Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I would rather be in sunny Spain than rainy and cold Finland right now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest elbee909 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Is that really sustainable though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm not sure I follow you. It's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL w/o debt just because Ashley made a series of monumental cock ups? So if I hire a bunch of retards to build a new house it's the fault of the blueprints if it collapses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Who exactly are you addressing, Parky? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. But the £70 million has become more than £100 million and it is still a debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Who exactly are you addressing, Parky? Everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. But the £70 million has become more than £100 million and it is still a debt. Have a look at Fulham's debt to turnover ratio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. But the £70 million has become more than £100 million and it is still a debt. Have a look at Fulham's debt to turnover ratio. I was responding to your statement that the £70 million of debt has disappeared. When in fact it has increased. I don't know much about Fulham, what their debt is and who it is owed to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Was our debt even manageable? There would have had to have been cuts if Shepherd had stayed just like there were cuts when Ashley came in. There's only so much debt you can get into before it gets out of hand and you either have to win something or sell a few of your more valuable players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Was our debt even manageable? There would have had to have been cuts if Shepherd had stayed just like there were cuts when Ashley came in. There's only so much debt you can get into before it gets out of hand and you either have to win something or sell a few of your more valuable players. I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I'm not sure I follow you. It's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL w/o debt just because Ashley made a series of monumental cock ups? So if I hire a bunch of retards to build a new house it's the fault of the blueprints if it collapses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Yeah, obviously. But that debt was still there the day we got relegated. It's only since then it's been written off (and even that looks iffy) - so debt levels had nothing to do with our being relegated. He increased them during our stint in the top flight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Yeah, obviously. But that debt was still there the day we got relegated. It's only since then it's been written off (and even that looks iffy) - so debt levels had nothing to do with our being relegated. He increased them during our stint in the top flight. We were relegated primarily for not investing in new players in the 3 windows, it was argued at the time here and elsewhere and by Mashley that we had to get the books in order first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Yeah, obviously. But that debt was still there the day we got relegated. It's only since then it's been written off (and even that looks iffy) - so debt levels had nothing to do with our being relegated. He increased them during our stint in the top flight. We were relegated primarily for not investing in new players in the 3 windows, it was argued at the time here and elsewhere and by Mashley that we had to get the books in order first. That was just idiocy. I don't think there was anyone here who argued that we needed to get the books in order first, it's pretty clear to all but an idiot of world class standards that £10m spent on players is a smaller loss than £100m on relegation. The long term planning was to get the books in better shape I think, but it was pure stupidity to get us relegated the way we did. I don't think debt is "needed" to survive, but there was no way we were going to get rid of that much and be able to compete. As has been apparent for some time, he thought he could change the business model without knowing anything about football. Stupid fucking cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Who says he's written it off? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Yeah, obviously. But that debt was still there the day we got relegated. It's only since then it's been written off (and even that looks iffy) - so debt levels had nothing to do with our being relegated. He increased them during our stint in the top flight. We were relegated primarily for not investing in new players in the 3 windows, it was argued at the time here and elsewhere and by Mashley that we had to get the books in order first. Maybe, but the apathy around the January transfer when it was obvious to everyone that improvements to the squad had to be done beggared belief. That was the critical window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I think this was the problem. By 2007 the club had borrowed against every asset it had and there was nowhere else to go. Given the precarious financial position at that time I doubt any bank would have lent further funds unless there was security. I still can't work out how Shepherd thought he was going to get out of that mess, he didn't want to sell up like Hall did, so he must have thought he could carry on. Either he had a cunning plan or he was deluded about the financial status of the club. Same here. That's a reason why Ashley transferred all the debt into "shareholder's loan". I couldn't figure out how Shepherd can sort out that mess too. Would that be related to the casino expansion plan? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Is that really sustainable though? No it isn't. But football's business model is totally unsustainable. 15 years ago Jack Walker could bankroll Blackburn to the title. Now you have to be a serious billionaire just to have a shot at the top four. In our case, a billionaire couldn't even keep us in the league! And yet you look at these wealthy owners and none of them are making any money from it. That's fine so long as they're willing to hang in there, but there's only so many billionaire's and only so many places towards the top of the league. As TV revenue and fan money gets hit by the recession, it'll have to be replaced by rich men's money to stop the house of cards from falling down. But when their hundreds of millions buys them midtable glory, how many will stay the course? Huge debt is becoming par for the course just to keep up with those around you. Any struggling club that pockets money in January is asking for a relegation battle. I can't quite tell whether we've gone down at a good time - just before football's bubble bursts - giving us a chance to refinance ourselves and come back up with a much more sustainable business than teams around us, or whether we've gone down at the worst possible time - when investment is very hard to come by. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ....it's not possible to stay in/compete in the PL without racking up debt. I'd rather still owe the 70m and be in the PL. Who's been relegated from the PL without debt then? Are you being thick? Don't we owe MA £100m? He's written it off. But, I'd rather still owe the 70m debt the club had 2 years ago and remain in the PL. Comprende? Yeah, obviously. But that debt was still there the day we got relegated. It's only since then it's been written off (and even that looks iffy) - so debt levels had nothing to do with our being relegated. He increased them during our stint in the top flight. We were relegated primarily for not investing in new players in the 3 windows, it was argued at the time here and elsewhere and by Mashley that we had to get the books in order first. That was just idiocy. I don't think there was anyone here who argued that we needed to get the books in order first, it's pretty clear to all but an idiot of world class standards that £10m spent on players is a smaller loss than £100m on relegation. The long term planning was to get the books in better shape I think, but it was pure stupidity to get us relegated the way we did. I don't think debt is "needed" to survive, but there was no way we were going to get rid of that much and be able to compete. As has been apparent for some time, he thought he could change the business model without knowing anything about football. Stupid fucking cunt. Admitted it himself the chipmunk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Its just a pitty you still don't realise that the £70m debt wasn't the issue Parky. The problem was our continued and unmanagable losses, which were getting further and further out of control each year. Its just a shame that Ashley's moronic decision making, particularly managerial appointments, has taken away what was a great opportunity to stabilise our finances. With some of our more obsenely overpaid players due to leave we really could have gotten sorted financially and moved forwards had we stayed in the Premiership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now