mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 No significant football club has went bust in the UK so to suggest we would have had Ashley not bought us is daft in the extreme. We were on very dodgy ground though, but appointing Sam Allardyce suggested to me FS and co were aware that the club couldn't continue in the same vein and that measures were at least being taken to arrest the financial slippery slope we were on. At worst docked points and admin under FS meaning possible relegation... under the "financial saviour" of Ashley though BANG relegation. And I fucking hated FS and couldn't wait to see him gone because he was ruining this club. Not as much as Ashley has done or will continue to do though. They're all significant to be fair EDIT: oh and you're as bias as fuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 No significant football club has went bust in the UK so to suggest we would have had Ashley not bought us is daft in the extreme. We were on very dodgy ground though, but appointing Sam Allardyce suggested to me FS and co were aware that the club couldn't continue in the same vein and that measures were at least being taken to arrest the financial slippery slope we were on. At worst docked points and admin under FS meaning possible relegation... under the "financial saviour" of Ashley though BANG relegation. And I f***ing hated FS and couldn't wait to see him gone because he was ruining this club. Not as much as Ashley has done or will continue to do though. That doesn't mean that it is not going to happen and with the level of debt clubs have now I honestly think its only a matter of time before a big club goes completely out of business. I think the days of ever increasing transfer fees and wages are rapidly approaching an end and we are going to see a massive contraction in both areas, very soon. The current spending is unsustainable - imagine if Man City's owners stopped their financial backing, they would be in trouble, very quickly. With regards to Ashley - my feelings have softened a bit towards him recently. I can see what he is trying to do, but he has gone about it really badly which is why there is so much resentment towards him. If him and Derek had been more open about what they were doing then I don't think the fans would have reacted as they did. I would say with 100% confidence no major football club will ever go our of existence in this country ever. If Man City's backers pulled the plug what would be their debts, wages and what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiemonster Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 No significant football club has went bust in the UK so to suggest we would have had Ashley not bought us is daft in the extreme. We were on very dodgy ground though, but appointing Sam Allardyce suggested to me FS and co were aware that the club couldn't continue in the same vein and that measures were at least being taken to arrest the financial slippery slope we were on. At worst docked points and admin under FS meaning possible relegation... under the "financial saviour" of Ashley though BANG relegation. And I f***ing hated FS and couldn't wait to see him gone because he was ruining this club. Not as much as Ashley has done or will continue to do though. That doesn't mean that it is not going to happen and with the level of debt clubs have now I honestly think its only a matter of time before a big club goes completely out of business. I think the days of ever increasing transfer fees and wages are rapidly approaching an end and we are going to see a massive contraction in both areas, very soon. The current spending is unsustainable - imagine if Man City's owners stopped their financial backing, they would be in trouble, very quickly. With regards to Ashley - my feelings have softened a bit towards him recently. I can see what he is trying to do, but he has gone about it really badly which is why there is so much resentment towards him. If him and Derek had been more open about what they were doing then I don't think the fans would have reacted as they did. I would say with 100% confidence no major football club will ever go our of existence in this country ever. If Man City's backers pulled the plug what would be their debts, wages and what? I don't really see what else they would need. They've invested all this money on massive, big name players presumably on massive salaries (if the 500k a week for Kaka/Ibrahamovic are to be believed). If they lost the backing then how would they be able to pay that? The gates they get ~40,000 certainly wouldn't so they'd have to sell people, presumably at knock down prices and then it all snowballs from there. I think there are a myriad of reasons why football has to change - less people are going. I was shocked there was only 43k for our first game of a new premier season and there are various reasons for that, but amongst them will be the fact that people are tightening their belts. I know I am, in case my company decides to make swingeing cuts. I don't pretend to know much about Man City's owners, but I presume a lot of their money comes from oil which is a finite resource and eventually they aint gonna have that money. Could be an overly negative view I don't think its a bad thing if the obscene salaries these people get for kicking a football round become history though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 10, 2010 Share Posted September 10, 2010 No significant football club has went bust in the UK so to suggest we would have had Ashley not bought us is daft in the extreme. We were on very dodgy ground though, but appointing Sam Allardyce suggested to me FS and co were aware that the club couldn't continue in the same vein and that measures were at least being taken to arrest the financial slippery slope we were on. At worst docked points and admin under FS meaning possible relegation... under the "financial saviour" of Ashley though BANG relegation. And I f***ing hated FS and couldn't wait to see him gone because he was ruining this club. Not as much as Ashley has done or will continue to do though. If you mean that you don't think a significant football club could could go into administration or appoint a receiver then all I can say is that is one hell of a ballsy shout. If you mean that no significant football club would cease to exist through insolvency then you may have a point. As far as we are concerned the thought that Fat Sam was a miracle cure for insolvency is certainly interesting. I am not going to say we would have gone bust but we were certainly insolvent and it is a far from ridiculous suggestion that we could have ended up in going through some sort of insolvent process - especially given what happened in the banking sector about one year after we were sold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Great example of cock eyed journalism in today’s Journal. “United did spend around £13m in the transfer market if wages and loan fees are taking into consideration, the estimated £30m extra income generated by promotion back to the Premier League has been used to cover running costs and to clear the club’s overdraft with the bank.” “The money spent during the transfer window was Ashley’s, in the form of interest-free loans, as this was thought to be cheaper and more efficient than borrowing more money from the banks.” “If United remain in the top flight it will be financially self-sufficient by this time next year, with all of the extra revenue generated earmarked for squad improvement.” Now I’ve never seen wages classed as summer spending, but leaving that aside it’s not exactly clear if this latest interest free loan covers the full £13m summer spend, or just the transfer fees with the additional wages being classed as running costs. It’s also not clear if this summer spend is a gross figure or net of getting Nicky “50kpw” Butt off the wage bill. The estimated figure for the extra money returning to the PL brings is also the lowest I’ve seen, and completely at odds with Lambias’ claim relegation cost the club £50m. And if the club will be in profit next season if it stays up, where does that leave the five year break even plan? Regurgitating the party line springs to mind. http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2010/09/14/newcastle-united-still-have-financial-worries-61634-27261539/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 And if the club will be in profit next season if it stays up, where does that leave the five year break even plan? Well ahead of schedule, clearly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Malandro's sheer insanity aside he makes a good point, I hate that wages are now included in 'transfer fees' when deals are reported. They never used to be so why now? They don't know what the wages are so it's utter shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Because the contract needs to be paid up regardless of whether the player performs or not? Not saying I agree with it, mind/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Because the contract needs to be paid up regardless of whether the player performs or not? Not saying I agree with it, mind/ Oh yeah I get that, but wages and transfer fees are clearly two different things. For me it can only be some weird justification/excuse for the reduced spending in the PL. For years everyone rejoiced in how much money we had, now we're broke suddenly wages are included in fees. Not Hollywood enough otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Malandro's sheer insanity aside he makes a good point, I hate that wages are now included in 'transfer fees' when deals are reported. They never used to be so why now? To make it sound more impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Malandro's sheer insanity aside he makes a good point, I hate that wages are now included in 'transfer fees' when deals are reported. They never used to be so why now? To make it sound more impressive. Why would Mr Edwards want to do that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Dunno, but I can't think of any other reason to do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Who? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Luke Edwards, the author of the article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Ahi was on a generic chelp, got it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Assuming it wasn’t written by somebody else and he just put his name to it. The figures don’t make a lot of sense. The overdraft was £20m? Ashley had to put in £25m last year to cover operating losses. An extra £30m for promotion means were running at loss of £15m before a ball has been kicked, then we spend £13m in the summer...does this mean Ashley has lent the club another £23m. Bringing the amount of money the club owes him to £159m! I think it worth noting that (according to this blx article) Ashley chose to lend the club his own money to buy players rather than use his own money to pay off (some or all) of the overdraft. I can see no reason he’d chose the former unless he’s expecting to get this money back. IIRC correctly didn’t the bank take possession of the stadium and training ground at some point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Get laid much malandro? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 No, I’m insatiable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 I don’t see what posting pictures of your lass proves Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 I don’t see what posting pictures of your lass proves Clearly that Mike Ashley got it all wrong. Get out of the club supafan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Five year plans? MY ARSE!!! Football clubs plan season by season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 Assuming it wasn’t written by somebody else and he just put his name to it. The figures don’t make a lot of sense. The overdraft was £20m? Ashley had to put in £25m last year to cover operating losses. An extra £30m for promotion means were running at loss of £15m before a ball has been kicked, then we spend £13m in the summer...does this mean Ashley has lent the club another £23m. Bringing the amount of money the club owes him to £159m! I think it worth noting that (according to this blx article) Ashley chose to lend the club his own money to buy players rather than use his own money to pay off (some or all) of the overdraft. I can see no reason he’d chose the former unless he’s expecting to get this money back. IIRC correctly didn’t the bank take possession of the stadium and training ground at some point? Still can't decide who I think is best, you or UV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 I've had enough about hearing about 5 year plans, especially as I'm playing too much Fifa and that fucking shit commentary has Andy Gray every few games going on about '5 year plans'. Cunt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 IIRC correctly didnt the bank take possession of the stadium and training ground at some point? Eh?? 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