Llambias - Gone?

[BottledDog]

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

 

If you'd prefer.

 

A Google image search for cockbrain, turned up this.

http://www.huehner-info.de/huefo/images/avatars/avatar-1576.jpg

 

Fair enough.

 

But bizzarely, this also came up on the first page of results.

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ashleyout.thumbnail.gif

 

Odd.

 

[WhatTheFunk]

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 

 

:lol:

 

have you noticed his initials?

[quayside]

Reading the stuff in the various interviews I believe this is the business plan that Llambias is communicating.

 

Ashley has funded the trading losses of the previous regime and will continue to fund future trading losses. He will get shot of overpaid, under performing and injury prone players and bring in more cost effective replacements. In so doing he is aiming to reduce the annual trading loss (which he funds) from the current level of around £20 million to £7 million next year and look for further improvement after that. Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad. And any "profits" made so far in the transfer windows could well be wiped out by the Jonas settlement, and the Keegan settlement could also impact. The plan is for the investment in young players  to pay off and kick in over the next 5 years meaning that the need for external investment on buying players is minimal and selective.

 

Sounds great in theory but is anyone even convinced that he is committed to the club in the long term - let alone trusting him to deliver the above plan? And does anyone think Kinnear is the man to lead the charge?

 

[Robster]

Reading the stuff in the various interviews I believe this is the business plan that Llambias is communicating.

 

Ashley has funded the trading losses of the previous regime and will continue to fund future trading losses. He will get shot of overpaid, under performing and injury prone players and bring in more cost effective replacements. In so doing he is aiming to reduce the annual trading loss (which he funds) from the current level of around £20 million to £7 million next year and look for further improvement after that. Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad. And any "profits" made so far in the transfer windows could well be wiped out by the Jonas settlement, and the Keegan settlement could also impact. The plan is for the investment in young players  to pay off and kick in over the next 5 years meaning that the need for external investment on buying players is minimal and selective.

 

Sounds great in theory but is anyone even convinced that he is committed to the club in the long term - let alone trusting him to deliver the above plan? And does anyone think Kinnear is the man to lead the charge?

 

The theory is brilliant and very wise - impossible to argue with.

As you rightly question though (when asking about Kinnear), are the football decisions being made as wisely because they have to balance the good business plan with making sure what happens on the pitch keeps the club in the top level as well. Neglect the first team and the rest is near enough pointless.

[mrmojorisin75]

Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad.

 

everyone really should read the above and think about it long and hard, then think about the next few seasons coming up, lets think:

 

owen, viduka, geremi, butt, smith, duff, barton (arguable), beye will all either leave this summer or in the coming summers with no income back to the club, or VERY minimal fees

 

now who remaining in the squad has any reasonable value?:

 

colo (<10m), jonas (5-10m), martins (>10m), bassong (5-10m), enrique (<5m), saylor (<5m)

 

few others like guthrie & raylor might bring in peanuts (<2m)

 

so that's it then, that's essentially the sum total of our transfer spending  for the forseeable unless we uncover another bassong that might net a huge profit to be reinvested

 

digest that shit, hard to swallow

[quayside]

Reading the stuff in the various interviews I believe this is the business plan that Llambias is communicating.

 

Ashley has funded the trading losses of the previous regime and will continue to fund future trading losses. He will get shot of overpaid, under performing and injury prone players and bring in more cost effective replacements. In so doing he is aiming to reduce the annual trading loss (which he funds) from the current level of around £20 million to £7 million next year and look for further improvement after that. Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad. And any "profits" made so far in the transfer windows could well be wiped out by the Jonas settlement, and the Keegan settlement could also impact. The plan is for the investment in young players  to pay off and kick in over the next 5 years meaning that the need for external investment on buying players is minimal and selective.

 

Sounds great in theory but is anyone even convinced that he is committed to the club in the long term - let alone trusting him to deliver the above plan? And does anyone think Kinnear is the man to lead the charge?

 

The theory is brilliant and very wise - impossible to argue with.

As you rightly question though (when asking about Kinnear), are the football decisions being made as wisely because they have to balance the good business plan with making sure what happens on the pitch keeps the club in the top level as well. Neglect the first team and the rest is near enough pointless.

 

Agree. Also an under performing first team will lead to a hole being blown in the gate/season ticket revenue. The real issue I have with all this is the fact that we seem to be expected to believe that Kinnear is the man to implement this vision onto the pitch. I find it hard to use the words "vision" and "Kinnear" in the same sentence tbh. FWIW I don't think the 2008/2009 version of Keegan was the man for this type of plan either.       

[Offshore]

Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad.

 

everyone really should read the above and think about it long and hard, then think about the next few seasons coming up, lets think:

 

owen, viduka, geremi, butt, smith, duff, barton (arguable), beye will all either leave this summer or in the coming summers with no income back to the club, or VERY minimal fees

 

now who remaining in the squad has any reasonable value?:

 

colo (<10m), jonas (5-10m), martins (>10m), bassong (5-10m), enrique (<5m), saylor (<5m)

 

few others like guthrie & raylor might bring in peanuts (<2m)

 

so that's it then, that's essentially the sum total of our transfer spending  for the forseeable unless we uncover another bassong that might net a huge profit to be reinvested

 

digest that s***, hard to swallow

 

Then the quicker we get the club from being in the 'red' to 'black' on income/outgoings the better.

 

 

[Happy Face]

Between '98 and '06 the club spent £26 million on interest.

 

£3.25M per season.

 

That's £0.5M per season less than the Shepherds and Halls took from the club (£30M in those 8 years).

 

Or....about £70 per supporter in the stadium.

 

Was that unsustainable? when the stadium was sold out the majority of that time?

[Baggio]

Between '98 and '06 the club spent £26 million on interest.

 

£3.25M per season.

 

That's £0.5M per season less than the Shepherds and Halls took from the club (£30M in those 8 years).

 

Or....about £70 per supporter in the stadium.

 

Was that unsustainable? when the stadium was sold out the majority of that time?

 

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your shit arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

[Happy Face]

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your shit arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

 

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't.  But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe.  Not from a small growth in interest repayments.

 

When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year.

 

Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs?  What is your point?

 

...and why do you need to be so rude?  Have I been curt with you at some point?

[Baggio]

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your shit arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

 

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't.  But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe.  Not from a small growth in interest repayments.

 

When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year.

 

Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs?  What is your point?

 

...and why do you need to be so rude?  Have I been curt with you at some point?

 

It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that.

 

If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case.

 

The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership.

 

As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply.

[Mick]

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?

 

 

 

 

[Ayerso]

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your s*** arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

 

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't.  But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe.  Not from a small growth in interest repayments.

 

When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year.

 

Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs?  What is your point?

 

...and why do you need to be so rude?  Have I been curt with you at some point?

 

It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that.

 

If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term s*** if this is the case.

 

The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership.

 

As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply.

 

Cracking post which I totally agree with!

[TRon]

Reading the stuff in the various interviews I believe this is the business plan that Llambias is communicating.

 

Ashley has funded the trading losses of the previous regime and will continue to fund future trading losses. He will get shot of overpaid, under performing and injury prone players and bring in more cost effective replacements. In so doing he is aiming to reduce the annual trading loss (which he funds) from the current level of around £20 million to £7 million next year and look for further improvement after that. Transfers will be self funding (cash in = cash out) until the club generates cash surpluses to invest in player transfers, at which point the cash surpluses will be invested in the squad. And any "profits" made so far in the transfer windows could well be wiped out by the Jonas settlement, and the Keegan settlement could also impact. The plan is for the investment in young players  to pay off and kick in over the next 5 years meaning that the need for external investment on buying players is minimal and selective.

 

Sounds great in theory but is anyone even convinced that he is committed to the club in the long term - let alone trusting him to deliver the above plan? And does anyone think Kinnear is the man to lead the charge?

 

The theory is brilliant and very wise - impossible to argue with.

As you rightly question though (when asking about Kinnear), are the football decisions being made as wisely because they have to balance the good business plan with making sure what happens on the pitch keeps the club in the top level as well. Neglect the first team and the rest is near enough pointless.

 

Agree. Also an under performing first team will lead to a hole being blown in the gate/season ticket revenue. The real issue I have with all this is the fact that we seem to be expected to believe that Kinnear is the man to implement this vision onto the pitch. I find it hard to use the words "vision" and "Kinnear" in the same sentence tbh. FWIW I don't think the 2008/2009 version of Keegan was the man for this type of plan either.       

 

It looks like we will be run on tight financial restraints for the next couple of years so that's probably why Ashley is so keen to keep Joe on board, hiring a high profile manager will only lead to discontent whenhe  finds his hands tied in the transfer market. I assume Ashley must have budgeted for falling attendances as fans decide they don't want to watch a transitional Newcastle which will be aiming for survival in the Premier for a couple of seasons.

[Happy Face]

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your shit arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

 

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't.  But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe.  Not from a small growth in interest repayments.

 

When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year.

 

Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs?  What is your point?

 

...and why do you need to be so rude?  Have I been curt with you at some point?

 

It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that.

 

If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case.

 

The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership.

 

As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply.

 

But I'm older than you kidda. 

 

I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success.

 

You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there.

 

It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far).  It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far).

 

It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10....

 

• Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans.
   
  
• Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans
   
  
• Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million
   
  
• Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.
   
  
• Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country
   
  
• 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
   
  
• Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management.
   
  
• Fulham are £182 million in debt.
   
  
• West Ham have £142 million of debt
   
  
• Man City are £103 million debt.
  

 

 

[ChezGiven]

Those figures can be used to justify Ashley's approach to finance.

[Baggio]

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your shit arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

 

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't.  But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe.  Not from a small growth in interest repayments.

 

When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year.

 

Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs?  What is your point?

 

...and why do you need to be so rude?  Have I been curt with you at some point?

 

It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that.

 

If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case.

 

The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership.

 

As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply.

 

But I'm older than you kidda. 

 

I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success.

 

You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there.

 

It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far).  It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far).

 

It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10....

 

• Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans.
   
  
• Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans
   
  
• Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million
   
  
• Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.
   
  
• Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country
   
  
• 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
   
  
• Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management.
   
  
• Fulham are £182 million in debt.
   
  
• West Ham have £142 million of debt
   
  
• Man City are £103 million debt.
  

 

 

 

It's not about having debt though because not all debt is bad, an example is that when we extended the ground we had the stadium debt to pay off but the extra revenue will more than cover what we had to pay back plus leave us with more left over to be used on improving the club, the problem is when you have debt but are making huge losses to go with it, the club has lost over £50 million between 2006 and 2008 without making any sort of extravagant signings in that time, so trying to compare our situation to that of Man Utd who turn over £50 million profits a season or Arsenal who turn over £30 million profits is pointless.

 

Villa are an interesting example because any debt they do have (I'll take your word for the £63 million debt) is because of what they've spent on players since Lerner has been there, fair play to him of course but he did take over a debt free club which he bought on the cheap, according to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at buying us and Everton but was put off by the amounts of debt attached to both, perhaps he realised that any money he put in (in the form of a loan which shows as debt, like Ashley, Gibson and Abramovich have done) could go in to improving the first team rather than balancing the books which is what put him off here.

 

I'm not going to bother going into detail about other clubs because I'm not going to pretend that I know what their situations are, what I do know is that in 18 months from now if we can be classed as being debt free (apart from what we owe Ashley that he seems happy to get back when he sells the club) make a profit of £10-£15 million every season as well as what Ashley is prepared to put in on top then we will be in a stronger position than the majority of Premiership clubs with a model that is both sustainable and make us richer than than other clubs.

 

That's not to say that I'm happy to see us kicking around in the bottom half because I'm not and I put in a lot of time and money to watch this shite, however I do understand what he's trying to achieve and I think he can do it in the long run and for that reason I will still keep giving up my time and money to support my club.

[Mick]

 

But I'm older than you kidda. 

 

I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success.

 

You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there.

 

It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far).  It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far).

 

It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10....

 

• Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans.
   
  
• Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans
   
  
• Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million
   
  
• Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.
   
  
• Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country
   
  
• 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
   
  
• Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management.
   
  
• Fulham are £182 million in debt.
   
  
• West Ham have £142 million of debt
   
  
• Man City are £103 million debt.
  

 

 

 

How does any of that explain who would have paid our bills if it wasn't Ashey?  What if you borrow and speand big and drop 9 league places?

[TRon]

Yet last year they paid out £6.6 million in interest, which suggests as Shepherd was borrowing more the club was having to accept loans at a higher rate of interest.

 

Is £6.6 million unsustainable? Well in the final year the club was a PLC it lost £31.4 million so I'd say it played it's part in making the club unsustainable.

 

Sorry if I've blown a hole in another one of your shit arguments, you never did name the other club owners that put their hand in their own pocket to finance their clubs btw.

 

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't.  But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe.  Not from a small growth in interest repayments.

 

When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year.

 

Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs?  What is your point?

 

...and why do you need to be so rude?  Have I been curt with you at some point?

 

It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that.

 

If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case.

 

The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership.

 

As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply.

 

But I'm older than you kidda. 

 

I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success.

 

You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there.

 

It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far).  It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far).

 

It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10....

 

• Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans.
   
  
• Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans
   
  
• Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million
   
  
• Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.
   
  
• Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country
   
  
• 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
   
  
• Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management.
   
  
• Fulham are £182 million in debt.
   
  
• West Ham have £142 million of debt
   
  
• Man City are £103 million debt.
  

 

 

 

It's not about having debt though because not all debt is bad, an example is that when we extended the ground we had the stadium debt to pay off but the extra revenue will more than cover what we had to pay back plus leave us with more left over to be used on improving the club, the problem is when you have debt but are making huge losses to go with it, the club has lost over £50 million between 2006 and 2008 without making any sort of extravagant signings in that time, so trying to compare our situation to that of Man Utd who turn over £50 million profits a season or Arsenal who turn over £30 million profits is pointless.

 

Villa are an interesting example because any debt they do have (I'll take your word for the £63 million debt) is because of what they've spent on players since Lerner has been there, fair play to him of course but he did take over a debt free club which he bought on the cheap, according to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at buying us and Everton but was put off by the amounts of debt attached to both, perhaps he realised that any money he put in (in the form of a loan which shows as debt, like Ashley, Gibson and Abramovich have done) could go in to improving the first team rather than balancing the books which is what put him off here.

 

I'm not going to bother going into detail about other clubs because I'm not going to pretend that I know what their situations are, what I do know is that in 18 months from now if we can be classed as being debt free (apart from what we owe Ashley that he seems happy to get back when he sells the club) make a profit of £10-£15 million every season as well as what Ashley is prepared to put in on top then we will be in a stronger position than the majority of Premiership clubs with a model that is both sustainable and make us richer than than other clubs.

 

That's not to say that I'm happy to see us kicking around in the bottom half because I'm not and I put in a lot of time and money to watch this shite, however I do understand what he's trying to achieve and I think he can do it in the long run and for that reason I will still keep giving up my time and money to support my club.

 

Admirable support Baggio, I just hope that at some point they will actually look to invest this money once the books are balanced. Can't say I'd blame fans for giving up their season tickets at the prospect of watching more dross like this season with Kinnear at the helm for another two years.

[UV]

It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that.

 

If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case.

 

I don't see where exactly you think they're turning it around by their actions so far. There are 2 opportunities per season for the club's Chairman/MD to significantly affect the clubs finances by specifying the budget for buying/selling players and setting a target for increasing/decreasing the wage bill. They have had almost 4 full transfer windows now, so effectively 2 full seasons to play with the club's finances.

 

What I see is that when Ashley took over the wage bill was £62.5m. In his first year it rose to £70m, we wont know what it is this year until we see next year's accounts, but by my rough guestimates the wages will be roughly the same again, but certainly will not have significantly dropped. However IMO (and I know many disagree with this) the squad quality has dropped. Even if you think player for player the squad quality has improved with respect to NUFC in 2007, it is not NUFC 2007 who we are competing against. There can surely be little doubt that the general quality of the league has improved amongst the rest of the also rans, and where we once had a quality advantage to rise above these teams, they now also can afford to have a sprinkling of quality players and are much closer to us than they were 2 years ago.

 

At the same time, if the extra £18m per year TV money is disregarded, turnover dropped in Ashley's first year over the previous season, and will probably be even lower this year due to lower attendances, (although this may be mitigated somewhat by the 3 year season ticket sales). Maybe the financial climate is partially to blame for this, but I believe it has far more to do with the disillusionment since Keegan left, and the shit football on display. I can't see things picking up next year either, I can only see revenues decreasing year on year until - and only until - we start performing better on the pitch. But when we're going to be losing more of the few quality players we have remaining, like Owen and probably Barton IMO in the Summer, and have less than £10m net to spend if that, with a squad that needs filling out rather than just fine tuning, I can see lots of average players and young hopefuls coming in rather than anyone of any proven quality. Add to that having Kinnear as manager, and I can't really see us improving anytime soon. Hopefully we'll be able to stay in the premiership, and with a lot of good luck a number of the kids coming through will turn out to be decent and we'll somehow manage to persuade them to stay, but that's the only way out of the current slump the way Ashley is running things as far as I can see it.

 

I don't call relying on luck a good long term plan, and I don't see still rising wages and falling club-specific turnover (ie the money NUFC generates on it's own merit rather than the money every team in the league gets) as financially turning things around.

 

It's not about having debt though because not all debt is bad, an example is that when we extended the ground we had the stadium debt to pay off but the extra revenue will more than cover what we had to pay back plus leave us with more left over to be used on improving the club

 

This is very true, and something I was going to point out. To put in some context all the talk of financial mismanagement, wasting money on useless/trophy players, paying astronomical wages, taking millions out of the club, ever spiralling debt, etc, etc by Shepherd/the old board, they actually managed to do all that and achieve what we did over a 15 year period on a final total of around £25m worth of non stadium related debt (and I've not even tried to take out what it cost to build the new academy and training facilities). Personally I'd call that a pretty decent job and far better value for money than most other club's have had over that period of time.

[Baggio]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

[Tooj]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

[Baggio]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

[Tooj]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

[Baggio]

I see them turning it around on the financial side by improving on the clubs losses from £32 million down to £20 million with a forecast for a £7 million loss the year after, I've got no reason to disbelieve them with that prediction so that suggests to me that they are turning it around.

 

While you're correct that the wage bill did increase between the accounts released in 2006 and 2007 it's not really telling the full story of who is to blame for what, an example of that is I read somewhere that Martins and Duff's wages were included in the following years set of accounts, add to that the increase for Allardyce and all of his backroom staff he insisted on bringing with him etc and as I've said it doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Bringing the wage bill down will take time there's no doubt about that but when you read about us paying out 55% more in wages than Everton then I think there's definitely room for improvement and as far as I'm concerned £10 million off the wage bill is £10 million that can be reinvested in the players.

 

 

The only thing that worries me is they are basing that assumption on us staying in the Premiership.

 

Which part? The £7 million?

 

For next season aye. As I believe we're around £20 million in debt now?

 

I could be wrong but I thought the predicted £7 million loss was for this season now, with the £20 million loss being in the last set of accounts which were up to the Summer of 2008.

 

I could be wrong on that one though.