Deloitte Money List

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

With the '9 out of 20 of the top European attendances are from the German league' thing I was always under the impression that prices over there were far cheaper, which obviously doesn't necessarily translate to higher revenue compared to European competitors.  But evidently it must do to an extent.  It makes you wonder why German teams aren't right up there in Europe, although I suppose they're perhaps more prudent and not drowning in debt like in England.  Also the perceived lack of glamour compared to England, Spain and Italy means they don't attract that many of the top, top players.

Lack of glamour isn't what is stopping players from going to Germany. It is the lower wages that are doing that. It is nice to play in front of 70, 00 every week, but that's not worth giving up half your wage for. As long as German clubs stay financially prudent, there is no way they can compete in the modern market.

[Village Idiot]

With the '9 out of 20 of the top European attendances are from the German league' thing I was always under the impression that prices over there were far cheaper, which obviously doesn't necessarily translate to higher revenue compared to European competitors.  But evidently it must do to an extent.  It makes you wonder why German teams aren't right up there in Europe, although I suppose they're perhaps more prudent and not drowning in debt like in England.  Also the perceived lack of glamour compared to England, Spain and Italy means they don't attract that many of the top, top players.

Lack of glamour isn't what is stopping players from going to Germany. It is the lower wages that are doing that. It is nice to play in front of 70, 00 every week, but that's not worth giving up half your wage for. As long as German clubs stay financially prudent, there is no way they can compete in the modern market.

 

Isn't their prudency sort of enforced by the German FA? That doesn't allow them to get in much debt or they will be relegated from the Bundesliga. Not a bad approach if done Europe-wide, mind.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

With the '9 out of 20 of the top European attendances are from the German league' thing I was always under the impression that prices over there were far cheaper, which obviously doesn't necessarily translate to higher revenue compared to European competitors.  But evidently it must do to an extent.  It makes you wonder why German teams aren't right up there in Europe, although I suppose they're perhaps more prudent and not drowning in debt like in England.  Also the perceived lack of glamour compared to England, Spain and Italy means they don't attract that many of the top, top players.

Lack of glamour isn't what is stopping players from going to Germany. It is the lower wages that are doing that. It is nice to play in front of 70, 00 every week, but that's not worth giving up half your wage for. As long as German clubs stay financially prudent, there is no way they can compete in the modern market.

 

Isn't their prudency sort of enforced by the German FA? That doesn't allow them to get in much debt or they will be relegated from the Bundesliga. Not a bad approach if done Europe-wide, mind.

I wouldn't know, man, but that sounds fantastic. One can only wish that the spineless UEFA would implement something like that. I don't see the harm in using 2016 or something as a date by which all leagues must conform. The problem is that no one is going to self correct the problems while the CL pot of gold is still sitting there and being taken by the most financially reckless teams. It's similar to the banking industry really. You just hope it doesn't take a collapse of similar proportions to set things straight.

[Village Idiot]

With the '9 out of 20 of the top European attendances are from the German league' thing I was always under the impression that prices over there were far cheaper, which obviously doesn't necessarily translate to higher revenue compared to European competitors.  But evidently it must do to an extent.  It makes you wonder why German teams aren't right up there in Europe, although I suppose they're perhaps more prudent and not drowning in debt like in England.  Also the perceived lack of glamour compared to England, Spain and Italy means they don't attract that many of the top, top players.

Lack of glamour isn't what is stopping players from going to Germany. It is the lower wages that are doing that. It is nice to play in front of 70, 00 every week, but that's not worth giving up half your wage for. As long as German clubs stay financially prudent, there is no way they can compete in the modern market.

 

Isn't their prudency sort of enforced by the German FA? That doesn't allow them to get in much debt or they will be relegated from the Bundesliga. Not a bad approach if done Europe-wide, mind.

I wouldn't know, man, but that sounds fantastic.

 

This article explains their system a little.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1074354/Solvent-Bundesliga-clubs-example-debt-ridden-Premier-League-counterparts.html

[leffe186]

91m sterling roughly, 7th highest in england despite finishing in relegation spots. Christ imagine what it would be with something resembling success.

how do spurs generate so much cash though, the carling cup aint worth much and neither is europa league which they had last season and they're ground ain't big

 

They get excellent prices for the players they sell.

 

Worth re-emphasising it's a revenue list. No mention of costs, as such, profits.

it can't all be transfer revenue for spurs though, do they have a huge corperate section? high ticket prices compared to everyone else? secret gold stores under whl?

 

We do have high ticket prices, though being in London helps that. We've had to swallow it for a while because we know our ground isn't big enough, plus demand is great. Supposedly our merchandising is very effective (and the last sponsorship deal was pretty damn good), though it's a hell of a testimony to Levy that we've consistently been in that list despite no Champions League and a relatively small ground.

[Village Idiot]

To be honest Spurs have always looked to me an exceptionally well-run club off the field.

[Guest Spark]

German football teams also make a lot from shirt sponsorship deals, more than in the Premiership I think. I expect more German teams to move up this list over the next few seasons.

[Cronky]

I found a relevant, if quite old, article on the matter:

 

Chelsea’s attendance quandary

A quick analysis of low attendance at Chelsea

 

Attendances at Chelsea’s games have been volatile – despite an impressive and undefeated start to the season. We’ve had a look into what’s behind this trend and whether it should be a concern to Chelsea – or indeed to English football.

 

So what’s the problem? Chelsea’s average premiership attendance for their first four Premiership home games of the year – 41,845 – is, in fact, 98.6% of their capacity – fifth when ranked by this criterion and above their average for last year (97.2%). However, in the UEFA Champions league and the Carling Cup attendances were 77.9% and 61% of capacity respectively – averaging just fewer than 31,000.

 

Chelsea’s attendance during last year’s six home Champions’ League games averaged 93% of capacity – so even if they sold out all their remaining European games, they could only just equal that figure this year.

 

More worryingly for Chelsea, these falls are large in comparison to their competitors. Arsenal and Manchester United have only played a handful of home games outside Premiership but attendances have only slipped to around 90% of capacity – and are comparable with last year’s levels. The same is largely true for the other big teams in Europe including Juventus, Milan and Real where attendances compare well their domestic competitions.

 

The argument goes that Chelsea are boring and this is affecting attendances – but this isn’t backed up by the stats – in terms of goals and shots on goal Chelsea have more than any other team and besides, if true, this would surely also affect their Premiership attendance. So what is the explanation?

 

Research has looked into attendance levels and identified factors like proximity to large conurbations and a team’s historical as the fundamentals. At the margin, other factors like prices, the opposition league position (and their physical proximity) also play a part. When comparing these factors with the same time last year there’s one significant change – fans’ perception of Chelsea’s quality. Models suggests that, when all else is equal, attendance is driven by the similarity in quality between two sides, so, in part, Chelsea are a victim of their own success.

 

Still, whilst it’s largely just a Chelsea problem, the worst is over for this year. Chelsea’s remaining home Champion’s league game is against Liverpool and they are now out of the Carling Cup. Still, for the FA cup – and for next year’s competitions – Chelsea will need to look hard at their pricing strategy. Not only does low attendance affect revenue, the loss of atmosphere also damages the quality of the experience for players and fans alike. If this perception grows there is the risk that a couple of one-off’s could turn into a more serious problem.

------------------

Chelsea have been a bit notorious for pricing some fans out and having low attendance in non-Premiership games.

 

That's an interesting article.

 

I think that most of the new Chelsea fans (the Post-Abramovich) are young and therefore don't have the same spending power which enables them to go to the less important games. The older fan is more likely to have a fixed attachment to their team and would therefore have been less likely to switch to Chelsea.

 

 

[NG32]

I found a relevant, if quite old, article on the matter:

 

Chelsea’s attendance quandary

A quick analysis of low attendance at Chelsea

 

Attendances at Chelsea’s games have been volatile – despite an impressive and undefeated start to the season. We’ve had a look into what’s behind this trend and whether it should be a concern to Chelsea – or indeed to English football.

 

So what’s the problem? Chelsea’s average premiership attendance for their first four Premiership home games of the year – 41,845 – is, in fact, 98.6% of their capacity – fifth when ranked by this criterion and above their average for last year (97.2%). However, in the UEFA Champions league and the Carling Cup attendances were 77.9% and 61% of capacity respectively – averaging just fewer than 31,000.

 

Chelsea’s attendance during last year’s six home Champions’ League games averaged 93% of capacity – so even if they sold out all their remaining European games, they could only just equal that figure this year.

 

More worryingly for Chelsea, these falls are large in comparison to their competitors. Arsenal and Manchester United have only played a handful of home games outside Premiership but attendances have only slipped to around 90% of capacity – and are comparable with last year’s levels. The same is largely true for the other big teams in Europe including Juventus, Milan and Real where attendances compare well their domestic competitions.

 

The argument goes that Chelsea are boring and this is affecting attendances – but this isn’t backed up by the stats – in terms of goals and shots on goal Chelsea have more than any other team and besides, if true, this would surely also affect their Premiership attendance. So what is the explanation?

 

Research has looked into attendance levels and identified factors like proximity to large conurbations and a team’s historical as the fundamentals. At the margin, other factors like prices, the opposition league position (and their physical proximity) also play a part. When comparing these factors with the same time last year there’s one significant change – fans’ perception of Chelsea’s quality. Models suggests that, when all else is equal, attendance is driven by the similarity in quality between two sides, so, in part, Chelsea are a victim of their own success.

 

Still, whilst it’s largely just a Chelsea problem, the worst is over for this year. Chelsea’s remaining home Champion’s league game is against Liverpool and they are now out of the Carling Cup. Still, for the FA cup – and for next year’s competitions – Chelsea will need to look hard at their pricing strategy. Not only does low attendance affect revenue, the loss of atmosphere also damages the quality of the experience for players and fans alike. If this perception grows there is the risk that a couple of one-off’s could turn into a more serious problem.

------------------

Chelsea have been a bit notorious for pricing some fans out and having low attendance in non-Premiership games.

 

The Chelsea fad with the prawn sarnie brigade has worn off.

[madras]

Still can't wrap my head around the fact you're the 20th richest club in the world and yet got relegated. But I guess you have beaten that horse to death and took it to the slaughterhouse for steaks already.

 

I wonder how many currently Premiership teams will you still beat when this season's numbers are published.

we weren't the 20th richest club, we were the club with the 20th highest turnover. a subtle difference  that many often forget.

[LooneyToonArmy]

With the '9 out of 20 of the top European attendances are from the German league' thing I was always under the impression that prices over there were far cheaper, which obviously doesn't necessarily translate to higher revenue compared to European competitors.  But evidently it must do to an extent.  It makes you wonder why German teams aren't right up there in Europe, although I suppose they're perhaps more prudent and not drowning in debt like in England.  Also the perceived lack of glamour compared to England, Spain and Italy means they don't attract that many of the top, top players.

Lack of glamour isn't what is stopping players from going to Germany. It is the lower wages that are doing that. It is nice to play in front of 70, 00 every week, but that's not worth giving up half your wage for. As long as German clubs stay financially prudent, there is no way they can compete in the modern market.

 

Plus income tax is even higher in Germany than here, or so I heard (45%+(?))

[Guest Monkey]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

[madras]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

[Keefaz]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

 

Some might say Ashley saved our arses: in purely financial terms, at least.

[Guest Monkey]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

[Guest neesy111]

20th richest club got relegated, and the club was still losing money.

 

show's you how mismanagement at the top of the club, has led to the decline over the last 6 years.

 

we can blame manager's etc, but's it's the ppl at the top that make the decisions, and they live or die by them.

[madras]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

commercially and financially excellent ? .........share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

 

they done well in building the turnover, their use of it left a bit to be desired.

[Guest Monkey]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

commercially and financially excellent ? .........share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

 

they done well in building the turnover, their use of it left a bit to be desired.

That's all you needed to say.  Financially we were unbelievably stable in 2004, and you have to bare in mind he'd been chairman for 6 years at that point.  Of the biggest clubs in Europe we had the lowest wages/turnover ratio.  We were operating at 44% which was also the lowest in the Premiership, from that point onwards obviously it was down hill.  I'm not here to support FFS, but he knew how to make Newcastle in to a profitable business, and demonstrated infinitely more business nous to that point than this regime has.  I don't see how it can even be argued with.

 

[madras]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

commercially and financially excellent ? .........share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

 

they done well in building the turnover, their use of it left a bit to be desired.

That's all you needed to say.  Financially we were unbelievably stable in 2004, and you have to bare in mind he'd been chairman for 6 years at that point.  Of the biggest clubs in Europe we had the lowest wages/turnover ratio.  We were operating at 44% which was also the lowest in the Premiership, from that point onwards obviously it was down hill.  I'm not here to support FFS, but he knew how to make Newcastle in to a profitable business, and demonstrated infinitely more business nous to that point than this regime has.  I don't see how it can even be argued with.

 

there wasn't much profit by the time dividends and executive pay was taken off. list the end of term profits if you want.

[Guest neesy111]

This rich list obviously is based on the 2008/2009 season.  Sky Sports are reporting it as "despite Newcastle being in the Championship they remain in the top 20" which is slightly misleading.  What it does demonstrate is how poorly this club has been run.  They started doing these lists about 1997 I believe, and IIRC we were 5th in 1998 in the whole of Europe above Barcelona, and all the English clubs barring Manchester United, it seems far fetched but it's true.  From 99-2005ish we were generally 8th to 11th in this list, which is where Freddy Shepherd's eigth biggest club in Europe line came from.  From 2005-2007 we were 11th-13th, then Tottenham who were no where to be seen in this list for large periods over took us.  What it demonstrates is what a thoroughly amazing job Daniel Levy has done as chairman of Tottenham, and what a poor commercial job Mike Ashley has done.  

 

The turnover in these figures equates to £86m, it was £101m in 2005, so in five years it's decreased 15% despite higher ticket revenues and far more TV income from SKY which completely offsets the lack of European football.  What is more baffling is how Manchester City with their smaller gates and smaller attendances in the season just gone have over taken us.  It's a further insight in to what a genuinely sick club Newcastle is, and without being deluded if you take the general financial performance of the club in the Sir John Hall and FFS era's you have to draw the conclusion that perhaps it's not just on the field that Newcastle United are Europe's biggest underachievers.   It beggars belief we're being ran by a casino manager, and over seen by a fat common as much buffoon who doesn't even regard Newcastle as his biggest financial interest.  Sad, sad days.  We won't even be able to compete until we are ran properly financially as we were for a long time under Shepherd.

many would argue we weren't ran particularly well then but the gambles paid off for a while.

They could argue that, but financially they'd be wrong, up to the point of Souness appointment.  Shepherd's running of the club up to the Souness appointment was certainly commercially and financially was excellent.  It may not have been a popular move with the fans, but we hardly spent a penny from 1999 to 2001 on players, he was vilified for it, but he got the club on an even footing with a genuine spring board to bring the likes of Bellamy in, and more importantly afford to bring them in.

 

commercially and financially excellent ? .........share dividends above the going rate,executive payscales above the going rate,warehouse rentals above the going rate.

 

they done well in building the turnover, their use of it left a bit to be desired.

That's all you needed to say.  Financially we were unbelievably stable in 2004, and you have to bare in mind he'd been chairman for 6 years at that point.  Of the biggest clubs in Europe we had the lowest wages/turnover ratio.  We were operating at 44% which was also the lowest in the Premiership, from that point onwards obviously it was down hill.  I'm not here to support FFS, but he knew how to make Newcastle in to a profitable business, and demonstrated infinitely more business nous to that point than this regime has.  I don't see how it can even be argued with.

 

there wasn't much profit by the time dividends and executive pay was taken off. list the end of term profits if you want.

 

what about the 3 years after 2004, we had spunked our 5 year sponsership deals on luque and owen!, wages to turnover almost 70% and debt had almost doubled!  total mismanagement

[Guest Monkey]

You'll notice the bit where I said up to the appointment of Souness then?  I think 2003/2004, we returned a profit of £11m IIRC.

[madras]

You'll notice the bit where I said up to the appointment of Souness then?  I think 2003/2004, we returned a profit of £11m IIRC.

4.2 milion i think, barely broke even after dividends.

 

 

 

now let me clarify this. if the club does well on the pitch i don't mind running at a manageable loss  but the plan was ultimately built on expecting success with no plan for when things turned bad.

 

 

the analogy is to go to the casino, using one tactic being £1000 in profit by 1am but having all your credit cards empty be kicking out time....because it was succesgul for a bit it doesn't mean it was a good plan.

[Guest neesy111]

You'll notice the bit where I said up to the appointment of Souness then?  I think 2003/2004, we returned a profit of £11m IIRC.

 

WE SPENT £0

[Guest neesy111]

no profits under the shepherd era we're put back into the club, they just went into his, his brother kenny's and the hall's pockets

[Guest Monkey]

You'll notice the bit where I said up to the appointment of Souness then?  I think 2003/2004, we returned a profit of £11m IIRC.

4.2 milion i think, barely broke even after dividends.

 

 

 

now let me clarify this. if the club does well on the pitch i don't mind running at a manageable loss  but the plan was ultimately built on success with no plan for when things turned bad.

One of the seasons it was £11m.