NUFC transfer rumours in the press

[Ishmael]

What is it with people thinking a company that has paid off its debts is worth LESS to potential buyers than one that hasn't, what with assets being the same and profitability probably higher (otherwise how pay off the loan). I'm no accountant, but when Ashley starts repaying large chunks of our interest free loan, I don't see how that benefits the club or us as supporters at all. It's just profits going out of the company that could have been reinvested, and has no (negative) bearing on any asking price for the club, or am I missing something?

 

Whether you have paid off debts or not is largely irrelevant in valuing thr company. You value the business operations- that is what you are buying. To get to the value of the equity in the business you take the business valuation (usually a multiple of earnings) then subtract long-term debt (ie not day-to-day working capital) and add back cash.

 

There was a great article on this featuring David Wilkinson of Deloitte, who is a very nice man and clearly knows his stuff:

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/how-much-would-cost-buy-4803989

 

“The wages last year were £64m from a revenue of £94m, so that is about 70%, so they are 20% over the top.”

 

Splash another £20m on players would you mike, it'll be 'reet.

 

Do you or do you not accept that in today's top flight football, most if not all (other) clubs do not live within their means, and indeed many receive outside investment from their owners? If so, how do you expect us to compete with them long term? There's a balance to be struck here between financial awareness and controlled ambition, which is not only absolute, but also relative to our competitors, and we're nowhere near getting it right. If I was a shareholder of NUFC I would be delighted by Ashley's management, but I'm not. I'm a football fan, and I want to be entertained for the money and effort I put into the club, not support a balance sheet, but a team sheet. If Ashley does not understand the difference between a SD shop and NUFC he's even thicker than he looks.

 

Do you thing living outside of your means is a viable long-term option?  No.  Is living within your means?  Probably.  OK, so we win there.  And ofc, I will put the big  assumption that we invest sufficiently and progress in lots of different areas.

 

I'm a football fan too, but I'd rather support a well run club that operates within its means on money the club makes, which doesn't have to rely on some oil rich arab family whose fundamental purpose for ownership is to use the club as an advertising vehicle or on money made illegally from the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

We'll be sitting handsomely in the lower leagues a few years down the line if we don't keep up with the competition, but hey ho, at least we'll have paid off our debt! We win indeed.

 

As for that last sentence about not wanting an owner who uses the club as an advertising vehicle: are you for fucking real!?

 

Haha, yeah.  So irritated by MC that I forgot the SD garbage that is defacing our once great stadium.

[henke]

Will be interesting to see what happens to all these posts talking about ambition if we land the two strikers we need.

 

It won't change my views on Ashleys / the clubs ambition, it's a carefully planned outlay vs return scenario. The man is prepared to fork out money when, and only when he can see a return on it. The only reason for finishing higher up the table is you net £500,000 per place.

 

The fact is that Ashley has delivered plenty of good signings and will probably still do so, the problem is he won't do it as often or go as high as we would like, and in the meantime he'll throw in a couple of catastrophic errors in other areas of the club.

 

The problem is we don't sign players to address squad weaknesses, we sign them because we think they'll appreciate in worth. Given the hoofball tripe that Pardew has served up the last two years i would have thought signing Andy Carroll was a complete no brainer, but the wages and transfer fee made it un workable for Ashley. So we'll piss about offering peanuts for Bent (he's not going up in value) and offer a decent fee for Gomis because there's potential to recoup the cash.

[Wullie]

We desperately need a backup for Cisse really, at least as much as a winger.

 

A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas?

 

Well I don't think we need to play Jonas as it is. Obviously both players are needed, but I don't want to think of the consequences of relying on Shola.

 

Cisse is our first choice striker. Who plays either side if we started tomorrow?

 

I would play a 433 with Gouffran and Ben Arfa either side.

 

Gouffran's quite clearly not comfortable in that position man. Out of those three first choice players, which is the weak link? That's the one you look to displace first.

 

Remy fits the bill of course but we'll need far more than that. We need at least two top players who can play as a wide forward if we're going to carry on playing as we do.

[Ishmael]

Wait, so we're just targeting strikers cos we think we'll make money on them.  Errrrrm, nope

[Wullie]

Ben Arfa, Marveaux, Sissoko *shudders* and Jonas are probably the "wide players."  You're right though, we need to improve that area.

 

But what do you prefer?  Improve those four or improve the Cisse, Shola strike force?

 

So our two first team wide player options consist of at least three players playing out of position?

 

As opposed to Papiss Cisse playing in his own position alone or with another striker in Gouffran?

 

Gee tough one.

 

4-3-3 Gouffran left, Cisse middle, Ben Arfa right. Jonas can feck off.

 

I like Gouffran but if he is first choice in that position, we are completely fucked.

[Guest bimpy474]

We desperately need a backup for Cisse really, at least as much as a winger.

 

A backup is more important than a player for the first team to replace Jonas?

 

Well I don't think we need to play Jonas as it is. Obviously both players are needed, but I don't want to think of the consequences of relying on Shola.

 

Cisse is our first choice striker. Who plays either side if we started tomorrow?

 

I would play a 433 with Gouffran and Ben Arfa either side.

 

Gouffran's quite clearly not comfortable in that position man. Out of those three first choice players, which is the weak link? That's the one you look to displace first.

 

Remy fits the bill of course but we'll need far more than that. We need at least two top players who can play as a wide forward if we're going to carry on playing as we do.

 

Sinclair would have been perfect for a wide left role in a 4-3-3 and would be fine in a 4-4-2 there. But no we have Jonas for that role.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration.

[Ishmael]

Enjoying this discussion btw.

[Guest bimpy474]

Ben Arfa, Marveaux, Sissoko *shudders* and Jonas are probably the "wide players."  You're right though, we need to improve that area.

 

But what do you prefer?  Improve those four or improve the Cisse, Shola strike force?

 

So our two first team wide player options consist of at least three players playing out of position?

 

As opposed to Papiss Cisse playing in his own position alone or with another striker in Gouffran?

 

Gee tough one.

 

4-3-3 Gouffran left, Cisse middle, Ben Arfa right. Jonas can feck off.

 

I like Gouffran but if he is first choice in that position, we are completely fucked.

 

I know i was just giving a team that didn't include Jonas tbh. Also if we lined up 4-3-3, why cant the front three move and rotate. They dont have to stick rigidly to their positions. Unfortunately this is a major flaw with Pardew and his tactics.

[ponsaelius]

The lack of ambition is incredulous.

 

Look at Napoli for example, they've built up slowly using solid scouting and player recruitment but have realised the need for marquee signings. Sold their star player but instantly went out and spent above the odds to secure the one top class striker available to replace him. Sold out 60,000 seats for his unveiling and shirt/season ticket sales are through the roof. The hype and momentum of that signing will make bringing further recruitments easier, make the club more marketable in terms of sponsorship and retain an upward momentum.

 

We've got 100% the same potential as them in terms of fanbase, a wealthier owner and a greater TV deal to fall back on. But the club thinks small all the time, buys cheap, markets itself poorly, signs small fry sponsorship deals. No attempt whatsoever to fulfill the potential of the club.

[Wullie]

We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration.

 

If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked?

 

Utterly preposterous.

[Ishmael]

You can't use the Napoli example without knowing their financial standing.

[Ishmael]

We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration.

 

If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked?

 

Utterly preposterous.

 

Don't forget Mareaux and Sissoko *shudders*.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration.

 

If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked?

 

Utterly preposterous.

 

Eh? I never said anything like that.

 

I'm just saying that Gouffran is alright as wide of a three. IMO of course.

 

We obviously need more attacking options overall.

[Wullie]

We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration.

 

If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked?

 

Utterly preposterous.

 

Eh? I never said anything like that.

 

I'm just saying that Gouffran is alright as wide of a three. IMO of course.

 

We obviously need more attacking options overall.

 

"Alright" in what sense? Is this you being delighted at finishing somewhere above the bottom three again?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I should know not to discuss anything with you Wullie.

[Wullie]

We're not completely fucked at all man, that's a massive exaggeration.

 

If over the course of a Premier League season, our only options in two crucial attacking positions are Ben Arfa, Gouffran, Sammy and Jonas, you're saying we're not fucked?

 

Utterly preposterous.

 

Don't forget Mareaux and Sissoko *shudders*.

 

I didn't forget them. They don't play in that position.

 

Don't forget Krul!

[ponsaelius]

You can't use the Napoli example without knowing their financial standing.

 

They had made 4 consecutive seasons of profit up until 2011 according to the Swiss ramble. It has unlikely to have changed since then considering added CL revenue and player profit.

[Ishmael]

Any debts?  Wages as % of turnover?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

But if they were profitable, the must've been spending within their means, no?

[Wullie]

I should know not to discuss anything with you Wullie.

 

Why? Because unlike you, I want the club to be successful rather than "have a decent season with some decent moments"?

 

You can't discuss anything with anyone Ian because you're coming from a point where everything the club does is acceptable.

[Exiled in Texas]

The problem is we don't sign players to address squad weaknesses, we sign them because we think they'll appreciate in worth.

 

There may be a little something to this, but seeing as we don't seem to turn over players  (Buy, Sell. Buy, Sell) i wouldn't say that this is particularly true.  If it was we would turn over the players much more rapidly in a revolving door policy. Of course I may look very silly if we sell Cabaye, Ben Arfa and Cisse this window, but we don't seem to do that sort of transaction.

 

Value for money seems to be the plan.....making sure that we are not over paying for players.  I approve of that strategy, even if it is a painfull process at times. The challenge is knowing when to give a little, but also knowing that each time you give a little it weakens the next bargaining position.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

As I said, pointless. I made a point about how good I thought Gouffran was and you put a load of words into my mouth.

[ponsaelius]

Any debts?  Wages as % of turnover?

 

In fact, they now have no bank debts at all, after eliminating the €32 million balance in 2005, and actually have cash balances of €14 million

 

the important wages to turnover ratio is still only 42%, which is astonishingly low for a major football club and way below UEFA’s recommended maximum limit of 70%.

[Wullie]

As I said, pointless. I made a point about how good I thought Gouffran was and you put a load of words into my mouth.

 

Is he good enough as a wide player to potentially get us into the Champions League?

 

If your answer is no, then I'm right. If your answer is yes, then you should lay off the smack.