3.5 Year Contracts Being Dished Out

[LiquidAK]

I think had we got a half decent replacement for Zog, we'd have gotten the 1 goal we needed to stay up. And no, I have no proof of this, just as you have no proof that we'd have signed another Nolan and gotten nowhere with it.

 

Do you think it would have financially wrecked us?

[madras]

I think had we got a half decent replacement for Zog, we'd have gotten the 1 goal we needed to stay up. And no, I have no proof of this, just as you have no proof that we'd have signed another Nolan and gotten nowhere with it.

 

Do you think it would have financially wrecked us?

possibly, another 5million and we'd possibly still be paying the wages of duff,martins, beye aswell as the fees brought in for them.

[LiquidAK]

Well I disagree. We have an owner worth £800 million, another £5m would not have hurt us any more than relegation did financially.

[TaylorJ_01]

Wasn't R.Taylor hired on a 5-year contract? Same with Coloccini? Thought he was fucking mental at the time. Especially with the crazy wages he's paying.

[madras]

Well I disagree. We have an owner worth £800 million, another £5m would not have hurt us any more than relegation did financially.

and you see fit to tell him what to do with his money ?

[TRon]

Wasn't R.Taylor hired on a 5-year contract? Same with Coloccini? Thought he was fucking mental at the time. Especially with the crazy wages he's paying.

 

Coloccini was Mike Ashley's trophy signing back in the day when he hadn't earned a reputation as a tight-fisted fat cockney. He sanctioned quite a few big wage signings at the time although this is quite a hazy memory for some.

[LiquidAK]

Well I disagree. We have an owner worth £800 million, another £5m would not have hurt us any more than relegation did financially.

and you see fit to tell him what to do with his money ?

 

Now you're just arguing for the sake of it.

 

Of course it's his money, he decides what to do with it, I'm saying that in my opinion he made the wrong choice.

[TRon]

One thing I am pretty happy about is that our signings so far have been relatively young player who are hungry to prove themselves. I'd far rather give out decent length contracts to players like this than over the hill "stars" looking for one last pay day.

 

 

[Dave]

One thing I am pretty happy about is that our signings so far have been relatively young player who are hungry to prove themselves. I'd far rather give out decent length contracts to players like this than over the hill "stars" looking for one last pay day.

 

I'm just glad Hughton (or whoever) seems to be going for players who can actually run.

[LiquidAK]

One thing I am pretty happy about is that our signings so far have been relatively young player who are hungry to prove themselves. I'd far rather give out decent length contracts to players like this than over the hill "stars" looking for one last pay day.

 

I'm just glad Hughton (or whoever) seems to be going for players who can actually run.

 

If we can get a CM who can do the same I think we'll be pretty much set for the rest of the season.

[biggs]

They're on moderate to small wages.  No point in signing these players on short deals which mean we have no time to sell them on if they're not good enough.  Also I suppose for accounting purposes it spreads the fee out more.

  If  i am not mistaken Lambarse said we would buy players outright in future instead of instalments bucking the trend set by the rest of the football world 

[Chris_R]

They're on moderate to small wages.  No point in signing these players on short deals which mean we have no time to sell them on if they're not good enough.  Also I suppose for accounting purposes it spreads the fee out more.

  If  i am not mistaken Lambarse said we would buy players outright in future instead of instalments bucking the trend set by the rest of the football world 

 

If I'm not mistaken, he's said a lot of things that have since been shown to be utter crap. That sour faced prick couldn't lie straight in bed.

[Guest]

See nothing wrong with it tbh. These are the types of players who I imagine will be backup next season, and if we do go straight back down, will still be under contract on not too large a wage, and I'd imagine with relegation-clauses written in them this time.

[UV]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

 

it may be the only way forward for the club, given the financial climate. Its a diffrent market now.

 

Things actually seem to be coming together a bit now, Ashley's penny pinching completely f***ed us up, but I think I'd prefer that than us being in a West Ham or Portsmouth situation like we may have been had Sheppard continued his borrowing.

 

The way I see it:

 

Ashley's an idiot, and has gone about pretty much everything the wrong way. Weirdly enough, despite royally cocking up the short term future of the club, it may have saved our long term future.

 

Imagine what we could have done had we had a competent owner.

does that mean you think we really had to cut costs and quickly ?

 

It means I think had we continued with the transfer policy we were following under the old board we'd have been screwed. Sadly Ashley took it way too far in the opposite direction and would hardly spend at all.

what if he had planned to spend but only when he freed up money by getting rid of some big earning wasters ?

 

not saying thats what happened but it's as likely as "he's an idiot" ?

 

What if he did? Doesn't change the fact that his inability to spend when we really needed it (after selling the likes of Zog) was part of what got us relegated.

his inability ?.....wasn't it the clubs inability ?

 

just because we sold zog doesn't mean we have that money to spend when the big wasters were still there.

 

No, his inability. He's the man with the money, he's the one that lets the manager spend or not. Are you honestly saying you were satisfied with the January window last season? It was a joke man, we needed investment and we got Nolan and Taylor. Wasn't good enough, at all.

no i wasn't happy but in the position i could just about understand it or as you say, we could have been in pompeys position...is it beyond the realms of possibility that he saw that.

 

 

still can't excuse him bringing in kinnear and then hughton mind.

 

That's what I'm saying, cocked up the short term future but maybe saved the long term future. Not beyond the realms of possibility that he saw that at all, just think he could still have invested a small amount more to keep us up.

 

Completely agreed on the management, could not have gotten that any worse.

but the way you are describing it he didn't cock up the short term future, he saw what it was and realised we couldn't go on like that.

 

madras - in your rewriting of history where Ashley was sorting out our finances are you just going to ignore the fact that the wages went up 12% in Ashley's first year and up again in his next year. That we were buying 26 year old players unproven in our league on high wages while selling our best young players on low wages. If cashflow was a problem can you explain why we were paying up front for players while everyone else pays in instalments and why ALL debts were paid off even the ones which were not due or called in? In Ashley's first year we got an £18m bonus in extra turnover just because of the new TV deal, but that just vanished in the expenditure despite no net spend on players. The extra money that Ashley put into the club in the first 2 years was not in fact all necessary because of the state of the finances when he took over, but was mostly to fund his buy up front but sell on credit policy, and the money he is putting in now is to cover the cost of relegation due to HIS appalling decisions and appointments.

 

His personnel decisions were terrible, but his financial ones were equally as bad.

 

This idea that all the problems the club has had were inevitable and would have happened anyway is rubbish. Between 97 and 01 we had 4 years in the bottom half of the table. During this time the stadium was expanded and the net debt stood at £66m while the turnover was half what it was for Ashley's first year (taken from nufc-finances). Did we go under then? Did we weaken the squad and risk relegation? Nope, in fact we built on the good squad we had and had a moderately successful footballing period because of it.

 

In the 15 years of the old board the final financial position was £70m debt, £45m of which was due to the stadium expansion which was paying for itself (as long as the ground was kept full - as it was). So that's £25m of debt due to the signings, wages, dividends and other costs over the years. Hardly massive financial mismanagement or over extending ourselves in my book, and before Ashley came in and told everyone who wanted to listen he had just saved us from the brink of administration, finances were only a topic of discussion when people were complaining about dividends, and how we weren't spending as much as Liverpool. The only talk of financial worries was from mad fantasising mackems. In fact the only thing particularly wrong with the finances in the last years of Shepherd & Hall was that the wages had grown too high. Not unrectifiable especially given the extra TV money due to come in which meant we only had to maintain our wages at the same level and we'd have been fine.

[madras]

Until recently Newcastle would sign up untested players (Xisco) on huge weekly wages and long contracts (apparently Xisco's runs until 06/2013). Simpson, Routledge and Williamson (if he signs) will in total cost less than the fee for Xisco and their combined wages are less than Xisco's. That makes Simpson, Routledge and Williamson very low risk by Newcastle standards. If things don't work out we'll be able to get most of our money back on them if not make a profit.

 

 

it may be the only way forward for the club, given the financial climate. Its a diffrent market now.

 

Things actually seem to be coming together a bit now, Ashley's penny pinching completely f***ed us up, but I think I'd prefer that than us being in a West Ham or Portsmouth situation like we may have been had Sheppard continued his borrowing.

 

The way I see it:

 

Ashley's an idiot, and has gone about pretty much everything the wrong way. Weirdly enough, despite royally cocking up the short term future of the club, it may have saved our long term future.

 

Imagine what we could have done had we had a competent owner.

does that mean you think we really had to cut costs and quickly ?

 

It means I think had we continued with the transfer policy we were following under the old board we'd have been screwed. Sadly Ashley took it way too far in the opposite direction and would hardly spend at all.

what if he had planned to spend but only when he freed up money by getting rid of some big earning wasters ?

 

not saying thats what happened but it's as likely as "he's an idiot" ?

 

What if he did? Doesn't change the fact that his inability to spend when we really needed it (after selling the likes of Zog) was part of what got us relegated.

his inability ?.....wasn't it the clubs inability ?

 

just because we sold zog doesn't mean we have that money to spend when the big wasters were still there.

 

No, his inability. He's the man with the money, he's the one that lets the manager spend or not. Are you honestly saying you were satisfied with the January window last season? It was a joke man, we needed investment and we got Nolan and Taylor. Wasn't good enough, at all.

no i wasn't happy but in the position i could just about understand it or as you say, we could have been in pompeys position...is it beyond the realms of possibility that he saw that.

 

 

still can't excuse him bringing in kinnear and then hughton mind.

 

That's what I'm saying, cocked up the short term future but maybe saved the long term future. Not beyond the realms of possibility that he saw that at all, just think he could still have invested a small amount more to keep us up.

 

Completely agreed on the management, could not have gotten that any worse.

but the way you are describing it he didn't cock up the short term future, he saw what it was and realised we couldn't go on like that.

 

madras - in your rewriting of history where Ashley was sorting out our finances are you just going to ignore the fact that the wages went up 12% in Ashley's first year and up again in his next year. That we were buying 26 year old players unproven in our league on high wages while selling our best young players on low wages. If cashflow was a problem can you explain why we were paying up front for players while everyone else pays in instalments and why ALL debts were paid off even the ones which were not due or called in? In Ashley's first year we got an £18m bonus in extra turnover just because of the new TV deal, but that just vanished in the expenditure despite no net spend on players. The extra money that Ashley put into the club in the first 2 years was not in fact all necessary because of the state of the finances when he took over, but was mostly to fund his buy up front but sell on credit policy, and the money he is putting in now is to cover the cost of relegation due to HIS appalling decisions and appointments.

 

His personnel decisions were terrible, but his financial ones were equally as bad.

 

This idea that all the problems the club has had were inevitable and would have happened anyway is rubbish. Between 97 and 01 we had 4 years in the bottom half of the table. During this time the stadium was expanded and the net debt stood at £66m while the turnover was half what it was for Ashley's first year (taken from nufc-finances). Did we go under then? Did we weaken the squad and risk relegation? Nope, in fact we built on the good squad we had and had a moderately successful footballing period because of it.

 

In the 15 years of the old board the final financial position was £70m debt, £45m of which was due to the stadium expansion which was paying for itself (as long as the ground was kept full - as it was). So that's £25m of debt due to the signings, wages, dividends and other costs over the years. Hardly massive financial mismanagement or over extending ourselves in my book, and before Ashley came in and told everyone who wanted to listen he had just saved us from the brink of administration, finances were only a topic of discussion when people were complaining about dividends, and how we weren't spending as much as Liverpool. The only talk of financial worries was from mad fantasising mackems. In fact the only thing particularly wrong with the finances in the last years of Shepherd & Hall was that the wages had grown too high. Not unrectifiable especially given the extra TV money due to come in which meant we only had to maintain our wages at the same level and we'd have been fine.

not re-wroting anything at all. yes he fucked up then had to attempt at putting it right. he made a shit position shitter but he done what everyone wanted. let the manager spend etc...............oh and didn't we make a 30mill (?) loss in freds last term ?

 

as for the stadium being kept full i doubt it would have been had fred stayed and how much would he have had to borrow after spending the sponsorship money up front. ashleys mistakes financially were to carry on in freds vein for a while. to say the only thing wrong was the wages got too high is a bit disingenuous as it is by far the biggest outgoing from the club and showed no signs of abaiting given freds last buys.

[Guest Phil K]

I dont understand the .5 part.

Signing half way through a season ?

Should explain itself.

 

madras - in your rewriting of history.........

Not just football history, or even everday history he has a habit of rewriting.