Pardew on Total Sport tonight

[Hughesy]

I don't think there is a problem in a fan identifying a player who will increase in value and could be sold for more than the purchase price.  It doesn't make a fan any less keen for success.  I hope the club does identify and buy players who increase in value.

 

I don't quite understand the 'bubble' some other fans live in.  The whole 'fingers in the ears, chanting 'I don't care about balance sheets'' is so shortsighted and simplistic, I can't actually believe people think it, let alone say it out loud.

 

everything in moderation

 

Couldn't agree more, but you can't just ignore the financial realities of the situation because it's football.  Which seem people seem very very keen to do.

[Lotus]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

 

This is my take on it.

Buying a player as a financial investment is a different motivation to trying to improve a team sensibley.

[Dr Venkman]

I don't think there is a problem in a fan identifying a player who will increase in value and could be sold for more than the purchase price.  It doesn't make a fan any less keen for success.  I hope the club does identify and buy players who increase in value.

 

I don't quite understand the 'bubble' some other fans live in.  The whole 'fingers in the ears, chanting 'I don't care about balance sheets'' is so shortsighted and simplistic, I can't actually believe people think it, let alone say it out loud.

 

everything in moderation

 

Couldn't agree more, but you can't just ignore the financial realities of the situation because it's football.  Which seem people seem very very keen to do.

 

personally i'm keen for them not to ignore the footballing realities but whatever floats your boat. just look at everything else the club is doing, now we're getting rid of badly needed squad players for no other reason than to stop paying them wages, EVERYTHING is geared towards cost cutting for fucks sake, EVERYTHING. when does this become not good enough for our club? after 10 more seasons 'trying to attack the top ten and challenging in the cups' ?

[Hughesy]

I don't think there is a problem in a fan identifying a player who will increase in value and could be sold for more than the purchase price.  It doesn't make a fan any less keen for success.  I hope the club does identify and buy players who increase in value.

 

I don't quite understand the 'bubble' some other fans live in.  The whole 'fingers in the ears, chanting 'I don't care about balance sheets'' is so shortsighted and simplistic, I can't actually believe people think it, let alone say it out loud.

 

everything in moderation

 

Couldn't agree more, but you can't just ignore the financial realities of the situation because it's football.  Which seem people seem very very keen to do.

 

personally i'm keen for them not to ignore the footballing realities but whatever floats your boat. just look at everything else the club is doing, now we're getting rid of badly needed squad players for no other reason than to stop paying them wages, EVERYTHING is geared towards cost cutting for f***s sake, EVERYTHING. when does this become not good enough for our club? after 10 more seasons 'trying to attack the top ten and challenging in the cups' ?

 

Not sure where that little temper tantrum is going. 

 

All I am pointing out is that it is utterly ridiculous for people to ignore the financial realities of running a business.  The fact that this particular business is a football club doesn't alter the fundamental principles on which the business should be run.

 

People making statements about not caring about balance sheets, the wage bill or levels of debt are deluded.

[Dr Venkman]

I don't think there is a problem in a fan identifying a player who will increase in value and could be sold for more than the purchase price.  It doesn't make a fan any less keen for success.  I hope the club does identify and buy players who increase in value.

 

I don't quite understand the 'bubble' some other fans live in.  The whole 'fingers in the ears, chanting 'I don't care about balance sheets'' is so shortsighted and simplistic, I can't actually believe people think it, let alone say it out loud.

 

everything in moderation

 

Couldn't agree more, but you can't just ignore the financial realities of the situation because it's football.  Which seem people seem very very keen to do.

 

personally i'm keen for them not to ignore the footballing realities but whatever floats your boat. just look at everything else the club is doing, now we're getting rid of badly needed squad players for no other reason than to stop paying them wages, EVERYTHING is geared towards cost cutting for f***s sake, EVERYTHING. when does this become not good enough for our club? after 10 more seasons 'trying to attack the top ten and challenging in the cups' ?

 

Not sure where that little temper tantrum is going.

 

All I am pointing out is that it is utterly ridiculous for people to ignore the financial realities of running a business.  The fact that this particular business is a football club doesn't alter the fundamental principles on which the business should be run.

 

People making statements about not caring about balance sheets, the wage bill or levels of debt are deluded.

 

being patronised isnt going to stop me caring passionately about the club.

 

i agree, but on the other side of the coin there's a fair few who've been completely sucked in

[Dave]

It's perfectly possible to recognise the financial restraints on a football club without giving a fuck about how they are managed.

 

When I go to the match I care about how we play and if we win. I don't console myself after a defeat with how respectable our finances are. To each his own.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

 

Totally agree with that.

 

I don't think selling them for a profit is the strategy though, certainly not the primary one, it's just good to invest in assets that won't be worthless if you need to sell them.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It's perfectly possible to recognise the financial restraints on a football club without giving a fuck about how they are managed.

 

When I go to the match I care about how we play and if we win. I don't console myself after a defeat with how respectable our finances are. To each his own.

 

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary.

 

Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused.

[Dave]

It's perfectly possible to recognise the financial restraints on a football club without giving a fuck about how they are managed.

 

When I go to the match I care about how we play and if we win. I don't console myself after a defeat with how respectable our finances are. To each his own.

 

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary.

 

Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused.

 

I know we can't spend as much as Manchester City. I know we can spend more than Stoke City.

[Hughesy]

It's perfectly possible to recognise the financial restraints on a football club without giving a f*** about how they are managed.

 

When I go to the match I care about how we play and if we win. I don't console myself after a defeat with how respectable our finances are. To each his own.

 

Well - obviously any fan wants us to play well and win.  That's pretty clear.  I don't think any fan goes to a game, watches us get twatted by a team and sits there happy in the knowledge that we are on a financially stable footing.  Ultimately I want us to be a stable financial footing so that:

 

1)  We always have a club to support

2)  The club runs itself in a sensible fashion and is then able to progress by sensible investment over a period of time.

 

In order to fulfil 1 and 2 above, our finances do need to be respectable.

 

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It's perfectly possible to recognise the financial restraints on a football club without giving a fuck about how they are managed.

 

When I go to the match I care about how we play and if we win. I don't console myself after a defeat with how respectable our finances are. To each his own.

 

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary.

 

Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused.

 

I know we can't spend as much as Manchester City. I know we can spend more than Stoke City.

 

Fair play, I think the same, as long as Stoke City are spending within their means.

[Dave]

We will always have a club to support. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole IMO.

[quayside]

It's perfectly possible to recognise the financial restraints on a football club without giving a f*** about how they are managed.

 

When I go to the match I care about how we play and if we win. I don't console myself after a defeat with how respectable our finances are. To each his own.

 

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary.

 

Not sure I can grasp the subtlety of your first sentence though, you recognise the financial restraints on the club but you don't factor that in to judgements on what we're doing? Genuinely confused.

 

I know we can't spend as much as Manchester City. I know we can spend more than Stoke City.

 

We'd all like to think that's the case. But Stoke City are in an entirely different position. They aren't insolvent and their owner has not put in £150 million of debt.

[Hughesy]

We will always have a club to support. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous hyperbole IMO.

 

I wouldn't say that is guaranteed, but I agree that it is highly unlikely.  Not quite sure how you can be so certain as to rule it out though.

 

Maybe I should clarify and say the traditional 'I don't want to see us 'do a Leeds''.

[Guest Chubby Jason]

[quayside]

We'd all like to have an owner who was happy to keep stuffing money in for the love of the club.

 

But we haven't. 

[Cronky]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

 

The scenario that people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about is if a player like Cabaye does well, and then three years down the line attracts the interest of a CL club, who offer a big fee.

 

Well at the worst, we've got three years of good performances out of a player who we didn't have to invest a lot of money in. Who knows, we may be on the fringes of the CL ourselves, and able to persuade the player to stay.

 

A lot of people are worried that Mike will rub his hands, and sell at a profit. That's not necessarily the wrong decision, if the money is re-invested wisely. The likes of Arsenal (Anelka, Overmars, Petit) and Spurs (Berbatov) have been able to progress by selling players on at large profits.

 

The main concern would be if Mike pockets the money himself and uses it for purposes outside the club, like the Glazers. I can't see any evidence that that is his aim. The Carroll sale gets cited as an example, but even Keegan has admitted that he went for an inflated price that he wouldn't himself have turned down.

 

The danger is that because Ashley isn't popular, everything he does gets seen negatively - even the signing of Cabaye. I know a lot of people on here aren't sold on the plan that the club are working to, but more importantly the players who have come in seem to have been convinced that we're on the right lines.

[UV]

Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums.

 

They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them.

 

According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

 

You are reading it right.

 

 

He isn't. What he said might be correct from an accountancy point of view, but it's not from a point of view of what most people mean (and I'm pretty sure what Ian meant) when they talk about a net profit/spend on transfers.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically those numbers would not be affected by incoming transfers (the money paid for a player tops up the intangible assets total, so the accounts balance out - ie you pay £10m but you have a £10m asset so accounting wise you're no better or worse off for the purchase). That "profit on player sales" is basically the amount of money you got for selling any players minus their book value at the time (which is their original purchase price reduced by the amortisation applied to that player over their time at the club). This is why most clubs would show a profit on player sales most years, and the only reason they wouldn't would be if they bought a player and sold him within a couple of years for a lot less.

 

Accountancy fun: We made a profit on the sale of Luque. He was sold for £2m in Ashley's first year and this was all "profit" because he was written off as an asset in the accounts for the previous year.

[Lotus]

We'd all like to have an owner who was happy to keep stuffing money in for the love of the club.

 

But we haven't. 

 

What we have is an owner who's made lots of consecutive bad decisions that have cost him money and us good football.

 

Now what i'm worried about is that his decisions will still cost us good football. If he can make money back, good for him, but as a fan, it's my entertainment i'm interested in.

 

I don't think we're running at a loss anymore so i think having the club punch it's weight for a season or 2 would be appreciated given how he's fucked up so royally from the day he arrived.

[Dave]

Wish we'd kept Carroll long enough to get three years of good performances out of him.

[Colocho]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

 

The scenario that people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about is if a player like Cabaye does well, and then three years down the line attracts the interest of a CL club, who offer a big fee.

 

Well at the worst, we've got three years of good performances out of a player who we didn't have to invest a lot of money in. Who knows, we may be on the fringes of the CL ourselves, and able to persuade the player to stay.

 

A lot of people are worried that Mike will rub his hands, and sell at a profit. That's not necessarily the wrong decision, if the money is re-invested wisely. The likes of Arsenal (Anelka, Overmars, Petit) and Spurs (Berbatov) have been able to progress by selling players on at large profits.

 

The main concern would be if Mike pockets the money himself and uses it for purposes outside the club, like the Glazers. I can't see any evidence that that is his aim. The Carroll sale gets cited as an example, but even Keegan has admitted that he went for an inflated price that he wouldn't himself have turned down.

 

The danger is that because Ashley isn't popular, everything he does gets seen negatively - even the signing of Cabaye. I know a lot of people on here aren't sold on the plan that the club are working to, but more importantly the players who have come in seem to have been convinced that we're on the right lines.

 

Good post. Personally, I'm concerned that long-term we may become a selling club, who's sole target is to buy players at low prices, raise their profiles and sell them on for a profit - whilst lacking any real ambition...

[Lotus]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

 

The scenario that people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about is if a player like Cabaye does well, and then three years down the line attracts the interest of a CL club, who offer a big fee.

 

Well at the worst, we've got three years of good performances out of a player who we didn't have to invest a lot of money in. Who knows, we may be on the fringes of the CL ourselves, and able to persuade the player to stay.

 

A lot of people are worried that Mike will rub his hands, and sell at a profit. That's not necessarily the wrong decision, if the money is re-invested wisely. The likes of Arsenal (Anelka, Overmars, Petit) and Spurs (Berbatov) have been able to progress by selling players on at large profits.

 

The main concern would be if Mike pockets the money himself and uses it for purposes outside the club, like the Glazers. I can't see any evidence that that is his aim. The Carroll sale gets cited as an example, but even Keegan has admitted that he went for an inflated price that he wouldn't himself have turned down.

 

The danger is that because Ashley isn't popular, everything he does gets seen negatively - even the signing of Cabaye. I know a lot of people on here aren't sold on the plan that the club are working to, but more importantly the players who have come in seem to have been convinced that we're on the right lines.

 

The main concern for me is that if we sell players for a profit the money doesn't ADD to our transfer fund but gets absorbed in pushing down running costs which appears to have happened with the Carroll sale.

[quayside]

Out of interest what is Spurs net spend like over the last few years? O can't imagine it's a massive outlay as they seem to do well with sales and have sold a couple of big players for sizeable sums.

 

They've spent £95m net, £2m less than Chelsea, works out at £19m per season since 2006. And people reckon we operate like them.

 

According to that chart they've made a net profit on transfers every year. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

 

You are reading it right.

 

 

He isn't. What he said might be correct from an accountancy point of view, but it's not from a point of view of what most people mean (and I'm pretty sure what Ian meant) when they talk about a net profit/spend on transfers.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically those numbers would not be affected by incoming transfers (the money paid for a player tops up the intangible assets total, so the accounts balance out - ie you pay £10m but you have a £10m asset so accounting wise you're no better or worse off for the purchase). That "profit on player sales" is basically the amount of money you got for selling any players minus their book value at the time (which is their original purchase price reduced by the amortisation applied to that player over their time at the club). This is why most clubs would show a profit on player sales most years, and the only reason they wouldn't would be if they bought a player and sold him within a couple of years for a lot less.

 

Accountancy fun: We made a profit on the sale of Luque. He was sold for £2m in Ashley's first year and this was all "profit" because he was written off as an asset in the accounts for the previous year.

 

Oh Christ....

[Guest TheSummerOf69]

I don't think anyone does though Dave, all we're saying is that we're not against prudent financial management now it is necessary.

 

It's only "necessary" if you want to play in Europe (as that's the sanction the fair play rules have). We aren't going to get there by continually selling all our best players save the overpaid ones that no-one fancies on that wage.

 

Meanwhile we make up the team with the average, the underperformers and the untried - hoping against hope that the success rate on new signings reaches an unprecedented 100% level, so that the players we sold are adequately replaced or even bettered.

 

(And knowing if they do succeed that they'll be sold too...)

 

 

 

[Colocho]

Isn't buying players who you expect to increase in value a good idea?

 

Of course it is, but if they increase in value it's because they're doing the business for us, in which case why would we sell them?

 

We should be signing players who we expect to perform well for us and that's it. Their value increasing should be inconsequential unless they specifically want out of their own accord.

 

The scenario that people seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about is if a player like Cabaye does well, and then three years down the line attracts the interest of a CL club, who offer a big fee.

 

Well at the worst, we've got three years of good performances out of a player who we didn't have to invest a lot of money in. Who knows, we may be on the fringes of the CL ourselves, and able to persuade the player to stay.

 

A lot of people are worried that Mike will rub his hands, and sell at a profit. That's not necessarily the wrong decision, if the money is re-invested wisely. The likes of Arsenal (Anelka, Overmars, Petit) and Spurs (Berbatov) have been able to progress by selling players on at large profits.

 

The main concern would be if Mike pockets the money himself and uses it for purposes outside the club, like the Glazers. I can't see any evidence that that is his aim. The Carroll sale gets cited as an example, but even Keegan has admitted that he went for an inflated price that he wouldn't himself have turned down.

 

The danger is that because Ashley isn't popular, everything he does gets seen negatively - even the signing of Cabaye. I know a lot of people on here aren't sold on the plan that the club are working to, but more importantly the players who have come in seem to have been convinced that we're on the right lines.

 

The main concern for me is that if we sell players for a profit the money doesn't ADD to our transfer fund but gets absorbed in pushing down running costs which appears to have happened with the Carroll sale.

 

Yeah, this as well.