Alan Pardew

[Deuce]

If we have more than enough revenue to sign players then let's do it. But as far as I know we have only posted two small profits in our recent history, so our spending has been outstripping our income for years. Before it was adding to the debt we owed to Barclays (IIRC), now it would be up to Ashley to finance it.

 

 

Christ.

 

FFS man Wullie, it's a fact we were making regular losses and our debt was increasing.

 

Yes, it wasn't.

[Dokko]

Basically we make loads of money, and outgoings don't matter. We're rich only Ashley is keeping it all for himself so he can dive in to it ala Scrooge McDuck.

 

I think that's what he's saying.

 

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want.

 

I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped.

 

Absolutely pathetic.

 

I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you.

 

What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"?

 

No sorry, that was flippant. I just mean, if our spending is more than our income, then we add to our debt. And that has to be financed.

 

I know that players become assets for accounting purposes after they're signed, but in real terms their purchase still needs to be paid for with money, that comes from our revenue.

 

Every time we get near this point it ends in some sort of throwaway remark or personal abuse. I'm just not sure what I'm missing?

 

Since we are doing a lot of real terms its like buying an extension for your house, yes your house is worth more but you still have to pay for the extension, even if you remortgage it still has to be paid for, only your house will hold value and not leave on a free transfer to your neighbours

 

 

[Dokko]

Basically we make loads of money, and outgoings don't matter. We're rich only Ashley is keeping it all for himself so he can dive in to it ala Scrooge McDuck.

 

I think that's what he's saying.

 

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want.

 

I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped.

 

Absolutely pathetic.

 

I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you.

 

What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"?

 

No sorry, that was flippant. I just mean, if our spending is more than our income, then we add to our debt. And that has to be financed.

 

I know that players become assets for accounting purposes after they're signed, but in real terms their purchase still needs to be paid for with money, that comes from our revenue.

 

Everytime we get near this point it ends in some sort of throwaway remark or personal abuse. I'm just not sure what I'm missing?

 

The reason we struggle to pay for, e.g. two £10m players is because NUFC, unlike every other club in football, insist on paying their transfers up front. Why do they do this? It's insane.

 

If we did that today, it would cost us £20m right this second. If Spurs/Arsenal/Everton/anyone else did it, it would cost them £4m.

 

We're crippling our own spending power.

 

Again, it's not that simple. Like in life things cost more if you pay in instalments and why Ashley wants to pay upfront as he wants a better deal.

 

Pay £8m for Gomis now or pay £12m over 4 years, what's the point if you've already got the £8m?

 

We do it the right way, if we did it on chucky while having mad debts to Ashley he'll be here until we're all dead.

 

Btw now selling club will accept an offer off a club for £8m upfront and accept one for £8m in install,nets without player pressure while missing out on interest.

[Guest Phil K]

.......debts to Ashley he'll be here until we're all dead.

He will anyway. The undead live for a good while

[Mick]

Pardew is shit, I can't wait for the fraud to get the bullet, hopefully our Director of Football can then find us a decent manager.

[Hughesy]

I still want Bielsa.  I was looking wistfully at his wikipedia entry earlier today.

[Wullie]

Basically we make loads of money, and outgoings don't matter. We're rich only Ashley is keeping it all for himself so he can dive in to it ala Scrooge McDuck.

 

I think that's what he's saying.

 

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want.

 

I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped.

 

Absolutely pathetic.

 

I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you.

 

What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"?

 

No sorry, that was flippant. I just mean, if our spending is more than our income, then we add to our debt. And that has to be financed.

 

I know that players become assets for accounting purposes after they're signed, but in real terms their purchase still needs to be paid for with money, that comes from our revenue.

 

Everytime we get near this point it ends in some sort of throwaway remark or personal abuse. I'm just not sure what I'm missing?

 

The reason we struggle to pay for, e.g. two £10m players is because NUFC, unlike every other club in football, insist on paying their transfers up front. Why do they do this? It's insane.

 

If we did that today, it would cost us £20m right this second. If Spurs/Arsenal/Everton/anyone else did it, it would cost them £4m.

 

We're crippling our own spending power.

 

Again, it's not that simple. Like in life things cost more if you pay in instalments and why Ashley wants to pay upfront as he wants a better deal.

 

Pay £8m for Gomis now or pay £12m over 4 years, what's the point if you've already got the £8m?

 

We do it the right way, if we did it on chucky while having mad debts to Ashley he'll be here until we're all dead.

 

Why don't all clubs do it this way then if it's the "right way"?

 

I don't believe football clubs do discount for cash up front either, we're not buying a used car.

 

Your comment about "What's the point if you've got the £8m" - the point is to improve the team even more. I'd rather buy 4 £8m players with the same amount of cash and use the vast increase in TV money to pay for it. That's what our competitors are doing.

[BrettNUFC]

Pardew is s***, I can't wait for the fraud to get the bullet, hopefully our Director of Football can then find us a decent manager.

 

 

 

[Dokko]

Basically we make loads of money, and outgoings don't matter. We're rich only Ashley is keeping it all for himself so he can dive in to it ala Scrooge McDuck.

 

I think that's what he's saying.

 

I honestly don't get it. I feel like I've missed something incredibly important. As far as I knew, if you were spending loads more than you were earning then that would lead to increased debt. I can't see how that can exist alongside being able to spend as much as you want.

 

I'm genuinely not having a go either, I'm just stumped.

 

Absolutely pathetic.

 

I honestly want it explained, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm not having a go at you.

 

What, that I don't think we can "spend as much as we want"?

 

No sorry, that was flippant. I just mean, if our spending is more than our income, then we add to our debt. And that has to be financed.

 

I know that players become assets for accounting purposes after they're signed, but in real terms their purchase still needs to be paid for with money, that comes from our revenue.

 

Everytime we get near this point it ends in some sort of throwaway remark or personal abuse. I'm just not sure what I'm missing?

 

The reason we struggle to pay for, e.g. two £10m players is because NUFC, unlike every other club in football, insist on paying their transfers up front. Why do they do this? It's insane.

 

If we did that today, it would cost us £20m right this second. If Spurs/Arsenal/Everton/anyone else did it, it would cost them £4m.

 

We're crippling our own spending power.

 

Again, it's not that simple. Like in life things cost more if you pay in instalments and why Ashley wants to pay upfront as he wants a better deal.

 

Pay £8m for Gomis now or pay £12m over 4 years, what's the point if you've already got the £8m?

 

We do it the right way, if we did it on chucky while having mad debts to Ashley he'll be here until we're all dead.

 

Why don't all clubs do it this way then if it's the "right way"?

 

I don't believe football clubs do discount for cash up front either, we're not buying a used car.

 

Your comment about "if you've got the £8m" - I'd rather buy 4 £8m players with the same amount of cash and use the vast increase in TV money to pay for it. That's what our competitors are doing.

 

Who does or doesn't? We are the only club i've ever heard of discussing payments like this. The FA want to ban spread payments and have been pushing for it for years.

 

Course they do, it happens in every business, what is so hard to understand it also happens in football? No one is going to lose out on interest on Millions for the shits and giggles or just to fit your way of thinking on this.

[Mick]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know, compared to Pardew they're all a step backwards. 

[Guest Dontooner]

Assets in sports are valued by its world wide fan base.

Winning and challenging = Popular and growing fan population

 

That is how you have bigger revenues and overall be worth more over time.

 

However it is also not a static asset, if we just remain where we are (finish 16th every season) over 15 years....Ashley will still make alot of money. Just because Sport Assets are premium assets against inflation. I have no doubts thats why alot of rich people or conglomerates buy clubs.

Nothing inflates like sports , only the fans suffer over the longer run since its an addictive passion that is hard to quit.

I am sure Ashley is happy with owning NUFC and is alot more well off from the indirect or direct effects of owning us.

 

[Away Toon]

Virtually all football clubs lose money because of the ridiculous wages the players are paid. When the ratio of wages to income is as high as it is in most clubs there is no way the club can make a profit. The new TV deal brings in a significant increase in income but if it just ends up in the grubby hands of the players the problem remains the same. We as a club have now a lower ratio than most others hence we made a small profit last year. The price of this is that the lower wages on offer restrict the players we can buy.

 

Many clubs have historically been willing to go into debt to try and buy success and it has definitely worked for Chelsea, City, PSG etc, and it nearly worked for us in the 90's. This owner won't do that which makes us uncompetitive. We as fans have to suffer the limitations of this policy until either 1. Ashley sells us 2. We greatly increase our revenue and keep our costs down allowing for real investment in the club 3. We find a top class Manager/Coach who can improve the players we have and get them playing in a coherent successful style, Swansea being a good example of this.

 

In the meanwhile under the holy trio of Ashley, JFK and Pardew things are not going to be a lot of fun.

[BrettNUFC]

 

I know, compared to Pardew they're all a step backwards. 

I'm laughing because you seem oblivious to the fact that if the 'fraud' is sacked, the director of football mentioned to scout our new manager, will in fact scout himself and advise Mike to hire him, which he will.

[Guest Dontooner]

BrettNUFC :iamatwat:

[Dokko]

Virtually all football clubs lose money because of the ridiculous wages the players are paid. When the ratio of wages to income is as high as it is in most clubs there is no way the club can make a profit. The new TV deal brings in a significant increase in income but if it just ends up in the grubby hands of the players the problem remains the same. We as a club have now a lower ratio than most others hence we made a small profit last year. The price of this is that the lower wages on offer restrict the players we can buy.

 

Many clubs have historically been willing to go into debt to try and buy success and it has definitely worked for Chelsea, City, PSG etc, and it nearly worked for us in the 90's. This owner won't do that which makes us uncompetitive. We as fans have to suffer the limitations of this policy until either 1. Ashley sells us 2. We greatly increase our revenue and keep our costs down allowing for real investment in the club 3. We find a top class Manager/Coach who can improve the players we have and get them playing in a coherent successful style, Swansea being a good example of this.

 

In the meanwhile under the holy trio of Ashley, JFK and Pardew things are not going to be a lot of fun.

 

Spot on.

[Dokko]

BrettNUFC :iamatwat:

 

http://i.imgur.com/WhwDNqS.png

[Deuce]

BrettNUFC :iamatwat:

 

http://i.imgur.com/WhwDNqS.png

 

[Mick]

 

I'm laughing because you seem oblivious to the fact that if the 'fraud' is sacked, the director of football mentioned to scout our new manager, will in fact scout himself and advise Mike to hire him, which he will.

 

Win/win, his ticker will explode.

[Wullie]

Virtually all football clubs lose money because of the ridiculous wages the players are paid. When the ratio of wages to income is as high as it is in most clubs there is no way the club can make a profit. The new TV deal brings in a significant increase in income but if it just ends up in the grubby hands of the players the problem remains the same. We as a club have now a lower ratio than most others hence we made a small profit last year. The price of this is that the lower wages on offer restrict the players we can buy.

 

Many clubs have historically been willing to go into debt to try and buy success and it has definitely worked for Chelsea, City, PSG etc, and it nearly worked for us in the 90's. This owner won't do that which makes us uncompetitive. We as fans have to suffer the limitations of this policy until either 1. Ashley sells us 2. We greatly increase our revenue and keep our costs down allowing for real investment in the club 3. We find a top class Manager/Coach who can improve the players we have and get them playing in a coherent successful style, Swansea being a good example of this.

 

In the meanwhile under the holy trio of Ashley, JFK and Pardew things are not going to be a lot of fun.

 

Spot on.

 

Not really. Using Chelsea and Man City as examples is just creating a ridiculous hyperbole.

 

Swansea, Norwich, Southampton, West Ham, Fulham, Everton, Spurs have all spent much more than us, some of them vastly so. None of that is coming out of an oligarch's pocket, it's coming simply from being a Premier League football team and the incredible revenues that come with it.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

But those clubs don't have anywhere near our debt or prolonged losses do they?

 

There's an argument to be had about the pros and cons of paying in advance TBF, it does hinder short term purchasing power for sure.

[Away Toon]

 

# Net Spend last 5 Years Purchased Gross Sold Nett Per Season

 

1 Manchester City £637,150,000 £162,700,000 £474,450,000 £94,890,000

2 Chelsea £354,500,000 £100,100,000 £254,400,000 £50,880,000

3 Stoke City £97,825,000 £8,650,000 £89,175,000 £17,835,000

4 Aston Villa £174,600,000 £91,600,000 £83,000,000 £16,600,000

5 Manchester United £202,250,000 £127,800,000 £74,450,000 £14,890,000

6 Liverpool £284,450,000 £220,550,000 £63,900,000 £12,780,000

7 Tottenham £257,000,000 £207,550,000 £49,450,000 £9,890,000

8 Sunderland £151,130,000 £103,700,000 £47,430,000 £9,486,000

9 Southampton £60,350,000 £14,600,000 £45,750,000 £9,150,000

10 Hull City £36,275,000 £8,250,000 £28,025,000 £5,605,000

11 Norwich City £22,750,000 £1,100,000 £21,650,000 £4,330,000

12 West Ham £81,850,000 £54,800,000 £27,050,000 £5,410,000

15 Swansea £48,455,000 £29,860,000 £18,595,000 £3,719,000

14 West Bromwich Albion £38,745,000 £26,310,000 £12,435,000 £2,487,000

15 Cardiff City £25,095,000 £12,925,000 £12,170,000 £2,434,000

16 Fulham £48,580,000 £39,700,000 £8,880,000 £1,776,000

17 Crystal Palace £11,050,000 £9,750,000 £1,300,000 £260,000

18 Everton £63,500,500 £75,816,000 -£12,315,500 -£2,463,100

19 Newcastle £93,150,000 £118,050,000 -£24,900,000 -£4,980,000

20 Arsenal £145,700,000 £192,400,000 -£46,700,000 -£9,340,000

[Away Toon]

It's a bit messy after the copy and paste but basically we just don't spend any money on players in fact as you can see we've spent nearly 25M less than the value of the players we have bought. It might be good for Ashley who continues to take money out of the club and put it in his pockets, but it's no recipe for any level of success on the pitch. For this policy to work you either have to have the most amazing scouting network, which we don't, or a genius of a coach/manager which we definitely don't.

[Parky]

That's what they meant when they said they liked the Arsenal model.

[Parky]

It's a bit messy after the copy and paste but basically we just don't spend any money on players in fact as you can see we've spent nearly 25M less than the value of the players we have bought. It might be good for Ashley who continues to take money out of the club and put it in his pockets, but it's no recipe for any level of success on the pitch. For this policy to work you either have to have the most amazing scouting network, which we don't, or a genius of a coach/manager which we definitely don't.

 

The scouting has improved beyond all recognition, we continually find value and decent players in the market. The manager is the problem as has been discussed endlessly.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Transfer spending is meaningless without the wider financial position of the club.