AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Keegan and Robson helped put us in financial trouble? I've heard the fucking lot now like. I specifically said I didn't blame them personally, but they worked under the Shepherd regime that managed the finances quite badly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I see alot more discussion of wages and how much worth players have on here nowadays, but I don't see many "We should keep him as he's cheap" or "Get rid of him, he's on too much" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Be interested in anything you like but I'm interested in football. I recognise the club has to leave within its means (the third largest gate in the country), just like it did under Keegan and Robson, but talk of losing a key player, not because he wants more money but because he might not want to take enough of a massive pay cut is beyond ridiculous. It didn't live within its means under Keegan and Robson though, did it? I'm not blaming them personally, but they were part of the regime that overspent enough to put us in financial trouble now. At the end of the 15 years of the old board, disregarding the stadium expansion, the size of the debt due to this "overspending" was around £25m which for a club constantly in the top 20 highest revenue generating clubs in the world is an absolute pittance. To put it in perspective, that's less than the TV revenue alone which was lost due to relegation, or less than drops in non-TV revenue in the last 3 years due to reduced sponsorship, merchandising and ticket sales, or about half of the net profit generated on player sales since Ashley bought the club. Ashley's got the club back on a sound financial footing though by doubling the debt while reducing the squad to a threadbare state so everything's great, lets carry on with more cuts, that'll take us to the next level (down). Give me the kind of "overspending" we did under Keegan and Robson to buy the likes of Shearer, Bellamy & Robert over the idea we need to get rid of Barton so we can bring in 2 more Guthries any day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 So we don't want debt like Man U and Liverpool (Or Arsenal for that matter), we don't want to be the plaything of a rich owner who will buy success like Man City or Chelsea, we don't want a team full of cheap but effective cloggers like debt-free Stoke, we don't want to sign players on £70,000 a week like Spurs, we don't want to be relegated with a team full of has-beens and never-wases like Wigan or West Brom, what kind of club do we want to be and what do we actually want to achieve? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Be interested in anything you like but I'm interested in football. I recognise the club has to leave within its means (the third largest gate in the country), just like it did under Keegan and Robson, but talk of losing a key player, not because he wants more money but because he might not want to take enough of a massive pay cut is beyond ridiculous. It didn't live within its means under Keegan and Robson though, did it? I'm not blaming them personally, but they were part of the regime that overspent enough to put us in financial trouble now. At the end of the 15 years of the old board, disregarding the stadium expansion, the size of the debt due to this "overspending" was around £25m which for a club constantly in the top 20 highest revenue generating clubs in the world is an absolute pittance. To put it in perspective, that's less than the TV revenue alone which was lost due to relegation, or less than drops in non-TV revenue in the last 3 years due to reduced sponsorship, merchandising and ticket sales, or about half of the net profit generated on player sales since Ashley bought the club. Ashley's got the club back on a sound financial footing though by doubling the debt while reducing the squad to a threadbare state so everything's great, lets carry on with more cuts, that'll take us to the next level (down). Give me the kind of "overspending" we did under Keegan and Robson to buy the likes of Shearer, Bellamy & Robert over the idea we need to get rid of Barton so we can bring in 2 more Guthries any day. It's difficult to discuss this when you've simplified my position to a ridiculous degree and assumed things I never said, but anyway. While we were successful and getting in the Champions League we could afford to continue to spend like we were. And the economy also meant that cheap credit was more available. But the decline of this club came before the spending cuts, not because of them. We're only having to trim the spending now because of things that were set in motion back then. If Mike Ashley had inherited a club who were fine financially and succeeding on the pitch, I'm sure he would have been more than happy to let it continue as it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 That'll be the same Man United that are on a financial cliff edge and reported losses of £100m. Have you considered supporting Portsmouth they won the FA Cup the other year. Have the Chicken Littles considered supporting any of the many clubs throughout the leagues who live nice and sensibly, treading water within their means, won't take a punt on the wages or fee of an exciting looking player, sell anyone who develops well during their time at the club if they get a good offer and never show any drive or ambition to improve the club? Wigan seem to be on a pretty sound financial footing, and they won't go into meltdown if they go down, go and watch dull as dishwater Championship Football in their three-quarters empty stadium, much better as a supporter than having £100m debt and 18 premier league titles. Is it the dawn of the internet that's created this breed of fan who seems to support financial facts and figures more than what goes on on the pitch on a match day? So unbelievably wide of the mark, it's untrue. Genuinely staggered that such a (usually) decent poster could be so out of touch/ignorant of other clubs in the league. Surely they are though? i mean, they're following the perfect formula of being owned by a wanker sportswear tycoon, refusing to pay premier league wages and using the main procurement/retention tactic of being a club which will give a premier league stage to players not proven enough to get into most top-tier sides with the understanding they can fuck off as soon as anyone else is interested without difficult decisions about whether to go or accept an improved package to stay. I can't say that the finances of Wigan FC are something even a keen follower of the Premier League would be exposed to much in their day to day media consumption, but the last I heard Whelan was about to pay their remaining debt and leave them totally debt free, which puts them in a Champions League spot in the imaginary table of financial shrewdness, even as they serve up turgid bottom of the league shit to the fans who actually watch them play. http://www.footballtradedirectory.com/news/2011/february/whelan-to-clear-50m-wigan-debt.html Wigan have been racking up operating losses year after year and are only funded by Whelan's pocket - as you've linked to in your own post, despite having threadbare costs and ground-sharing with a rugby team they've managed to rack up 50m of debt during their short stay in the Premiership, even though their net transfer spend is in their favour (by selling any of their decent players, i.e. Valencia, to bigger clubs). Just because Whelan has decided to write off 50m of his own money, a la Abramovich and Chelski, in order for the club to meet these new UEFA constraints doesn't mean that Wigan have shot up the financial table, they've still got the same limited income stream. The whole point of supporting Ashley's 'blueprint' for making the club self-sufficient is so that it won't matter WHO the owner is, NUFC can compete at the top of the league (with the Arsenal's, Liverpools, etc.) as we have the foundations for a top six income stream (3rd largest matchday gate, popular with the TV networks, etc.) - it's not at all similar to Wigan, despite both being owned by market stall wheeler-dealer sports equipment magnates/twats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 So we don't want debt like Man U and Liverpool (Or Arsenal for that matter), we don't want to be the plaything of a rich owner who will buy success like Man City or Chelsea, we don't want a team full of cheap but effective cloggers like debt-free Stoke, we don't want to sign players on £70,000 a week like Spurs, we don't want to be relegated with a team full of has-beens and never-wases like Wigan or West Brom, what kind of club do we want to be and what do we actually want to achieve? If we could afford it I would love us to be signing big players on massive contracts and huge wages. Love nothing more than lining the pockets of footballers, especially if they're actually any good. I'm just not going to criticise us for not doing that if it isn't sustainable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 How about sharing your knowledge with other posters, and correct them where they've went wrong with education, rather than Ronaldo-esque put down posts, that hint you have some secret divine wisdom you very rarely show. I'd love to know/read what you know about Wigan's financial issues. Reasonable posts attract reasonable responses and discussions. Knee-jerk and ureasonable posts attract derisory retorts. Now, I wonder why I rarely end up engaged in a decent discussion? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 How about sharing your knowledge with other posters, and correct them where they've went wrong with education, rather than Ronaldo-esque put down posts, that hint you have some secret divine wisdom you very rarely show. I'd love to know/read what you know about Wigan's financial issues. Reasonable posts attract reasonable responses and discussions. Knee-jerk and ureasonable posts attract derisory retorts. Now, I wonder why I rarely end up engaged in a decent discussion? Lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 How about sharing your knowledge with other posters, and correct them where they've went wrong with education, rather than Ronaldo-esque put down posts, that hint you have some secret divine wisdom you very rarely show. I'd love to know/read what you know about Wigan's financial issues. Reasonable posts attract reasonable responses and discussions. Knee-jerk and ureasonable posts attract derisory retorts. Now, I wonder why I rarely end up engaged in a decent discussion? Which method would you prefer though, a more stable money conscious approach or the free spending 'if they perform pay them' theory Wullie wants to adopt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 For me it just comes down to whether Barton is a player who can still command big wages. There are only a few in our squad who if they didn't get them here could walk away and get a better offer elsewhere. Enrique is one, Tiote is another. Barton has done well for us out wide this season but he's not pulled up any trees since Carroll left. If Barton was able to do his stuff in central midfield I think he'd be worth a lot more, because while Nolan's in there we are going to remain limited. There might be a debate at the moment whether to give Barton a new contract or spend that money on a younger, quicker player with potential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Ultimately, it's the Chairman / owner's job to manage the finances, and they are responsible when things go wrong financially, not the manager. The downside of having the excitement and status of owning a football club is that you do have to disappoint both the fans and the manager, who want to sign or retain particular players who cost more than you can afford. It goes with the territory. That's unless you have so much money that you can outbid every other club, which of course isn't our situation. Shepherd's biggest problem was that he got too involved in the playing side, becoming a kind of Director of Football rather than a Chairman. Everything went more and more haywire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 So we don't want debt like Man U and Liverpool (Or Arsenal for that matter), we don't want to be the plaything of a rich owner who will buy success like Man City or Chelsea, we don't want a team full of cheap but effective cloggers like debt-free Stoke, we don't want to sign players on £70,000 a week like Spurs, we don't want to be relegated with a team full of has-beens and never-wases like Wigan or West Brom, what kind of club do we want to be and what do we actually want to achieve? i wouldn't mind debt like man utd or liverpool, providing we can afford it, i wouldn't mind signing players on wages like spurs, providing we can afford it.................even on a decent projection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 That'll be the same Man United that are on a financial cliff edge and reported losses of £100m. Have you considered supporting Portsmouth they won the FA Cup the other year. Have the Chicken Littles considered supporting any of the many clubs throughout the leagues who live nice and sensibly, treading water within their means, won't take a punt on the wages or fee of an exciting looking player, sell anyone who develops well during their time at the club if they get a good offer and never show any drive or ambition to improve the club? Wigan seem to be on a pretty sound financial footing, and they won't go into meltdown if they go down, go and watch dull as dishwater Championship Football in their three-quarters empty stadium, much better as a supporter than having £100m debt and 18 premier league titles. Is it the dawn of the internet that's created this breed of fan who seems to support financial facts and figures more than what goes on on the pitch on a match day? So unbelievably wide of the mark, it's untrue. Genuinely staggered that such a (usually) decent poster could be so out of touch/ignorant of other clubs in the league. Surely they are though? i mean, they're following the perfect formula of being owned by a wanker sportswear tycoon, refusing to pay premier league wages and using the main procurement/retention tactic of being a club which will give a premier league stage to players not proven enough to get into most top-tier sides with the understanding they can fuck off as soon as anyone else is interested without difficult decisions about whether to go or accept an improved package to stay. I can't say that the finances of Wigan FC are something even a keen follower of the Premier League would be exposed to much in their day to day media consumption, but the last I heard Whelan was about to pay their remaining debt and leave them totally debt free, which puts them in a Champions League spot in the imaginary table of financial shrewdness, even as they serve up turgid bottom of the league shit to the fans who actually watch them play. http://www.footballtradedirectory.com/news/2011/february/whelan-to-clear-50m-wigan-debt.html Completely agree BlueStar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/03/27/tv-loophole-lets-ricardo-fuller-off-the-hook-79310-28410063/ Wasn't caught on camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/03/27/tv-loophole-lets-ricardo-fuller-off-the-hook-79310-28410063/ Wasn't caught on camera. Eh, not even one of the countless cameras caught the action? The Barton haters must have deleted the footage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 "Hi is that the security team at Stoke, we're just wondering if you've managed to find that footage of Fuller kicking Barton." "Naaah sorry mate, looked all over it must have not been caught on camera" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisMcQuillan Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Note to Barton: If you're going to assault someone, just do it off camera and you'll be fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Curls Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Note to Barton: If you're going to assault someone, just do it off camera and you'll be fine. Be easier if he didn't have a camera devoted to his every action just incase he flips out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 By "TV cameras didn't see it" they mean "MOTD chose not to show/analyse it". Utter cunts the FA and the BBC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Barton getting interviewed on Late Kick Off tonight. BBC1. 11-05pm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Do thousands of witnesses not count as evidence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Barton getting interviewed on Late Kick Off tonight. BBC1. 11-05pm. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 What was in the interview? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelly Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 It didn't happen for some reason 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