Mike Ashley

[Guest malandro]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave.

 

We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right?

 

I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously.

Dave's right though. NUFC supporters have been conditioned to judge the health of the club in purely financial  terms.

 

Who judges the health of the club purely financially? I don't know anyone on this forum. It's just the heated discussion tend to revolve around people believing we should spend more.

 

And who conditioned us?

We've had five years of Mike saved the club from extinction, Mike has pumped £300zillion pounds into the club to save it from extinction, we have no money, we have to rename the ground because we have no money etc etc.  the agenda has been to scare us into thinking NUFC are some small time club who will go bust if they demonstrate any ambition. The response to anyone who dares suggest we could afford to spend a bit more on transfers or adopt a more competitive wage structure is always to rant on about Shepherd and going bust.

 

It's nonsense.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay?

 

Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner.

 

I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again?

 

Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover.

 

I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs.

 

What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio?

 

Well done, you've missed my point.

 

No I haven't. Wage total in absolute numbers is a pretty good predictor for league position as tollemache correctly argues, wages to turnover ratio isn't.

 

Wages to turnover matters because it's the only figure that gives you a real indication of whether the club's policy is conservative, reasonable or reckless.

 

Agreed on that count, I didn't say it doesn't matter at all. I challenged your statement that wages in itself in absolute terms is a moot point, and that wages to turnover is what really matters. In actual effect, a football club should in my mind try to maximize its revenue whilst trying to spend as sensibly as it can (note: not as low as it can) in order to offer its fans (customers) the best experience possible (note: not hang on to the gravy train as long as they can).

 

In the context of the discussion that is being had about our wage structure I think it's the most relevant figure.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave.

 

We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right?

 

I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously.

Dave's right though. NUFC supporters have been conditioned to judge the health of the club in purely financial  terms.

 

Who judges the health of the club purely financially? I don't know anyone on this forum. It's just the heated discussion tend to revolve around people believing we should spend more.

 

And who conditioned us?

 

With you defending the lack of signings following it.

 

 

Honestly not trying to do that. I just accept that the club now has a transfer policy that it will adhere to, and that this policy has delivered us some quality players. I also believe that we were left in a really bad situation after throwing money at one bad signing after another in the past.

 

It would be great if Ashley was ready to bank-roll £50m of signings a season like Man City and Chelsea, but he obviously isn't and I don't really hold that against him. He seems to be learning how to run a football club.

 

Anyway, we've done this argument to death and nobody is going to be persuaded when we're doing so badly on the pitch.

 

You just can't help yourself

 

Way to ignore a post.

 

Why? No one wants or demands 50 million investment a season. Most seasons we make a profit or thereabouts on player trading. If you cant see how this is an utterly absurd straw man argument then I don't know what to say to you.

 

FFS man, I'm not saying anyone is demanding this. Maybe it was unwise to include it because people would focus on it and use it to have a needless pop.

 

As I've said, the 'middle ground' argument is basically pointless having, because everyone will differ on where they are happy for the line to be drawn.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave.

 

We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right?

 

I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously.

Dave's right though. NUFC supporters have been conditioned to judge the health of the club in purely financial  terms.

 

Who judges the health of the club purely financially? I don't know anyone on this forum. It's just the heated discussion tend to revolve around people believing we should spend more.

 

And who conditioned us?

We've had five years of Mike saved the club from extinction, Mike has pumped £300zillion pounds into the club to save it from extinction, we have no money, we have to rename he ground because we have no money etc etc.  the agenda has been to scare us into thinking NUFC are some small time club who will go bust if they demonstrate any ambition. The response to anyone who dares suggest we could afford to spend a bit more on transfers or adopt a more competitive wage structure is always to rant on about Shepherd and going bust.

 

It's nonsense.

 

Does anyone really believe any of that though? I mean, it's not conditioning, it's just the odd statement.

[afar]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable.

when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ?

 

Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club?

 

Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better.

 

We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going.

 

 

 

LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills.

 

And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league.

 

There's some homework for you.

 

Fuck it's been almost 30 years since I've had to do this much homework, can I use a calculator and is this going to affect my final grade ?

[Rich]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable.

when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ?

 

Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club?

 

Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better.

 

We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going.

 

 

 

LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills.

 

And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league.

 

There's some homework for you.

 

No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose"

 

Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so?

 

Yes. Then I look at the table posted above and see us spending 61% of our turnover on wages

 

Is that an unreasonable amount?

 

It's a nice amount for where we are right now, because we've got a couple of gaps to fill, are trying to get a couple of bodies in, and have a few % to play with. So if we pick up a couple of first team players in this window we should be about bang on. You don't want to go over 70% if you can avoid it so this suggests we're in a decent position.

 

You're working on figures are from two seasons ago here, so it's not "where we are now" by any stretch.

 

Since then Campbell, Nolan, Routledge, Enrique, Barton, Smith, Guthrie, Lovenkrands, Forster and Best have left from the first-team pool.

 

We brought in Cabaye, Ba, Marveaux, Obertan, Santon, Elliot, Cisse, Amalfitano, Bigirimana and Anita to replace them.

 

There's the youngsters to consider as well, a lot more have left than have arrived, but by the same token we have dished out a fair new contracts in the meantime.

 

Obviously Ba's just gone out the door and Debuchy has come in on top of all of that.

 

In that time it's probably fair to assume that our income has increased after re-establishing ourselves in the PL and performing well last season.

 

I can only work on assumption until the accounts are released for the period ending June 2012 and seeing where the trend goes, but I'd assume the wage-turnover rate is now significantly lower than 61%. In fact I'm fairly certain I recall an interview from Llambias where he mentioned the wage bill being even more under control, I'll go and have a dig.

 

Not trying to argue either way with anyone, but just want to raise a flag about some of the figures being thrown around.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

These days? We've been obsessed with them for years. One of the sticks we used to beat Shepherd with was the state of the f***ing finances and how unsustainable it all was.

 

The issue here isn't the finances. It's never the finances. If we're not playing well then our supporters will look for a reason and for some reason it always seems to come down to the money. Nowadays we're not spending enough of it and can't attract quality. A few years ago we were spending too much and had a team full of mercenaries as a result.

 

We win and no one gives a f*** about the cash.

 

There's a sensible middle ground that Shepherd managed to keep us in for quite some time. He went off his tits for the last few years and obviously that was wrong. Ashley has briefly flirted with a sensible middle ground (presumably p*ssed up) but for most of the time it's been stupid Shepherd-esque decisions - bringing Keegan back, backing Wise over w*** like Xisco and offering Owen 'the biggest contract in the club's history' - or pretending we don't have a pot to p*ss in and every wrong decision could put us in administration. However that would work.

 

Basically last season ended we've shown virtually no ambition to build on a fabulous finishing position and people are justifying it by going back to how admirable (or critical, depending on how you want to argue it) our finances are. I just find it a bit sad that the focus has been lost. We're fans of a football team.

ashley started off the way shepherd finished and we've found the middle ground since then (basically since relegation). last summer we didn't get in the players many wanted but it's up to you if you think there was no intent or desire to get anyone.

 

I think last summer's investment (or lack of it) was borne out of a desire to keep the current squad together because they thought it was the correct thing to do. I'm sure when the board and Pardew sat down at the end of last season there'll have been a plan A and a plan B - the former is sell one or two of our bigger names for large sums and use that to bring in half a dozen new names, probably topping up the funds for the likes of De Jong, Debuchy etc. and the latter to keep everyone unless a Carrollesque offers came in. Rightly or wrongly we opted for the latter.

[Guest tollemache]

afar: probably should've kept reading. Your homework has been done for you and published in a book

[madras]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave.

 

We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right?

 

I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously.

Dave's right though. NUFC supporters have been conditioned to judge the health of the club in purely financial  terms.

 

Who judges the health of the club purely financially? I don't know anyone on this forum. It's just the heated discussion tend to revolve around people believing we should spend more.

 

And who conditioned us?

We've had five years of Mike saved the club from extinction, Mike has pumped £300zillion pounds into the club to save it from extinction, we have no money, we have to rename the ground because we have no money etc etc.  the agenda has been to scare us into thinking NUFC are some small time club who will go bust if they demonstrate any ambition. The response to anyone who dares suggest we could afford to spend a bit more on transfers or adopt a more competitive wage structure is always to rant on about Shepherd and going bust.

 

It's nonsense.

i don't think anyone is denying that there is money there to spend but they are after value aswell. i think we could afford to pay 10million for debuchy in the summer but it's not value and we've been caught out far too much with that in the past. (not saying thats how much they wanted, just making up figures for example sake)

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

These days? We've been obsessed with them for years. One of the sticks we used to beat Shepherd with was the state of the f***ing finances and how unsustainable it all was.

 

The issue here isn't the finances. It's never the finances. If we're not playing well then our supporters will look for a reason and for some reason it always seems to come down to the money. Nowadays we're not spending enough of it and can't attract quality. A few years ago we were spending too much and had a team full of mercenaries as a result.

 

We win and no one gives a f*** about the cash.

 

There's a sensible middle ground that Shepherd managed to keep us in for quite some time. He went off his tits for the last few years and obviously that was wrong. Ashley has briefly flirted with a sensible middle ground (presumably p*ssed up) but for most of the time it's been stupid Shepherd-esque decisions - bringing Keegan back, backing Wise over w*** like Xisco and offering Owen 'the biggest contract in the club's history' - or pretending we don't have a pot to p*ss in and every wrong decision could put us in administration. However that would work.

 

Basically last season ended we've shown virtually no ambition to build on a fabulous finishing position and people are justifying it by going back to how admirable (or critical, depending on how you want to argue it) our finances are. I just find it a bit sad that the focus has been lost. We're fans of a football team.

ashley started off the way shepherd finished and we've found the middle ground since then (basically since relegation). last summer we didn't get in the players many wanted but it's up to you if you think there was no intent or desire to get anyone.

 

I think last summer's investment (or lack of it) was borne out of a desire to keep the current squad together because they thought it was the correct thing to do. I'm sure when the board and Pardew sat down at the end of last season there'll have been a plan A and a plan B - the former is sell one or two of our bigger names for large sums and use that to bring in half a dozen new names, probably topping up the funds for the likes of De Jong, Debuchy etc. and the latter to keep everyone unless a Carrollesque offers came in. Rightly or wrongly we opted for the latter.

 

We did try to get Debuchy in the summer, which obviously isn't enough for a summer but does show that we were trying to address our one glaring weakness.

[Guest tollemache]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable.

when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ?

 

Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club?

 

Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better.

 

We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going.

 

 

 

LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills.

 

And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league.

 

There's some homework for you.

 

No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose"

 

Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so?

 

Yes. Then I look at the table posted above and see us spending 61% of our turnover on wages

 

Is that an unreasonable amount?

 

It's a nice amount for where we are right now, because we've got a couple of gaps to fill, are trying to get a couple of bodies in, and have a few % to play with. So if we pick up a couple of first team players in this window we should be about bang on. You don't want to go over 70% if you can avoid it so this suggests we're in a decent position.

 

You're working on figures are from two seasons ago here, so it's not "where we are now" by any stretch.

 

Since then Campbell, Nolan, Routledge, Enrique, Barton, Smith, Guthrie, Lovenkrands, Forster and Best have left from the first-team pool.

 

We brought in Cabaye, Ba, Marveaux, Obertan, Santon, Elliot, Cisse, Amalfitano, Bigirimana and Anita to replace them.

 

There's the youngsters to consider as well, a lot more have left than have arrived, but by the same token we have dished out a fair new contracts in the meantime.

 

Obviously Ba's just gone out the door and Debuchy has come in on top of all of that.

 

In that time it's probably fair to assume that our income has increased after re-establishing ourselves in the PL and performing well last season.

 

I can only work on assumption until the accounts are released for the period ending June 2012 and seeing where the trend goes, but I'd assume the wage-turnover rate is now significantly lower than 61%. In fact I'm fairly certain I recall an interview from Llambias where he mentioned the wage bill being even more under control, I'll go and have a dig.

 

Not trying to argue either way with anyone, but just want to raise a flag about some of the figures being thrown around.

 

Fair enough. It'll be interesting to see where we are. If we're at lower than 60% with the squad we have now then that would be great news

[Dave]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable.

when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ?

 

Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club?

 

Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better.

 

We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going.

 

 

 

LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills.

 

And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league.

 

There's some homework for you.

 

No need. Stefan Szymanski and Simon Kuper already did it in "Why England Lose"

 

Did they also mention the clubs that pay the biggest wages usually do so because they've got a larger turnover and can afford to do so?

 

Yes. Then I look at the table posted above and see us spending 61% of our turnover on wages

 

Is that an unreasonable amount?

 

It's a nice amount for where we are right now, because we've got a couple of gaps to fill, are trying to get a couple of bodies in, and have a few % to play with. So if we pick up a couple of first team players in this window we should be about bang on. You don't want to go over 70% if you can avoid it so this suggests we're in a decent position.

 

You're working on figures are from two seasons ago here, so it's not "where we are now" by any stretch.

 

Since then Campbell, Nolan, Routledge, Enrique, Barton, Smith, Guthrie, Lovenkrands, Forster and Best have left from the first-team pool.

 

We brought in Cabaye, Ba, Marveaux, Obertan, Santon, Elliot, Cisse, Amalfitano, Bigirimana and Anita to replace them.

 

There's the youngsters to consider as well, a lot more have left than have arrived, but by the same token we have dished out a fair new contracts in the meantime.

 

Obviously Ba's just gone out the door and Debuchy has come in on top of all of that.

 

In that time it's probably fair to assume that our income has increased after re-establishing ourselves in the PL and performing well last season.

 

I can only work on assumption until the accounts are released for the period ending June 2012 and seeing where the trend goes, but I'd assume the wage-turnover rate is now significantly lower than 61%. In fact I'm fairly certain I recall an interview from Llambias where he mentioned the wage bill being even more under control, I'll go and have a dig.

 

Not trying to argue either way with anyone, but just want to raise a flag about some of the figures being thrown around.

 

Fair enough. It'll be interesting to see where we are. If we're at lower than 60% with the squad we have now then that would be great news

 

Why?

[Guest tollemache]

Because it'd mean that we can go out and buy even more players without stretching our wage bill - which we're now trying to do. It means we're on track for having a great first XI and some decent backup and still staying below that 70% barrier

[Spudil]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave.

 

We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right?

 

I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously.

Dave's right though. NUFC supporters have been conditioned to judge the health of the club in purely financial  terms.

 

Who judges the health of the club purely financially? I don't know anyone on this forum. It's just the heated discussion tend to revolve around people believing we should spend more.

 

And who conditioned us?

 

With you defending the lack of signings following it.

 

 

Honestly not trying to do that. I just accept that the club now has a transfer policy that it will adhere to, and that this policy has delivered us some quality players. I also believe that we were left in a really bad situation after throwing money at one bad signing after another in the past.

 

It would be great if Ashley was ready to bank-roll £50m of signings a season like Man City and Chelsea, but he obviously isn't and I don't really hold that against him. He seems to be learning how to run a football club.

 

Anyway, we've done this argument to death and nobody is going to be persuaded when we're doing so badly on the pitch.

 

You just can't help yourself

 

Way to ignore a post.

 

Why? No one wants or demands 50 million investment a season. Most seasons we make a profit or thereabouts on player trading. If you cant see how this is an utterly absurd straw man argument then I don't know what to say to you.

 

FFS man, I'm not saying anyone is demanding this. Maybe it was unwise to include it because people would focus on it and use it to have a needless pop.

 

As I've said, the 'middle ground' argument is basically pointless having, because everyone will differ on where they are happy for the line to be drawn.

 

Well lets try the middle ground between 0 (we average somewhere around this) and 50 (your arbitrary figure). So 25m. I think most would be happy with spending that.

[afar]

So Ian and the other new Neville Chamberlain poster, what should we the fans be demanding of our ownership right now, in this time of, dare I say crisis ?

 

I don't see a lot of solutions coming from you "sensible supporters", just criticisms of others who criticise the  policies of this club.

[Unbelievable]

Nobody is making any money from NUFC really, except the players and staff. There's no gravy train to be on.

 

Way to ignore a post too. It was quite obvious that by gravy train in the context of my post I meant Premiership (TV money etc).

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Newcastle fans take far too much interest in the f***ing finances these days. Conditioned into it I guess, pathetically clutching to the club's profits as though they genuinely mean something to them. Get in! We saved money by outsourcing the catering! I'm going to float into work on Monday, brilliant. We have a better wage to turnover percentage than some other clubs above us in the league, happy days. YES!!!!!!!!

 

As long as the club's not going to go under (and it's not - many thanks Mr Ashley, please let me suck you off for not losing yourself hundreds of millions of pounds), I couldn't give a flying f*** about anything but the football.

 

You must know this is a fatuous argument Dave.

 

We are on a Newcastle forum discussing our club, and a big part of that is what happens with signings, ticket prices, wages and all of that. And to ignore the limitations of our finances is also stupid, otherwise every club would just be splurging money everywhere because it's impossible to go under, right?

 

I would love to just be interested in football too, but I don't see how you can be when money is such a massive part of the modern game. It's regrettable obviously.

Dave's right though. NUFC supporters have been conditioned to judge the health of the club in purely financial  terms.

 

Who judges the health of the club purely financially? I don't know anyone on this forum. It's just the heated discussion tend to revolve around people believing we should spend more.

 

And who conditioned us?

 

With you defending the lack of signings following it.

 

 

Honestly not trying to do that. I just accept that the club now has a transfer policy that it will adhere to, and that this policy has delivered us some quality players. I also believe that we were left in a really bad situation after throwing money at one bad signing after another in the past.

 

It would be great if Ashley was ready to bank-roll £50m of signings a season like Man City and Chelsea, but he obviously isn't and I don't really hold that against him. He seems to be learning how to run a football club.

 

Anyway, we've done this argument to death and nobody is going to be persuaded when we're doing so badly on the pitch.

 

You just can't help yourself

 

Way to ignore a post.

 

Why? No one wants or demands 50 million investment a season. Most seasons we make a profit or thereabouts on player trading. If you cant see how this is an utterly absurd straw man argument then I don't know what to say to you.

 

FFS man, I'm not saying anyone is demanding this. Maybe it was unwise to include it because people would focus on it and use it to have a needless pop.

 

As I've said, the 'middle ground' argument is basically pointless having, because everyone will differ on where they are happy for the line to be drawn.

 

Well lets try the middle ground between 0 (we average somewhere around this) and 50 (your arbitrary figure). So 25m. I think most would be happy with spending that.

 

As I said, a pointless argument.

[David Icke - Son of God]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The 5th placed finish was a little fortunate and the wage budget (which is a far better guide than one league placing) should see us in midtable.

when we went down we held our hands up and said you finish where you deserve, the league table dosen't lie at the end of may, why the change when we do well ?

 

Who's we? I didn't say that, did you? Someone at the club?

 

Of course it's possible to play above yourself and get a bit lucky and finish higher than you'd normally expect to, and of course it's possible to have a rubbish run and finish lower than you'd expect. Teams have surprisingly good seasons and surprisingly bad seasons all the time. What I'm saying is it is a stone cold fact that leagues normally finish roughly in order of wage bill, and that where you come in the wage bill league is generally a very good guide as to where you should expect to end up. Check the stats for any league going and you will tend to find that that principle applies. Afford more good players = probably do better.

 

We deserved to go down because we'd spent a few years putting together an absolute joke of a club and had managed to compile a team of overpaid duds. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, expensive squads do better than cheaper ones because, on the whole, the other factors tend to balance out. I'm talking about averages, rough guides, and as far as working out likely league positions goes, total wages are the most accurate predictor going.

 

 

 

LOL the team that went down had one of our highest wage bills.

 

And I could probably pick out a few more exceptional examples to add to that one if you like? It doesn't change the fact that, by and large, league tables finish pretty much in order of wage bill. You know how statistics work, yeah? We're talking about averages, trends etc... Do a graph of final positions vs wage bills in every Premier League season ever and every Serie A season ever and every Liga season ever and every Bundesliga season ever all rolled into one and you'd get a smooth diagonal line showing a direct relationship between wage bill and league position. I don't give a flying f*** if an overpaid team went down once or Muggins Utd won the league.

 

There's some homework for you.

 

Fuck it's been almost 30 years since I've had to do this much homework, can I use a calculator and is this going to affect my final grade ?

 

No and yes.

 

Make sure you hand it in to Dave before the end of the week.

[Guest neesy111]

Because it'd mean that we can go out and buy even more players without stretching our wage bill - which we're now trying to do. It means we're on track for having a great first XI and some decent backup and still staying below that 70% barrier

 

We have usually had to sell to buy under Ashley, that won't change.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Nobody is making any money from NUFC really, except the players and staff. There's no gravy train to be on.

 

Way to ignore a post too. It was quite obvious that by gravy train in the context of my post I meant Premiership (TV money etc).

 

Fair enough, but where is the money going? Honestly wasn't having a go, I just don't understand who is on what gravy train.

 

Oh, do you mean us just trying to stay up? If so I totally missed that.

[Guest tollemache]

Nobody is making any money from NUFC really, except the players and staff. There's no gravy train to be on.

 

Way to ignore a post too. It was quite obvious that by gravy train in the context of my post I meant Premiership (TV money etc).

 

Yeah but you're still arguing that the owners are leeching the money out, or that someone is feeding on this giant treasure trove of cash we have, or will have. Someone still has to be on that gravy train or there's no problem. If the club are on the gravy train then great, but you seem to think it's the owners, personally, who are benefiting

[David Icke - Son of God]

So Ian and the other new Neville Chamberlain poster, what should we the fans be demanding of our ownership right now, in this time of, dare I say crisis ?

 

I don't see a lot of solutions coming from you "sensible supporters", just criticisms of others who criticise the  policies of this club.

 

First Hitler, now Neville Chamberlain. Are there any other political figures from the 20th century who supported us?

[Unbelievable]

Can I just point something out really, really quickly that might help shorten this debate quite substantially...

 

We finished 5th last season.

 

How can you come to the conclusion that our transfer policy is going to see us mired near the foot of the table when less than 12 months ago it had us competing at the very top?

Because any player who does well is going to be tempted away by clubs with more ambitious salary scales, and it's only the bargains that turn out not to be bargains that will stay?

 

Until that starts to happen regularly then that's conjecture. Ba is the only person who has shown any real desire to leave and he was apparently offered terms that would've almost gave him parity with our highest earner.

 

I don't quite understand why the board are coping flack for adopting a sensible wage structure. We've been down the road of paying grossly over inflated salaries to players whose performances and/or ability haven't justified them. It got us into trouble and was clearly unsustainable. Why do it again?

 

Our position in that wages table is being obsessed over but whether 1st, 13th or 20th, it's completely moot. The figure that does count for something is wages to turnover. 70% is hypothesised to be the tipping point between a club that can cope and one that is in danger and we're not a million miles off that. The only way we can really begin to pay more is to increase turnover.

 

I think there are some very justified criticisms of the board, for example the extremely ponderous way we approach transfer windows which seems to be borne out of a belief we can come out on top in the sagas that pass for negotiations nowadays when all evidence points to the fact that clubs are getting wise and preferring to play hard ball with us, but our wage structure? Christ, it's one of the things the current owners have got very, very right. It's flexible enough to allow us to reward players who perform well (as we did with Tiote in his first season and Krul last year) but won't see us get taken for mugs.

 

What prize do we win for having the lowest wages to turnover ratio?

 

Well done, you've missed my point.

 

No I haven't. Wage total in absolute numbers is a pretty good predictor for league position as tollemache correctly argues, wages to turnover ratio isn't.

 

Wages to turnover matters because it's the only figure that gives you a real indication of whether the club's policy is conservative, reasonable or reckless.

 

Agreed on that count, I didn't say it doesn't matter at all. I challenged your statement that wages in itself in absolute terms is a moot point, and that wages to turnover is what really matters. In actual effect, a football club should in my mind try to maximize its revenue whilst trying to spend as sensibly as it can (note: not as low as it can) in order to offer its fans (customers) the best experience possible (note: not hang on to the gravy train as long as they can).

 

In the context of the discussion that is being had about our wage structure I think it's the most relevant figure.

 

If you care not about what happens on the pitch you are 100% correct..

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Nobody is making any money from NUFC really, except the players and staff. There's no gravy train to be on.

 

Way to ignore a post too. It was quite obvious that by gravy train in the context of my post I meant Premiership (TV money etc).

 

Yeah but you're still arguing that the owners are leeching the money out, or that someone is feeding on this giant treasure trove of cash we have, or will have. Someone still has to be on that gravy train or there's no problem. If the club are on the gravy train then great, but you seem to think it's the owners, personally, who are benefiting

 

Fair play if he isn't arguing that, I may have misunderstood.

[Dave]

Because it'd mean that we can go out and buy even more players without stretching our wage bill - which we're now trying to do. It means we're on track for having a great first XI and some decent backup and still staying below that 70% barrier

 

Good luck with that, but fair enough. I'd imagine being below 60% would suddenly become the most important thing.