come from? What extra £20 million? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If we knew then what we know now, would supporters have been more accepting of Sam’s negative approach? Grinding out enough results to avoid relegation is, after all, pretty much Mr Ashley’s plan . No. How would you have reacted if Ashley had cut out the Keegan bit and replaced Sam with JFK? I'd have been as bemused as I was when JFK was announced. But it's a f***ing stupid question Why’s that? The club's position at each time was vastly different. No one else wanted the job on the terms it was being offered on when JFK took over, knowing that if the club's sale did go through they'd probably be out of a job immediately. Venables would have taken the job, but only for the whole season, which in hindsight was a far better option. But it still shows that there was a desire to place a better manager than Joe Kinnear in the job. Heart bypass or not, I don't believe that JFK was ever in the club's plans for next season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 So what happened to the £20m a season Ashley was supposed to be putting in. Would our operating loss have been £40m in 07/08 if he hadn’t put this £20m in? Apart from the loans which Ashley paid off, we know he had put in an additional £30 million at the time our accounts were audited. We have no idea how much has been put in since that time, if anything. In the 07/08 tax year Ashley 1) Lent the club £45m to pay off loan for the stadium redevelopment. 2) Lent the club £35m to cover the operating losses carried over from the previous year. 3) Lent the club another £20m to cover the current operating losses. 4) Invested £20m in the business like he claimed in his post Hull statement. Is that right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 In the 07/08 tax year Ashley 1) Lent the club £45m to pay off loan for the stadium redevelopment. 2) Lent the club £35m to cover the operating losses carried over from the previous year. 3) Lent the club another £20m to cover the current operating losses. 4) Invested £20m £10 million in the business like he claimed in his post Hull statement which when added to no3 = £30 million. Is that right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 In the 07/08 tax year Ashley 1) Lent the club £45m to pay off loan for the stadium redevelopment. 2) Lent the club £35m to cover the operating losses carried over from the previous year. 3) Lent the club another £20m to cover the current operating losses. 4) Invested £20m £10 million in the business like he claimed in his post Hull statement which when added to no3 = £30 million. Is that right? Thus proving the £20m figure he mentioned was a lie? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Thus proving the £20m figure he mentioned was a lie? Yes, he put £30 million in instead of £20 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Thus proving the £20m figure he mentioned was a lie? Yes, he put £30 million in instead of £20 million. Still a lie, and a very odd one at that. So is Ashley’s plan to reduce the wage bill by £30m* a season, or does he have another strategy for balancing the books? *£50m if you factor in recouping his £100m loan over the duration of the 5 year plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Still a lie, and a very odd one at that. So is Ashley’s plan to reduce the wage bill by £30m* a season, or does he have another strategy for balancing the books? *£50m if you factor in recouping his £100m loan over the duration of the 5 year plan. The wage bill is 70.4% of our operating expenses so that's got to be the most obvious area to go looking to make savings. Targeting anything else as a starting point wouldn't make sense as the savings would me minimal in comparison. In business you always go for savings in whatever area offers the greatest gains, 10% of a 100 is better than 50% of 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Still a lie, and a very odd one at that. So is Ashley’s plan to reduce the wage bill by £30m* a season, or does he have another strategy for balancing the books? *£50m if you factor in recouping his £100m loan over the duration of the 5 year plan. The wage bill is 70.4% of our operating expenses so that's got to be the most obvious area to go looking to make savings. Targeting anything else as a starting point wouldn't make sense as the savings would me minimal in comparison. In business you always go for savings in whatever area offers the greatest gains, 10% of a 100 is better than 50% of 5. Fair enough, but what are we looking at? How much do we need to cut the wage bill by? We’d have to lose ten 50k a week players from the current squad to save £26m in wages, and their replacements aren’t going to play for nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Still a lie, and a very odd one at that. So is Ashley’s plan to reduce the wage bill by £30m* a season, or does he have another strategy for balancing the books? *£50m if you factor in recouping his £100m loan over the duration of the 5 year plan. The wage bill is 70.4% of our operating expenses so that's got to be the most obvious area to go looking to make savings. Targeting anything else as a starting point wouldn't make sense as the savings would me minimal in comparison. In business you always go for savings in whatever area offers the greatest gains, 10% of a 100 is better than 50% of 5. what a load of shite mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 what a load of s**** mackems.gif That's exactly what your post is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now