AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires. Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow. Well since 2006 anyway, big losses every season. I can't find figures before that. I guess when we were in the CL the return was better, yes. Edit: we made 0.6m in 2005. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Fair point, he has made absolutely loads of terrible decisions. I don't think anyone denies that. It's actually really strange, because if he would just employ 2 or 3 competent people on decent salaries he could run the club exactly how he wants and do much better. Not just a fair point, it is the point. The fact that he hasn't done this despite it being glaringly obvious ought to tell you everything you need to know. I don't really understand why it is, I guess he just likes to be quite hands-on and only likes to employ people he personally knows/trusts. Is he f*** hands on. He likes to get his own way perhaps. Yeah, basically that's what I meant. wasn't being radge. You know I get you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO. That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them. Bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. This. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires. Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow. Well since 2006 anyway, big losses every season. I can't find figures before that. I guess when we were in the CL the return was better, yes. Edit: we made 0.6m in 2005. From memory we did ok financially in the SBR years. I don't think there were huge profits or losses but I seem to remember we were fine. As Wullie says dividends and large directors salaries hoovered up any excess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires. Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow. Well since 2006 anyway, big losses every season. I can't find figures before that. I guess when we were in the CL the return was better, yes. Edit: we made 0.6m in 2005. Why on Earth bring up "our most successful period" then mention 2006? And that 2005 number is after dividend, not really reflective of the club's numbers, just the greed of the owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I think it's pretty clear we have an owner that isn't really committed to making Newcastle United the club it should be by rights and is effectively running it on a skeleton crew. But when comparing other club owners favourably, please don't mention Gillett and Hicks of Liverpool. They were mis-managed so badly they were effectively up s*** creek without a paddle with a mounting debt racked up against Liverpool FC rather than the owners themselves. Their fans were protesting and they only got out of that because the club was sold over their heads by the bank to another buyer. If there hadn't been another buyer what then? There WAS another buyer though, and the reason is that Liverpool had a recent record of success - that will always attract people who want a PL football club. NUFC is supposedly in a better state financially than they were, but because the club is seen as a comedy show, nobody is rushing to buy it but they will when it suits their purpose... That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires. Where are you getting that number from? Someone will correct me but I'm almost certain that we made comfortable profits under Robson, and those were tempered by the enormous dividends that Shepherd and the Halls were creaming off the top, otherwise there would have been much more available. Things only went awry after the decision to give Graeme Souness £50m to blow. Well since 2006 anyway, big losses every season. I can't find figures before that. I guess when we were in the CL the return was better, yes. Edit: we made 0.6m in 2005. Why on Earth bring up "our most successful period" then mention 2006? And that 2005 number is after dividend, not really reflective of the club's numbers, just the greed of the owners. Yep, my bad, please disregard 'most successful period' and just think of general recent history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. Yes, Spurs have done everything right that we have done wrong. Paying the money required for expertise in the management areas at all key levels being the obvious one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. Yes, Spurs have done everything right that we have done wrong. Paying the money required for expertise in the management areas at all key levels being the obvious one. Ashley's your classic football know-nowt who thinks it's all about players and that the manager basically just picks the team on a weekend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 To put it more eloquently. You can easily assess Ashley's performance as owner of Newcastle United without assessing the clubs finances. Finance is a parameter that Ashley has to work under. It's not an excuse for ineptitude, incompetence and indifference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. Yes, Spurs have done everything right that we have done wrong. Paying the money required for expertise in the management areas at all key levels being the obvious one. Ashley's your classic football know-nowt who thinks it's all about players and that the manager basically just picks the team on a weekend. Not too dissimilar to the FA (and their various managerial appointments) approach to England. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 His biggest weakess is that he's some kind of control freak hence the reluctance to hire good professionals and delegate to them. It's not just about cost saving, I think it's ultimately about control and keeping things in private/behind the scenes..Hence he hires mates and others who just do his bidding without questioning the strategy. With a good manager and DOF and more money into youth and scouting we would be a lot, lot stronger not only on the football front but over time financially - he refuses to see this or invest in it...He would rather go the SD cheapo model along with the SD management structure where all the important things HAVE TO go through him..Yet it is clear that he has LITTLE IDEA with regard to running a football club in a competitive and cogent manner (look at the scattergun approach to transfers in Jan - targetting the contract vulernable players rather than what the team and manager actually want/need). This only makes sense financially and does little for the football side. Transfers are the lynchpin of any club yet he approaches it in purely cost cutting way, desperate to get one up on other directors/owners..This is probably the only bit he has any interest in... Even more crazy are the stories that Hughton had to run team affairs by him in regular meetings...That is the depth of his freakery..Having made his own money he has the flaw a lot of self made men have in so far as they don't trust/respect the ideas of others and think that they can do everything better.... If he's breaking out into Europe with this franchise then I would imagine he should be setting the club up for regular top 5/6 finishes to increase the brand awareness, after all this was the original idea. I imagine he's a very difficult person to work with or second guess that is the crux of the problem. He wants it all HIS WAY and more often than not on the cheap....BECAUSE IT WORKED BEFORE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. Yes, Spurs have done everything right that we have done wrong. Paying the money required for expertise in the management areas at all key levels being the obvious one. Ashley's your classic football know-nowt who thinks it's all about players and that the manager basically just picks the team on a weekend. He's done the same at a higher level as well, with the DOF, it's not just appointing incompetent managers. Spurs made mistakes as well when it came to appointing managers, the only difference is they didn't give up and start looking for unemployed window cleaners or ex-managers from the '80s. Everything about the club suggests it's nothing more than a pain in the arse in which he'll invest only as much as needed to keep it running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Contrary to popular belief the bulk of the debt owed to the bank was not a mortgage on the stadium, it was secured on season ticket sales. The credit crunch was just around the corner, when banks got the sh*ts about lending money to any businesse, let alone one racking up huge losses. It wasn't a bank loan, though. The debt relating to the stadium development was in the form of privately-placed loan notes and couldn't simply be accelerated at the drop of a hat, the club would have to breach a covenant first (admittedly it's highly likely that releation would directly or indirectly lead to covenant breach). The notes amortised in such a way that as long as people turned up for games, the financing was covered. The real issue with the club's finances was the colossal wage bill which was weighed down by bumper contracts given out on the back of CL participation which is what lead to the overdraft position and the subsequent hocking of future sponsorship monies which most likely would have been repayable on relatively short terms (up to 3 years most likely). The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO. That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them. Bullshit. Yep- though we were headed for the financial wall- no doubt about it- you have to think through the series of events. Financial distress would have lead to a collapse in the club's share price- making us a relatively attractive purchase at a time when a number of clubs found themselves under new ownership. I don't think administration would have been necessary, but it could have happened. We certainly would have been in new owners hands fairly quickly. Instead we were bought for a ludicrous price and as a result Ashley is here for the foreseeable. There is no way we'd have sunk into the abyss. As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Canny read from True-Faith http://www.true-faith.co.uk/questions-answers/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". No, I did. I have posted a differently worded response. You need to separate finances from the decisions he has made and the action he has taken. Even if you are saying money is the root cause, the end result is inexcusable irrespective of what caused it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. Fair point TBH. We needed to face the fact that we were getting dangerously indebted and making big losses IMO, but we could have done that and done OK on the pitch as well if we hadn't made so many catastrophic decisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Canny read from True-Faith http://www.true-faith.co.uk/questions-answers/ There's some cracking questions in there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Canny read from True-Faith http://www.true-faith.co.uk/questions-answers/ There's some cracking questions in there. Got to be worrying having SD tills in the club shop and receipts with SD on them....Is the club shop now outsourced? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts