If you look at Ashley's reputation within the City (of London) you'll see that he's generally unliked by most brokers and investors until earlier this year. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/business/Mike-Ashley-Angel-of-the.6802664.jp Sound familiar? It's the way he is. Dave Whelan said he 'Liked to park his tanks on the lawn'
Maybe the club don't need to reply. Manchester United didn't give a detailed report on how the Ronaldo money would be spent, the same when Everton sold Rooney, however their fans didn't react in such a way to these sales - despite their being no like-for-like spending taking place. I'm not saying I agree with this, and a great deal of the hostility we feel towards the club's stewards is justified, but this doesn't mean we should be privy to information that fans of other clubs don't get. I'd also add, that nobody seemed to bat an eyelid when Ashley injected over £100m into the club, in fact a lot of people used this against him, yet this money ensured we are where we are now, in the Premier League. Yes, this was so he didn't lose out too much on his investment with us languishing in the lower leagues, but had that money not been spent then, we would have had to have sold ALL of our high earners and we'd still be in the championship. So realistically it is somewhat unreasonable to ask that the owners don't take some of the money they have spent back into the club, it may not have been. But this injection of cash wasn't heavily publicised, and Ashley himself definitely didn't come out and say he wasn't going to do it, so it seems that no matter what action is being taken, we're greeted with a wall of silence.
Re first point. I just assumed that broke even meant that, i.e. negligable profit and instead focused on the £50m posed earlier as player sales income. Didn't want to turn it into an accounting seminar anymore than possible As for your other points I agree totally. They should just be upfront about it and tell us how it is. They have to realise that there are accountants out there who will fill in the blanks anyway! Swiss Rambler for example. As for the Carroll money they have created so much trouble for themselves by issuing such wishy washy statements instead of coming out straight away and saying that no more than about £15 will be spent (insert own figure depending on what you think is reasonable there ). I don't think he pisses us off deliberately though, I just think he is a PR disaster area!
Not being funny but comparing us with Man U is a bit mad. They buy the best year on year so of course they can deal with Ronaldos sale. Plus they knew he wanted off for two years as he told them several times much to their annoyance! We're not asking to be told the ins and outs of it all. A simple statement like this to fans and players would be fine by me. "We are massively in debt and we need to reduce this. As such we need to move high earners off the wage bill and look to move cleverly in the transfer market to generate funds. i.e. buy quality young players and sell them on at a profit." As opposed to inferring that 35m would be spent on transfers for the team as they did. Just honesty will do for me. And I suspect the players and most of our fans would be the same. Of course you'll have those who think we should buy our way out. They're entitled to their opinion.
It's a very valid point re: Man U, simply because they're fans have trust in the club's hierarchy (to a degree). Ours are just idiots, Pardew opens his mouth without thinking, wanting to tell the fans what they want to hear, and then Ashley tells him how it really is, and it all goes quiet. They have hinted at the buy to sell strategy, however what the club need to do is present a united front, stop shafting Pardew by sending him out to face the cameras with no idea what the party line is and tell everybody what is going on in a clear and simple fashion. I don't see this happening with the levels of mutual animosity being as they are though...
1) So if there is room to finance these deals. Hasn't the HUGE injection of cash from the player sales created even more room....on a very large scale given the fees flying in? 2) Exactly, MA has funded any transfer coming in. So why stop now? Its my understanding that for the first time in a very long time NUFC made a modest profit last year due to the increase of TV revenue from SKY (around £10m) and the decrease in expenditure (wages being the biggest). Just how much is this interest on the Mike Ashley loan? It cant be a lot, or it shudnt be. 3) To answer my own question, we wud have done the business we have done so far this summer and not much more. So basically its as if we have never sold Carroll and Nolan. From a footballing point of view, we may as well have kept AC as we arent investing it in the team. Which is what pisses me off. Sell the boy - use it to pay the debt. Get ****ed. Keep the boy - have a better team - and carry on as we are. 4) I dont like amortisation. Or spreading the cost over the length of the contract. I wud much rather have a seasons transfer NETT income - NETT spend. Because at the end of the day, trying to value a player as an asset is actually impossible. Having a new signing go into the balance sheet as an asset being spread over his contract length is pointless as he could be sold at any time - for any amount of money. Dont like it. Dont see the positive side of it. You spend £10mil on Coloccini. Stick it down as £10m spent. You sell AC for £35m, stick it in as £35m gained. Then see what the outcome is at the bottom of the column for that financial year (season). Season by season. A lot easier and clearer of where a club actually is financially. 5) But according to yourself, as we have debated already this week, the club aren't making a profit. We are breaking even in your eyes. So like I say, where is the financial plan if that were true? Answer there isnt one. This is how I understand it. MA has cleared all debts in the club completely (or shud that be, took on the debts). Starting from the start of last season NUFC is a football club that is ran totally from scratch as a season gained - season spent = profit/loss. And as of last season, MA has worked out/estimated/planned that NUFC will gain £100m in turnover. He worked out that with the wage bill at a certain level, other operating costs, we will spend around the £70mil mark. Equalling a modest profit of around £20 -£30 mil. He will then use that money, how much is up to him, to pay back part of the loan he has invested in us. Now he will do this season after season after season to eventually get to a point where NUFC has paid back the loan and is now, in his own words "working as a totally self-sufficient business" ie no more debt, no more loan, all profits made go to NUFC and nobody else. That is how I understand MA plan to be. From his own quotes and from those of DL. To me, this makes perfect sense. In a perfect world, I would like NUFC to be ran as a 80% - 90% profits go to MA's loan, 20% - 10% is used as a Transfer budget and any more will be on a sell first basis. I was under the impression that my perfect world scenario wasnt actually far off what financial plan we are currently working to. After all, it does make sense. However MA has decided to take the AC money and use most of it to pay off his loan (I believe). This is what I do not like. As NUFC's accountant, I would love it. But as a NUFC fan, I do not like it one bit. Because at the end of the day, we are missing a HUGE opportunity to become a better team. And in my eyes, a better team makes more income, and the more income we make we can pay him off sooner and be rid of him forever. The stronger financial plan to have would be to invest most of this unexpected huge cash bonus in the team, to enhance the already financial plan with more steady guaranteed Income. Transfer money is not guaranteed. Turnover is. Increase the Turnover I say, will be healthier in the long term. We are wasting the opportunity presented to us. Which is what I am most pissed off about. ....you still awake...?ha
It would be lovely but they just don't get football. They run it like a business but football clubs are like no other business. Plenty of these billionnaires are finding it out too. I know thye trust their board to a point (ignoring all the yanks out stuff) but like I say I just think its easy when you are signing the likes of Phil Jones, Wayne Rooney, etc. Ronaldo goes but they'd already been grooming his successor for the previous 2 years in Nani. They do it on their terms. We take the money and then develop the strategy. I have sympathy because the world of football is bizarre. Its just my sympathy has become limited with these PR gaffs.
