Pardew on Total Sport tonight

[Jack Flash]

With the French influx and negative net spend it looks like we are on the Arsenal model then

 

Selling their best players, not winning a trophy in ages, notorious bottlers, nice stadium and a grey haired philanderer at the helm.

 

We're the Danny Devito to their Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[quayside]

then from the same site there is this...

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZjU5e-usI/AAAAAAAACmo/Muaw20kC9Qs/s400/15%2BSpurs%2BTransfer%2BLeague.jpg

 

you work it out. wheres quayside when he's needed ?

 

Here  

 

Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright.

 

Edit: I can't check that net spend figure right now, but if I have time I'll have a look tomorrow. If you look at their accounts they are in very good shape overall though.

[madras]

then from the same site there is this...

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZjU5e-usI/AAAAAAAACmo/Muaw20kC9Qs/s400/15%2BSpurs%2BTransfer%2BLeague.jpg

 

you work it out. wheres quayside when he's needed ?

 

Here 

 

Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright.

but that chart says they have a net spend of 91mill over those 5 years ?

[Optimistic Nut]

Seems about right.

 

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

 

I'd be interested to see what it's like the next 5 years though because it wouldn't surprise me if it was like us (spend big 01-06 then nowt after that, compared to spending big 06 to 11 then being careful).

[midds]

then from the same site there is this...

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZjU5e-usI/AAAAAAAACmo/Muaw20kC9Qs/s400/15%2BSpurs%2BTransfer%2BLeague.jpg

 

you work it out. wheres quayside when he's needed ?

 

Here  

 

Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright.

but that chart says they have a net spend of 91mill over those 5 years ?

 

Aye surely the brackets should be around the Arsenal figure? It's showing spend so profit is a negative outlay? Or something.  

[quayside]

then from the same site there is this...

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZjU5e-usI/AAAAAAAACmo/Muaw20kC9Qs/s400/15%2BSpurs%2BTransfer%2BLeague.jpg

 

you work it out. wheres quayside when he's needed ?

 

Here 

 

Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright.

but that chart says they have a net spend of 91mill over those 5 years ?

 

Madras - I stuck an edit onto my post. I'll have a look tomorrow if I have time.

[madras]

then from the same site there is this...

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jLlqDrcSYeQ/TPZjU5e-usI/AAAAAAAACmo/Muaw20kC9Qs/s400/15%2BSpurs%2BTransfer%2BLeague.jpg

 

you work it out. wheres quayside when he's needed ?

 

Here  

 

Spurs don't have massive loans from their owners, they don't spend money they haven't got, they do make profits on player trading, they never incur massive trading losses, they don't pay out ridiculous wages compared to their income. and they do alright.

but that chart says they have a net spend of 91mill over those 5 years ?

 

Madras - I stuck an edit onto my post. I'll have a look tomorrow if I have time.

yeah i know, the same site has them turning in good profits over that  period.

 

edit, that was areply to your edit.

[Cronky]

Despite the expenses on transfers, Spurs have been able to keep their wage/turnover proportion to a very low 56%. That's been key to their keeping going.

[Big Geordie]

Spurs have the whole 'London' thing which is probably a factor in being able to attract players on reasonable wages.

[quayside]

Despite the expenses on transfers, Spurs have been able to keep their wage/turnover proportion to a very low 56%. That's been key to their keeping going.

 

I can remember also that their income is about £30 million a year more than our (Premiership) income. Stretch that out over a few years and it would make a huge difference.

[Cajun]

Which might be why we are scouting countries like France and Holland, relatively low wages so easier to offer big increases without going silly.

[Guest bimpy474]

Spurs have the whole 'London' thing which is probably a factor in being able to attract players on reasonable wages.

 

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are shite.

[Big Geordie]

Spurs have the whole 'London' thing which is probably a factor in being able to attract players on reasonable wages.

 

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are shite.

 

Yup - I'd imagine it's all about their WAGS and keeping them happy.

[quayside]

Spurs have the whole 'London' thing which is probably a factor in being able to attract players on reasonable wages.

 

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are s****.

 

Yup - I'd imagine it's all about their WAGS and keeping them happy.

 

Probably right - Newcastle is in a fantastic location and is one of the best cities in England but telling that to a braindead WAG may be a trip too far. It can sometimes gets a bit cold in winter mind...

 

[Guest bimpy474]

Spurs have the whole 'London' thing which is probably a factor in being able to attract players on reasonable wages.

 

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are s****.

 

Yup - I'd imagine it's all about their WAGS and keeping them happy.

 

I suppose the shopping is ok, mind you, you cant find a Netto anywhere, personally i would bomb London completely flat, separate it from the rest of England, sail it off the coast of Sweden and scuttle the fecker.

[ponsaelius]

I like London tbh, it's the people I find strange.

[TRon]

Good post Wallace. I think UV had some facts and figures from the accounts showing our turnover had decreased drastically under Ashley even before relegation, though since that was his fault too it shouldn't really matter.

 

Re: revenue streams, Mike Ashley using NUFC and St James' Park as a free source of advertising for his tatty sports wares is an absolute scandal imo. 

 

UV's facts and figures don't mean too much since the financial situation world wide has changed drastically since pre-Ashley days, the value of the stock market has shrunk considerably since then. Shepherd's vision was more expansive but at the end of the day he lumbered NUFC with the debt and ran off with £40m in his swag bag - and that was during a period of relative financial growth.

[fredbob]

For a few people it might be worth checking who spurs actually signed in the early stages of their progression as a club. (I'd start at between 2003/05 although it was really 2004 when things took shape with santini and jol taking charge)

 

Baring in mind they were in a good place financially (ran tightly) they still spent sensible amounts before there positions dictated how much they could lavish.

 

Jenas

Defoe

Keane

 

These were there major signings during those years.

 

If anyone wants to correlate the spending in comparison to there league positions feel free.

 

http://www.mehstg.com/transfers.htm

http://www.topspurs.com/thfc-league-history.htm

 

[Mick]

 

Apart from Man Utd,  no one else has hardly signed anyone.  Though I'm not surprised as this is typical response from you.

 

 

The spelling mistake is for the benefit of Neesy

 

Your wrong, Sunderland Man U and Norwich have got in more players in than we have so far and we're being out-spent by Man City, Man U, Liverpool, Norwich, the mackems, Wolves and probably Chelsea. 

 

We're just ahead of Swansea and Wigan althought I'm not surprised as this is a typical response from you. 

 

 

[fredbob]

 

Apart from Man Utd,  no one else has hardly signed anyone.  Though I'm not surprised as this is typical response from you.

 

 

The spelling mistake is for the benefit of Neesy

 

Your wrong, Sunderland Man U and Norwich have got in more players in than we have so far and we're being out-spent by Man City, Man U, Liverpool, Norwich, the mackems, Wolves and probably Chelsea. 

 

We're just ahead of Swansea and Wigan althought I'm not surprised as this is a typical response from you. 

 

 

 

Aside from the clubs who we can obviously can't compete with, are there any of those clubs who's players you'd want over ours?

[colinmk]

Very good post earlier Wallace, all issues I agree with.

[Mick]

 

Aside from the clubs who we can obviously can't compete with, are there any of those clubs who's players you'd want over ours?

 

I'd take N'Zogbia from Wigan without thinking about who those team have that I would like to see here.

[Theregulars]

Spurs have the whole 'London' thing which is probably a factor in being able to attract players on reasonable wages.

 

Which i dont get because London is an utter shitehole, even the posh parts are s****.

 

Yup - I'd imagine it's all about their WAGS and keeping them happy.

 

I suppose the shopping is ok, mind you, you cant find a Netto anywhere, personally i would bomb London completely flat, separate it from the rest of England, sail it off the coast of Sweden and scuttle the fecker.

 

Really?

[leffe186]

On my phone so this might be messy!

 

This is a complete guess, but I think the key is that when teams pay transfer fees the cost registers as depreciation over the length of the players contract. So the profit on transfers is the amount received for a player less any depreciation still left. Or something.

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

Yep.

 

 

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees

 

Maybe, but if they released the figures and the details of the contracts then everyone would know where they are. I can't help but feel that Ashley is trying to get the money back that he cost himself through incompetence. If he's genuinely not then he deserves some credit, but I don't trust him so he gets none 'til there's proof and all the proof we have at the moment is Pardew's contradictory statements (and he's been telling porkies since he first walked through the door).

 

I would also love some concrete proof that the 5 year deals for injury-prone players untested in the Premier League are heavily incentivised, so that we don't end up with more like Marcelino, Luque, Xisco, Boumsong, Smith, etc etc. Then Ashley could have more credit.

 

 

I might be totally wrong on this but all I hear from the club is references to cutting costs rather than trying to generate new revenue streams.

 

I think (but correct me if I am wrong)  that Shepherd was pretty good on the commercial side of things and I am sure our corporate revenue has plummeted hugely since Ashley's arrival and our sponsorship deals are bringing in less money that before.  Whilst the current economic climate and our relegation can be attributed to that, I am aware that there are corporate clients who have taken their business elsewhere because of Ashley and I also think we are a damaged brand that many businesses do not want to be associated with.  And if that is the case, then it can only be down to Ashley.

 

The impression I get is of a club (deliberately) cutting itself off from the community by their refusal to engage with the city and if this continues for any length of time, the damage will be irreversible as more and more fans drift away.  We have seen before that when the club reaches out and embraces the city, that it can be a powerful thing and hugely beneficial to the club but all we seem to have now is mistrust and conflict.

 

 

Yep. I originally bought into Ashley's vision (via his media-friendly initial chairman) of developing young talent, but my faith has been lessened / trampled somewhat by...

selling the young and improving talent like Milner, Zogs, Bassong, Carroll...; Dennis Wise forcing useless players on KK; getting relegated; Derek effing Llambias; etc.

 

 

 

 

The final word from someone who always looked after his own interests, but who I always trusted to be looking out for ours too...

 

“It is not going to be reinvested is it, I think that’s obvious. As a Newcastle fan, if Carroll is the only one you are going to lose you have to be pretty thankful." - KK