Finances 09/10 - 'Our vision for the club is to finish 10th or above every year'

[quayside]

Quayside - you can hardly blame people for being suspicious of Ashley's motives towards this club given how he's ran it for the last 4 years?! Sure - things may well be looking up financially now but it's what he does next that is going to be the big question. Is he going to be merely content with PL survival whilst he asset strips the club to claw back the cash he is owed, or will he show a bit of ambition to push us onwards and upwards? The jury is still very much 'out' and will be for some time yet.

 

I don't blame people for being suspicious, I myself am still sceptical in fact I might use the word agnostic. As you say the jury is still out. I have been appalled by some of the things that have happened under Ashley - but not everything by any means.     

 

And my post was directed at the idea that anyone who doesn't immediately and automatically rubbish anything and everything that the club does is an "Ashley lover". And an "Ashley lover" as defined is perfectly content with everything that has happened during the last three and a half years, thinks no mistakes were made and is quite happy to watch the club make no progress in the future. I happen to think that no genuine fan thinks like that.

 

[Dave]

Quayside - you can hardly blame people for being suspicious of Ashley's motives towards this club given how he's ran it for the last 4 years?! Sure - things may well be looking up financially now but it's what he does next that is going to be the big question. Is he going to be merely content with PL survival whilst he asset strips the club to claw back the cash he is owed, or will he show a bit of ambition to push us onwards and upwards? The jury is still very much 'out' and will be for some time yet.

 

I don't blame people for being suspicious, I myself am still sceptical in fact I might use the word agnostic. As you say the jury is still out. I have been appalled by some of the things that have happened under Ashley - but not everything by any means.     

 

And my post was directed at the idea that anyone who doesn't immediately and automatically rubbish anything and everything that the club does is an "Ashley lover". And an "Ashley lover" as defined is perfectly content with everything that has happened during the last three and a half years, thinks no mistakes were made and is quite happy to watch the club make no progress in the future. I happen to think that no genuine fan thinks like that.

 

 

[Wullie]

The club had an opportunity of Europe this season but preferred cash. I worry about how naive someone would have to be to think that Llambias claiming they have the ambition for the club to play in Europe is anything other than a blatant lie.

 

I remember that too Dave. The defining turning point of Shepherd's tenure was his failure to give Sir Bobby any money in the summer of 2003 in case we didn't qualify for the Champion's League. Of course that failure to invest was exactly the reason we didn't qualify and eventually into the arms of the prick who owns the club today.

 

Shepherd was before his time because he got absolutely slated for that decision then and rightly so. If he'd done that today he'd be praised to the hilt by the balance sheet brigade for whom investment is now made out to be the immediate precursor to administration.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well obviously it affects our ambitions on the pitch if we can't afford to spend as much money, that's so obvious that it hardly merits discussion.

 

I was responding to the asset stripping point, which I maintain clearly isn't happening.

 

I can remember when all we had to worry about was results on the pitch as well... that was before we realised what financial shit we'd got ourselves into. I wish I could just pretend that what happens on the pitch is everything, but now we know to much for that.

 

On your trying to qualify for Europe point, haven't the club just said that's exactly what they are doing?

 

Those players were already at the club, no additional spending was required. If you think we'll successfully chase Europe by selling our best players and not replacing them then fair enough but I disagree.

 

Unless we're about to 'disappear from the face of the earth' (like all those other Premier League clubs have) then I still don't give much of a shit about the finances of the club, just like I don't care which of our players is paid £x per week. I support the team that comes out onto the pitch on a match day, and I don't like to see that team weakened because I believe it reduces our chances of winning. Simple as that.

 

Well fine, I just can't take that simplistic a few of the situation.

 

I know you don't really believe that I think our best chance of qualifying for Europe is to sell our best players, so I'll ignore that one.

[Colocho]

Well obviously it affects our ambitions on the pitch if we can't afford to spend as much money, that's so obvious that it hardly merits discussion.

 

I was responding to the asset stripping point, which I maintain clearly isn't happening.

 

I can remember when all we had to worry about was results on the pitch as well... that was before we realised what financial shit we'd got ourselves into. I wish I could just pretend that what happens on the pitch is everything, but now we know to much for that.

 

On your trying to qualify for Europe point, haven't the club just said that's exactly what they are doing?

 

Those players were already at the club, no additional spending was required. If you think we'll successfully chase Europe by selling our best players and not replacing them then fair enough but I disagree.

 

Unless we're about to 'disappear from the face of the earth' (like all those other Premier League clubs have) then I still don't give much of a shit about the finances of the club, just like I don't care which of our players is paid £x per week. I support the team that comes out onto the pitch on a match day, and I don't like to see that team weakened because I believe it reduces our chances of winning. Simple as that.

 

Well fine, I just can't take that simplistic a few of the situation.

 

I know you don't really believe that I think our best chance of qualifying for Europe is to sell our best players, so I'll ignore that one.

 

 

Two great posts btw, Dave and Wullie.

[JH]

I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe.

[Colocho]

I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe.

 

 

Hmmm, what conclusion have you come to?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well obviously it affects our ambitions on the pitch if we can't afford to spend as much money, that's so obvious that it hardly merits discussion.

 

I was responding to the asset stripping point, which I maintain clearly isn't happening.

 

I can remember when all we had to worry about was results on the pitch as well... that was before we realised what financial shit we'd got ourselves into. I wish I could just pretend that what happens on the pitch is everything, but now we know to much for that.

 

On your trying to qualify for Europe point, haven't the club just said that's exactly what they are doing?

 

Those players were already at the club, no additional spending was required. If you think we'll successfully chase Europe by selling our best players and not replacing them then fair enough but I disagree.

 

Unless we're about to 'disappear from the face of the earth' (like all those other Premier League clubs have) then I still don't give much of a shit about the finances of the club, just like I don't care which of our players is paid £x per week. I support the team that comes out onto the pitch on a match day, and I don't like to see that team weakened because I believe it reduces our chances of winning. Simple as that.

 

Well fine, I just can't take that simplistic a few of the situation.

 

I know you don't really believe that I think our best chance of qualifying for Europe is to sell our best players, so I'll ignore that one.

 

 

Two great posts btw, Dave and Wullie.

 

FFS man, I always try my best on here to argue my point properly, then people resort to the facepalm smiley.

 

Dave said he just worries about what happens on the pitch and doesn't care much about the finances. I was saying I don't think like that - what's so facepalm-worthy about that?

[mrmojorisin75]

The club had an opportunity of Europe this season but preferred cash.

while i agree with this it only stands up if the club definitely looked at the short view - if they honestly re-invest the money this summer and we come out with a better squad and challenge europe next season then it doesn't stand up at all

 

personally i don't think they're capable of the long view

[JH]

I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe.

 

 

Hmmm, what conclusion have you come to?

 

Have we still got a chance of Europe now? I don't think so and we'd have only had Carroll back against Stoke (his first start in the PL was against Sunderland the day after).

[ToonTastic]

What was our debt to the banks before Ashley took over ?

[Colocho]

Well obviously it affects our ambitions on the pitch if we can't afford to spend as much money, that's so obvious that it hardly merits discussion.

 

I was responding to the asset stripping point, which I maintain clearly isn't happening.

 

I can remember when all we had to worry about was results on the pitch as well... that was before we realised what financial shit we'd got ourselves into. I wish I could just pretend that what happens on the pitch is everything, but now we know to much for that.

 

On your trying to qualify for Europe point, haven't the club just said that's exactly what they are doing?

 

Those players were already at the club, no additional spending was required. If you think we'll successfully chase Europe by selling our best players and not replacing them then fair enough but I disagree.

 

Unless we're about to 'disappear from the face of the earth' (like all those other Premier League clubs have) then I still don't give much of a shit about the finances of the club, just like I don't care which of our players is paid £x per week. I support the team that comes out onto the pitch on a match day, and I don't like to see that team weakened because I believe it reduces our chances of winning. Simple as that.

 

Well fine, I just can't take that simplistic a few of the situation.

 

I know you don't really believe that I think our best chance of qualifying for Europe is to sell our best players, so I'll ignore that one.

 

 

Two great posts btw, Dave and Wullie.

 

FFS man, I always try my best on here to argue my point properly, then people resort to the facepalm smiley.

 

Dave said he just worries about what happens on the pitch and doesn't care much about the finances. I was saying I don't think like that - what's so facepalm-worthy about that?

 

Sorry. I don't like using the facepalm smiley.

 

I just can't see what you don't understand about what Dave was saying. Obviously there's never a wholly simplistic explanation to a situation ... but come on, we don't have the taxman on our doorstep and certainly aren't facing administration.

 

Just how long are we supposed to believe that we are on the brink of financial meltdown and therefore have to sell the likes of Carroll to stay on sturdy financial footing? I for one won't, and I'm glad to see others will not believe their shite any longer.

 

We now have an opportunity to push on as a club and credit to Ashley and co for reducing the wage bill (although, would we still have the likes of Martins and Duff on our books had we not gone down?) However, the only way we will progress is by keeping the likes of Carroll, Enrique and Barton, which the club have yet to show they will endeavour to do.

 

I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe.

 

 

Hmmm, what conclusion have you come to?

 

Have we still got a chance of Europe now? I don't think so and we'd have only had Carroll back against Stoke (his first start in the PL was against Sunderland the day after).

 

If we had Carroll back in the side for the Wolves match, and the rest of the season, I reckon we'd pick up 10/11 points at the very least.

 

"I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe."

 

This made me laugh, because when we sold Carroll one of my immediate thoughts was forgetting about Europe next season.

[UV]

Well obviously it affects our ambitions on the pitch if we can't afford to spend as much money, that's so obvious that it hardly merits discussion.

 

Turnover is absolutely nothing in business...

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well obviously it affects our ambitions on the pitch if we can't afford to spend as much money, that's so obvious that it hardly merits discussion.

 

Turnover is absolutely nothing in business...

 

Thanks for spending so much time going back through my posts, but those two aren't contradictory.

 

When I said turnover is nothing in business, I explained that it needs to lead to a healthy profit for it to be good for the business.

 

Whether we can afford to spend money on players depends on how much of a profit/loss we're likely to make and whether that's sustainable, not on how high our turnover is.

 

I'm assuming you know that 'turnover' just means income.

[JH]

If we had Carroll back in the side for the Wolves match, and the rest of the season, I reckon we'd pick up 10/11 points at the very least.

 

Which wouldn't be enough for Europe. So his sale is not effecting a European challenge this season at all, unless of course Carroll miraculously came back earlier for us and his return forced Birmingham not to win the Carling Cup and Stoke/Bolton not to make the FA Cup final, which I doubt.

 

"I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe."

 

This made me laugh, because when we sold Carroll one of my immediate thoughts was forgetting about Europe next season.

 

Except I wasn't referring to next season

[Wullie]

Liverpool, if memory serves, were 2 points above us on the day we sold him and they will qualify to Europe. At that point it also seemed highly likely that there would be a 7th place up for grabs, our contenders then being sunderland and Bolton. They'd also recently hired a new far better manager according to them so should expect to pick up far more points per game than we had before him.

 

It's a ridiculous rewrite of history to say Europe was never a possibility at that point when you'd have Carroll back for 6-8 games.

[Colocho]

If we had Carroll back in the side for the Wolves match, and the rest of the season, I reckon we'd pick up 10/11 points at the very least.

 

Which wouldn't be enough for Europe. So his sale is not effecting a European challenge this season at all, unless of course Carroll miraculously came back earlier for us and his return forced Birmingham not to win the Carling Cup and Stoke/Bolton not to make the FA Cup final, which I doubt.

 

"I'd love to know how selling Carroll had an effect on our challenge for Europe."

 

This made me laugh, because when we sold Carroll one of my immediate thoughts was forgetting about Europe next season.

 

Except I wasn't referring to next season

 

First point could be argued all day, and I can't be arsed to.

 

If you are talking about the season after next, then that's depends on which strikers we bring in this summer. Andy Carroll is that special kind of 'target man' who I believe can compliment any 'type' of striker, and he'll probably be playing European football for the rest of his career. It's a shame it won't be with us.

[Zero]

Liverpool, if memory serves, were 2 points above us on the day we sold him and they will qualify to Europe. At that point it also seemed highly likely that there would be a 7th place up for grabs, our contenders then being sunderland and Bolton. They'd also recently hired a new far better manager according to them so should expect to pick up far more points per game than we had before him.

 

It's a ridiculous rewrite of history to say Europe was never a possibility at that point when you'd have Carroll back for 6-8 games.

 

Yup, that was a gamble taken by Ashley.  The result - I know you won't agree - is Ashley won it.

Put it the other way, if we agreed to his new contract demands (nevermind the other players' reaction) and no Europe competition next season, imagine what will happen this summer.  I can guarantee you either Carroll or a few key players will be sold in order to balance the books.

 

To those who say it's bullshit that we can't afford making lots of investment /  sign a few star players with 50k+ wages, the truth is we couldn't.  There's an argument that "without investment how can we progress".  So where does the money come from? We nearly went bankrupt because we spent money before we earned (re post Souness era) and we cannot do it again.

 

Prepared to be labelled as Ashley-lovers, anyway.

[Wullie]

Why couldn't we have kept him and not given him a new contract? Crazy idea I know.

[Dave]

He'd have probably bought his own contract out apparently. Followed by the rest of the good players in the squad.

[Zero]

What was our debt to the banks before Ashley took over ?

 

Just do some google research:

http://www.nufc.co.uk/staticFiles/53/12/0,,10278~4691,00.pdf

Our debt as at 31 July 2005 was about 105m, with 43m short-term (due within 1 year) and 62m long term.

 

one year later:

http://www.nufc.co.uk/staticFiles/ea/3d/0,,10278~81386,00.pdf

The total debt is close to 111m (excluding deferred income)

 

Unable to find the accounts afterwards

[JH]

He'd have probably bought his own contract out apparently. Followed by the rest of the good players in the squad.

 

Because that's what I said.

[Cronky]

The club had an opportunity of Europe this season but preferred cash. I worry about how naive someone would have to be to think that Llambias claiming they have the ambition for the club to play in Europe is anything other than a blatant lie.

 

I remember that too Dave. The defining turning point of Shepherd's tenure was his failure to give Sir Bobby any money in the summer of 2003 in case we didn't qualify for the Champion's League. Of course that failure to invest was exactly the reason we didn't qualify and eventually into the arms of the prick who owns the club today.

 

Shepherd was before his time because he got absolutely slated for that decision then and rightly so. If he'd done that today he'd be praised to the hilt by the balance sheet brigade for whom investment is now made out to be the immediate precursor to administration.

 

That situation was a turning point, but it's more complex than that.

 

Unless you're backed by an oil billionaire who effectively has a bottomless pit of money, then you have to put a cap on spending at some stage. That was the point Shepherd reached.

 

More seriously, we failed to adhere to the long-term plan that we'd been following of finding and developing younger talent, and Shepherd was at the heart of that change of focus. We allowed Shearer to continue as a first-team regular right up to the point of retirement, to the serious detriment of the development of the side. One by one, all our young talent went over the next few seasons - Bellamy, Woodgate, Dyer, Hughes, Jenas - and we were left having to go even further into debt to shore up a sinking ship. If we'd let Shearer go at that point - which Robson proposed - then we may have had a short-term cost but longer-term I'm sure we'd have been better off.

 

If your only answer is to spend money then you only store up problems for the future.

[Dave]

He'd have probably bought his own contract out apparently. Followed by the rest of the good players in the squad.

 

Because that's what I said.

 

[Zero]

Why couldn't we have kept him and not given him a new contract? Crazy idea I know.

 

If he's that patient, he would not submit a transfer request...

Anyway, I won't argue about Ashley's intention.  He definitely feels that is a good deal. Carroll wants money. So just do it.