Offshore Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcmk Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Because of our current financial plight, I can kind of understand Ashley resenting spending money in abundance, but what really, really annoys me is this bullshit attitude towards the DOF system. It pisses me off no end. Why cant you just realise that it doesnt work in England and that we wont get a good manager with it in place, Mike?!!! I'd get off his case a hell of a lot more if he told Wise to f*** off and let the manager do the business. Its so simple yet he makes it so bloody hard... And you base this opinion on what? I would suggest you have a long hard look at Spurs who don't seem to be faring any better since they abandoned the DOF system. The problem with football today is fans are all used to living by the credit card culture, namely buy today and pay tomorrow, and they don't see why football clubs don't do the same. All Ashley is pointing out is that the previous regime did just that and now a price has to be paid or we will eventually go to the wall, and I personally thank our lucky stars we have an owner who has the financial acumen to resolve our debts. And lets not forget that Llambias has pointed out that our debt will be reducing year on year and the club will be clear of debt within three more seasons. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal all have excessive debt but when they need to sign a player the money is always available. This whole finances thing with Ashley is his way to win back over the fans - a huge smokescreen, didn't he say not long ago the club was debt free? Now we are still paying staggered transfers - which by the way happens at every single club (and very standard way to do transfers) so that's the reason we cant afford anything. He f***ed up the January window, fans were getting on his back again so to buy more time we had the "in 5 years we will be competing in everything, in two years be able to sign the players without going into my own pocket" quotes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 FFS, not another thread on the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshore Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Because of our current financial plight, I can kind of understand Ashley resenting spending money in abundance, but what really, really annoys me is this bullshit attitude towards the DOF system. It pisses me off no end. Why cant you just realise that it doesnt work in England and that we wont get a good manager with it in place, Mike?!!! I'd get off his case a hell of a lot more if he told Wise to f*** off and let the manager do the business. Its so simple yet he makes it so bloody hard... And you base this opinion on what? I would suggest you have a long hard look at Spurs who don't seem to be faring any better since they abandoned the DOF system. The problem with football today is fans are all used to living by the credit card culture, namely buy today and pay tomorrow, and they don't see why football clubs don't do the same. All Ashley is pointing out is that the previous regime did just that and now a price has to be paid or we will eventually go to the wall, and I personally thank our lucky stars we have an owner who has the financial acumen to resolve our debts. And lets not forget that Llambias has pointed out that our debt will be reducing year on year and the club will be clear of debt within three more seasons. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal all have excessive debt but when they need to sign a player the money is always available. This whole finances thing with Ashley is his way to win back over the fans - a huge smokescreen, didn't he say not long ago the club was debt free? Now we are still paying staggered transfers - which by the way happens at every single club (and very standard way to do transfers) so that's the reason we cant afford anything. He f***ed up the January window, fans were getting on his back again so to buy more time we had the "in 5 years we will be competing in everything, in two years be able to sign the players without going into my own pocket" quotes. Once more since it doesn't seem to stick. Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool do have debt, but they also have income that exceed outgoing - thats how they can 'afford' a new player when they need one. Staggered payments aren't classed as debt by the club as they are interest free outgoings. There is no advantage in paying these off early. The reason why we aren't splashing the cash is simply that we haven't got any to splash. He decided (rightly or wrongly) to use his cash to clear the immediate debt that he had inherited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Erm yes I did thanks Terence, are there no bins need empting son? Jog along. Dad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshore Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). All investment is a gamble of some sort. That one was a high risk v high return gamble and it didn't pay off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. I don't subscribe to the spend 50m line. I do think however buying a couple more players - not galacticos mind - was not only called for but essential. To me it made more sense to bring forward summer spending and wear the additional cost than increase the risk of being relegated through persevering with an understrength squad which is injury prone (maybe because players play through injuries or return from injury too soon). That to me seemed like a better idea than duffing through and hoping for the best. That really is a gamble with our squad and staff. I appreciate that the wage bill is crippling but the additional wages for 6 months would be the only real downside given that according to Llambias we're planning to spend this money in the summer anyway. Compared to the money lost if we get relegated, and what that will mean in terms of the finances, I think this is common sense. The last minute transfer dealings, and Llambias' own statements, suggest to me that we only really planned to sign Lovenkrands and R Taylor. 2 out (Geremi, Given), 2 in. I appreciate that the January window is by far the worst time to find players but with advance planning other clubs seem to have managed it. Especially given that we're not recruiting at the top end of the market anymore. Regarding getting players who are 'absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages' - I think you're bang on but this is very difficult to do. Everybody is looking for players like this and we have to compete with other teams in terms of finding the players and in terms of wages. It's a real problem since we are a struggling team, we are not in Europe, and we're not in London where a lot of overseas players want to be. Everton have shown it's tough to attract players whilst operating a wage cap and they're a million miles better team than us at the moment. In addition the club is in disarray and we've had Joe Kinnear as manager, who most modern players won't have heard of, and top players leaving or looking to leave. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's bloody difficult. We got round the problem in the past by offering "rolls royce"wages, plainly that's not sustainable long term without real success. I don't disagree with the idea of building from the bottom up - hallelujah it's about time - but I can't get past the conclusion that some kind of interim spending was really necessary just to guarantee our survival. I think we've neglected the first team tbh and put ourselves at massive risk. If the cupboard was really bare, I suppose we have to live with that, but I think a modest amount of extra money (ie 10 -15m) could have been found. I just hope we don't come to regret it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. It seems to me that some people will excuse Ashley anything - once again, I have to say that you have your opinion, I have mine and I disagree with what he did, whether it was before the recession or not ; as I remember, it was early last year and by then, anyone with half a brain knew what was coming ; I certainly did, and pulled out most of our Superannuation before the big falls on the markets. Ashley has far more dosh than I have and is supposed to be a successful businessman so he should have seen it coming. In any case, he had taken over a supposed top rank football club and he had a responsibility to back it..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. It seems to me that some people will excuse Ashley anything - once again, I have to say that you have your opinion, I have mine and I disagree with what he did, whether it was before the recession or not ; as I remember, it was early last year and by then, anyone with half a brain knew what was coming ; I certainly did, and pulled out most of our Superannuation before the big falls on the markets. Ashley has far more dosh than I have and is supposed to be a successful businessman so he should have seen it coming. In any case, he had taken over a supposed top rank football club and he had a responsibility to back it..... But surely clearing the £90 million debt and subsidising the club to £20 million a year is backing the club. Every supporter in the country wants their Chairman to spend more money, but you have to keep some perspective. Ashley is the first owner who has actually put his own money into the club. The previous regime was taking it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. It seems to me that some people will excuse Ashley anything - once again, I have to say that you have your opinion, I have mine and I disagree with what he did, whether it was before the recession or not ; as I remember, it was early last year and by then, anyone with half a brain knew what was coming ; I certainly did, and pulled out most of our Superannuation before the big falls on the markets. Ashley has far more dosh than I have and is supposed to be a successful businessman so he should have seen it coming. In any case, he had taken over a supposed top rank football club and he had a responsibility to back it..... But surely clearing the £90 million debt and subsidising the club to £20 million a year is backing the club. Every supporter in the country wants their Chairman to spend more money, but you have to keep some perspective. Ashley is the first owner who has actually put his own money into the club. The previous regime was taking it out. But NE5 will harp back to the glittering football under Fred and Hall, forgetting that we were finishing 13th before Ashley came in and exhausting our lines of credit too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. It seems to me that some people will excuse Ashley anything - once again, I have to say that you have your opinion, I have mine and I disagree with what he did, whether it was before the recession or not ; as I remember, it was early last year and by then, anyone with half a brain knew what was coming ; I certainly did, and pulled out most of our Superannuation before the big falls on the markets. Ashley has far more dosh than I have and is supposed to be a successful businessman so he should have seen it coming. In any case, he had taken over a supposed top rank football club and he had a responsibility to back it..... But surely clearing the £90 million debt and subsidising the club to £20 million a year is backing the club. Every supporter in the country wants their Chairman to spend more money, but you have to keep some perspective. Ashley is the first owner who has actually put his own money into the club. The previous regime was taking it out. Yes, I know that and I do appreciate what he did about the debt - that still doesn't excuse the position in which we find ourselves ; I know there is a multiple of reasons, but wasting 100m when SOME of it could have been used to ensure the club stayed in the Prem is very bad business... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. It seems to me that some people will excuse Ashley anything - once again, I have to say that you have your opinion, I have mine and I disagree with what he did, whether it was before the recession or not ; as I remember, it was early last year and by then, anyone with half a brain knew what was coming ; I certainly did, and pulled out most of our Superannuation before the big falls on the markets. Ashley has far more dosh than I have and is supposed to be a successful businessman so he should have seen it coming. In any case, he had taken over a supposed top rank football club and he had a responsibility to back it..... But surely clearing the £90 million debt and subsidising the club to £20 million a year is backing the club. Every supporter in the country wants their Chairman to spend more money, but you have to keep some perspective. Ashley is the first owner who has actually put his own money into the club. The previous regime was taking it out. Yes, I know that and I do appreciate what he did about the debt - that still doesn't excuse the position in which we find ourselves ; I know there is a multiple of reasons, but wasting 100m when SOME of it could have been used to ensure the club stayed in the Prem is very bad business... And if we do stay in the Prem this season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Erm yes I did thanks Terence, are there no bins need empting son? How does one go about "empting" bins? Is that the opposite of preempting them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article tells it like it is - once again, some people just don't like facing the truth. The Echo are quite right - if Ashley didn't check into the club's financial position properly, he has no-one to blame but himself ; a novice could have worked out that there must be massive debts because;- 1. We hadn't been the the CL for 4 years - 5 if you include the proper stages, so there was none of the large income that results from that 2. We had been wasting money on horrendous signings such as Boumsong, and sacking managers who needed compensation pay-outs 3.We had paid well over the odds for Owen 4.We had players on ridiculous salaries who patently DIDN'T deserve them 5. There was a large debt still owing on the ground development Even discounting all of this, Ashley apparently still had 100m to gamble on the shares of a bust Building Society...as I said yesterday, even half of this could have put the team in a better position... As most people are beginning to realise, the DOF system they have put in place is not, and WILL NOT, work.Its jobs for the boys... So add a minimum of £50m on top of the 'crippling financial problems' (their words), is that what you're really saying you want him to do? I wanted him to invest the 50m into making sure the ream was not involved in a relegation battle - Oh, wait - that would have meant allowing the manager to manage.... If you'd had said that he could (and should) have freed up an extra 5-10 mil during the Jan window to get those one or two player that we will need if we get anymore injuries then i'd have agreed with you as that should be manageable in a debt sense and not a mad gamble. Throwing a minimum or 50m here and now is just crazy talk. Normally I would agree - but do you think it was wisely spent on gambling on the shares of a company that went down ? He lost THE LOT(100m), so 50 spent on players would have been a far better investment(in fact, 50m spent on booze would have been a better investment..!!). What a skewed way of looking at things, £50m would of been better wasted on the club....only it wouldnt of been wasted - or would it?? Incidentally the gamble took place before Ashley was badly affected by the recession...the other thing is that people are still failing to realise that spending big money would of added the clubs financial woes in terms of wages, supposing we add to the wage bill and fork out £50m in transfer fees, then what happens the next season - would the fans accept a curtial of spending? How do we look to invest next year? Do we sell those on inflated wages? Where is the next lot of money coming from? Howto we get to the next level without relying on Ashleys millions? The only way to do this is ensure that the players we do get represent absolute value for money whilst not spending on large wages. It seems to me that some people will excuse Ashley anything - once again, I have to say that you have your opinion, I have mine and I disagree with what he did, whether it was before the recession or not ; as I remember, it was early last year and by then, anyone with half a brain knew what was coming ; I certainly did, and pulled out most of our Superannuation before the big falls on the markets. Ashley has far more dosh than I have and is supposed to be a successful businessman so he should have seen it coming. In any case, he had taken over a supposed top rank football club and he had a responsibility to back it..... But surely clearing the £90 million debt and subsidising the club to £20 million a year is backing the club. Every supporter in the country wants their Chairman to spend more money, but you have to keep some perspective. Ashley is the first owner who has actually put his own money into the club. The previous regime was taking it out. Yes, I know that and I do appreciate what he did about the debt - that still doesn't excuse the position in which we find ourselves ; I know there is a multiple of reasons, but wasting 100m when SOME of it could have been used to ensure the club stayed in the Prem is very bad business... And if we do stay in the Prem this season? He'll have got lucky. Do you think he'll spend some money should that happen, or do you think he'll gamble again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 So if we stay up he got lucky, not judged the situation correctly? And if we go down he made a mistake, not got unlucky? Seems a bit unfair to me like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 So if we stay up he got lucky, not judged the situation correctly? And if we go down he made a mistake, not got unlucky? Seems a bit unfair to me like. If we stay up it looks like it's going to be by a handful of points, or even goal difference. I'd hardly say that was good judgement, especially considering a blind person could tell you we needed investment. Same question to you btw; do you think (should we stay up) that significant investment in the first team will be made this summer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 So if we stay up he got lucky, not judged the situation correctly? And if we go down he made a mistake, not got unlucky? Seems a bit unfair to me like. If we stay up it looks like it's going to be by a handful of points, or even goal difference. I'd hardly say that was good judgement, especially considering a blind person could tell you we needed investment. Same question to you btw; do you think (should we stay up) that significant investment in the first team will be made this summer? Not on the scale of previous owners, no. But at the same time I wouldn't be surprised to see 4-5 players come in, of the quality/price of Jonas/Colo/Bassong etc. To me one of the things Ashley shouldn't be criticised for is his transfer policy. This January wasn't great but I think that may have been a combination of market conditions, economic situation, the fact it's January, injuries, and panic. I know it sounds like an excuse, but everyone knows Jan is a hard time to make real squad improvements... no matter how badly they are needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's hard when you give up your best bargaining chip and do fuck all until the last few hours, aye. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's hard when you give up your best bargaining chip and do fuck all until the last few hours, aye. So is it easy to add quality players to a squad in January then? And is it possible to add them in the numbers people are talking about? How many players would have made you happy? I'm not 100% happy with what we achieved in the last window, but it's too easy to dismiss this point without proper consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I didn't say it was easy. I said the way they went about it made things harder. Hopefully what wasn't spent and done will move onto the summer, but at this stage I see no reason as to why to trust this will happen. I just don't believe they know what they're doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offshore Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 The gamble on bank shares and low (none) investment in the team are two completely different issues. Of course we could and should have brought at least one or two first team capable players in, but the reasons why we didn't has nowt to do with Ashley losing some of his money on a bank share gamble. IMHO the squad we had/have would be competent enough to stay up, but an extra 5-10m spent well in Jan would have been been the extra guarantee against the expected injuries/suspensions/whatever crops up. Also, as long as those extra 1/2/3 players were not panic buys then they'd have had the rest of this season to bed in before the next starts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 So if we stay up he got lucky, not judged the situation correctly? And if we go down he made a mistake, not got unlucky? Seems a bit unfair to me like. If we stay up it looks like it's going to be by a handful of points, or even goal difference. I'd hardly say that was good judgement, especially considering a blind person could tell you we needed investment. Same question to you btw; do you think (should we stay up) that significant investment in the first team will be made this summer? Not on the scale of previous owners, no. But at the same time I wouldn't be surprised to see 4-5 players come in, of the quality/price of Jonas/Colo/Bassong etc. To me one of the things Ashley shouldn't be criticised for is his transfer policy. This January wasn't great but I think that may have been a combination of market conditions, economic situation, the fact it's January, injuries, and panic. I know it sounds like an excuse, but everyone knows Jan is a hard time to make real squad improvements... no matter how badly they are needed. That is spot on. January is a very difficult time to do good business in the tranfer market or make the deals you need/want to do. However, despite the fact that we'd all like to see more big signings, most fans would probably think a squad that has gained Taylor, Nolan and Lovenkrands is better placed for the fight ahead than one that included Given and Zogbia. So despite the £ figures we've arguably strengthened the squad and made a shrewd profit to boot. (Something Newcastle United have never been noted for) Money NEEDS to be spent, but like you I want to see it invested in players like Jonas/Colo,Bassong/Guthrie etc - i.e. those with a positive attitude, rather than be a soft touch for overpriced crocks like we were in the past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's the usual old guff, but there's a particular point in there that I keep coming across - namely, the way the point that the old regime landed the club in a tricky financial position gets somehow dismissed by the fact that Ashley didn't take the time to discover the full extent of the debt before he took over. I just don't get the logic here. Whether or not Ashley checked the books well enough, the debt was still there and the responsbility is the previous Board's. That is what is hampering the club, not the fact that Ashley didn't check properly. In many ways, for our sakes, it's just as well that he didn't. I can only think that those who make this particular point are in the mindset that because Ashley made this particular mistake, the altogether different sorts of mistakes that Shepherd made are somehow balanced out. Or something like that. I don't get how you can blame Shepherd at all to be honest. Every club has debt, Mike Ashley - being a top businessman apparently - bought us without even checking everything and then after realizing started to blame the previous owners. You couldn't make it up. Ashley making his own mistake in not checking into our finances properly doesn't negate what Shepherd did. Which was put this club in a terrible financial position. We didn't just have debt, we had gotten to a position were our outgoings were considerably higher then our incomings, and that was getting worse each year. Debt is fine if you can afford the repayments, massive losses that are spiralling further and further out of control year on year isn't fine, because that's a debt you can never recover from unless you do something about it. Its like the difference between a bloke who has a 200,000 mortgage on a house and makes all his payments on time and has money left for himself and a bloke who lives beyond his means and keeps getting new credit cards and loans of increasingly large amounts to keep living how he wants. 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