ChezGiven Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why can no one remember history? Why does everyone just look at whats happening now and not whats been happening? Where were Stoke in the 90s when we were spunking money up the wall and competing at the top? Where were Spurs at the start of the decade when we were playing in the champions league? Dealing in poorer players with lower ambition and watching the finances, like virtually every other club. It was a great period for our club. Now we're paying for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The bit about wanting to pay upfront for players just in case we get relegated. It only makes sense if you dont actually use any numbers and just say 'well the value of the club will fall but at least the value of his non-investments wont fall'. I mean, just read it back to yourself. You're basically saying he doesnt want to invest in the squad just in case we get relegated. What planet are you on? Also, just because George Caulkin (a football journalist) doesnt understand the internal machinations of high finance, doesnt mean there isnt a reason for the business to operate in a certain manner. I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why can no one remember history? Why does everyone just look at whats happening now and not whats been happening? Where were Stoke in the 90s when we were spunking money up the wall and competing at the top? Where were Spurs at the start of the decade when we were playing in the champions league? Dealing in poorer players with lower ambition and watching the finances, like virtually every other club. It was a great period for our club. Now we're paying for it. I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The bit about wanting to pay upfront for players just in case we get relegated. It only makes sense if you dont actually use any numbers and just say 'well the value of the club will fall but at least the value of his non-investments wont fall'. I mean, just read it back to yourself. You're basically saying he doesnt want to invest in the squad just in case we get relegated. What planet are you on? Also, just because George Caulkin (a football journalist) doesnt understand the internal machinations of high finance, doesnt mean there isnt a reason for the business to operate in a certain manner. I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Lets be realistic about the figures for a couple of big players and subtract the upfront payment and just look at the future installments. Say they are 20m. The value of the club will fall by more than 20m if we are relegated. End of maths lesson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why can no one remember history? Why does everyone just look at whats happening now and not whats been happening? Where were Stoke in the 90s when we were spunking money up the wall and competing at the top? Where were Spurs at the start of the decade when we were playing in the champions league? Dealing in poorer players with lower ambition and watching the finances, like virtually every other club. It was a great period for our club. Now we're paying for it. I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. I personally dont know how debts are structured at other clubs. Boro are over 70m in debt, wonder how much Gibson 'gave' the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why can no one remember history? Why does everyone just look at whats happening now and not whats been happening? Where were Stoke in the 90s when we were spunking money up the wall and competing at the top? Where were Spurs at the start of the decade when we were playing in the champions league? Dealing in poorer players with lower ambition and watching the finances, like virtually every other club. It was a great period for our club. Now we're paying for it. I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. I personally dont know how debts are structured at other clubs. Boro are over 70m in debt, wonder how much Gibson 'gave' the club? (just deleted another post, apologies if quoted, realised i was actually incorrect). I'm not about to start sifting through other clubs accounts. If someone can prove my statements incorrect, then fine. I fully admit they are speculation based on logical economics. Someone must be servicing that debt at Boro as it certainly isn't going to be covering itself and they won't be getting many more loans from the bank. It's a tit for tat argument, my basic point is that I would bet money Ashley, on an ongoing basis, is not putting in a great deal (or in fact any) more in than the majority of owners in our league. What that means can be argued all night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The bit about wanting to pay upfront for players just in case we get relegated. It only makes sense if you dont actually use any numbers and just say 'well the value of the club will fall but at least the value of his non-investments wont fall'. I mean, just read it back to yourself. You're basically saying he doesnt want to invest in the squad just in case we get relegated. What planet are you on? Also, just because George Caulkin (a football journalist) doesnt understand the internal machinations of high finance, doesnt mean there isnt a reason for the business to operate in a certain manner. I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Lets be realistic about the figures for a couple of big players and subtract the upfront payment and just look at the future installments. Say they are 20m. The value of the club will fall by more than 20m if we are relegated. End of maths lesson. Cheers, I forgot a lot of what I learned from my Maths degree. Ashley got the club for under £150M....and then paid off a lot of the previously structured debt. He got it cheap...because of the debt. He's since complained bitterly about all the debt and blamed it for their poor performance. He doesn't want to sell cheap. He wants it to be an attractive proposition. He doesn't want structured debt. He doesn't want to spend. I don't see how this is even up for debate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The bit about wanting to pay upfront for players just in case we get relegated. It only makes sense if you dont actually use any numbers and just say 'well the value of the club will fall but at least the value of his non-investments wont fall'. I mean, just read it back to yourself. You're basically saying he doesnt want to invest in the squad just in case we get relegated. What planet are you on? Also, just because George Caulkin (a football journalist) doesnt understand the internal machinations of high finance, doesnt mean there isnt a reason for the business to operate in a certain manner. I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Lets be realistic about the figures for a couple of big players and subtract the upfront payment and just look at the future installments. Say they are 20m. The value of the club will fall by more than 20m if we are relegated. End of maths lesson. Cheers, I forgot a lot of what I learned from my Maths degree. Ashley got the club for under £150M....and then paid off a lot of the previously structured debt. He got it cheap...because of the debt. He's since complained bitterly about all the debt and blamed it for their poor performance. He doesn't want to sell cheap. He wants it to be an attractive proposition. He doesn't want structured debt. He doesn't want to spend. I don't see how this is even up for debate. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60404.msg1718385.html#msg1718385 Yes we all want him to spend more a yes he's a shit chairman. That doesnt mean he wont buy players just in case we go down. Thats a ridiculous argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The bit about wanting to pay upfront for players just in case we get relegated. It only makes sense if you dont actually use any numbers and just say 'well the value of the club will fall but at least the value of his non-investments wont fall'. I mean, just read it back to yourself. You're basically saying he doesnt want to invest in the squad just in case we get relegated. What planet are you on? Also, just because George Caulkin (a football journalist) doesnt understand the internal machinations of high finance, doesnt mean there isnt a reason for the business to operate in a certain manner. I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Lets be realistic about the figures for a couple of big players and subtract the upfront payment and just look at the future installments. Say they are 20m. The value of the club will fall by more than 20m if we are relegated. End of maths lesson. Cheers, I forgot a lot of what I learned from my Maths degree. Ashley got the club for under £150M....and then paid off a lot of the previously structured debt. He got it cheap...because of the debt. He's since complained bitterly about all the debt and blamed it for their poor performance. He doesn't want to sell cheap. He wants it to be an attractive proposition. He doesn't want structured debt. He doesn't want to spend. I don't see how this is even up for debate. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60404.msg1718385.html#msg1718385 Yes we all want him to spend more a yes he's a shit chairman. That doesnt mean he wont buy players just in case we go down. Thats a ridiculous argument. It's not the argument I made either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why can no one remember history? Why does everyone just look at whats happening now and not whats been happening? Where were Stoke in the 90s when we were spunking money up the wall and competing at the top? Where were Spurs at the start of the decade when we were playing in the champions league? Dealing in poorer players with lower ambition and watching the finances, like virtually every other club. It was a great period for our club. Now we're paying for it. I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. I personally dont know how debts are structured at other clubs. Boro are over 70m in debt, wonder how much Gibson 'gave' the club? Whilst I haven't looked at every club's accounts Boro was one that I have had a look at. Boro's debt is external interest bearing debt but it is guaranteed by Gibson O'Neill Ltd, of which Gibson owns 75%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Some more baffling quotes from the seller of pies “He (Ashley) is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity.” If the £15m isn’t going into the NUFC's business activities, where is it going? “'We don’t have any commercial income at the moment because that was spent to pay for Michael Owen. It was all spent in advance, that’s the money from Northern Rock and Adidas” What about the money Sports Direct are paying for defacing the Gallowgate? “One of those is the settlement with Kevin Keegan and the other is the fee for Jonas Gutierrez. We are talking about millions of pounds here and, if we have to pay out a vast sum of money, that will hit our revenue elsewhere” Is that NUFC's business generated revenue, or the firm getting Ashley’s £15m? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1156139/Newcastle-braced-Keegan-Gutierrez-pay-outs-Llambias-blasts-crazy-strategy.html?ITO=1490 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Some more baffling quotes from the seller of pies “He (Ashley) is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity.” If the £15m isn’t going into the NUFC's business activities, where is it going? “'We don’t have any commercial income at the moment because that was spent to pay for Michael Owen. It was all spent in advance, that’s the money from Northern Rock and Adidas” What about the money Sports Direct are paying for defacing the Gallowgate? “One of those is the settlement with Kevin Keegan and the other is the fee for Jonas Gutierrez. We are talking about millions of pounds here and, if we have to pay out a vast sum of money, that will hit our revenue elsewhere” Is that NUFC's business generated revenue, or the firm getting Ashley’s £15m? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1156139/Newcastle-braced-Keegan-Gutierrez-pay-outs-Llambias-blasts-crazy-strategy.html?ITO=1490 The only thing baffling about those quotes is the way you've decided to highlight them. Can't see anything wrong in any of those three. By all means criticise him sensibly but that post is just bollocks I'm afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Howay then Einstein…. explain what “He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity.” means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Why can no one remember history? Why does everyone just look at whats happening now and not whats been happening? Where were Stoke in the 90s when we were spunking money up the wall and competing at the top? Where were Spurs at the start of the decade when we were playing in the champions league? Dealing in poorer players with lower ambition and watching the finances, like virtually every other club. It was a great period for our club. Now we're paying for it. I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. I personally dont know how debts are structured at other clubs. Boro are over 70m in debt, wonder how much Gibson 'gave' the club? (just deleted another post, apologies if quoted, realised i was actually incorrect). I'm not about to start sifting through other clubs accounts. If someone can prove my statements incorrect, then fine. I fully admit they are speculation based on logical economics. Someone must be servicing that debt at Boro as it certainly isn't going to be covering itself and they won't be getting many more loans from the bank. It's a tit for tat argument, my basic point is that I would bet money Ashley, on an ongoing basis, is not putting in a great deal (or in fact any) more in than the majority of owners in our league. What that means can be argued all night. I wouldn't want to be in a 'boro fan's shoes right now. Chairman of the Century Steve Gibson spent shitloads on trying to keep up with the glamour clubs and at the end of it all they are heading for relegation, empty stands and a £75m debt. Not the best club to use as an argument for borrowing in the hope of future success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Howay then Einstein…. explain what “He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity.” means. The club's business activities would be player sales, merchandising, concessions at the ground, ticket sales, etc. It isn't rocket science. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Howay then Einstein…. explain what “He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity.” means. The club's business activities would be player sales, merchandising, concessions at the ground, ticket sales, etc. It isn't rocket science. That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Howay then Einstein…. explain what “He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity.” means. The club's business activities would be player sales, merchandising, concessions at the ground, ticket sales, etc. It isn't rocket science. That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? It's the same thing. We've always been told that Ashley will put his cash into the club, so far that's had to cover wages, bills, etc. As the wage bill comes down that cash from Ashley, and anything extra generated by the club's income, will be available for transfers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Thats incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. Hes saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity For. No From. FFS can’t you read? Money from Mike goes into bank account A. Money for transfers comes out of bank account B. And never the twain shall meet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity For. No From. FFS can’t you read? Money from Mike goes into bank account A. Money for transfers comes out of bank account B. And never the twain shall meet? Fucking hell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity For. No From. FFS can’t you read? Money from Mike goes into bank account A. Money for transfers comes out of bank account B. And never the twain shall meet? Fucking hell He's a complete loon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity For. No From. FFS can’t you read? Money from Mike goes into bank account A. Money for transfers comes out of bank account B. And never the twain shall meet? f***ing hell He's a complete loon. cockbrain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Thats incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. Hes saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the clubs own business activity For. No From. FFS cant you read? Money from Mike goes into bank account A. Money for transfers comes out of bank account B. And never the twain shall meet? f***ing hell He's a complete loon. cockbrain If you'd prefer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Play nice please children. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 That’s incoming money. The pie seller was talking about money for buying players, hence the word generate. He’s saying the money for transfers and so on (whatever so on is) has to come from a different place to where Mike is investing his money. Which begs the question does the club have two bank accounts, and if so why? :laughterisnotargumentation: It’s not my fault you need to enrol on an adult education course. That's crazy, the word generate means to produce, that covers every penny which comes into the club. He is willing to put £10-15m of his own money in every year, but the rest of the money, for transfers and so on, has to be generated by the club’s own business activity For. No From. FFS can’t you read? Money from Mike goes into bank account A. Money for transfers comes out of bank account B. And never the twain shall meet? f***ing hell He's a complete loon. cockbrain If you'd prefer. :laughterisnotargumentation: It’s not my fault you need to enrol on an adult education course. 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