Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Eh? Irrelevant how patient he is. He was contracted to us for five years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 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. Spending so much time going back through your posts It was a post from yesterday I'd already commented on man. It was so absurd a post even I'd struggle to forget it so soon. I'd like to assume you realise that better players command higher wages (if not when you buy them, then when they prove themselves), that the more money you generate the better the players you are able to afford to get or keep, that to get or keep these players you actually have to spend the money you generate not make a profit with it. I'd like to assume you realise that all clubs have players who become not worth the wages they are on, that it's completely unrealistic to think that cutting costs only means you get rid of the wasters, that it will almost inevitably result in reduced quality and/or manpower. Of course the aim should be to minimise wastage, but it's better to have money and waste some of it than not to have the money in the first place. I'd like to think you realised that a club which makes a profit year after year is not putting everything it can afford to spend on players. It simply isn't realistic that a club which puts all it's profits from good years back into the team makes a profit year after year, let alone the sizeable profits you seem to think we should be making. The only way to do that would be to have a constantly increasing turnover or a recruitment team so good that they hardly ever make a bad signing and the squad value was always increasing. If Mike Ashley can do it, I'd be one of the last to commend him for it, but I would do so eventually. Anyone who isn't insanely naive or optimistic knows he wont though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 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. I still remember at that time there're lots of arguments here re retaining Shearer or not. That's definitely the turning point of our fate (no disrespect to Shearer) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Eh? Irrelevant how patient he is. He was contracted to us for five years. I don't think he is such a model professional...nevermind a "loyal Geordie"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Why couldn't we have kept him and not given him a new contract? Crazy idea I know. Or just rejected the bid ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 What are you on about, model professional? Loyal Geordie? What's that got to do with my point, that Carroll was our player and if he wants a new deal and we don't want him to have one, then it's tough on him, not 'well we'd better sell him then'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 UV, I'm not going to bother with a quote-for-quote response to your post as I know I'm never going to make a dent in your opinions and I'll just be seen as an Ashley sympathiser, lover, ophile or whatever. I just didn't say any of those things you seem to be attributing to me, that I want the club to make a big profit, that I don't understand that better players command higher wages, etc etc. All of those points are irrelevant to what I was saying anyway. What I was saying was that a large turnover doesn't matter if it is still leading to year-on-year losses that are adding to an already-unsustainable debt situation. I don't want NUFC to make any profits, like any football club it should be investing everything it earns. I quoted a great interview from the Arsenal CEO that said basically that a week or two ago. But like it or not football clubs have creditors and debt that they may or may not need to repay/service. Mike Ashley's view is that he's not prepared long-term to subsidise NUFC like Abramovich does for Chelsea, so we need to face that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 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. similar to the selling of andy cole then ? i think you'd be better pushing the "not safe from relegation" angle. the reasons for the sale, as with andy cole are similar though and is where i'll disagree with you as you will see it that they wont spend to impriove in the summer where as i think that someone at the club thinks we can build a better squad for next season with some or all of that cash and without the pressure it would've put on wages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 What are you on about, model professional? Loyal Geordie? What's that got to do with my point, that Carroll was our player and if he wants a new deal and we don't want him to have one, then it's tough on him, not 'well we'd better sell him then'. So you fully expects he will continue to give 100% at training / match, do not cause any more off-field problems, play with media, no bad effect on his teammates (well to be honest this makes no difference), will not start it over again at summer? Come on he's Andy Carroll, not Aaron Hughes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So all these new players are going to be paid less combined than Carroll was paid alone? Jesus. They're likely to be either shit or will very soon want a payrise then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So all these new players are going to be paid less combined than Carroll was paid alone? Jesus. They're likely to be either s*** or will very soon want a payrise then. who said they would be ? i meant if any player coming in or re-negotiating sees a player being given 80k after 3 months in the prem they'll crank up there demands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 So all these new players are going to be paid less combined than Carroll was paid alone? Jesus. They're likely to be either shit or will very soon want a payrise then. The logic doesn't really follow though... paying four players 80k in total is likely to be better for the strength of the squad than paying one player 60k. It's not just about the total. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I do want us to sign 4-5 young players with each of their wages below 20k. They would have to continue to develop in order to earn a pay rise like Tiote. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If the club wanted to keep Carroll then they would have done so. They thought it was too good a deal to turn down. Redknapp said the Carroll transfer request made him laugh because it is what clubs ask players to do to deflect criticism of a sale. If it was down to the request for a new contract then the club have happily messed players around on these before - offering contracts then withdrawing them or moving the goalposts so they could have easily given lip service to a new contract - and anyway contracts do not get sorted within a few hours but rather a few weeks which would have taken them through most of the rest of the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 His contract was due to be renewed in the summer anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 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 No. You're including running costs for the next year, tax and all sorts in those numbers. 2005 - Note 27, p43. Debt = £63.3m, Cash in bank = £26.2m, Net debt = £37.2m When Ashley bought the club, the debt was £70m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 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 No. You're including running costs for the next year, tax and all sorts in those numbers. 2005 - Note 27, p43. Debt = £63.3m, Cash in bank = £26.2m, Net debt = £37.2m When Ashley bought the club, the debt was £70m. what were the year on year losses ? ie how much did we lose that year and the year before ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No. You're including running costs for the next year, tax and all sorts in those numbers. 2005 - Note 27, p43. Debt = £63.3m, Cash in bank = £26.2m, Net debt = £37.2m When Ashley bought the club, the debt was £70m. Just an overview re our total liabilities. Anyway you are correct to take those things out if you want to focus on bank debt. I guess the bank debt, which was due immediately after change of shareholders and force Ashley to pay after acquisition, was the item "fixed interest senior loan notes" as shown in note 15 and 16 in the 2005 accounts and note 14 in the 2006 accounts. So this bank loan rose up to 70m when Ashley takeover the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 If the club wanted to keep Carroll then they would have done so. They thought it was too good a deal to turn down. Redknapp said the Carroll transfer request made him laugh because it is what clubs ask players to do to deflect criticism of a sale. If it was down to the request for a new contract then the club have happily messed players around on these before - offering contracts then withdrawing them or moving the goalposts so they could have easily given lip service to a new contract - and anyway contracts do not get sorted within a few hours but rather a few weeks which would have taken them through most of the rest of the season. If you believe Milner - and I do - he agreed a contract extension when Ashley bought the club on the same terms that he was already on, on the condition that the club would renegotiate the deal the next year. The club then refused to even talk to him about it causing him to show his annoyance by handing in a transfer request. They then sold him saying he wanted to leave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Since when was Carroll on 80k madras? Are you saying they gave him that in October then thought they'd made a mistake? Couldn't give a fuck what he wanted in January, couldn't be less relevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Since when was Carroll on 80k madras? Are you saying they gave him that in October then thought they'd made a mistake? Couldn't give a f*** what he wanted in January, couldn't be less relevant. if they had given him what he wanted and what he wanted in january is very relevent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 what were the year on year losses ? ie how much did we lose that year and the year before ? Just took the figures out: 2003/04: 4,2m profits before tax and dividends, and 3.95m dvidiends was paid out to the shareholders, aso nothing left 2004/05: Breakeven, but again, 3.95m dividends was paid to the shareholders, so we have a 4m loss 2005/06: 12m loss, and on top of that, 2.6m dividends paid out (2m in shares, 0.6m in cash) Would appreciate if someone can complete the figures afterwards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No. You're including running costs for the next year, tax and all sorts in those numbers. 2005 - Note 27, p43. Debt = £63.3m, Cash in bank = £26.2m, Net debt = £37.2m When Ashley bought the club, the debt was £70m. Just an overview re our total liabilities. Anyway you are correct to take those things out if you want to focus on bank debt. I guess the bank debt, which was due immediately after change of shareholders and force Ashley to pay after acquisition, was the item "fixed interest senior loan notes" as shown in note 15 and 16 in the 2005 accounts and note 14 in the 2006 accounts. So this bank loan rose up to 70m when Ashley takeover the club? Well there were a bunch of different loans at different rates, the stadium loan was around £45m of that total. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 How is it relevant exactly? If someone asks for a pay rise, you do have another option between 'yes' and 'you're sold'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No. You're including running costs for the next year, tax and all sorts in those numbers. 2005 - Note 27, p43. Debt = £63.3m, Cash in bank = £26.2m, Net debt = £37.2m When Ashley bought the club, the debt was £70m. Just an overview re our total liabilities. Anyway you are correct to take those things out if you want to focus on bank debt. I guess the bank debt, which was due immediately after change of shareholders and force Ashley to pay after acquisition, was the item "fixed interest senior loan notes" as shown in note 15 and 16 in the 2005 accounts and note 14 in the 2006 accounts. So this bank loan rose up to 70m when Ashley takeover the club? Well there were a bunch of different loans at different rates, the stadium loan was around £45m of that total. probably a diversion from the whole thing but it's something thats been on my mind for years but i'd love to know what happened with the cash from the floatation as one of the many reasons given at that time was for the ground expansion. it'll be in the accounts somewhere just i'd have no idea where to start. 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