Financial meltdown?

[mrmojorisin75]

can't quite grasp the fact that one or two people are so deluded they appear to think manu, Liverpool are getting it all wrong, while the route we have taken to eventual inevitable relegation is right.

 

Amazing.

 

 

 

i'll echo madras and ask who these people are you're imagining exist?  name and shame dude, put up or shut up

[madras]

Shepherd and Hall brought us some of the best times we’ve had, but they did sell up before the bill had been settled. Shepherd also made a series of managerial blunders that have set us back years. However, overall they did a good job, left us in a far better position than when they took over. That we’re now teetering on the brink of plunging the depths again has very little to do with the failings of John and Freddy, and everything to do with the lack of ambition shown by the man who succeeded them.

 

Shepherd and Hall proved that genuine ambition was the best business model for NUFC.  We had tried the zero ambition model under McKeag and it was a disaster. They had the right idea, and for a decade implemented it to near perfection. Then Shepherd threw a spanner in the works by replacing SBR with Souness. The basic business model was fine, it just needed a bit of maintenance. Ashley has gone at it with a sledge hammer.

 

thats basically right, from start to finish. Unfortunately, there are still several people who either genuinely and stupidly disagree, and some who are only disagreeing because its me who is saying it. There are also others who still make childish comments like "Shepherds lovechild", which, if it was any other situation than the huge dive we have taken since they sold the club, would be the most laughable thing ever.

 

I still bet the poster who said that, doesn't respond to the comments made by myself and HTL to him a week or so ago.

 

I won't reference him in this post in this context again, but am more than happy to reply to any constructive comments he DOES make in the other threads.

 

 

it's basically right ? does it answer what happens when you spend like that and slide down the table, so you speculate again to the point where 70% of incomings are spent on wages alone. you don't think this needed controlled ?

 

as i've siad in the past, nowt wrong with debt or speculating but if you do it and it doesn't pay off, you'll end up in trouble, very naive,unrealistic and, i believe just being used as a stick to beast the current regime with as the main protagonist on the "borrow to speculate" argument himself thinks the previous regime probably wouldn't have. (not mentioning any names but ne5 reckons allardyce was brought in to run the place on numbers not really competing with the top 4)

[madras]

Shepherd and Hall brought us some of the best times we’ve had, but they did sell up before the bill had been settled. Shepherd also made a series of managerial blunders that have set us back years. However, overall they did a good job, left us in a far better position than when they took over. That we’re now teetering on the brink of plunging the depths again has very little to do with the failings of John and Freddy, and everything to do with the lack of ambition shown by the man who succeeded them.

 

Shepherd and Hall proved that genuine ambition was the best business model for NUFC.  We had tried the zero ambition model under McKeag and it was a disaster. They had the right idea, and for a decade implemented it to near perfection. Then Shepherd threw a spanner in the works by replacing SBR with Souness. The basic business model was fine, it just needed a bit of maintenance. Ashley has gone at it with a sledge hammer.

 

thats basically right, from start to finish. Unfortunately, there are still several people who either genuinely and stupidly disagree, and some who are only disagreeing because its me who is saying it. There are also others who still make childish comments like "Shepherds lovechild", which, if it was any other situation than the huge dive we have taken since they sold the club, would be the most laughable thing ever.

 

I still bet the poster who said that, doesn't respond to the comments made by myself and HTL to him a week or so ago.

 

I won't reference him in this post in this context again, but am more than happy to reply to any constructive comments he DOES make in the other threads.

 

 

 

I'm so pleased my "Freddie's lovechild" jibe has gotten under your skin. 

 

As I've said to you before, you either are Freddie Shepherd or a relation of his because of the way you carry on defending him and refusing to accept that he was on the verge of bankrupting our club.

 

I find it interesting that you haven't refuted my earlier suggestion that Shepherd was following the Peter Ridsdale business model for Premiership clubs, and that Ashley is indeed our saviour. Perhaps you secretly subscribe to this view but can't admit it because of the huge hole you've dug for yourself by your dogged defence of Shepherd.

 

I'm so pleased for you that you think such a load of tosh bothers me.

 

Basically, I have the results in terms of qualifications for europe more than any other team bar 4 to back up my "opinions". What do you have ?

 

I see you are still running away and not responding to the posts by myself and HTL which were a direct response to comments made by yourself ?

 

That makes me right again then ......... unless you rather stupidly think that relegation is better than qualifying for europe more than every other club bar 4, and you increasingly appear to look you honestly believe it 

 

Just to make it easier for you, here is the link to the thread that you decided to run away from when you realised you were completely trumped

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60559.msg1745883.html#msg1745883

 

And I'm right - AGAIN - when I said you wouldn't respond.

 

 

yes and champs league is exactly where we were when fred sold up isn't it ?

[LiquidAK]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

[mrmojorisin75]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

[NE5]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

[NE5]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

[Cajun]

I am sure the Leeds fans are now grateful that they "competed".

 

Would/could the old board continue to just spend and spend like they had? I have my doubts.

[Frazzle]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

 

Why do you always resort to this?  Just because some people want the club to act sensibly they automatically want mediocrity?  It's childlike logic.

[NE5]

I am sure the Leeds fans are now grateful that they "competed".

 

Would/could the old board continue to just spend and spend like they had? I have my doubts.

 

manu, Liverpool and Arsenal fans are happy they "competed", and so were you when we were in the champs league and qualifying for europe more than any other club but 4

 

I wonder what you will say, if in say, 10 years time, we still haven't matched the Halls and Shepherd. Will you still think they were shite and not competing is best ?

 

 

[NE5]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

 

Why do you always resort to this?  Just because some people want the club to act sensibly they automatically want mediocrity?  It's childlike logic.

 

aha, welllll........I was one of the few people who urged sensible spending a few years ago, when the vast majority urged the club to spend like nobodies business every time the team lost a game....ie "splash the cash fat bastard", and I wager that most of those who are now complaining are the very people who urged to splash the cash, and supported the manager who spent 50m quid saying he did the right thing by doing it and kicking out the "troublemakers" for next to nothing.

 

Its nothing to do with childlike logic, its pointing out the ridiculous double standards, kneejerk reactions, naivety and u-turns by others. Including the absurd belief that anybody who replaced the old board would automatically show the same ambition, and do better, despite the clubs own history showing the demise under Ashley was entirely possible, even to the point where people were prepared to accept even a hedge fund taking control of the club.

 

Simple FACT is - nobody succeeds in football at the top levels without spending, especially on forward and attacking players who cost the most money.

 

Why does this constantly need to be explained.

 

 

[Cajun]

They have also had enough success to continue doing it, we weren't due to poor managers being appointed.

[NE5]

They have also had enough success to continue doing it, we weren't due to poor managers being appointed.

 

speaking of childlike logic, lets go out and make sure we appoint the right manager every time eh, just like everybody else does.

 

Fact is that all those people who backed the sales and signings of Souness [especially], and urged more money and more time, are simply in no position now to complain about the consequences.

 

 

[madras]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

compete as and when you can....we didn't compete very hard when signignkevin gallacher and such as we were in no position. the financial position of the club has to change before we can hope to compete.

 

will you come clean and admit you'd like the club, even though it may well lose £30mill this financial year,added on to previous losses and poor on field performances (under both regimes), to borrow more to compete with the top 4 ?

 

even you don't think fred would have followed that route.

[NE5]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

compete as and when you can....we didn't compete very hard when signignkevin gallacher and such as we were in no position. the financial position of the club has to change before we can hope to compete.

 

will you come clean and admit you'd like the club, even though it may well lose £30mill this financial year,added on to previous losses and poor on field performances (under both regimes), to borrow more to compete with the top 4 ?

 

even you don't think fred would have followed that route.

 

of course I realise this, but don't you realise that making a profit in 3 transfer windows while watching us go down is not "re-building".

 

 

[madras]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

compete as and when you can....we didn't compete very hard when signignkevin gallacher and such as we were in no position. the financial position of the club has to change before we can hope to compete.

 

will you come clean and admit you'd like the club, even though it may well lose £30mill this financial year,added on to previous losses and poor on field performances (under both regimes), to borrow more to compete with the top 4 ?

 

even you don't think fred would have followed that route.

 

of course I realise this, but don't you realise that making a profit in 3 transfer windows while watching us go down is not "re-building".

 

 

big profit or smallish change compared the losses the club is making. i'm willing to wager the next financial results will show a £30mill-ish loss and yes i'd rather ashley had spent more of his money on re building. it would have been his money as i doubt we'd have gotr money from elsewhere.

 

he took over a club in the shit and hasn't improved its position.

[NE5]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

compete as and when you can....we didn't compete very hard when signignkevin gallacher and such as we were in no position. the financial position of the club has to change before we can hope to compete.

 

will you come clean and admit you'd like the club, even though it may well lose £30mill this financial year,added on to previous losses and poor on field performances (under both regimes), to borrow more to compete with the top 4 ?

 

even you don't think fred would have followed that route.

 

of course I realise this, but don't you realise that making a profit in 3 transfer windows while watching us go down is not "re-building".

 

 

big profit or smallish change compared the losses the club is making. i'm willing to wager the next financial results will show a £30mill-ish loss and yes i'd rather ashley had spent more of his money on re building. it would have been his money as i doubt we'd have gotr money from elsewhere.

 

he took over a club in the shit and hasn't improved its position.

 

I'm fed up of going on about this mate. To be successful you have to compete and take risks. Newcastle United are one of the biggest clubs in the country so should behave like one. If they don't, then we have the wrong owners. And if we don't, and especially if we make profits in transfer windows like we have done, we are right back to the old days of being a selling and underachieving club. There is no way back to the top other than competing at the levels it demands. UV made a post ages ago spelling out methods of finding money, which has to be spent well, and you have to be realistic and realise that not everybody appoints the right manager every time. But a good board backs their appointment, and refuses to settle for mediocrity when they get it wrong.

 

Having a board with no ambition, will result in a massive drop in revenue - as happened when we were last run for decades by a board with no ambition, and leaves you further away than ever. We are certainly - now - heading the way of Leeds and Sheff Wed, and a host of other clubs who have found themselves in the old 3rd division, but we were not heading this way under the old board.

 

End of story. You won't change my mind. Because I'm confident that time will show that I am right, and if nothing changes in the foreseeable future, you and others like you will look back on the old board as the highlight and best years of your time supporting the club, because it is certainly mine.

 

 

 

 

[madras]

Admittedly, for the most part the football under Fred was good and we were achieving great things. However, NE5, we would have likely done a Leeds had we carried on the way we did, and by the end of it we weren't doing particularly well in the league anyway. Do you really think a few more years of challenging for Europe, would have been worth risking the long term future of the club?

 

i'll pre-empt NE5 by saying we might do a leeds anyways! 

 

doesn't change the fact that pre-ashley we were headed for trouble though, of course

 

if you want to succeed at anything in life, you have to take risks. And football is pretty much as risky as anything going.

 

We know that wages etc are out of control, but its the same for everybody.

 

 

 

 

it's not the same for everybody...who else had 70% of turnover going on wages ?

 

lets say, for example the club were on course, even with all the cost cutting, to make a loss of £30mill for example for the current financial year. do you think we should borrow more on top of that to "compete" ?

 

may feeling is we wouldn't have got anyone to lend us money even if we wanted to take the risk..........like anyone gambling, you can't gamble indefinitly if you are losing.

 

 

don't bother competing then, like Ashley. You have what you wanted.

 

 

compete as and when you can....we didn't compete very hard when signignkevin gallacher and such as we were in no position. the financial position of the club has to change before we can hope to compete.

 

will you come clean and admit you'd like the club, even though it may well lose £30mill this financial year,added on to previous losses and poor on field performances (under both regimes), to borrow more to compete with the top 4 ?

 

even you don't think fred would have followed that route.

 

of course I realise this, but don't you realise that making a profit in 3 transfer windows while watching us go down is not "re-building".

 

 

big profit or smallish change compared the losses the club is making. i'm willing to wager the next financial results will show a £30mill-ish loss and yes i'd rather ashley had spent more of his money on re building. it would have been his money as i doubt we'd have gotr money from elsewhere.

 

he took over a club in the s*** and hasn't improved its position.

 

I'm fed up of going on about this mate. To be successful you have to compete and take risks. Newcastle United are one of the biggest clubs in the country so should behave like one. If they don't, then we have the wrong owners. And if we don't, and especially if we make profits in transfer windows like we have done, we are right back to the old days of being a selling and underachieving club. There is no way back to the top other than competing at the levels it demands. UV made a post ages ago spelling out methods of finding money, which has to be spent well, and you have to be realistic and realise that not everybody appoints the right manager every time. But a good board backs their appointment, and refuses to settle for mediocrity when they get it wrong.

 

Having a board with no ambition, will result in a massive drop in revenue - as happened when we were last run for decades by a board with no ambition, and leaves you further away than ever. We are certainly - now - heading the way of Leeds and Sheff Wed, and a host of other clubs who have found themselves in the old 3rd division, but we were not heading this way under the old board.

 

End of story. You won't change my mind. Because I'm confident that time will show that I am right, and if nothing changes in the foreseeable future, you and others like you will look back on the old board as the highlight and best years of your time supporting the club, because it is certainly mine.

 

 

 

 

so fred was "the wrong owner"as even you say he wouldn't have competed with the top 4 (thats why he brought allardyce in).

 

so where was the money going to come from....club needing to lend to pay its current debts, future revenue stream of sponsorship already gone years in advance. even if we got more credit we wouldn'thave got much....

 

WHERE WAS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM AND THEN DO WE DO THE SAME NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER AND AFTER IF WE PERFORMED AS WE HAVE DONE OVER THE PAST FEW SEASONS ?

 

PS time won't tell as we wont know where fred would have took us and my guess is that, for all it's bad now, it would have been worse had he stayed.

[Thespence]

Good article by Paddy Barclay

 

Taxpayer suffers as football tops reckless gamblers’ league

 

About a year ago I asked the press department of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the body charged with collecting taxes and duties on behalf of us all, to provide a figure for the total amount of public money lost through financial failures of football clubs (from the damned Leeds United down) over the past decade. An officer said he would be in touch. I am still waiting.

 

It was a little disappointing, given the assumption of a common interest in checking the public purse, to have the discovery dawn that not everyone at HMRC was wholeheartedly on the side of vigilance, but fortunately others were alert to the point I intended to make and the best estimates at the time suggested that up to £50 million had been written off.

 

The figure went beyond my worst fears and, to this day, I cannot understand why so much fuss is made about fat-cat utility chairmen and bankers’ pensions when football, arguably the most conspicuously profligate industry in the land, is allowed to run off with such a huge slice of our diminishing cake.

 

The distinction that Sir Fred Goodwin and his like are benefiting from our bail-outs is blurred at best. Football is not a purely private industry. If it were, it would not have been given £120 million of public money to purchase the Wembley site on which our national stadium has been so handsomely rebuilt — and from which football alone benefits financially.

 

The issue is pertinent because, after the recent worsening of Southampton’s plight (a council buyout of the stadium is one mooted answer to the threat of administration), we hear that their greatest rivals, Portsmouth, face a huge tax bill that is three months overdue. So the financial crisis, it appears, stalks even the Barclays Premier League, for all the riches that are to continue flowing in from television.

 

In which case there is no excuse for it. Clubs who splash out money they have no realistic hope of recovering to buy success (such as the FA Cup that Portsmouth won under Harry Redknapp) have no right to special treatment from a wider public, many of whom have no interest in football generally, let alone a particular club, and some of whom support other clubs who take pains to balance their books.

 

Football does not have to run up large debts. It does so only through the self-indulgence of reckless gambling, as in the case of Leeds, and other forms of maladministration. And yet it is allowed to get away with having rules that arrogantly push the taxpayer aside when a club goes bust only to regroup under new ownership, again as at Leeds: both the Premier and Football Leagues insist that “football debts” (outstanding payments to other clubs in relation to transfers, for example) must be settled before any others, including obligations to the public purse.

 

The Government should stop this scandal. It would make a fine start to the review of regulatory practice that everyone now agrees is necessary. Meanwhile the football authorities should rethink their attitudes to debt just as Uefa, under the leadership of Michel Platini, has done. To behave as if the free market is not in utter disgrace insults the public.

 

They should drop the offending rule — well intentioned though it is — and ensure that football, which can afford to pay its debts to society, does so. The phrase “football in the community” would resonate all the more for it.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/patrick_barclay/article6083144.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

 

 

[madras]

Good article by Paddy Barclay

 

Taxpayer suffers as football tops reckless gamblers’ league

 

About a year ago I asked the press department of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the body charged with collecting taxes and duties on behalf of us all, to provide a figure for the total amount of public money lost through financial failures of football clubs (from the damned Leeds United down) over the past decade. An officer said he would be in touch. I am still waiting.

 

It was a little disappointing, given the assumption of a common interest in checking the public purse, to have the discovery dawn that not everyone at HMRC was wholeheartedly on the side of vigilance, but fortunately others were alert to the point I intended to make and the best estimates at the time suggested that up to £50 million had been written off.

 

The figure went beyond my worst fears and, to this day, I cannot understand why so much fuss is made about fat-cat utility chairmen and bankers’ pensions when football, arguably the most conspicuously profligate industry in the land, is allowed to run off with such a huge slice of our diminishing cake.

 

The distinction that Sir Fred Goodwin and his like are benefiting from our bail-outs is blurred at best. Football is not a purely private industry. If it were, it would not have been given £120 million of public money to purchase the Wembley site on which our national stadium has been so handsomely rebuilt — and from which football alone benefits financially.

 

The issue is pertinent because, after the recent worsening of Southampton’s plight (a council buyout of the stadium is one mooted answer to the threat of administration), we hear that their greatest rivals, Portsmouth, face a huge tax bill that is three months overdue. So the financial crisis, it appears, stalks even the Barclays Premier League, for all the riches that are to continue flowing in from television.

 

In which case there is no excuse for it. Clubs who splash out money they have no realistic hope of recovering to buy success (such as the FA Cup that Portsmouth won under Harry Redknapp) have no right to special treatment from a wider public, many of whom have no interest in football generally, let alone a particular club, and some of whom support other clubs who take pains to balance their books.

 

Football does not have to run up large debts. It does so only through the self-indulgence of reckless gambling, as in the case of Leeds, and other forms of maladministration. And yet it is allowed to get away with having rules that arrogantly push the taxpayer aside when a club goes bust only to regroup under new ownership, again as at Leeds: both the Premier and Football Leagues insist that “football debts” (outstanding payments to other clubs in relation to transfers, for example) must be settled before any others, including obligations to the public purse.

 

The Government should stop this scandal. It would make a fine start to the review of regulatory practice that everyone now agrees is necessary. Meanwhile the football authorities should rethink their attitudes to debt just as Uefa, under the leadership of Michel Platini, has done. To behave as if the free market is not in utter disgrace insults the public.

 

They should drop the offending rule — well intentioned though it is — and ensure that football, which can afford to pay its debts to society, does so. The phrase “football in the community” would resonate all the more for it.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/patrick_barclay/article6083144.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

 

 

just borrow the money they need.....simples.

[NE5]

Good article by Paddy Barclay

 

Taxpayer suffers as football tops reckless gamblers’ league

 

About a year ago I asked the press department of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the body charged with collecting taxes and duties on behalf of us all, to provide a figure for the total amount of public money lost through financial failures of football clubs (from the damned Leeds United down) over the past decade. An officer said he would be in touch. I am still waiting.

 

It was a little disappointing, given the assumption of a common interest in checking the public purse, to have the discovery dawn that not everyone at HMRC was wholeheartedly on the side of vigilance, but fortunately others were alert to the point I intended to make and the best estimates at the time suggested that up to £50 million had been written off.

 

The figure went beyond my worst fears and, to this day, I cannot understand why so much fuss is made about fat-cat utility chairmen and bankers’ pensions when football, arguably the most conspicuously profligate industry in the land, is allowed to run off with such a huge slice of our diminishing cake.

 

The distinction that Sir Fred Goodwin and his like are benefiting from our bail-outs is blurred at best. Football is not a purely private industry. If it were, it would not have been given £120 million of public money to purchase the Wembley site on which our national stadium has been so handsomely rebuilt — and from which football alone benefits financially.

 

The issue is pertinent because, after the recent worsening of Southampton’s plight (a council buyout of the stadium is one mooted answer to the threat of administration), we hear that their greatest rivals, Portsmouth, face a huge tax bill that is three months overdue. So the financial crisis, it appears, stalks even the Barclays Premier League, for all the riches that are to continue flowing in from television.

 

In which case there is no excuse for it. Clubs who splash out money they have no realistic hope of recovering to buy success (such as the FA Cup that Portsmouth won under Harry Redknapp) have no right to special treatment from a wider public, many of whom have no interest in football generally, let alone a particular club, and some of whom support other clubs who take pains to balance their books.

 

Football does not have to run up large debts. It does so only through the self-indulgence of reckless gambling, as in the case of Leeds, and other forms of maladministration. And yet it is allowed to get away with having rules that arrogantly push the taxpayer aside when a club goes bust only to regroup under new ownership, again as at Leeds: both the Premier and Football Leagues insist that “football debts” (outstanding payments to other clubs in relation to transfers, for example) must be settled before any others, including obligations to the public purse.

 

The Government should stop this scandal. It would make a fine start to the review of regulatory practice that everyone now agrees is necessary. Meanwhile the football authorities should rethink their attitudes to debt just as Uefa, under the leadership of Michel Platini, has done. To behave as if the free market is not in utter disgrace insults the public.

 

They should drop the offending rule — well intentioned though it is — and ensure that football, which can afford to pay its debts to society, does so. The phrase “football in the community” would resonate all the more for it.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/patrick_barclay/article6083144.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

 

 

just borrow the money they need.....simples.

 

aye, just think. If 91 clubs all went bust, we would be champions of England.

 

 

[madras]

Good article by Paddy Barclay

 

Taxpayer suffers as football tops reckless gamblers’ league

 

About a year ago I asked the press department of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the body charged with collecting taxes and duties on behalf of us all, to provide a figure for the total amount of public money lost through financial failures of football clubs (from the damned Leeds United down) over the past decade. An officer said he would be in touch. I am still waiting.

 

It was a little disappointing, given the assumption of a common interest in checking the public purse, to have the discovery dawn that not everyone at HMRC was wholeheartedly on the side of vigilance, but fortunately others were alert to the point I intended to make and the best estimates at the time suggested that up to £50 million had been written off.

 

The figure went beyond my worst fears and, to this day, I cannot understand why so much fuss is made about fat-cat utility chairmen and bankers’ pensions when football, arguably the most conspicuously profligate industry in the land, is allowed to run off with such a huge slice of our diminishing cake.

 

The distinction that Sir Fred Goodwin and his like are benefiting from our bail-outs is blurred at best. Football is not a purely private industry. If it were, it would not have been given £120 million of public money to purchase the Wembley site on which our national stadium has been so handsomely rebuilt — and from which football alone benefits financially.

 

The issue is pertinent because, after the recent worsening of Southampton’s plight (a council buyout of the stadium is one mooted answer to the threat of administration), we hear that their greatest rivals, Portsmouth, face a huge tax bill that is three months overdue. So the financial crisis, it appears, stalks even the Barclays Premier League, for all the riches that are to continue flowing in from television.

 

In which case there is no excuse for it. Clubs who splash out money they have no realistic hope of recovering to buy success (such as the FA Cup that Portsmouth won under Harry Redknapp) have no right to special treatment from a wider public, many of whom have no interest in football generally, let alone a particular club, and some of whom support other clubs who take pains to balance their books.

 

Football does not have to run up large debts. It does so only through the self-indulgence of reckless gambling, as in the case of Leeds, and other forms of maladministration. And yet it is allowed to get away with having rules that arrogantly push the taxpayer aside when a club goes bust only to regroup under new ownership, again as at Leeds: both the Premier and Football Leagues insist that “football debts” (outstanding payments to other clubs in relation to transfers, for example) must be settled before any others, including obligations to the public purse.

 

The Government should stop this scandal. It would make a fine start to the review of regulatory practice that everyone now agrees is necessary. Meanwhile the football authorities should rethink their attitudes to debt just as Uefa, under the leadership of Michel Platini, has done. To behave as if the free market is not in utter disgrace insults the public.

 

They should drop the offending rule — well intentioned though it is — and ensure that football, which can afford to pay its debts to society, does so. The phrase “football in the community” would resonate all the more for it.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/patrick_barclay/article6083144.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

 

 

just borrow the money they need.....simples.

 

aye, just think. If 91 clubs all went bust, we would be champions of England.

 

 

we'd also be bottom of the league.

[NE5]

Good article by Paddy Barclay

 

Taxpayer suffers as football tops reckless gamblers’ league

 

About a year ago I asked the press department of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the body charged with collecting taxes and duties on behalf of us all, to provide a figure for the total amount of public money lost through financial failures of football clubs (from the damned Leeds United down) over the past decade. An officer said he would be in touch. I am still waiting.

 

It was a little disappointing, given the assumption of a common interest in checking the public purse, to have the discovery dawn that not everyone at HMRC was wholeheartedly on the side of vigilance, but fortunately others were alert to the point I intended to make and the best estimates at the time suggested that up to £50 million had been written off.

 

The figure went beyond my worst fears and, to this day, I cannot understand why so much fuss is made about fat-cat utility chairmen and bankers’ pensions when football, arguably the most conspicuously profligate industry in the land, is allowed to run off with such a huge slice of our diminishing cake.

 

The distinction that Sir Fred Goodwin and his like are benefiting from our bail-outs is blurred at best. Football is not a purely private industry. If it were, it would not have been given £120 million of public money to purchase the Wembley site on which our national stadium has been so handsomely rebuilt — and from which football alone benefits financially.

 

The issue is pertinent because, after the recent worsening of Southampton’s plight (a council buyout of the stadium is one mooted answer to the threat of administration), we hear that their greatest rivals, Portsmouth, face a huge tax bill that is three months overdue. So the financial crisis, it appears, stalks even the Barclays Premier League, for all the riches that are to continue flowing in from television.

 

In which case there is no excuse for it. Clubs who splash out money they have no realistic hope of recovering to buy success (such as the FA Cup that Portsmouth won under Harry Redknapp) have no right to special treatment from a wider public, many of whom have no interest in football generally, let alone a particular club, and some of whom support other clubs who take pains to balance their books.

 

Football does not have to run up large debts. It does so only through the self-indulgence of reckless gambling, as in the case of Leeds, and other forms of maladministration. And yet it is allowed to get away with having rules that arrogantly push the taxpayer aside when a club goes bust only to regroup under new ownership, again as at Leeds: both the Premier and Football Leagues insist that “football debts” (outstanding payments to other clubs in relation to transfers, for example) must be settled before any others, including obligations to the public purse.

 

The Government should stop this scandal. It would make a fine start to the review of regulatory practice that everyone now agrees is necessary. Meanwhile the football authorities should rethink their attitudes to debt just as Uefa, under the leadership of Michel Platini, has done. To behave as if the free market is not in utter disgrace insults the public.

 

They should drop the offending rule — well intentioned though it is — and ensure that football, which can afford to pay its debts to society, does so. The phrase “football in the community” would resonate all the more for it.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/patrick_barclay/article6083144.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

 

 

just borrow the money they need.....simples.

 

aye, just think. If 91 clubs all went bust, we would be champions of England.

 

 

we'd also be bottom of the league.

 

its the only hope we have of succeeding under Ashley.

 

 

[ikri]

Oops

 

Creditors of Liverpool owner Tom Hicks say Hicks Sports Group is in default on debts of £351m. (Wall Street Journal)

 

So he's defaulted on some of the debts he's run up in buying teams in the US & he and George Gillet are desperately scrabbling around looking to renegotiate the loan that they used to buy Liverpool.

 

July could be a very interesting time in the Premiership.