nufc losing £500,000 a week

[Guest jonlane86]

Deary me, another thread designed to have a go at the owner, well here is the way I see it.

 

If Sir John Hall had not sold his shares to Mike, we would be where Portsmouth are now, no question about it.

 

If you were to buy a business (and yes I accept he didn't do his homework) would you look to continually invest to eventually make a loss?  It is difficult for us to look at it this way as it is a club we all love but realistically how can anybody be expected to plough in what is now over 1/3 of his total wealth and expect a minimal amount back?  Well this is something that the owner has gone on record to do.  He hasn't done a Gaydamak and demand the money back in the way of a loan, he was going to sell up for £100m when he'd invested over £250m up to that point.

 

This club needs to be put in a position where it can be run to break even.  That way any profits get re-invested in the right way, and the club doesn't go under.  We can't go back to the 'car loan' signings that Shepherd made, and its fairly common knowledge that Keegan, Shearer and Owen were all bought by a one off up front sponsorship payment.

 

As for 'January gone', in order to get the club in a position to be self sufficient, it needs to be back in the Premier League, hence the investment and the need to continue losing 0.5m a week.  I can't claim to be intimate with the clubs finances, but reading between the lines I'd say if we got promoted, we'd need to stay up for at least 5 years to get into a stable financial state.

 

I don't buy the reports about the club making money, I don't think its made money for many many years, and that is why we're in the situation we find ourselves in.  It is easy to make Mike Ashley the reason we got relegated, but the truth is it didn't matter who owned the club at the time because of the financial damage that had already been done.

 

Whether you like to believe it or not, Mike Ashley has kept NUFC in business, when he didn't have to.  He's not a fat greedy b*****d, he's a naive bloke who bought a football club thinking he had a lot of money and found himself with a company which was in masses of debt that couldn't and still can't cover its outgoings.  If he was that greedy he would have sold us very soon after buying us, ala about 3 different people who have owned Pompey this season.

[Dave]

Fuck off Derek.

[Guest Phil K]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

[Guest Wally_McFool]

 

  If he was that greedy he would have sold us very soon after buying us,

 

He went to the Middle East to try and sell the club for £400 million or have you conveniently forgotten that. 

[Guest jonlane86]

 

  If he was that greedy he would have sold us very soon after buying us,

 

He went to the Middle East to try and sell the club for £400 million or have you conveniently forgotten that. 

 

I believe that happened when the fans made it extremely clear they didn't want him to own the club anymore.

[OzzieMandias]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

 

Try dividing the £20 million per annum that Ashley's been putting in to make up for the club's losses by the number of weeks in a year.

 

If you need help with figuring out how many weeks there are in a year, do get back to me.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

 

Why?

[madras]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

do you mean exactly half a million every week...if so i agree.

[Guest Heneage]

I see both sides of this really.

 

On the one hand the cynic in me says, wouldn't you put £20m into a potential £100m asset to save it? That's just common sense, and that if he'd used £20m on players we might not even be in this division, and could have got any number of the Donadel's and Veloso's we were so cruelly linked with to end up with Nolan and a rejected bid for Michael Johnson who was not fit for football.

 

However, I also think that really we should be thankful that while he's kept the club ticking over, he has also invested in the playing staff, getting the right type of players in the process and actually has given us a much needed trim down of some vastly overpaid players. While Nolan Smith and other high earners remian, the 75k Martins 100k Owen and 80K Vidukas no longer pick up wage packets that they never deserved. We also need to look at the clubs lower down winding up and going into administration, and see that really Portsmouth could have been us if Ashley had decided to really fuck as all over.

[madras]

I see both sides of this really.

 

On the one hand the cynic in me says, wouldn't you put £20m into a potential £100m asset to save it? That's just common sense, and that if he'd used £20m on players we might not even be in this division, and could have got any number of the Donadel's and Veloso's we were so cruelly linked with to end up with Nolan and a rejected bid for Michael Johnson who was not fit for football.

 

However, I also think that really we should be thankful that while he's kept the club ticking over, he has also invested in the playing staff, getting the right type of players in the process and actually has given us a much needed trim down of some vastly overpaid players. While Nolan Smith and other high earners remian, the 75k Martins 100k Owen and 80K Vidukas no longer pick up wage packets that they never deserved. We also need to look at the clubs lower down winding up and going into administration, and see that really Portsmouth could have been us if Ashley had decided to really f*** as all over.

jeez kezman....what do you do for a living ? you'd think those players for 20mill wouldn't want paying or that the 100million asset hadn't already cost him that and more already.

[Guest jonlane86]

I see both sides of this really.

 

On the one hand the cynic in me says, wouldn't you put £20m into a potential £100m asset to save it? That's just common sense, and that if he'd used £20m on players we might not even be in this division, and could have got any number of the Donadel's and Veloso's we were so cruelly linked with to end up with Nolan and a rejected bid for Michael Johnson who was not fit for football.

 

However, I also think that really we should be thankful that while he's kept the club ticking over, he has also invested in the playing staff, getting the right type of players in the process and actually has given us a much needed trim down of some vastly overpaid players. While Nolan Smith and other high earners remian, the 75k Martins 100k Owen and 80K Vidukas no longer pick up wage packets that they never deserved. We also need to look at the clubs lower down winding up and going into administration, and see that really Portsmouth could have been us if Ashley had decided to really f*** as all over.

 

Exactly, think it would be really interesting to see how much he's spent out of his own pocket since he bought us and how that relates to how much he is worth now.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Exactly, think it would be really interesting to see how much he's spent out of his own pocket since he bought us and how that relates to how much he is worth now.

 

Have you heard of Companies House?

[Guest Phil K]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

 

Why?

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

do you mean exactly half a million every week...if so i agree.

 

There are supposed to be a number of Prem and Football league clubs in financial danger.

ALL of them are not exactly pulling them in through the gates.

We are. I just find it hard to believe.

Some are keen to accept it.

I think we can ask why to that too.

[Cronky]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

 

Why?

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

do you mean exactly half a million every week...if so i agree.

 

There are supposed to be a number of Prem and Football league clubs in financial danger.

ALL of them are not exactly pulling them in through the gates.

We are. I just find it hard to believe.

Some are keen to accept it.

I think we can ask why to that too.

 

From what I understand, the chief factors are that the wage bill is still very high, and sponsorship income has all been blown in advance.

 

A lot of high earners have left, but there are still a lot of players there who must be on good Premiership-style wages, and perhaps Champions League wages - Taylor, Colo, Enrique, Jonas, Smith, Barton, Nolan, Shola, Butt.

[Heron]

I love Philip K's aggressive nature, it turns me on.

[BottledDog]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

 

Why?

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

do you mean exactly half a million every week...if so i agree.

 

There are supposed to be a number of Prem and Football league clubs in financial danger.

ALL of them are not exactly pulling them in through the gates.

We are. I just find it hard to believe.

Some are keen to accept it.

I think we can ask why to that too.

 

Had on, I thought Villa were still being subbed by Randy?

I may be completely off here as well like but unlike Fat Ash, I'm pretty sure either he (or was it Gibson) is charging interest on his loans too.

 

 

[BottledDog]

For PhilK -

 

Aston Villa

 

Turnover: £75.6m

 

Operating profit: –£13.1m

 

Net debt: £72.3m

 

Interest payment: £5.7m

 

Aston Villa's 07-08 accounts show the club has a £13m bank loan secured on the club's assets. £2.5m of this is repayable in three instalments each year until 2012. It also has a £10m overdraft. But Villa's biggest debt is to their American owner, Randy Lerner, who has lent the club £49.5m. These loans are repayable in full in December 2016. Villa paid £4.1m in interest in the year on Lerner's loan, on top of £1.37m to service the bank loan.

 

From - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/the-debt-league-how-much-do-clubs-owe-1912244.html

[biggs]

I find "losing half a mill a WEEK" hard to believe.

VERY hard to believe.

 

Try dividing the £20 million per annum that Ashley's been putting in to make up for the club's losses by the number of weeks in a year.

 

If you need help with figuring out how many weeks there are in a year, do get back to me.

53

[Happy Face]

Deary me, another thread designed to have a go at the owner, well here is the way I see it.

 

If Sir John Hall had not sold his shares to Mike, we would be where Portsmouth are now, no question about it.

 

If you were to buy a business (and yes I accept he didn't do his homework) would you look to continually invest to eventually make a loss?  It is difficult for us to look at it this way as it is a club we all love but realistically how can anybody be expected to plough in what is now over 1/3 of his total wealth and expect a minimal amount back?  Well this is something that the owner has gone on record to do.  He hasn't done a Gaydamak and demand the money back in the way of a loan, he was going to sell up for £100m you're taking the word of self confessed liars on that one when he'd invested over £250m up to that point.

 

This club needs to be put in a position where it can be run to break even.  That way any profits get re-invested in the right way, and the club doesn't go under.  We can't go back to the 'car loan' signings that Shepherd made, and its fairly common knowledge that Keegan really?, Shearer and Owen were all bought by a one off up front sponsorship payment.

 

As for 'January gone', in order to get the club in a position to be self sufficient, it needs to be back in the Premier League, hence the investment and the need to continue losing 0.5m a week.  I can't claim to be intimate with the clubs finances, but reading between the lines I'd say if we got promoted, we'd need to stay up for at least 5 years to get into a stable financial state. Based on what?  Seems like the 5 year plan starts anew EVERY season.

 

I don't buy the reports about the club making money, I don't think its made money for many many years, and that is why we're in the situation we find ourselves in.  It is easy to make Mike Ashley the reason we got relegated, but the truth is it didn't matter who owned the club at the time because of the financial damage that had already been done.An incredible viewpoint after 16 years in the top flight, especially following a season when the owner appointed 4 different managers.  If Shepherd had done that you would have murdered him.

 

Whether you like to believe it or not, Mike Ashley has kept NUFC in business, when he didn't have to.  He's not a fat greedy b*****d, he's a naive bloke who bought a football club thinking he had a lot of money and found himself with a company which was in masses of debt that couldn't and still can't cover its outgoings.  If he was that greedy he would have sold us very soon after buying us, ala about 3 different people who have owned Pompey this season. There's not many naive billionaires my friend.  The least naive will have you thinking they are, even as they take your money off you for a below par product.  And if you disagree, why do you want someone THAT stupid running your club?

[Guest gggg]

What a load of bollocks. Fuck off fatty.

[Teasy]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

[Happy Face]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

[madras]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

[Happy Face]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

[madras]

 

Why ? Are we on Portsmouth level attendances ?

No.

Are we overstocked with overpaid players ?

Take away Smith and maybe half a dozen others, no.

I find it odd we are losing money at all, let alone half a mill a week

Other teams like Villa aren't so how come we are with higher attendances, less money paid out on fewer players ?

 

Of course Villa will be losing money per week, almost all clubs do due to how cash flow works at Football clubs.  The big difference between us and Villa financially is that they'll have £50m of Premier League money due to them at the end of the season.

 

And they've got a net spend of £50m to go along with it.

 

We've got a net transfer profit of about £40m in the same period.

and transfer profit has to be spent exclusivly on transfers ? not to mention how much we still had to pay from when we signed some of those players.

 

Not at all.  I think we're wise to tighten our belts and watch that bottom line.

 

Just pointing out there seems to be a £90million difference in the wheeling and dealing at Villa and the toon over the last 2 years.  I'm sure i probably haven't understood the complicated accountancy though.

why only mention the last 2 yrs ? we were still paying for ttransfers from before then.