80 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 And for those with the Mike pocketing all the money theory: He has no incentive what so ever to do that. If he sells his main assets (the best players), he will have some yes, but remember that the club's value will be reduced accordingly. He's not able to sell a club that is in debt and got only shitty players. Also, selling key players will affect his chances of stabilizing the club in PL, and may also has ramifications for the club's survival in the league. A relegation is much much worse case scenario for him. Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club. No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 And for those with the Mike pocketing all the money theory: He has no incentive what so ever to do that. If he sells his main assets (the best players), he will have some yes, but remember that the club's value will be reduced accordingly. He's not able to sell a club that is in debt and got only shitty players. Also, selling key players will affect his chances of stabilizing the club in PL, and may also has ramifications for the club's survival in the league. A relegation is much much worse case scenario for him. Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club. No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. If he really is a git, wanting to get some easy money back year on year, a good place to start might be to draw a salary and maybe charge a few million a year in interest on his loans for a start. But no, your scenario that he's happy to asset strip by putting an unbelievably good academy and scouting network in place to develop a least 2 or more top class players a year, just to sell them at the end of the season and somehow syphon off the cash from the clubs accounts, does seem more achievable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 And for those with the Mike pocketing all the money theory: He has no incentive what so ever to do that. If he sells his main assets (the best players), he will have some yes, but remember that the club's value will be reduced accordingly. He's not able to sell a club that is in debt and got only shitty players. Also, selling key players will affect his chances of stabilizing the club in PL, and may also has ramifications for the club's survival in the league. A relegation is much much worse case scenario for him. Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club. No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. If he really is a git, wanting to get some easy money back year on year, a good place to start might be to draw a salary and maybe charge a few million a year in interest on his loans for a start. But no, your scenario that he's happy to asset strip by putting an unbelievably good academy and scouting network in place to develop a least 2 or more top class players a year, just to sell them at the end of the season and somehow syphon off the cash from the clubs accounts, does seem more achievable. Certainly a better idea, yes. Far more plausible that he'd consider that route, too. Wages and interest rates might yet come, but would be a slow route to recouping his money let alone anything else, and until recently would have only really compromised his ambitions, of course. By the way, 'somehow syphon cash from the club accounts' - are you seriously suggesting he's going to convert his loan into a gift and never take that money out of the club? If so I disagree. It'll come out one way or another. Some assume he's hoping for a quick sale to someone who prepared to pay it off as part of the transaction - maybe, I'll be delighted if so - but otherwise it's only reasonable for him to consider other alternatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 Should have around £500,000 to spend on acquiring academy players from elsewhere with the money promised from the 12th man memberships to go into the academy. A few more Vuckic's please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You need to spend money, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. So hopefully they spend it and spend it wisely and if you bring certain characters into this dressing room they will buy into the work ethic. That might not have happened four or five years ago. I know it’s the nature of this club that it’s stop-start. As soon as we get something going players get sold and then we have to start again. We’ve got some good players and if we can add more to that in the summer then we’ve got the basis, a spine of a top side that is capable of challenging for Europe. This squad wants to keep pushing on but we need to compete on all fronts. It’s up to the men upstairs to make sure we amass a squad and get the bodies to do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Well said Mr. Barton. I get the feeling he is going to wait and see what happens in the summer before signing a new deal (or not). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 This squad wants to keep pushing on but we need to compete on all fronts. It’s up to the men upstairs to make sure we amass a squad and get the bodies to do that. I believe the bold there, but I think it's also clear 'this group of lads' are losing faith in the long-term project they bought into last year. They want to do it, but they can't if the rug's pulled out from underneath them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And for those with the Mike pocketing all the money theory: He has no incentive what so ever to do that. If he sells his main assets (the best players), he will have some yes, but remember that the club's value will be reduced accordingly. He's not able to sell a club that is in debt and got only shitty players. Also, selling key players will affect his chances of stabilizing the club in PL, and may also has ramifications for the club's survival in the league. A relegation is much much worse case scenario for him. Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club. No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. Of course that reasoning only works IF the team is kept as successful as before those players were sold. As obviously the value of a Football club is more then simply the value of its assets minus its debts. Trying the sell off the clubs best players every season, and replace them with more players you can sell for a profit the following season while keeping the club in the Premiership sounds like an unbelievably difficult way of going about getting his money back. Do you reckon he believes he can do that for the 8-10 consecutive seasons necessary to get his investment back?.. Would he even want to spend that amount of time slowly dripping the money back into his personal account? Surely the better way would be to try his best to improve the value of the club, through financial stability and improved performances on the pitch, to the point where he can sell it on. As hard as that could be its not going to be as risky or arduous as your suggestion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And for those with the Mike pocketing all the money theory: He has no incentive what so ever to do that. If he sells his main assets (the best players), he will have some yes, but remember that the club's value will be reduced accordingly. He's not able to sell a club that is in debt and got only shitty players. Also, selling key players will affect his chances of stabilizing the club in PL, and may also has ramifications for the club's survival in the league. A relegation is much much worse case scenario for him. Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club. No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. Of course that reasoning only works IF the team is kept as successful as before those players were sold. As obviously the value of a Football club is more then simply the value of its assets minus its debts. Trying the sell off the clubs best players every season, and replace them with more players you can sell for a profit the following season while keeping the club in the Premiership sounds like an unbelievably difficult way of going about getting his money back. Do you reckon he believes he can do that for the 8-10 consecutive seasons necessary to get his investment back?.. Would he even want to spend that amount of time slowly dripping the money back into his personal account? Surely the better way would be to try his best to improve the value of the club, through financial stability and improved performances on the pitch, to the point where he can sell it on. As hard as that could be its not going to be as risky or arduous as your suggestion. Spot on! I think he'll maximum sell one more player, but only if he's offered another ludicrous sum. Then he economical base will be solid and he will seek to generate income through getting us to Europe. And I think we have a good possibility of achieving that next season if we strike gold on the transfer market, again. And it's much easier to gain profit now because he's trimmed the salaries. In the summer Smith's 50-60 a week will be gone too. That will save us £3 mill a year or almost another Tiote.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 it's awesome how people still think they can predict what the daft fat cunt might do next, even after all this time and agony only thing guaranteed is he'll probably make a minimum of one decision that's insane to anyone that knows football Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Jesus christ. Can't people be more positive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfcmagpies Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Spot on! I think he'll maximum sell one more player, but only if he's offered another ludicrous sum. Then he economical base will be solid and he will seek to generate income through getting us to Europe. And I think we have a good possibility of achieving that next season if we strike gold on the transfer market, again. And it's much easier to gain profit now because he's trimmed the salaries. In the summer Smith's 50-60 a week will be gone too. That will save us £3 mill a year or almost another Tiote.. Sickeningly optimistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Considering the club know everyone will be watching like a hawk and ticking off every amount towards a total of £35m, I'd be amazed if most of our purchases didn't cost £UNDISCLOSED. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 What are the facts about our finances/debt at the minute. Does anyone have details of income/expenditures current debt at the minute? Just curious to see what sort of a position we are actually in at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Considering the club know everyone will be watching like a hawk and ticking off every amount towards a total of £35m, I'd be amazed if most of our purchases didn't cost £UNDISCLOSED. even then it's not really clear. for all we shouldn't take any new signings full contracts worth of wages out the carroll money we can't ignore that they will want paid and has to be budgeted for, the carroll money will form part of that budget as will all other incomings (sponsorship,tv etc) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Spot on! I think he'll maximum sell one more player, but only if he's offered another ludicrous sum. Then he economical base will be solid and he will seek to generate income through getting us to Europe. And I think we have a good possibility of achieving that next season if we strike gold on the transfer market, again. And it's much easier to gain profit now because he's trimmed the salaries. In the summer Smith's 50-60 a week will be gone too. That will save us £3 mill a year or almost another Tiote.. Sickeningly optimistic. And you're sickeningly pessimistic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 And for those with the Mike pocketing all the money theory: He has no incentive what so ever to do that. If he sells his main assets (the best players), he will have some yes, but remember that the club's value will be reduced accordingly. He's not able to sell a club that is in debt and got only shitty players. Also, selling key players will affect his chances of stabilizing the club in PL, and may also has ramifications for the club's survival in the league. A relegation is much much worse case scenario for him. Value of club includes any assets the club has (including players) so selling them would decrease value of the club. No, because the club now has the value of the player in cash form. Hypothetically, if someone bought the club from him tomorrow, they'd also effectively be buying Andy Carroll's value (either in terms of an available balance, or more likely reduced debts). So the value of the club need not be reduced by selling players. (Fyi, there's more to that conversation regarding possible club value outcomes following a player sale) It would of course be stupid to sell all the competent players at once, which is why I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that. But bleed it steadily, say by removing a couple of top class players per year and hoping internal development and good scouting will make up most of the shortfall, that definitely can be achieved. Of course that reasoning only works IF the team is kept as successful as before those players were sold. As obviously the value of a Football club is more then simply the value of its assets minus its debts. Trying the sell off the clubs best players every season, and replace them with more players you can sell for a profit the following season while keeping the club in the Premiership sounds like an unbelievably difficult way of going about getting his money back. Do you reckon he believes he can do that for the 8-10 consecutive seasons necessary to get his investment back?.. Would he even want to spend that amount of time slowly dripping the money back into his personal account? Surely the better way would be to try his best to improve the value of the club, through financial stability and improved performances on the pitch, to the point where he can sell it on. As hard as that could be its not going to be as risky or arduous as your suggestion. I don't see why you A) think he has any other option for getting his money back faster or in as risk-free a manner. First of all, what I'm suggesting will improve the financial stability of the club - it will be run in such a way as to see very few monetary skeletons in our closet should bad fortune befall us. At this point I'd like to make clear there's a difference between financial stability and prosperity. Now that said, I also believe this route can continue to improve the club's financial prosperity. What you suggest, improving performances, presumably with a view to out-competing the well-funded top 7 and gaining revenue from European competition will 1) cost money, some would argue a lot of money, even just to retain our good players like Andy Carroll, and 2) add risk - that is to say there's no guarantee such an investment will be successful when there are patently a lot of richer, more enthusiastic club owners around who would want to do the same thing. It's the law of marginal returns - you tend to have to try a lot harder to get increasingly small rises up the table. Such investments could go wrong... who knows, we could end up with the 6th (iirc) largest wage bill and 18th best club again like 08/09... And that is a nightmare for him. Far more profitable to scout well, pick up lots of hungry hot prospects, or damaged goods (Ben Arfa), and try to add value to them and strike gold with 20% of them (Carroll, Tiote), while hoping to get acceptable performances out of the others (Williamson, Best). It won't be easy to maintain a high/consistent rate of success for the team with this policy, no. I think even he knows that, although he makes such shit judgements you wonder sometimes. But the realistic ideal scenario for him is to go through success cycles that run along the lines of 'lean year (15th), good year (8th), lean year, good year' etc. The fundamental value of owning a well-supported Premiership team would be retained, with the additional benefit of not employing anybody on wages intended for more than a severe relegation battle because so soon as other clubs notice they're worthy of earning a great deal more than that they will go elsewhere. A certain quality and consistency will be maintained by a section of club stalwarts (a supine but steady manager who signed up to this future or knows he'll not get a better position/proving ground for himself anywhere else, for example...) so as to keep the club's business as coherent and smooth as possible. Now that said, we may go down eventually. These things happen, he knows that better than most. But we will be designed for relegation - playing staff and a financial situation that can survive it, like West Bromwich do (relegation doesn't always equal oblivion, of course). Furthermore, he knows we have better reserve finances (his personal wealth) and believes we have the best-supported relegated team in history, so that he won't actually lose money in the mean time and, maybe with an extremely modest investment (Routledge £1m+ish), can power back out of the Second Division without too much fuss soon enough afterwards and return to the land of profits. If he thought our attendances would ever collapse to the standard or even below average levels of other clubs, he'd have a lot less phlegmatic attitude to the risks of relegation, and would accordingly seek to handle this club differently (almost certainly by trying much harder to sell the club and reducing his over-inflated asking price - because try as they might, sellers don't get to dictate the sale value in an unhealthy market, just ask a real estate analyst...). But so long as he can rely on 40,000 paying him Premiership ticket prices in the Second Division, he doesn't have to worry. B) Why would it take 8-10 seasons? Remember he'll get a hefty amount from the sale of the club, he doesn't have to recoup every penny he spent on buying and financing the club through player sales. It's reasonable to imagine he can get (very conservatively) £60-70m for the club, if not £120m or much more... It was the loans he wanted immediately repaying in full to him which held things up last time. £12m for James Milner, £9m for Oba Martins, £8m(?) for Sebastien Bassong, £35m for Andy Carroll, £8m-16m for Jose Enrique, £20m for Tiote... soon adds up. Across four season (allowing for the latter two), that's not bad going. As I say, I'm not suggesting he only can or will make money through player sales - run in an efficient manner, a handsome profit can also be made from standard yearly operations. The aim would be to have a trend-buckingly low wages-profit ratio. I want to make clear, he isn't guaranteed success with this strategy - because players and supporters can put a stop to it through our own actions. Whether either group will though is another question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEA Mag Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You need to spend money, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. So hopefully they spend it and spend it wisely and if you bring certain characters into this dressing room they will buy into the work ethic. That might not have happened four or five years ago. I know its the nature of this club that its stop-start. As soon as we get something going players get sold and then we have to start again. Weve got some good players and if we can add more to that in the summer then weve got the basis, a spine of a top side that is capable of challenging for Europe. This squad wants to keep pushing on but we need to compete on all fronts. Its up to the men upstairs to make sure we amass a squad and get the bodies to do that. I wonder how the likes of Best, Sol, Lovenkrands and Perch would feel, seeing that they cost (relatively) peanuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't know how you think your idea is at all risk free. It assumes that we can continually find good players for small fees and sell them on for big fees and then find more and sell them on and so on while managing to stay in the division, with the profit being siphoned away. Even if it was possible (finding those kind of players year after year) its an incredibly risky strategy, as it consistently destabilises the team while at the same time alienating fans to the point were they would simply stop coming. The value of the club would decrease and Ashley might still not even get all his investment back over the course of a decade as our revenues would dwindle away. Really the only main difference in my suggestion is that the money from player sales is put back in to improve the side in order to increase the value of the club. That doesn't cost extra money, as its only money the club is creating itself. If done right he can then sell and make his money back much quicker. I agree with your point about wages in the main. They should be kept below a certain percentage of our revenue, and if a player gets too big for his boots then yes we have to sell. However what I suggest would be that all money generated by the club is reinvested in the club. That doesn't mean the wages have to go out of control, especially with more money left in the club to pay the bills. B) Why would it take 8-10 seasons? Remember he'll get a hefty amount from the sale of the club, he doesn't have to recoup every penny he spent on buying and financing the club through player sales. It's reasonable to imagine he can get (very conservatively) £60-70m for the club, if not £120m or much more... It was the loans he wanted immediately repaying in full to him which held things up last time. £12m for James Milner, £9m for Oba Martins, £8m(?) for Sebastien Bassong, £35m for Andy Carroll, £8m-16m for Jose Enrique, £20m for Tiote... soon adds up. Across four season (allowing for the latter two), that's not bad going. His investment is something like £250m isn't it? Even if he managed to sell a ruined Football club with a severely dwindling fanbase (as it would be with the strategy you're suggesting) for £100m. He'd then have to bring in £150m in profit from the club, hows he going to do that in less then 10 seasons? You've mentioned some random fee's their, but I don't see the relevance. A lot of those were acquired before he was even here, when we had a squad of expensive/highly thought of (but of course totally useless in the main) players. Also most of them ended up being sold, not to pay off his loan, but to try to keep the club going financially due to the fact that he'd gotten us relegated, and he actually still lost out anyway and had to add further to his loan to keep the club going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't know how you think your idea is at all risk free. It assumes that we can continually find good players for small fees and sell them on for big fees and then find more and sell them on and so on while managing to stay in the division, with the profit being siphoned away. Even if it was possible (finding those kind of players year after year) its an incredibly risky strategy, as it consistently destabilises the team while at the same time alienating fans to the point were they would simply stop coming. The value of the club would decrease and Ashley might still not even get all his investment back over the course of a decade as our revenues would dwindle away. Really the only main difference in my suggestion is that the money from player sales is put back in to improve the side in order to increase the value of the club. That doesn't cost extra money, as its only money the club is creating itself. If done right he can then sell and make his money back much quicker. I agree with your point about wages in the main. They should be kept below a certain percentage of our revenue, and if a player gets too big for his boots then yes we have to sell. However what I suggest would be that all money generated by the club is reinvested in the club. That doesn't mean the wages have to go out of control, especially with more money left in the club to pay the bills. B) Why would it take 8-10 seasons? Remember he'll get a hefty amount from the sale of the club, he doesn't have to recoup every penny he spent on buying and financing the club through player sales. It's reasonable to imagine he can get (very conservatively) £60-70m for the club, if not £120m or much more... It was the loans he wanted immediately repaying in full to him which held things up last time. £12m for James Milner, £9m for Oba Martins, £8m(?) for Sebastien Bassong, £35m for Andy Carroll, £8m-16m for Jose Enrique, £20m for Tiote... soon adds up. Across four season (allowing for the latter two), that's not bad going. His investment is something like £250m isn't it? Even if he managed to sell a ruined Football club with a severely dwindling fanbase (as it would be with the strategy you're suggesting) for £100m. He'd then have to bring in £150m in profit from the club, hows he going to do that in less then 10 seasons? You've mentioned some random fee's their, but I don't see the relevance. A lot of those were acquired before he was even here, when we had a squad of expensive/highly thought of (but of course totally useless in the main) players. Also most of them ended up being sold, not to pay off his loan, but to try to keep the club going financially due to the fact that he'd gotten us relegated, and he actually still lost out anyway and had to add further to his loan to keep the club going. Quite. If it's such a reasonable strategy, surely all these other clubs might have hit upon this golden formula to reel in the profits by now? It's simply not that easy to create a production line of top line talent. We are very lucky (or good transfer judgement recently) to have players currently that are good enough to turn the heads of champions league clubs. Obviously it would be great to bring in more players on a par with them, but realistically, banking a few sales now should, if used wisely, help us move on much further, much faster as a club than we can afford as things stood as a newly promoted side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 If it's such a reasonable strategy, surely all these other clubs might have hit upon this golden formula to reel in the profits by now? It's simply not that easy to create a production line of top line talent. 1) Other clubs are run with other ambitions. In footballing terms, there are clear restraints to what I'm proposing, so it will not be popular with everyone. 2) There's been a semi-artificial barrier of fear between clubs and relegation from the Premiership. Ashley was forced through that and found things need not be so bad. 3) Strategy is contextual. It's not only about aims but means. We're the stupidest big club in England, not a highly-efficient little club, which makes us nice to own. There are a number of 'tweener' clubs who float between the top two divisions and are financially healthy, but not necessarily hugely profitable. This is because they tend to have lower or less loyal supports, and are less attractive as clubs, lacking the stadium, reputation and history that the average 20-something footballer will be even vaguely aware of. It may not mean a huge amount, but it does at least mean something for Leon Best to play in our colours, and even mercenaries will recognise St James Park as being a bigger stage to showcase their talents in. Combined with our essential financial muscle, we play by different rules to all but a handful of clubs (and they're generally already successful, so their owners don't need to think about ways of recouping their investment even if that was their only interest...). 4) It seems I can't stress enough to you how much the plan I identify is centred on minimising risk. Profit is a bonus, albeit one he's likely to get and will be delighted to receive. His main aim, however, is never to stretch himself in such a way that creates the risk of serious loss, with only smaller, more affordable risks taken for potentially massive reward (the ones where winning some and losing some see you coming out massively ahead - e.g. Routledge (no loss) and Tiote (big gain)) 5) Just because you think it's not a sensible approach to running a football club, just because lots of people don't, it doesn't mean Ashley and Llambias agree. I reckon Llambias, the day to day decision maker, in particular reckons they're uncommonly savvy guys who know how to pull moves and have a lot of good ideas about the game. (This is more for the Teasy post I haven't addressed yet) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 You need to spend money, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. So hopefully they spend it and spend it wisely and if you bring certain characters into this dressing room they will buy into the work ethic. That might not have happened four or five years ago. I know its the nature of this club that its stop-start. As soon as we get something going players get sold and then we have to start again. Weve got some good players and if we can add more to that in the summer then weve got the basis, a spine of a top side that is capable of challenging for Europe. This squad wants to keep pushing on but we need to compete on all fronts. Its up to the men upstairs to make sure we amass a squad and get the bodies to do that. I wonder how the likes of Best, Sol, Lovenkrands and Perch would feel, seeing that they cost (relatively) peanuts. Another person choosing not to read the following sentence and assuming it means wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 2) There's been a semi-artificial barrier of fear between clubs and relegation from the Premiership. Ashley was forced through that and found things need not be so bad. He lost £30m through that despite bringing in £30m in transfer money and cutting the wage bill in half. How did he not find it so bad then? 3) Strategy is contextual. It's not only about aims but means. We're the stupidest big club in England, not a highly-efficient little club, which makes us nice to own. There are a number of 'tweener' clubs who float between the top two divisions and are financially healthy, but not necessarily hugely profitable. This is because they tend to have lower or less loyal supports, and are less attractive as clubs, lacking the stadium, reputation and history that the average 20-something footballer will be even vaguely aware of. It may not mean a huge amount, but it does at least mean something for Leon Best to play in our colours, and even mercenaries will recognise St James Park as being a bigger stage to showcase their talents in. Combined with our essential financial muscle, we play by different rules to all but a handful of clubs (and they're generally already successful, so their owners don't need to think about ways of recouping their investment even if that was their only interest...). But what your suggesting would turn us into a highly efficient little club. You seem to think that the advantage we hold over other clubs in revenue and stature will always be there no matter what. Mirror West Brom over the next 10 years and our name/stature and revenue will drop to their kind of levels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 If we're in the Premier League and around mid table, we'll always get 50k IMO. Our reputation in the world might decline, but our fans have already proved they will put up with anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 2) There's been a semi-artificial barrier of fear between clubs and relegation from the Premiership. Ashley was forced through that and found things need not be so bad. 3) Strategy is contextual. It's not only about aims but means. We're the stupidest big club in England, not a highly-efficient little club, which makes us nice to own. There are a number of 'tweener' clubs who float between the top two divisions and are financially healthy, but not necessarily hugely profitable. This is because they tend to have lower or less loyal supports, and are less attractive as clubs, lacking the stadium, reputation and history that the average 20-something footballer will be even vaguely aware of. It may not mean a huge amount, but it does at least mean something for Leon Best to play in our colours, and even mercenaries will recognise St James Park as being a bigger stage to showcase their talents in. Combined with our essential financial muscle, we play by different rules to all but a handful of clubs (and they're generally already successful, so their owners don't need to think about ways of recouping their investment even if that was their only interest...). But what your suggesting would turn us into a highly efficient little club. You seem to think that the advantage we hold over other clubs in revenue and stature will always be there no matter what. Mirror West Brom over the next 10 years and we'll end up very much like West Brom. The main point is that one of the reasons why we've ended up in the situation we did, was because of lack of strategy and hurling money at mediocre players. That MAs is walking the path of frugality now, doesn't necessarily mean that he will be on that stroll forever. I think 80s point, and mine too, is that by getting control on the salaries and the general economy now, will put MA og Castle in a very strong position in the future. As soon as Castle is able to stand on its own feet, MA will plow some of that money back into the club, investing more in players etc. And if we are able to stabilize around a european spot, the stadium could built out and filled with ease. There are few, if any clubs with the same potential, and I think MA know that. That's why he's setting up a sound foundation now. I think that is an ambition of intent. Spending money need not necessarily represent ambition as long as they are spent needlessly and without a clear plan. 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