Guest neesy111 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. Salaries should bump the figure up not down, considering our wage bill is quite a bit less than it was when Ashley took over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. I'd guess the outgoing salaries are higher than the incoming ones though.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teohgk Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. the problem is i've never heard anyone or clubs includes those into account when talking about transfers revenue, even we ourselves included those expense only after Ashley took over the club. supposedly those should be paid by tickets,merchandising and advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Also, it would be at least fairly useful if I could trust the numbers they do have, but considering most transfer fees etc are never released, much of it is guess work. And if I were guessing, I'd say there is no chance we got £18 million for Enrique and Bassong. We did get £10 million for Bassong, the Enrique fee is the only one that looks out to me from going through the full list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 the problem is i've never heard anyone or clubs includes those into account when talking about transfers revenue, even we ourselves included those expense only after Ashley took over the club. supposedly those should be paid by tickets,merchandising and advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teohgk Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 the problem is i've never heard anyone or clubs includes those into account when talking about transfers revenue, even we ourselves included those expense only after Ashley took over the club. supposedly those should be paid by tickets,merchandising and advertisement yup only if we're paid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Finance detail and location aside. This guy is fucking us over royally; in a football sense, the enjoyment of being a football fan and in respecting us as intelligent (on the whole) human beings. This is regardless of whether it is intended or not. Anyone not on concerned with any of the above can pack up their troubles and fuck off. I'd take 17th in a heartbeat if is meant this maniacal turd fucked off at the end of the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Wages are an operating cost and shouldn't really be taken into account, otherwise you should take into account tv income etc. agents fees on the deal is probably fair enough, it's part of the transfer fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 " maniacal turd ".............I thought he was from London Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCW1983 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 http://m.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/breakdown-of-mike-ashley-s-transfer-dealings-reveal-18m-profit-1-5973100 I dont know whats more impressive £35m for Carroll or £500k for Pattison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Also, it would be at least fairly useful if I could trust the numbers they do have, but considering most transfer fees etc are never released, much of it is guess work. And if I were guessing, I'd say there is no chance we got £18 million for Enrique and Bassong. We did get £10 million for Bassong, the Enrique fee is the only one that looks out to me from going through the full list. Don't believe it, if we're going off of figures in the press, the majority said £8m. Anyway, the point's moot because we have no real idea, much like the article which is basically made up shit. All that matters is is the current state of the squad, and if we have made a profit, what that remaining money is spent on or whether it has left the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Whilst some of those number may be slightly off, there is no doubt that the bigger picture is that we do have a negative nett spend on transfers since Ashley took over the club, which is as laughable as it is unforgivable. Who takes over a football club to not spend any money on it? Considering the investment by other clubs we are lucky to still be in this league. We won't be for long considering more and more external money is coming in that is being used by other clubs to strengthen their playing squads and management personnel, and Ashley doesn't seem to be prepared to loosen the purse strings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Whilst some of those number may be slightly off, there is no doubt that the bigger picture is that we do have a negative nett spend on transfers since Ashley took over the club, which is as laughable as it is unforgivable. Who takes over a football club to not spend any money on it? Considering the investment by other clubs we are lucky to still be in this league. We won't be for long considering more and more external money is coming in that is being used by other clubs to strengthen their playing squads and management personnel, and Ashley doesn't seem to be prepared to loosen the purse strings. Stan Kronke and The Glazers? (rather more literally in the latter case as they're getting the club to payoff the cash they used to buy it) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. Salaries should bump the figure up not down, considering our wage bill is quite a bit less than it was when Ashley took over. I think you'll find its not Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. Salaries should bump the figure up not down, considering our wage bill is quite a bit less than it was when Ashley took over. I think you'll find its not Really? No Smith, Owen, Butt, Geremi...they were high earners. Don't think we have anything like their salaries in the squad now...maybe Colo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. Salaries should bump the figure up not down, considering our wage bill is quite a bit less than it was when Ashley took over. I think you'll find its not Really? No Smith, Owen, Butt, Geremi...they were high earners. Don't think we have anything like their salaries in the squad now...maybe Colo. I'd imagine the average is higher. We had a handful of big earners then but I bet we've got 14-16 players now on between £30-50k, the majority towards the higher end of that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Whilst some of those number may be slightly off, there is no doubt that the bigger picture is that we do have a negative nett spend on transfers since Ashley took over the club, which is as laughable as it is unforgivable. Who takes over a football club to not spend any money on it? Considering the investment by other clubs we are lucky to still be in this league. We won't be for long considering more and more external money is coming in that is being used by other clubs to strengthen their playing squads and management personnel, and Ashley doesn't seem to be prepared to loosen the purse strings. Stan Kronke and The Glazers? (rather more literally in the latter case as they're getting the club to payoff the cash they used to buy it) Hicks and Gillett were the same at Liverpool, not sure about the current American owners. Would people prefer we had owners that did that but were prepared to spend more in order to compete? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Whilst some of those number may be slightly off, there is no doubt that the bigger picture is that we do have a negative nett spend on transfers since Ashley took over the club, which is as laughable as it is unforgivable. Who takes over a football club to not spend any money on it? Considering the investment by other clubs we are lucky to still be in this league. We won't be for long considering more and more external money is coming in that is being used by other clubs to strengthen their playing squads and management personnel, and Ashley doesn't seem to be prepared to loosen the purse strings. Stan Kronke and The Glazers? (rather more literally in the latter case as they're getting the club to payoff the cash they used to buy it) Hicks and Gillett were the same at Liverpool, not sure about the current American owners. Would people prefer we had owners that did that but were prepared to spend more in order to compete? If someone took over and looked to build the commercial side of the club, improve it's image and attempt to grow the fan base, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to be competitive without an owner needing to throw in huge sums of money. We don't even try to grow the club off the pitch at the moment. Other clubs tour the world trying playing to new fans. We can hardly organise a pre-season tour of Europe without it being an utter shambles. Turnover has barely moved under Ashley, despite increased TV money. Sunderland make more than us commercially. Its ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Pretty flawed article since it doesn't take salaries, signing on fees and whatnot into account. Salaries should bump the figure up not down, considering our wage bill is quite a bit less than it was when Ashley took over. I think you'll find its not Really? No Smith, Owen, Butt, Geremi...they were high earners. Don't think we have anything like their salaries in the squad now...maybe Colo. I'd imagine the average is higher. We had a handful of big earners then but I bet we've got 14-16 players now on between £30-50k, the majority towards the higher end of that. Ashley signed Smith and Geremi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Whilst some of those number may be slightly off, there is no doubt that the bigger picture is that we do have a negative nett spend on transfers since Ashley took over the club, which is as laughable as it is unforgivable. Who takes over a football club to not spend any money on it? Considering the investment by other clubs we are lucky to still be in this league. We won't be for long considering more and more external money is coming in that is being used by other clubs to strengthen their playing squads and management personnel, and Ashley doesn't seem to be prepared to loosen the purse strings. Stan Kronke and The Glazers? (rather more literally in the latter case as they're getting the club to payoff the cash they used to buy it) Hicks and Gillett were the same at Liverpool, not sure about the current American owners. Would people prefer we had owners that did that but were prepared to spend more in order to compete? If someone took over and looked to build the commercial side of the club, improve it's image and attempt to grow the fan base, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to be competitive without an owner needing to throw in huge sums of money. We don't even try to grow the club off the pitch at the moment. Other clubs tour the world trying playing to new fans. We can hardly organise a pre-season tour of Europe without it being an utter shambles. Turnover has barely moved under Ashley, despite increased TV money. Sunderland make more than us commercially. Its ridiculous. This Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 " maniacal turd ".............I thought he was from London Very similar... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I don't know if 'you've not been supporting the club very long' is a valid reason for people to have low expectations. Surely if you've been following the club for longer you would tend to have lower expectations rather than higher? How is being part of what we achieved in the 90s going to make you have lowered expectations now? If you can remember those days - which I can, vividly - you just know we are a shadow of the club we were now, and we should be expecting far better, which we certainly would under a more ambitious and committed owner. I mean, the 90s wasn't very long ago. What about all the stuff before then? I know we've tasted relatively recent success, and that raises expectations of course. But the bigger picture is not so rosy. The 90s - 20 years ago - was when the PL started and we were one of the top clubs in it for half that period. The club lost its way under Shepherd but we still had CL football with SBR as manager and with a better Chairman we would not have been in this position now because we wouldn't be Mike Ashley's plaything. The club's reputation has fallen to rock bottom under this regime and yet you still try to find excuses and defend it. As usual, you are prepared to ignore the facts in order to justify your stance and the facts are that NUFC is a much better and bigger club than this regime are allowing it to be. If you - and those who think like you do - can't or won't accept that, you shouldn't be following the club. Try Blyth Spartans or Gateshead if you want clubs with limited potential or low ambitions, even they probably wouldn't have Pardew as manager...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I don't know if 'you've not been supporting the club very long' is a valid reason for people to have low expectations. Surely if you've been following the club for longer you would tend to have lower expectations rather than higher? How is being part of what we achieved in the 90s going to make you have lowered expectations now? If you can remember those days - which I can, vividly - you just know we are a shadow of the club we were now, and we should be expecting far better, which we certainly would under a more ambitious and committed owner. I can remember the 90s very well and yes 93-98 was a purple patch for us but now we are just mediocre....other clubs have had purple patches recently far better than ours....Leeds, Forest even Ipswich these clubs all won major honours. The 90s as you describe we won f*** all yes the football was amazing and exciting to watch but ultimately we won nothing. It doesn't give us the divine right because we are NUFC to think we are any more deserving than their fans I've been watching us for 36 years merlin to answer your question previously so yes I've seen s**** Don't expect me to give you a medal for long service, because I can beat that by almost 20 years. I have seen us win the Fairs Cup AND be relegated, each time due to lousy directors/management. I have seen our fans out-sing the much-lauded Kop after a Wembley thrashing and I KNOW that this club is better and bigger than you and others on here are prepared to accept, because you have low expectations. I, and many others on this board do NOT share your opinion - lets leave it at that because you and I will never agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Nice to see someone with a bit of pride and ambition for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J7 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes%27_list_of_the_most_valuable_football_clubs Our turnover was above Spurs in 2007. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts