BOYCOTT the protest rally !!

[Teasy]

 

You can easily google PL clubs and their debt.

 

Everton for instance.

 

Wages higher than income.

 

Surprised?

 

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true.

 

Really?

 

Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million.

 

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.

 

No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton..  income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million.  That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs).

 

As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year.

 

As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club..  So what's your point?  Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/oct/22/premierleague

 

 

Nothing there backs up your claim.  It shows that in 2006-2007 Everton made a £9 million loss, that hasn't been disputed because its not even what you said.  You claimed Everton spent more on wages alone then they brought into the club, I've told you its not true, not for 2006-2007 and even less so for 2007-2008 with the increased TV money.  Here are the 2006-2007 accounts for you straight from Evertons website:

 

http://www.evertonfc.com/assets/_files/documents/jan_08/efc__1199722913_Report_and_Accounts.pdf

 

and for 2008 from toffeeweb

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/08-09/news/2008_Accounts.pdf

[TRon]

 

You can easily google PL clubs and their debt.

 

Everton for instance.

 

Wages higher than income.

 

Surprised?

 

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true.

 

Really?

 

Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million.

 

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.

 

No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton..  income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million.  They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone.  That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs).

 

As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year.

 

As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club..  So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses?  Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year?

 

Deloittes:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

 

Villa?

 

6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. 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.

 

 

The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt.

 

It's an issue across most clubs not just ours.

 

But...but, but.... mackems.gif

 

It's a calculated risk over-spending in an effort to buy success, from the site you are quoting from the verdict is pretty scary on a lot of the clubs who are doing that. Buying big players on big wages doesn't guarantee anything you only have to look at the state we are in with a team full of bigshot high earners who failed to beat Hull in three attempts so far this season.

[Teasy]

 

You can easily google PL clubs and their debt.

 

Everton for instance.

 

Wages higher than income.

 

Surprised?

 

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true.

 

Really?

 

Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million.

 

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.

 

No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton..  income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million.  They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone.  That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs).

 

As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year.

 

As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club..  So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses?  Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year?

 

Deloittes:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

 

Villa?

 

6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. 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.

 

 

The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt.

 

It's an issue across most clubs not just ours.

 

But...but, but.... mackems.gif

 

Why did you post that link?  Can you at least except you're mistakes on previous arguments before moving on to others, especially if you're going to act like a four year old a few posts after being proven wrong..

 

I'll make it simple for you so we can move on.  You're comment "Everton for instance, Everton for instance. Wages higher than income."  You were completely wrong there yes?

[Parky]

 

You can easily google PL clubs and their debt.

 

Everton for instance.

 

Wages higher than income.

 

Surprised?

 

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true.

 

Really?

 

Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million.

 

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.

 

No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton..  income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million.  They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone.  That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs).

 

As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year.

 

As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club..  So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses?  Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year?

 

Deloittes:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

 

Villa?

 

6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. 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.

 

 

The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt.

 

It's an issue across most clubs not just ours.

 

But...but, but.... mackems.gif

 

It's a calculated risk over-spending in an effort to buy success, from the site you are quoting from the verdict is pretty scary on a lot of the clubs who are doing that. Buying big players on big wages doesn't guarantee anything you only have to look at the state we are in with a team full of bigshot high earners who failed to beat Hull in three attempts so far this season.

 

From those accounts it shows their borrowing increased from 65m to 85m!!!

 

...and later they say as to higher tv income they broke even???

 

 

 

I think you're missing the simple point here. Debt shouldn't hinder investment in the FIRST TEAM and doesn't with most of our competition.

 

Do you agree?

[Parky]

 

You can easily google PL clubs and their debt.

 

Everton for instance.

 

Wages higher than income.

 

Surprised?

 

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true.

 

Really?

 

Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million.

 

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.

 

No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton..  income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million.  They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone.  That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs).

 

As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year.

 

As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club..  So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses?  Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year?

 

Deloittes:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

 

Villa?

 

6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. 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.

 

 

The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt.

 

It's an issue across most clubs not just ours.

 

But...but, but.... mackems.gif

You what?  That's Aston Villa you're quoting not Everton.  Please take you're time, relax and concentrate a little bit and this discussion wouldn't have to go round in circles.

 

I didn't want to mention Aston Villa, but I felt the need to as Llambiarse wants to now follow the Villa model.

 

 

 

[Teasy]

Now you're just confusing me.  It would help if you could stick to a couple of things at a time.  You post about Everton, I tell you its not true and now we're talking about Villa.  How about a "fair enough I got it wrong, but what about Villa".

[Dave]

You asked about Villa tbf.

[TRon]

 

You can easily google PL clubs and their debt.

 

Everton for instance.

 

Wages higher than income.

 

Surprised?

 

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true.

 

Really?

 

Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million.

 

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.

 

No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton..  income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million.  They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone.  That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs).

 

As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year.

 

As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club..  So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses?  Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year?

 

Deloittes:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

 

Villa?

 

6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. 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.

 

 

The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt.

 

It's an issue across most clubs not just ours.

 

But...but, but.... mackems.gif

 

It's a calculated risk over-spending in an effort to buy success, from the site you are quoting from the verdict is pretty scary on a lot of the clubs who are doing that. Buying big players on big wages doesn't guarantee anything you only have to look at the state we are in with a team full of bigshot high earners who failed to beat Hull in three attempts so far this season.

 

From those accounts it shows their borrowing increased from 65m to 85m!!!

 

...and later they say as to higher tv income they broke even???

 

 

 

I think you're missing the simple point here. Debt shouldn't hinder investment in the FIRST TEAM and doesn't with most of our competition.

 

Do you agree?

 

I wonder why there are no buyers for the club if it's such a desirable and simple answer?

[Benwell Lad]

What an absolute f***ing joke of a thread Benwell Lad, go and take your face for a s**** as you come across as an ill informed bitter tart. The march is taking place away from the ground for the exact reason that it doesn't have a negative impact on the players. I also think that you'll find far from making NUFC more of a joke NUSC has garnered huge amounts of positive press since it's inception. No matter what you think of their statements they're far preferable to some tracksuited mong calling for "Sheeeraaaaa!" to buy the club and install himself as manager.

 

At the end of the last meeting they were pratically begging people to join the committee and get involved at the very top, so the old "All they want is Ashley out and don't care about the opinions of other fans!" line doesn't wash. If you join then you've got ample platform to make your voice heard. I also distinctly remember people at the interview airing pro-Ashley views and they were heard out. Unsurprisingly though the vats majority of the people there were anti-Ashley and while i'm sure NUSC would like to represent everyone inclusively they have to find a middle ground based on the opinions of their members. Currently that is one of dislike and mistrust for the current regime. Christ, even posters on Skunkers which was initially staunchly NUSC have decided to part with their cash and give it a chance.

 

Whatever your personal opinion of Ashley this club was crying out for some form of respectable supporters organisation and we've got one. It's all fine and well sitting behind your keyboard acting all cynical about what NUSC are doing but a lot of people involved in it have given up their time and money to get the thing off the ground. Whether you agree with their motives or not give them a f***ing round of applause for their effort.

 

Thanks for the insults - it's seems to be NUSC's supporters normal way of dealing with anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda. 

There's a thread somewhere which indicates about 8% fully agree with your verdict of them.

Yeah I've noticed that certain newspapers seem very pro NUSC - I wonder why ?  Could it be because the same newspapers love anything which portrays negativity about Newcastle ?

Take your point about them being more credible than the "tracksuited mong" you mention. Marginally.

 

P.S. you missed out the word "old" in your insult.

 

One insult in the first line which I felt was fairly apt as that is exactly how you come across. Forget the fact i've made some fairly salient points in the rest of my post.

 

Threads on here aren't worth the bandwidth it takes to view them since the majority of posters on here are so unspeakably anti-NUSC with almost no firm reason to back up their antipathy.

 

You say that newspapers are pro-NUSC because they're anti-NUFC? Do pull the other one daft lad. From what I can gather from visiting other general football messageboards is that the opinion of NUSC amongst other fans is very positive. Only Mackems and a small minority of our lot seem to have an issue with the club.

 

Make your f*cking mind up dimwit.

[Parky]

Now you're just confusing me.  It would help if you could stick to a couple of things at a time.  You post about Everton, I tell you its not true and now we're talking about Villa.  How about a "fair enough I got it wrong, but what about Villa".

 

How did I get it wrong?

 

PL clubs as a whole aren't in debt righto. 

 

Everton according to their own accounts have borrowed an extra 20m to balance the books (total risk now of 85m).

 

That's hardly more well run than us is it?

 

Ashley has played the debt card and people like you have fallen for it as if we're the only club that has debts.

 

Then Lamb says we want to be like Arsenal sorry Villa...But then Villa have massive debts as well and can' t cover first team costs and have spent 80m on players over 2 years.

 

Which is it to be?

 

Please find a club that has no debt, no high wages, and doesn't spend on players and lives in the PL. 

[Teasy]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

[Dave]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

[Teasy]

How difficult is this man?  Read carefully, you said Everton were spending more money on wages then they were bringing in to the club.  I told you it wasn't true, you argued and I showed you the accounts proving you're wrong.  If you can't at least recognise you're wrong on such an obvious matter then its pointless to move onto any other discussion.

 

NOTE I didn't say Premiership clubs weren't in debt, stop being childish, read and post sensibly please

[Teasy]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

 

Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion.  What I'm saying is I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another.

[Parky]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

 

Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what?  How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another?

 

Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not?

[Dave]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

 

Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what?  How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another?

 

 

I just read a couple of posts where you mentioned Villa, then had a go at Parky for discussing them. I didn't follow the conversation from the beginning tbh, sorry.

[Teasy]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

 

Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what?  How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another?

 

Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not?

 

Is that the point or not?, no its not.  Show me one comment where I claimed any Premiership team wasn't in debt.  My very first comment was that debts are acceptable, but what isn't acceptable is a continuing debt which spirals out of control.  Everton have a debt and costs they can afford, they made no loss last year and contrary to what you say there wages take up just short of 66% of there income.

[Parky]

Don't think Hull have debt as it goes. Shit.

[Teasy]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

 

Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what?  How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another?

 

 

I just read a couple of posts where you mentioned Villa, then had a go at Parky for discussing them. I didn't follow the conversation from the beginning tbh, sorry.

 

Ah right actually it might be my fault because I shortened one of Parky's quotes in my reply to try to shorten the post a bit.

[Happy Face]

Can you at least except you're mistakes on previous arguments

 

 

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come.

Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill.

We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen.

It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager.

 

For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it.

[Mowen]

Don't think Hull have debt as it goes. Shit.

 

Do Blackburn? Very prudently run over the last few years.

[Teasy]

I'm sure nearly all Premiership clubs have debts, its not a massive deal at all.  But having a big debt and running costs you can't afford to the tune of £35 million a season is.  That's my view.  I honestly don't think you'll find a single club in the Premiership who lost that kind of money yet still spent in the transfer market, appart from a club who isn't run as a business like Man City.

[Parky]

Yeah I asked about Villa after he brought them up, and?

 

He replied to you.

 

Yes and I replied to him before that when he originally brought Villa into the discussion, so what?  How difficult is it to understand that I would like him to admit he's wrong on one issue before bringing up another?

 

Are Everton carrying 85m debt or not?

 

Is that the point or not?, no its not.  Show me one comment where I claimed any Premiership team wasn't in debt.  My very first comment was that debts are acceptable, but what isn't acceptable is a continuing debt which spirals out of control.  Everton have a debt and costs they can afford, they made no loss last year and contrary to what you say there wages take up just short of 66% of there income.

 

The year before it wasn't tho was it? ( I hadn't seen the 2008 accounts). But I had an inkling I'd find borrowing.

 

Then they in their declared accounts reveal they have had to borrow from an external creditor (not even as cosy as us and MA) another 20m to balance the books.

 

However these clubs dress up accounts wages are too high across the board and even Uefa are looking at debt to disqualify us from Europe.

 

I take your point in so far as Everton are slightly better run than us...But it's close. I'll admit I was shocked at their numbers and Villa as the common consensus (myth) is they are doing it with balanced books (wrong).

 

I'd say Fulham and West Ham are much closer to the wire.

 

 

 

[Mowen]

Can you at least except you're mistakes on previous arguments

 

 

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come.

Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill.

We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen.

It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager.

 

For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it.

 

Is that true? Don't think I've seen it before.

[Teasy]

Can you at least except you're mistakes on previous arguments

 

 

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come.

Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill.

We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen.

It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager.

 

For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it.

 

Why the confused face man   I was referring to a specific claim Parky made, not his opinion, which is his to have even if I disagree.