I hope you now realise...

[Guest Mantis]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

Smoke and mirrors covering for a monumental cock-up by MA of not doing the appropriate checks and his outpourings were his get out clause for spending almost F*** all on players.  The world of top flight football runs on debt.  It is not like we were struggling for turnover.

[Zero]

Well....put it straight, we should realize that nowadays only clubs with Abrahimovich-like owner can survive and success.

Ashley's idea that the club can balance its own income and expense is fucking naive --- which I agree to be honest.

 

Parky, not saying that your idea is wrong.  However just think --- the club needs large amount of debt to survive in EPL, and unless you have an excellent run in UEFA competition you will definitely make a loss every year.

Then who's going to pay the debt?

 

In the end it's not the debt that matters, it's the owner's willingness to sacrifice his own money for the club.

[Parky]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

Smoke and mirrors covering for a monumental cock-up by MA of not doing the appropriate checks and his outpourings were his get out clause for spending almost F*** all on players.  The world of top flight football runs on debt.  It is not like we were struggling for turnover.

 

By Jove! I believe we have a winner!

[quayside]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

Smoke and mirrors covering for a monumental cock-up by MA of not doing the appropriate checks and his outpourings were his get out clause for spending almost F*** all on players.  The world of top flight football runs on debt.  It is not like we were struggling for turnover.

 

 

Yes - and because of that huge turnover we were the 13th richest club in the world don't you know, with accumulated trading losses of £92 million and only insolvent by £16 million or so.

 

There are two separate issues - the state of the club pre Ashley and Ashley's catastrophic handling of it.

[Teasy]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

Smoke and mirrors covering for a monumental cock-up by MA of not doing the appropriate checks and his outpourings were his get out clause for spending almost F*** all on players.  The world of top flight football runs on debt.  It is not like we were struggling for turnover.

 

By Jove! I believe we have a winner!

 

Just more people who don't understand the situation we were in.  I don't know where to begin with UV's post, it beggars belief..

 

Anyway it seems its always being said in these kind of threads that the debt itself wasn't the issue, the continued and in fact worsening losses each year were the problem, but it just never sinks in with some.

[quayside]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

OK - Ill have a go at that point by point.

 

You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security.

 

Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans:

 

£43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016.

 

£13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010.

 

£4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground.

 

£8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue.

 

£1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground.

 

 

Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed.

 

Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club?

 

The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap.

 

Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it?  On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I havent seen it. 

 

Of course the club didnt go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?.

 

I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do.

 

can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that.

 

Sorry mate don't understand your reply there - unless its a response to Parky's  post "Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it." immediately above your post.

[madras]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point.

 

You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security.

 

Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans:

 

• £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016.

 

• £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010.

 

• £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground.

 

• £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue.

 

• £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground.

 

 

Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed.

 

Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club?

 

The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap.

 

Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it?  On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. 

 

Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?.

 

I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do.

 

can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that.

 

Sorry mate don't understand your reply there - unless its a response to Parky's  post "Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it." immediately above your post.

it was, i just happened to miss out the bit i was referring to.

[quayside]

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. 

 

In 2007? Banks were still lending money hand over fist to anyone who could lie on an application form then weren't they?

 

Regardless, what makes you think the club needed significant extra borrowing anyway? In 06-07 IIRC the club had around £10m more going out than coming in, which is around the same amount as was spent on transfers. In the 07-08 season the TV revenues increased and brought in £18m more revenue than in the previous year. In actual fact the total revenue increased by £12m (we weren't in Europe that season). If we'd had another £10m transfer budget, and maintained the same wage level (a number of high earners were removed from the wage bill in Summer 07 - Parker, Dyer, Emre, Luque, Carr, Babayaro, Solano) we'd have broken even or made a profit. The club had a large enough turnover to make it self-sustaining. We could afford to spend more than most other clubs in the league. We didn't need a billionaire to support us.

 

The debt was £70m of which £45m was a fixed long term loan for the stadium expansion which easily paid for it's own interest repayments. That leaves £25m attributable to the running of the club over the previous 15 years. Look at the debt of other clubs from their 07-08 accounts. Only Blackburn and the newly promoted teams had a debt less than £25m. Only 7 had a debt less than £60m, and we had a far bigger turnover than those clubs. We were the 12th/13th richest club in the world, and we couldn't afford the repayments on a £70m loan? Give me a break.

 

The only reason the debt has spiralled in the last couple of years is due to the increase in wages from £62m to £76m, and because of Ashley's pay up front for incoming transfers policy. Neither of which was necessary or inevitable.

 

Did we go bankrupt in 2001 when the debt was £67m and turnover was £55m? No.

Unmanageable debt? Financial disaster? Inevitable bankruptcy? Don't make me laugh.

 

OK - I’ll have a go at that point by point.

 

You are confusing personal debt with corporate debt. Banks have never been happy to lend money to businesses unless there was adequate security. By July 2007 every asset and revenue source the club had was in hock and had been used as collateral for loans. And for just about every loan the club had taken out the bank had demanded security.

 

Just for your info at 30th June 2007 the club had the following loans:

 

• £43 million at rates of between 7.36% and 7.65% secured on future ticket sales and corporate hospitality revenues (and not secured on the stadium as is widely believed). These loan notes matured in equal instalments up to 2016.

 

• £13.1 million at 8.55% secured on future sponsorship income repayable half yearly up to July 2010.

 

• £4.5 million at LIBOR + 2.25%.secured on the training ground.

 

• £8 million at 11.72% secured on future broadcasting revenue.

 

• £1.5 million interest free secured as a second charge over the training ground.

 

 

Why then is a bank suddenly going to lend unsecured money to a business that has the above loans already, has accumulated trading trading losses of £92 million and is technically insolvent? When you factor in the fact that the club was lower mid table and not progressing it makes it even more unattractive. The club was screwed.

 

Your belief that the wage bill could be contained is naïve. The likes of Parker, Dyer, Solano, Luque, and Babayaro (there was also Bramble, Moore and Onyewu) all had to be replaced. And let us not forget that the person who got rid of those players and then set about replacing them with players on higher wages was the chosen manager of the previous board. So it would have all been different under Shepherd and co eh? No negotiations of terms took place with Viduka and Barton until Ashley owned the club?

 

The point about us being the 13th richest club in the world is and always has been complete and utter tripe. The table of richest clubs produced by Deloitte is based purely on income and takes no account whatsoever of costs or net worth. Leeds were 16th on that list in 2004 ffs. If you earn £1 million a year and your costs are £1.5 million a year and you are £1 million in debt you are worth £1 million are you? Like hell you are. No wonder people think we are deluded if we believe that crap.

 

Yes the debt spiraled due partly to the wages increase as a result of the players brought in by Allardyce. But of course that would not have happened if Allardyce had been working under Shepherd and co would it?  On the point about payment up front of transfer fees I know this was done in the January window for Nolan. If there is any evidence that it was done for every player bought since Ashley arrived I haven’t seen it. 

 

Of course the club didn’t go bankrupt in 2001. At that point the club was still solvent, so why would it go bust?.

 

I have no idea what would have happened if we had continued under the previous board but it is nothing short of blind denial if you think the clubs financial position was fine and easily manageable. Sh1t stinks - it always has done and always will do.

 

can't find the bit where he says they do. football clubs do have to be able to finance their loans and other debts etc. you seem to have ignored that.

 

Sorry mate don't understand your reply there - unless its a response to Parky's  post "Football clubs rarely make money Quay. Live with it." immediately above your post.

it was, i just happened to miss out the bit i was referring to.

 

No worries 

[Teasy]

Well....put it straight, we should realize that nowadays only clubs with Abrahimovich-like owner can survive and success.

Ashley's idea that the club can balance its own income and expense is fucking naive --- which I agree to be honest.

 

True for most clubs but not ours, we have the raw material to be succesfull without the need for a owner to subsidise us.  Problem is we've been disgustingly miss managed over the years which did leave us in a position were we needed to be subsidised until that could be brought under control.  However if our wage bill was anywhere near a reasonable level (not talking about low, just not the 5th highest in the fucking league when we were mid table with no Europe) we would easily have had enough money to not only survive but succeed with a decent chairman and manager.  A £100m turnover without even being in Europe afforded us that opportunity, and the likes of Shepherd and Ashley pissed all over it.

[brummie]

My point is that operating in the PL the club could carry 100m debt. It was MA sole drive to get debt down so he could sell, no other reason. His spin caused blind panic on this here and other football boards.

yes clubs could carry 100mill of debt...if they werent already paying out more than was coming in and having to borrow to pay its current loans.

 

Every single PL club is carrying debt, varrying from 700m (Chelsea) to 1m (Hull). If you don't stay in the PL that is the quickest way of going out of business.

doesn't in anyway address what i was saying. in my numerous discussions with ne5 i had to constantly state that i don't think debt is necessarily a bad thing contrary to how he tried to portray me.

 

Well if a PL club don't have debt I'd fire the board as they clearly aren't trying.

 

Bolton, Everton, Pompey and Villa all have debt between 40-80m.  How do they continue???

maybe they aren't borrowing 30mill a year to finance that debt.

 

(villa have lerner to back it up and pompey couldn't do it, thats the main reason their owner sold them)

 

Villa's debts are to Lerner.

 

When benevolent billionaires pump money into football clubs, they don't just stick it in their bank account, they do what RA does at Chelsea and make it a loan to the club.

 

Then if they sell the club, it is a loan which is due repayment from the new owners.

[brummie]

Shit, I just recussitated a really old thread, apols.

 

EDIT and engaged in the worst bit of spelling I've carried out since i was at school

[cp40]

I wonder whare we would be If ashley had given half the money he has lost to Keegan, ... europe i rekon.

[Guest fading star]

Has Keegan ever failed to do the business when he’s been given funds?

[madras]

Has Keegan ever failed to do the business when he’s been given funds?

what if the people before you got all the funds ?

[TRon]

Has Keegan ever failed to do the business when hes been given funds?

what if the people before you got all the funds ?

 

You'd probably walk away and sue the club for false promises.

 

 

[Parky]

Has Keegan ever failed to do the business when he’s been given funds?

 

Nobody will give a direct ans to that. 

[madras]

Has Keegan ever failed to do the business when hes been given funds?

what if the people before you got all the funds ?

 

You'd probably walk away and sue the club for false promises.

 

 

i'd still like it to go to court to find out.

[Parky]

Has Keegan ever failed to do the business when hes been given funds?

what if the people before you got all the funds ?

 

You'd probably walk away and sue the club for false promises.

 

 

i'd still like it to go to court to find out.

 

Et moi. 

[Matt]

Businesses don't go bust because they have too much debt- they go bust because they run out of cash.

 

NUFC were running out of cash at a staggering rate in 2007 and were severly overdrawn, having already front-loaded cash income on sponsorship deals and leaking cash on the wage bill. It had little do to with interest costs from the debt.

 

[Guest fading star]

Businesses don't go bust because they have too much debt- they go bust because they run out of cash.

 

NUFC were running out of cash at a staggering rate in 2007 and were severly overdrawn, having already front-loaded cash income on sponsorship deals and leaking cash on the wage bill. It had little do to with interest costs from the debt.

 

How would you describe the rate we’ll be running out of cash this season?

 

[madras]

Businesses don't go bust because they have too much debt- they go bust because they run out of cash.

 

NUFC were running out of cash at a staggering rate in 2007 and were severly overdrawn, having already front-loaded cash income on sponsorship deals and leaking cash on the wage bill. It had little do to with interest costs from the debt.

 

How would you describe the rate we’ll be running out of cash this season?

 

undoubtdly worse. as we did last year aswell, lucky at the time we had someone who'd cover it eh ?

[bovineblue]

....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. 

 

And then what?  Do you suggest racking up more and more debt to remain competitive?

[madras]

....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. 

 

And then what?  Do you suggest racking up more and more debt to remain competitive?

yip. he does

[bovineblue]

....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. 

 

And then what?  Do you suggest racking up more and more debt to remain competitive?

yip. he does

 

[TRon]

....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. 

 

And then what?  Do you suggest racking up more and more debt to remain competitive?

 

We have sucessfully cut our debts and where are we competing now?