NG32 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Very sound post UV. Spurs model is a very good one, if it can be sustained and if it actually leads to success in the end. It doesn't change the fact that pre-Ashley we were accumulating large debts at a rate we couldn't afford though. Neither of our recent regimes have really had the right approach. We are definitely more financially sustainable under Ashley mind, that's a fact. The problem is the price we pay in terms of progress on the pitch. More financially sustainable than what? The Hall/Shepherd regime? Yes, probably. Hall/Shepherd speculated to accumulate and while it worked brilliantly for a while, it went south due to putting their (Shepherd's) trust in the wrong man towards the end. However, during Ashley's tenure we have lost a lot of ground on other clubs, financially as well as on the pitch. Our commercial revenue has decreased significantly where other clubs have seen theirs soar. The null interest on the loan is partly, if not entirely, offset by the free Sports Direct advertising at the expense of other, revenue generating advertisement space around the ground. His policies have led directly to a relegation, which will have cost tens of millions alone. We may be relatively stable now, having posted small profits in the previous two years, but the club is not operating to its potential at all under Ashley, both on the pitch and in terms of financial performance. Let's not pretend otherwise. YES Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest strongbow69 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Very sound post UV. Spurs model is a very good one, if it can be sustained and if it actually leads to success in the end. It doesn't change the fact that pre-Ashley we were accumulating large debts at a rate we couldn't afford though. Neither of our recent regimes have really had the right approach. We are definitely more financially sustainable under Ashley mind, that's a fact. The problem is the price we pay in terms of progress on the pitch. More financially sustainable than what? The Hall/Shepherd regime? Yes, probably. Hall/Shepherd speculated to accumulate and while it worked brilliantly for a while, it went south due to putting their (Shepherd's) trust in the wrong man towards the end. However, during Ashley's tenure we have lost a lot of ground on other clubs, financially as well as on the pitch. Our commercial revenue has decreased significantly where other clubs have seen theirs soar. The null interest on the loan is partly, if not entirely, offset by the free Sports Direct advertising at the expense of other, revenue generating advertisement space around the ground. His policies have led directly to a relegation, which will have cost tens of millions alone. We may be relatively stable now, having posted small profits in the previous two years, but the club is not operating to its potential at all under Ashley, both on the pitch and in terms of financial performance. Let's not pretend otherwise. spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Most frustrating thing is we are so close to being a soundly run football club, it's not even major changes that need to take place, just tweaks here and there but it’s not looking likely to ever happen. I actually like a lot of the way Ashley goes about things but his major lack of ambition for this football club is massively holding us back and we really need him out asap. My view as well, although needing him out is obviously contingent on there being a mega-rich owner willing to spend what it takes waiting to come in. Personally I think we are a million miles away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Pardew saying it took Spurs years to be where they are. They didn't hire League One managers and dinosaurs in the process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Just looking at that Non TV Income graph above again, if Ashley's financial performance at NUFC would have just matched similar clubs that would guve us an additional 40-50 million income to spend per season. Financially sustainable all right.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Very sound post UV. Spurs model is a very good one, if it can be sustained and if it actually leads to success in the end. It doesn't change the fact that pre-Ashley we were accumulating large debts at a rate we couldn't afford though. Neither of our recent regimes have really had the right approach. We are definitely more financially sustainable under Ashley mind, that's a fact. The problem is the price we pay in terms of progress on the pitch. More financially sustainable than what? The Hall/Shepherd regime? Yes, probably. Hall/Shepherd speculated to accumulate and while it worked brilliantly for a while, it went south due to putting their (Shepherd's) trust in the wrong man towards the end. However, during Ashley's tenure we have lost a lot of ground on other clubs, financially as well as on the pitch. Our commercial revenue has decreased significantly where other clubs have seen theirs soar. The null interest on the loan is partly, if not entirely, offset by the free Sports Direct advertising at the expense of other, revenue generating advertisement space around the ground. His policies have led directly to a relegation, which will have cost tens of millions alone. We may be relatively stable now, having posted small profits in the previous two years, but the club is not operating to its potential at all under Ashley, both on the pitch and in terms of financial performance. Let's not pretend otherwise. spot on Another great post. This is the sort of thing all of the 'NUFC Supporters/Fans Group/Trusts' should be preaching to all the fans via facebook/blog/email etc. Hell even have people giving them out around the ground in leaflets so people know the true running of the club. It's either negligence/incompetence or a mixture. We're only going one way under him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Very sound post UV. Spurs model is a very good one, if it can be sustained and if it actually leads to success in the end. It doesn't change the fact that pre-Ashley we were accumulating large debts at a rate we couldn't afford though. Neither of our recent regimes have really had the right approach. We are definitely more financially sustainable under Ashley mind, that's a fact. The problem is the price we pay in terms of progress on the pitch. More financially sustainable than what? The Hall/Shepherd regime? Yes, probably. Hall/Shepherd speculated to accumulate and while it worked brilliantly for a while, it went south due to putting their (Shepherd's) trust in the wrong man towards the end. However, during Ashley's tenure we have lost a lot of ground on other clubs, financially as well as on the pitch. Our commercial revenue has decreased significantly where other clubs have seen theirs soar. The null interest on the loan is partly, if not entirely, offset by the free Sports Direct advertising at the expense of other, revenue generating advertisement space around the ground. His policies have led directly to a relegation, which will have cost tens of millions alone. We may be relatively stable now, having posted small profits in the previous two years, but the club is not operating to its potential at all under Ashley, both on the pitch and in terms of financial performance. Let's not pretend otherwise. I don't pretend we're reaching our full potential, we could clearly achieve more. The Shepherd/Hall regime was flawed for a lot of reasons, mainly that it was based on short-term success gained by unsustainable transfer spending. The debt was getting out of control and sooner or later it was going to get called in, especially with the credit situation getting rapidly worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I've always wondered what our commercial team did to be honest. The fact we went for a knock about in Portugal this summer instead of flying to Asia astounded me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Jesus Christ lads, really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Ashamed to say I honestly never knew Alan Sugar owned Spurs at one point, thought he was just another famous fan. only discovered it a few years ago myself in my defense I was young at the time he did own it Oh what a shame, you missed out on Sugar's Klinsman hissy fit, on footy foucs where he chucks Kilnsmans shirt at the reporter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Alan Sugar is an awful bloke, arrogance and rudeness at a whole new level. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Ashamed to say I honestly never knew Alan Sugar owned Spurs at one point, thought he was just another famous fan. only discovered it a few years ago myself in my defense I was young at the time he did own it Oh what a shame, you missed out on Sugar's Klinsman hissy fit, on footy foucs where he chucks Kilnsmans shirt at the reporter. he what?! I know now in retrospect he wasn't happy but that?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Klinsmann was my favourite footballer as a kid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Ashamed to say I honestly never knew Alan Sugar owned Spurs at one point, thought he was just another famous fan. only discovered it a few years ago myself in my defense I was young at the time he did own it Oh what a shame, you missed out on Sugar's Klinsman hissy fit, on footy foucs where he chucks Kilnsmans shirt at the reporter. I thought he put it in a bin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Very sound post UV. Spurs model is a very good one, if it can be sustained and if it actually leads to success in the end. It doesn't change the fact that pre-Ashley we were accumulating large debts at a rate we couldn't afford though. Neither of our recent regimes have really had the right approach. We are definitely more financially sustainable under Ashley mind, that's a fact. The problem is the price we pay in terms of progress on the pitch. How are you defining "sustained" and "success in the end"? Are Spurs only being run well now if they eventually become the best team in the world and remain there forever? Hall & Shepherd took an impoverished team which had to sell to survive with 26k average crowds from the brink of relegation to the 3rd division to one which was constantly in the top 5 in the league and 20 in the world revenue earners. Did they fail because we only came second twice and didn't win any of the cup finals we were in? If that's failure I'll take it over Ashley's alleged financial sustainability. Nothing is permanent in football, and there's no guarantee of success, all you can ask is that you try (within reason). Under Ashley we don't, and surely no-one can still be under that illusion now. As for your "fact", as already pointed out our non-TV revenues are way down on what they used to be while all our competitors are increasing theirs, but even ignoring that, the biggest risk to a PL team's finances these days is relegation. In the 6 years of Ashley's ownership we have only bettered our worst ever pre-Ashley PL points total twice, and I don't fancy our chances of beating it this year either. We live way closer to the edge now than we ever did under the previous owners. We are being run with a low cost manager and a cut down squad which is only some bad luck and a few core injuries from relegation almost every year. Is that financial sustainability to you? Look at Spurs debt from 06-10 btw: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WRqcTQKG3Kw/T4Pg7wR6K4I/AAAAAAAAFeM/HWNXIwKvlrc/s400/Tottenham%2BDebt.jpg £90m in 4 years! Sack the board and call in the receivers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I'm not saying we have the balance exactly right, I'm just trying to compare the two styles of ownership. What I mean is, we spent a load more than we could afford to make ourselves a top Champions League club. We failed to achieve that. We were making losses, our debt was increasing, and we were stuck with crap players on expensive contracts. We didn't make it, our finances became dangerously unbalanced, and that allowed Ashley to come in and bale out the owners. I agree about the risk of relegation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Klinsmann was my favourite footballer as a kid. Yeah he was great. A really good bloke as well by all accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 We are not even that well ran financially. Just because we are not going to go bust any time soon or carry any debt doesn't mean we are well off. Our commercial revenue is really poor and our future prospects poor too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Very sound post UV. Spurs model is a very good one, if it can be sustained and if it actually leads to success in the end. It doesn't change the fact that pre-Ashley we were accumulating large debts at a rate we couldn't afford though. Neither of our recent regimes have really had the right approach. We are definitely more financially sustainable under Ashley mind, that's a fact. The problem is the price we pay in terms of progress on the pitch. Spending some money on appointing a competent manager would be logical step to putting that right. Why he hasn't done it just beggars belief. This is the crux of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 New poster? I swore there was a 'themanupstairs'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Look at Spurs, all the years we were having our “golden period” they were a lot like us now (if you listened to their fans back then) bumbling along showing “lack of ambition” but with a healthy bottom line, they’ve ascended as we’ve descended but it’s taken years and years of them making profits and player trading. You're talking about 2 different periods of Spurs' history as if they were one. 91-01 they were majority owned and run by a top English businessman who made his fortune selling cheap tat to the mass market. He supposedly saved them from their financial troubles (I have no idea if this is actually true or a myth spread by himself) and ran them as a proper business. In Sugar's 10 year run they finished 15, 8, 15, 7, 8, 10, 14, 11, 10, 12 - the very definition of mediocrity (the 10 years prior to Sugar they finished 4, 4, 8, 3, 10, 3, 13, 6, 3, 11). If forums existed then they'd probably have had Sugar apologists telling everyone they should be grateful he saved them, they were doomed before he arrived, how he had sorted out the finances and was running the club on a sound financial footing, etc, but they were going absolutely nowhere on or off the pitch, and we easily out performed them financially. It's only since ENIC & Levy took over that the club actually started to be run with the ambition we once had, which sees them where they are now. Yes they have sold their best players on occasion when they have wanted out - NO club is immune to that - but when they do, they spend all the money they get and more on top to try and keep pushing forward. This obvious ambition is what brings in the supporters, the corporate money and the sponsorship, plus it tends to have a happy side-effect of better football, higher league finishes and the extra cash which that brings in. Now they are on the up and making money they are not looking to pay off the debt, instead they are looking to invest in the infrastructure of the club and build a new £250m stadium to bring in even more revenue. I'm convinced Sugar would never have spent £250m on a new stadium, just as Ashley would never have spent £42m to extend St James - in 6 years, a bore hole, underground heating for the training pitches, and lots and lots of advertising hoardings is the sum of Ashley's investment in the infrastructure of NUFC. Under Ashley we're absolutely nothing like the Levy-run Spurs and never will be until he's gone or has a genuine change of purpose towards the club (but that's just a fantasy IMO). Any short term success like the 5th place season will always be a blip and we will never look to build on it, rather it will be a reason to sit back and run with what we have for another year without having to spend money on improving the squad. Any windfall player sale will not be used to boost the season's transfer kitty, but will be used to fund it entirely for the next few years. The commercial and matchday income we had which set us apart from the second tier of well supported clubs (Everton, Villa, West Ham, Sunderland, etc) was down £23.5m per year from when he bought the club in the last set of accounts. The longer he's here, the closer we get financially to theses clubs, and any advantage we built up under the previous owners will soon disappear. Eventually if they're run half decently they too will start to pull away from us. A quarter of the club's yearly revenue gone and nearly double the debt despite a £35m windfall from a player he inherited, and people say the club is better off financially than when he bought it. Superb post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 One thing Ashley hasn't grasped is the importance of signing a good manager. Shepherd tried to hire the right men but only really succeeded with Bobby Robson, who was John Hall's choice when we initially went for Dalglish instead. But look at the difference it made having the right man as manager of the club compared to the shambles that followed with Souness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 One thing Ashley hasn't grasped is the importance of signing a good manager. Shepherd tried to hire the right men but only really succeeded with Bobby Robson, who was John Hall's choice when we initially went for Dalglish instead. But look at the difference it made having the right man as manager of the club compared to the shambles that followed with Souness. Agree. Invest in a good manager - one that is able to develop players - and the benefit would be huge. As well as a better team for the fans to watch, just think of the improved profit Ashley could make on player sales!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ_NUFC Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If a person is unable to grasp such a basic concept of running a successful football club, that person shouldn't be owning one. Get the fuck out, you amateur. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Was looking for this the other day and found it on my old external hard drive. Still the only proper interview he's ever given regarding us IIRC. http://i.imgur.com/1RXZU4r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eG9ApVK.jpg http://i.imgur.com/QTTZrKk.jpg http://i.imgur.com/B0arsjP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/PHkydgw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/U54og5h.jpg Lying prick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts