Alan Pardew

[BottledDog]

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.

 

Basically don't spend any money on players?

 

Doesn't our gross spending put us 6th in that table?

 

Above Chelsea.

 

[Wullie]

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.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

[Mick]

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.

 

Basically don't spend any money on players?

 

Doesn't our gross spending put us 6th in that table?

 

Above Chelsea.

 

 

Christ. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Villa is the only one there that's close to ours.

 

I don't agree that debt is only relevant compared to our competitors. The important thing is whether it's sustainable for us and where the money is going to come from to finance it.

[Away Toon]

True but what it does show is that we have an owner who rightly or wrongly has no intention of subsidising the club in any way and wants the money back out of the club that he feels is his. The rumoured debt he inherited of 125 M he's paying himself back. Hopefully once he's done so he'll sell the club.

[Wullie]

Villa is the only one there that's close to ours.

 

I don't agree that debt is only relevant compared to our competitors. The important thing is whether it's sustainable for us and where the money is going to come from to finance it.

 

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty.

 

Why are you treating a debt to our owner as being the same as a debt to a bank? In terms of financial security, it's simply not comparable.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Villa is the only one there that's close to ours.

 

I don't agree that debt is only relevant compared to our competitors. The important thing is whether it's sustainable for us and where the money is going to come from to finance it.

 

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'content', but I get what you're saying. I admit that I don't think it's unacceptable for him to take some debt repayments. Every regime in my lifetime has taken money from the club, at least Ashley only did after he'd given us a massive interest free loan.

[Parky]

Villa is the only one there that's close to ours.

 

I don't agree that debt is only relevant compared to our competitors. The important thing is whether it's sustainable for us and where the money is going to come from to finance it.

 

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty.

 

Why are you treating a debt to our owner as being the same as a debt to a bank? In terms of financial security, it's simply not comparable.

 

This is the key.

[TRon]

When you consider that Swansea finished 7th last season then it shows that with a half decent squad you can still have a very good season, but you need a good manager who has a squad which is tailored to his preferred style of play. We have neither.

 

 

 

i'd like the facepalm explained brett, disgrace tbh

 

Facepalm explaination: Basically Swansea have had one good year under Laudrup, finished 7th. We had our good year under Pardew finished 5th. He then went on to fail last season.

 

We don't know how Laudrup will get on this season yet but Pardew has proved as well with a 'half decent squad you can still have a good season' but everyone is in sort of agreement he isn’t a good manager which makes the original point incorrect (you need a good manager), if it is to believed he is in fact poor.

 

 

The difference is in the football philosophy of the two managers. Looking beyond the stats, there's one that is playing football that suits the players in his squad and one who is trying to shoehorn players into a confused mish mash style he makes up as he goes along.

[Away Toon]

Ashley has allowed the club to buy players as long as we sell players for at least as much money, in fact as everyone can see we've profited by 25M. As I said unless the players you but turn out to be exceptional and the players you've sold shit, the team doesn't get any stronger. I don't think anybody can honestly say that any of the players we have bought recently have been unqualified successes, in fact most of them have flattered to deceive, Cabaye, Debuchy, Sissoko, Gouffran, MYM, Santon, Tiote, HBA and Marveaux. The proof barring possibly Cabaye is that nobody wants to buy them.

[Wullie]

Villa is the only one there that's close to ours.

 

I don't agree that debt is only relevant compared to our competitors. The important thing is whether it's sustainable for us and where the money is going to come from to finance it.

 

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'content', but I get what you're saying. I admit that I don't think it's unacceptable for him to take some debt repayments. Every regime in my lifetime has taken money from the club, at least Ashley only did after he'd given us a massive interest free loan.

 

If he wants to take his debt after he's paid for a good enough striker and a good enough left winger and put a real manager in place, then good luck to him - if it helps him fuck off and drink himself to death quicker, all the better. Even you can't justify a penny taken before those three things are in place.

 

I couldn't care less about the numbers if the team is good enough, I've said this many times. I simply do not give a shit.

 

A consistently good team will always make more than enough money in other revenue to trump any debt they can build up without actively trying to bankrupt themselves.

 

Even when I posted all those numbers above, you just looked at the debt and said "we've got more" - quite apart from the fact that you refuse to think about the structure of that debt and the likelihood of it being called in, Man United's debt is £350m, Real Madrid and Barcelona even more. You can't just point at debt and say that we can't spend money. That's like saying anyone with a mortgage can't possibly afford to buy a car. Transfer fees are part and parcel of the normal running costs of a Premier League football club.

 

Manageable debt makes the world turn, and we have the most manageable debt possible.

[NewJerseyMag]

Did we sign anyone yet then?

 

[Dr Venkman]

Villa is the only one there that's close to ours.

 

I don't agree that debt is only relevant compared to our competitors. The important thing is whether it's sustainable for us and where the money is going to come from to finance it.

 

Again this comes back to you being content for Ashley to take his money back out of our transfer kitty.

 

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'content', but I get what you're saying. I admit that I don't think it's unacceptable for him to take some debt repayments. Every regime in my lifetime has taken money from the club, at least Ashley only did after he'd given us a massive interest free loan.

 

If he wants to take his debt after he's paid for a good enough striker and a good enough left winger and put a real manager in place, then good luck to him - if it helps him fuck off and drink himself to death quicker, all the better. Even you can't justify a penny taken before those three things are in place.

 

I couldn't care less about the numbers if the team is good enough, I've said this many times. I simply do not give a shit.

 

A consistently good team will always make more than enough money in other revenue to trump any debt they can build up without actively trying to bankrupt themselves.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It's quite hard to debate those points, they're a bit abstract. Of course I would rather have a striker than Ashley take debt repayments, but that doesn't mean I think all debt repayments are unacceptable.

 

Once you're taking about being 'successful' vs spending, it's much harder to be sure about. As we've discussed many times, football isn't an industry where ROI is very easy to guage. You can be prudent and finish fifth, or you can spend £30m and fail.

 

I'm guessing this is part of the reason Ashley and football make uncomfortable bedfellows, especially with fans. He is trying to apply certain business principles to an industry where they aren't usually applied.

[Dr Venkman]

Much of the displeasure of the fans could be solved by appointing a decent manager who likes his team to play football. I'd be so much happier if the match was fun to go to.

 

The reason he hasn't is because he doesn't want any pressure from said manager to improve the team, and he wants the fans expectations lowered. Which is one of the reasons I think fans staying away would affect things, if it was so inconsequential, why has Ashley appointed Pardew specifically to talk shit?

[Beren]

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.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

Debt has a bad reputation. It's cheap funding. Ideal gearing ratio is 50% or something.

 

 

[Wullie]

Much of the displeasure of the fans could be solved by appointing a decent manager who likes his team to play football. I'd be so much happier if the match was fun to go to.

 

The reason he hasn't is because he doesn't want any pressure from said manager to improve the team, and he wants the fans expectations lowered. Which is one of the reasons I think fans staying away would affect things, if it was so inconsequential, why has Ashley appointed Pardew specifically to talk shit?

 

That's one reason of course, the other one is that it would cost him money to do so.

[Guest Dontooner]

Some rubbish being spouted about here on finance, only reason having little or no debt is not just the cost of carry on the principal.

 

It just makes us more attractive as a buyout target as the liabilities are amortized and hence the club intrinsic valuation is easy to NAV.

 

Either a cash cow hobby billion buys us (Ideal)

or a Consortium which would in fact, borrow from the Banks to buy us out.

This would just do a balance sheet transfer of debt owned to Mike to the Banks.

And ownership transfer from Mike to the new owners.

Debt would be just transferred around.

Mike Ashley is just trying to make alot of money from owning the club, he is a business man.

There are signs of him trying to increase the value of the club via success but at the lowest cost possible.

This will definitely wretch our chances as compare to a more realistic way of running like successful clubs.

However since he is not a football person, it minimizes the risk of making mistakes and costing him to make a real lost on NUFC as an asset.

 

He is pretty clever when it comes to money.

 

 

 

[NG32]

http://i.imgur.com/Tqedg.gif

 

Ahhhhh, that's better

 

arrrgghhhhhh

[Dokko]

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.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

[Guest]

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.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

 

Fwiw, in terms of "net spend" over the last 2 years only Liverpool & West Ham have a far superior net spend, and Sunderland's is only £2m more. Our net spend is higher than Spurs, Everton & Villa.

[Wullie]

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.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

 

Fwiw, in terms of "net spend" over the last 2 years only Liverpool & West Ham have a far superior net spend, and Sunderland's is only £2m more. Our net spend is higher than Spurs, Everton & Villa.

 

So it's ok not to strengthen this summer then?

[Guest]

I think we should be signing at least two more. A striker is the bare minimum.

[Wullie]

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.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with debt in and of itself, depending on income.

[Beren]

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.

 

Yes they do, that's what I've been trying to tell you. You posting profit/loss numbers without posting those of our competitors means absolutely nothing.

 

West Ham have £70m debt (they've spent nearly £40m net on players in the last year and owe to banks, not their own owner, which is infinitely more precarious). Their last three yearly losses have been £20m, £18m and last count £25m.

 

Everton lost £9m last time round, with debts of nearly £50m (to banks).

 

Liverpool's last loss was £40m, with debts of just under £90m (to banks).

 

sunderland's last loss was £32m, amongst debts of £84m (banks again).

 

Spurs, last loss £5m, debts of £70m (banks). They've spent £40m net in this window (course, they might yet make that back but they're desperately trying not to).

 

Aston Villa have debts of £120m, and their last loss was £18m. Vastly outspent us this year and last.

 

The Premier League lives on debt (much like the rest of the world does, so I don't know people are so precious about it), but we're one of the few who don't owe any money to banks and one of the few who are posting a profit. Only the promoted clubs really buck the trend (and it's difficult to get useful numbers) but their revenue is pitiful compared to ours, so it won't take them long on PL wages to be posting losses and building debt.

 

So you want us in debt, like under shepherd?

 

Fwiw, in terms of "net spend" over the last 2 years only Liverpool & West Ham have a far superior net spend, and Sunderland's is only £2m more. Our net spend is higher than Spurs, Everton & Villa.

 

I take it the figures change somewhat dramatically if you make it 2.5 seasons (ie. to include the £35m)? Or have I got my dates wrong?