jdckelly Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Jesus Christ lads, really? oh come on it was the late 90's I was young and didn't give half a shit about who owned clubs and probably didn't have a clue who Alan Sugar was anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfast Mags Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Feel old now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Feel old now These lads probably don't even know he used to be called 'Sir Alan'. Kids these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus 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. ridiculously good post. No response from Toonpack? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 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. Totally sunk his battleship Well said sir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Excellent post. Very true. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Ooohh, I feel another financial ding dong on the cards. Best go gouge my eyes out so I don't have to read it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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. 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. Always the cheap option. 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. 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. I do wonder about this myself. It's very weird... with Graham Carr he obviously realises that he has someone who can get him a great deal for his money. Not sure why he doesn't apply the same principle to the rest of the staff. Maybe the good managers are too expensive, won't work with the regime, or maybe he just doesn't know how to choose someone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon 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. I do wonder about this myself. It's very weird... with Graham Carr he obviously realises that he has someone who can get him a great deal for his money. Not sure why he doesn't apply the same principle to the rest of the staff. Maybe the good managers are too expensive, won't work with the regime, or maybe he just doesn't know how to choose someone. I think it could be a mix of all three. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettNUFC 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon 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. I do wonder about this myself. It's very weird... with Graham Carr he obviously realises that he has someone who can get him a great deal for his money. Not sure why he doesn't apply the same principle to the rest of the staff. Maybe the good managers are too expensive, won't work with the regime, or maybe he just doesn't know how to choose someone. I think he feels he got his fingers burned with Allardyce and Keegan which was followed by the Shearer business. I can understand it to some extent, there are a lot of big names out there whose results don't always match up to their reputations. But that's football, it's the same for every other club in the premier. This is a massive worldwide business, if you try to cut corners it will come back and bite you on the arse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella 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. Good post Ian. I think a big part of our problem is we just become too stubborn in the transfer market. We want to put ourselves above the brinksmanship other clubs play when trying to buy players but it's really frustrating missing out on a target for the sake of a couple of million or a couple of grand a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable 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. Edit: shameless steal from Happy Face over at ToonTastic that illustrates this point better than a thousand words could: http://i41.tinypic.com/161l5ao.jpg Guess which one we are... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
Recommended Posts