RIP sale thread.

[Big Geordie]

Have said it before, but for a man who is said to be desperate to get shot of the club, Ashley isn't half hanging onto it for dear life. He'll be hoping we can get promoted on the cheap, then he can whack the asking price back up to £250-300million.

[TRon]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

 

Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it?  Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership if we get back up and push us on.  What I'm saying is he won't need his own money to get new players and add to the wage bill because our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m).  That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a big extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue.  Are you telling me that £30m+ is not enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up?  Obviously the season after we'll generate more cash and can use that to push on.  As long as we don't do a Shepherd and take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table and sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need.

 

If I'd known it's that easy, I'd have put in a bid myself.

 

Seriously though, we will be in a much better financial position if we get promoted this season, you're right. Ashley would have basically taken the hit for Shepherd's mismanagement and we'd probably end up having screwed him over more than the other way around. The club might well be in the position to make a profit, but we all know it's not as simple as that, and no, I'm not sure that £30m is enough to keep us in the Premiership if it's supposed to cover fees and wages and everything else.

 

I'm no fan of Shepherd but if Ashley has taken a hit he's brought most of it on himself with his myopic gambling on staying in the Premiership without investing in the squad.

[Teasy]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

 

Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it?  Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership if we get back up and push us on.  What I'm saying is he won't need his own money to get new players and add to the wage bill because our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m).  That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a big extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue.  Are you telling me that £30m+ is not enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up?  Obviously the season after we'll generate more cash and can use that to push on.  As long as we don't do a Shepherd and take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table and sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need.

 

If I'd known it's that easy, I'd have put in a bid myself.

 

Seriously though, we will be in a much better financial position if we get promoted this season, you're right. Ashley would have basically taken the hit for Shepherd's mismanagement and we'd probably end up having screwed him over more than the other way around. The club might well be in the position to make a profit, but we all know it's not as simple as that, and no, I'm not sure that £30m is enough to keep us in the Premiership if it's supposed to cover fees and wages and everything else.

 

Obviously running the club isn't easy but thats down to decision making rather then cash.  That's why I've always said that what we should be concerned about with Moat is not his money but whether he's got the ability to make the correct decisions at the club.  He has no experience outside of being a fan.

 

IMO £30m plus a small loan of £10m would be more then enough to keep us up.

[Mr Logic]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

 

Now I don't get that statement. In what way could, for instance, FS afford to run it. Once the club is bought you find methods to finance it linked to the revenue the club generates. Few clubs have owners that are running a club with their own money.

[Dave]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

 

Now I don't get that statement. In what way could, for instance, FS afford to run it. Once the club is bought you find methods to finance it linked to the revenue the club generates. Few clubs have owners that are running a club with their own money.

 

Well done for having the patience to write that basic point yet again.

[Mr Logic]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

 

Now I don't get that statement. In what way could, for instance, FS afford to run it. Once the club is bought you find methods to finance it linked to the revenue the club generates. Few clubs have owners that are running a club with their own money.

 

Well done for having the patience to write that basic point yet again.

 

I invariably pick up a thread where I left it previously, when I read a post I want to answer - I answer it. Then often find out my point has already been raised in the following 1, 2 or 3 pages. Sorry if it gets repetitive for you.

[Dave]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

 

Now I don't get that statement. In what way could, for instance, FS afford to run it. Once the club is bought you find methods to finance it linked to the revenue the club generates. Few clubs have owners that are running a club with their own money.

 

Well done for having the patience to write that basic point yet again.

 

I invariably pick up a thread where I left it previously, when I read a post I want to answer - I answer it. Then often find out my point has already been raised in the following 1, 2 or 3 pages. Sorry if it gets repetitive for you.

 

Wasn't having a go at you mate, more the people who don't get it. I've long since got bored of pointing out that we don't need a multi-billionaire to make things better.

[Mr Logic]

 

 

Wasn't having a go at you mate, more the people who don't get it. I've long since got bored of pointing out that we don't need a multi-billionaire to make things better.

 

Glad I never went with my first draft then, the one that called you a sarcy twat.

[Dave]

[indi]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

 

Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it?  Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership if we get back up and push us on.  What I'm saying is he won't need his own money to get new players and add to the wage bill because our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m).  That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a big extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue.  Are you telling me that £30m+ is not enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up?  Obviously the season after we'll generate more cash and can use that to push on.  As long as we don't do a Shepherd and take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table and sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need.

 

If I'd known it's that easy, I'd have put in a bid myself.

 

Seriously though, we will be in a much better financial position if we get promoted this season, you're right. Ashley would have basically taken the hit for Shepherd's mismanagement and we'd probably end up having screwed him over more than the other way around. The club might well be in the position to make a profit, but we all know it's not as simple as that, and no, I'm not sure that £30m is enough to keep us in the Premiership if it's supposed to cover fees and wages and everything else.

 

I'm no fan of Shepherd but if Ashley has taken a hit he's brought most of it on himself with his myopic gambling on staying in the Premiership without investing in the squad.

 

Of course it was a gamble, but the important question is why he took that gamble. A lot of people seem to think that he did it just for the fuck of it or even that he somehow wanted to fuck us over, ignoring the fact that by doing so he'd be fucking himself over too. It's much more logical to assume that he took that risk because he thought it needed to be taken, that the club needed to tighten its belt and become more efficient, to get back to making some money and then progress from there. That view is backed up by both his actions and what he said. He obviously got that gamble wrong, but that doesn't mean it was his intention all along and it doesn't mean that he took it for the wrong reasons.

[indi]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

The BEST we could hope for with him, it seems (which would be 'hopeless', but still better than right now actually) would be 'mid-table Premier League nothingness', like we used to think of Villa, Everton, Spurs, Man City & co.

 

Still, no matter who (if anyone) buys the club, it is difficult to imagine us ever competing 'season in season out' for the Premier League Title  -  which was always the Sir John Hall aim, and is always where a club with such huge support and resources (income) such as us, should always be.

 

If the club generates such huge income (and it does) then why does the owner need to "afford" to run the club?  Fantasty Football style investment like Man City isn't the only way to success.  This club brings in enough money for a good manager to be successful given time.

 

For the likes of Everton and Villa its necessary to have a rich and generous owner to be successful, they've really got no other option.  Obviously it would be nice for us to have one but its not a necessity.

 

Depends how long you want to wait for that "success" and what level of success you're after. If we want anything in the short to medium-term then we're going to need someone who can use their own money for a while until the club's been well and truly sorted out. Years of ineffective and profligate spending have left us in a position where we are making huge losses, have a large amount of debt, and, most importantly, nothing to show for it. To turn that situation around and make progress on the pitch is going to require a lot of investment on the behalf of any new owner. Anyone who comes in without serious financial backing is going to be caught in a Catch-22 situation.

 

We were making big losses, but IF we get back into the Premiership next season we'd no longer be losing money, we'd be making money, mostly due to the massive drop in our wage bill.  Once Geremi and Butt have been released in July our wage bill will be down to less then half what it was last season (in the mid to low 30's).  Our large debt is a £100m loan from the owner with no interest (was £9m per year) and there's no chance any new owner would accept the full debt anyway (no'one will pay £100m plus £100m debt for the club).

 

I think that "IF" needs to be a bit bigger to be honest, also there's no way that the current squad could survive in the Premiership, so to do that would require us to pay out on transfer fees and increase the wage bill. Also, like I said, "success" is a relative term and I can't imagine that many fans would put up with scrabbling around in the lower reaches of the Premiership or being a yo-yo club given recent events. Can you?

 

Well that's the whole point of this discussion though isn't it?  Wether Moat could afford to keep us in the Premiership if we get back up and push us on.  What I'm saying is he won't need his own money to get new players and add to the wage bill because our costs would be so much lower then our revenue that we'd make a large profit (around £30m).  That money would allow us to bring in new players, and if we need a big extra a small bank loan would be easy to come by given we'd be a Premiership club with such a large revenue.  Are you telling me that £30m+ is not enough to keep us in the Premiership the first season we get back up?  Obviously the season after we'll generate more cash and can use that to push on.  As long as we don't do a Shepherd and take on a top 4 wage bill when we're still mid table and sack a manager every year at a cost of £6m plus we'll always have money to spend ourselves and plenty of cash to pay interest on any loans we may need.

 

If I'd known it's that easy, I'd have put in a bid myself.

 

Seriously though, we will be in a much better financial position if we get promoted this season, you're right. Ashley would have basically taken the hit for Shepherd's mismanagement and we'd probably end up having screwed him over more than the other way around. The club might well be in the position to make a profit, but we all know it's not as simple as that, and no, I'm not sure that £30m is enough to keep us in the Premiership if it's supposed to cover fees and wages and everything else.

 

Obviously running the club isn't easy but thats down to decision making rather then cash.  That's why I've always said that what we should be concerned about with Moat is not his money but whether he's got the ability to make the correct decisions at the club.  He has no experience outside of being a fan.

 

IMO £30m plus a small loan of £10m would be more then enough to keep us up.

 

I agree with you. The thing that makes me doubt Moat's ability is this whole overdraft thing, he knew all about it before he made his offer (assuming he has), why is he now struggling so much with it. That smacks of bad preparation, of hope over expectation, and it worries me as we've been there before with Shepherd.

 

Maybe £30-40m would be enough, I never said it wouldn't be, but it's not clear-cut. £30-40m doesn't go that far in the Premiership, especially when you include wages. It'd equate to four or five quality players at most and when you consider the position we'd be starting from it's not implausible for it not to be enough.

[indi]

Moat will never buy the club.

 

. .  and what would be the point of him buying it anyway, he couldn't afford to run it.

 

 

Now I don't get that statement. In what way could, for instance, FS afford to run it. Once the club is bought you find methods to finance it linked to the revenue the club generates. Few clubs have owners that are running a club with their own money.

 

Shepherd couldn't afford to run it though, could he, that's why we ended up in the financial mess we did.

 

You need to be either much richer or much smarter than Freddie Shepherd to make this club work, preferably both.

[Robster]

Of course it was a gamble, but the important question is why he took that gamble. A lot of people seem to think that he did it just for the fuck of it or even that he somehow wanted to fuck us over, ignoring the fact that by doing so he'd be fucking himself over too. It's much more logical to assume that he took that risk because he thought it needed to be taken, that the club needed to tighten its belt and become more efficient, to get back to making some money and then progress from there. That view is backed up by both his actions and what he said. He obviously got that gamble wrong, but that doesn't mean it was his intention all along and it doesn't mean that he took it for the wrong reasons.

There sadly doesnt appear to be too much logic in his decision to advertise the club again, a matter of hours after this gamble went so horribly wrong.

Its not wonder so many people have a cynical attitude towards the man.

[indi]

Of course it was a gamble, but the important question is why he took that gamble. A lot of people seem to think that he did it just for the fuck of it or even that he somehow wanted to fuck us over, ignoring the fact that by doing so he'd be fucking himself over too. It's much more logical to assume that he took that risk because he thought it needed to be taken, that the club needed to tighten its belt and become more efficient, to get back to making some money and then progress from there. That view is backed up by both his actions and what he said. He obviously got that gamble wrong, but that doesn't mean it was his intention all along and it doesn't mean that he took it for the wrong reasons.

There sadly doesnt appear to be too much logic in his decision to advertise the club again, a matter of hours after this gamble went so horribly wrong.

Its not wonder so many people have a cynical attitude towards the man.

 

Of course there's a logic to it, he wanted out, the only way out is to sell the club, therefore he tries to sell the club. That's about the most simple example of logic I can imagine.

[Robster]

Of course there's a logic to it, he wanted out, the only way out is to sell the club, therefore he tries to sell the club. That's about the most simple example of logic I can imagine.

I am not certain his timing made much sense as the club was in its most unsellable state for years (at the price he was asking for)

[Parky]

Is this one of the two offers confirmed a month ago?? [/R1CO]

[Guest VegasToon]

I still don't think he will sell the club. 

[Robster]

I still don't think he will sell the club.   

I agree. 

[GM]

I still don't think he will sell the club.   

I agree. 

 

 

In some ways I'd rather he didn't, tbh.

[indi]

Of course there's a logic to it, he wanted out, the only way out is to sell the club, therefore he tries to sell the club. That's about the most simple example of logic I can imagine.

I am not certain his timing made much sense as the club was in its most unsellable state for years (at the price he was asking for)

 

Only if you assume that making money was his objective. If getting out was his main objective, with a preference for not losing all his money in doing so, then it makes perfect sense because it gives potential buyers the longest possible time to negotiate the takeover before the season starts.

[Nobody]

I still don't think he will sell the club.   

I agree. 

 

 

In some ways I'd rather he didn't, tbh.

Please explain

[Guest Chris P]

I still don't think he will sell the club.   

I agree. 

 

 

In some ways I'd rather he didn't, tbh.

Please explain

OK MA sells to some cunt with even less money than himself

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Another week another dissapointment!

[Dave]

I still don't think he will sell the club.

I agree.

 

 

In some ways I'd rather he didn't, tbh.

Please explain

OK MA sells to some cunt with even less money than himself

 

Aye, Mike Ashley is well skint like. He's only got £800,000,000.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

He will be soon!