Is Mike Ashley the worst person ever to have been associated with NUFC?

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

The Halls and Shepherd's made off with a fortune from the club, Ashley has put a fortune in.

 

Unfortunately for him a number of (his own) very bad decisions cost loads of money. Are we expected to pay for those mistakes?

 

He said (although what he says is probably of little to no trustworthiness, given his record) that he was prepared to put about 20m into the Toon every year, but since the fans turned against him after KK left he has also said that he wasn't prepared to put his own money in any more, while Llambias insists that he is still doing this (out of necessity only?)

 

What do we believe - given that the club says very little, what they do say is often contradictory, and they have been proven to have no qualms about deliberately misleading the fans?

 

I reckon Ashley wants to make us as financially attractive a buy as possible while getting as much of his cash (including what he cost himself by making terrible decisions) back out the club as he can. If he genuinely isn't then he has to show this before the fans will give him any credit for it, but that's not looking likely.

[Zero]

I don't understand why we need to do a "fire-purchase" just to fulfill the "promise". Look at our recent record, Viana, Luque, Owen, Boumsong... all these were fucking silly deals with unreasonable wages.  Are these kinda deals what we want? Coloccini has been very close to a failure mind you.

 

I am not saying we shouldn't buy some quality replacements, but if they are only available for unreasonable prices, then why? If we spend like Liverpool and Sunderland, say 20m on Henderson and 15m on Gibson and Oshea, would you satisfied then?  Never for me, never.  That is fucking stupid.  I would be fucking disappointed because we wasted 35m.

 

If the money is still within the club and is available for us to spend when there is good deals available, like the HBA and Tiote one, then what's the problem?

[Jack Flash]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

[Zero]

The Halls and Shepherd's made off with a fortune from the club, Ashley has put a fortune in.

 

Unfortunately for him a number of (his own) very bad decisions cost loads of money. Are we expected to pay for those mistakes?

 

He said (although what he says is probably of little to no trustworthiness, given his record) that he was prepared to put about 20m into the Toon every year, but since the fans turned against him after KK left he has also said that he wasn't prepared to put his own money in any more, while Llambias insists that he is still doing this (out of necessity only?)

 

What do we believe - given that the club says very little, what they do say is often contradictory, and they have been proven to have no qualms about deliberately misleading the fans?

 

I reckon Ashley wants to make us as financially attractive a buy as possible while getting as much of his cash (including what he cost himself by making terrible decisions) back out the club as he can. If he genuinely isn't then he has to show this before the fans will give him any credit for it, but that's not looking likely.

I can explain a bit.

Ashley originally means he would like to invest 20m per year for the club to "expand".  So it's for transfer fees, and probably he thinks the club can finance its daily cost by its daily revenue, i.e. the working capital is balanced.

 

However, after relegation, our revenue was greatly reduced and Llambias were saying Ashley has to fund around 2m per month in order for the club to keep running.  That's probably for the working capital and was not related to the 20m above. 

[Colocho]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I don't understand why we need to do a "fire-purchase" just to fulfill the "promise". Look at our recent record, Viana, Luque, Owen, Boumsong... all these were fucking silly deals with unreasonable wages.  Are these kinda deals what we want? Coloccini has been very close to a failure mind you.

 

I am not saying we shouldn't buy some quality replacements, but if they are only available for unreasonable prices, then why? If we spend like Liverpool and Sunderland, say 20m on Henderson and 15m on Gibson and Oshea, would you satisfied then?  Never for me, never.  That is fucking stupid.  I would be fucking disappointed because we wasted 35m.

 

If the money is still within the club and is available for us to spend when there is good deals available, like the HBA and Tiote one, then what's the problem?

 

Completely agree, and I also find it amusing that in any walk of business the aim is to do things cheaper, leaner and more efficinently. Except in football that is.

 

Unless we are spending the AC35 plus then the club is penny pinching, if we make a net profit in a transfer window we are penny pinching. If Sunderland spend £6m on Gardner and we spend £4m on Cabaye, they are showing ambition, we are not.

 

Its daft. Getting a younger cheaper player in to do the same job (or better) than what was there before can only make good footballing and financial sense. Of course there is the variable of 'will they be as good', but on paper at least this summer has seen us look to inject youth, pace and creativity whilst not over spending. If I managed to do that in my job I'd be getting a great bonus, not stick in the press

[AyeDubbleYoo]

[Jack Flash]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

[colinmk]

The Halls and Shepherd's made off with a fortune from the club, Ashley has put a fortune in.

 

Unfortunately for him a number of (his own) very bad decisions cost loads of money. Are we expected to pay for those mistakes?

 

He said (although what he says is probably of little to no trustworthiness, given his record) that he was prepared to put about 20m into the Toon every year, but since the fans turned against him after KK left he has also said that he wasn't prepared to put his own money in any more, while Llambias insists that he is still doing this (out of necessity only?)

 

What do we believe - given that the club says very little, what they do say is often contradictory, and they have been proven to have no qualms about deliberately misleading the fans?

 

I reckon Ashley wants to make us as financially attractive a buy as possible while getting as much of his cash (including what he cost himself by making terrible decisions) back out the club as he can. If he genuinely isn't then he has to show this before the fans will give him any credit for it, but that's not looking likely.

 

I don't see why the club has to pay for his bad decisions, he made them and he should pay for them. We want to have a good football club to support and watch, why should we wait year after year for him to claw back his cash that he gambled with in the first place?

 

Good article that from TF, can't argue with it.

[Colocho]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as fucking bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

[Guest neesy111]

The Halls and Shepherd's made off with a fortune from the club, Ashley has put a fortune in.

 

Unfortunately for him a number of (his own) very bad decisions cost loads of money. Are we expected to pay for those mistakes?

 

He said (although what he says is probably of little to no trustworthiness, given his record) that he was prepared to put about 20m into the Toon every year, but since the fans turned against him after KK left he has also said that he wasn't prepared to put his own money in any more, while Llambias insists that he is still doing this (out of necessity only?)

 

What do we believe - given that the club says very little, what they do say is often contradictory, and they have been proven to have no qualms about deliberately misleading the fans?

 

I reckon Ashley wants to make us as financially attractive a buy as possible while getting as much of his cash (including what he cost himself by making terrible decisions) back out the club as he can. If he genuinely isn't then he has to show this before the fans will give him any credit for it, but that's not looking likely.

 

I don't see why the club has to pay for his bad decisions, he made them and he should pay for them. We want to have a good football club to support and watch, why should we wait year after year for him to claw back his cash that he gambled with in the first place?

 

Good article that from TF, can't argue with it.

 

Shepherd made the club pay for all his bad mistakes i.e. into more debt, while also taking a wage, bonus and dividends from the club over the years.

[Zero]

The Halls and Shepherd's made off with a fortune from the club, Ashley has put a fortune in.

 

Unfortunately for him a number of (his own) very bad decisions cost loads of money. Are we expected to pay for those mistakes?

 

He said (although what he says is probably of little to no trustworthiness, given his record) that he was prepared to put about 20m into the Toon every year, but since the fans turned against him after KK left he has also said that he wasn't prepared to put his own money in any more, while Llambias insists that he is still doing this (out of necessity only?)

 

What do we believe - given that the club says very little, what they do say is often contradictory, and they have been proven to have no qualms about deliberately misleading the fans?

 

I reckon Ashley wants to make us as financially attractive a buy as possible while getting as much of his cash (including what he cost himself by making terrible decisions) back out the club as he can. If he genuinely isn't then he has to show this before the fans will give him any credit for it, but that's not looking likely.

 

I don't see why the club has to pay for his bad decisions, he made them and he should pay for them. We want to have a good football club to support and watch, why should we wait year after year for him to claw back his cash that he gambled with in the first place?

 

Good article that from TF, can't argue with it.

 

Shepherd made the club pay for all his bad mistakes i.e. into more debt, while also taking a wage, bonus and dividends from the club over the years.

 

This.

[Jack Flash]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

 

And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

 

And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

 

To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts.

[Jack Flash]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

 

And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

 

To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts.

 

The previous income was paying for things this new, extra income is now paying for.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

 

And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

 

To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts.

 

The previous income was paying for things this new, extra income is now paying for.

 

Yes, and resulting in regular losses and increase in debt. I don't see how this is hard to grasp, if you're paying out more money than you earn and your earnings increase, you don't go spending all of the extra.

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

Shepherd made the club pay for all his bad mistakes i.e. into more debt, while also taking a wage, bonus and dividends from the club over the years.

 

As well as paying his family for things like "warehouse storage". As I say I've no great regard for the Halls and especially the Shepherds, even if they gave us a lot more to cheer than the financially-prudent-but-hold-us-back Seymours and McKeags.

 

Ashley's two great faults are his terrible customer relations, and his appalling appointments. With a good chief scout in Carr he's getting better, but it remains to be seen the wisdom of revolutionising / destroying the manager, team and spirit that got us back up rather than slowly building on it.

[Jack Flash]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

 

And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

 

To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts.

 

The previous income was paying for things this new, extra income is now paying for.

 

Yes, and resulting in regular losses and increase in debt. I don't see how this is hard to grasp, if you're paying out more money than you earn and your earnings increase, you don't go spending all of the extra.

 

Haven't people on here said we're breaking even or will break even in the very near future? With 2 or 3 high earners leaving in the next year they can't be far away from having no excuses left.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Even he was stupid not to do due diligence, that doesn't change the reality of the current situation. It's a strange argument that because he spent too much buying the club, and it cost him much more than he expected, he should therefore spend even more now.

 

Pardew said the money would be reinvested out of the Carroll sale ,he was told by Llambias and thats the crux of the current debate that that promise was made and so far very little net spend of that money.

 

I agree that "promise" was a mistake, but I think expecting that it actually meant we would spend £35m on transfer fees is taking it far too literally. It was also made in a pressure situation by a manager trying to defend a very unpopular sale.

 

you're missing the point. spending none of it and then giving a list of excuses to the local press including a f***ing water pipe is a pretty clear indication of what these lot are about, and you're still not seeing it.

 

How am I missing the point? You mean I'm not coming to the same conclusion as you.

 

the conclusion i'm coming to is that they haven't spent any of it, i fail to see how you'd be too far away from that?

 

I don't know exactly how much they've spent, I agree it is probably quite a small proportion. But that doesn't outrage me as much as it does some people, because I never thought it would all go on transfers in the first place.

 

What concerns me is whether we are adding decent players to the squad, which I think we are.

 

They have "spent" around £25 million of the Carroll money.

 

Personally, I'll judge the spending on what I see on the pitch after August. Currently they've spent £300k in my book.

 

Are you joking? Please tell me you are...

 

We simply haven't "spent" £25 million. Most of it appears to be sitting in the bank on the off chance that we don't sell the players we've just "bought".

 

Which is just as f***ing bad. They've used money from the £35 million to pay Tiote's wages for the next two seasons... The money is as good as spent.

 

And that's where the "where is the rest of the income going?" question comes into it. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" is a very appropriate one.

 

To see where the rest of the income is going, and has gone in previous seasons, look at the club's accounts.

 

The previous income was paying for things this new, extra income is now paying for.

 

Yes, and resulting in regular losses and increase in debt. I don't see how this is hard to grasp, if you're paying out more money than you earn and your earnings increase, you don't go spending all of the extra.

 

Haven't people on here said we're breaking even or will break even in the very near future? With 2 or 3 high earners leaving in the next year they can't be far away from having no excuses left.

 

All future tense though - we're not quite there yet

[Colocho]

Sorry, but using the previous owners of this club as some kind of benchmark (and being grateful for having Ashley instead of them) is bollocks imo.

[Dave]

What would people's opinion be if we post a £20m profit on the next set of accounts?

 

Not saying we will, obviously.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Sorry, but using the previous owners of this club as some kind of benchmark (and being grateful for having Ashley instead of them) is bollocks imo.

 

Why? They were the ones that left the club in the position that Ashley found it.

 

Not saying it means we should ignore all his mistakes since arriving, but surely it has to be taken into account. Especially when saying shite like Ashley is taking money out, something that the previous regime were masters at.

[madras]

What would people's opinion be if we post a £20m profit on the next set of accounts?

 

Not saying we will, obviously.

should've been used to strengthen the squad.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What would people's opinion be if we post a £20m profit on the next set of accounts?

 

Not saying we will, obviously.

 

Not sure what you're getting it, but my honest answer would be that I would be happy our finances were improving. But at the same time it would only be one season out of many.

 

If we were doing it regularly I would then expect it all to be invested in the club. As the Arsenal CEO said in an interview a few months ago, their aim is to invest every penny they make. I would expect the same from any football club really, they don't exist to make money for the people at the top in the same way as a normal business.

 

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for some money to go towards reducing the debt that Mike Ashley is owed, if some was available for that purpose.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

What would people's opinion be if we post a £20m profit on the next set of accounts?

 

Not saying we will, obviously.

 

We probably will actually - The AC35 will show up as trading profit in the accounts to June 2011 (the sale is 100% profit btw). I would be horrified if all of this was wiped out in the 2011/12 accounts due to the way ammoritsation takes transfer fees in accounts (not going to send everyone off to sleep again!).

 

There's only really 2 measures to guage the AC sale

 

(1) Cashflow over the 2011 and 2012 accounts (this will show where the money has gone)

(2) League position in 2012 compared to 2011 (showing how effectively (1) was carried out)