Football 2014/15

[TheGayTent]

you do know he's Britain's 5th richest man, don't you?

Did I miss "to spend on Newcastle" off the end? Ashley wants a profit on his investment, which is why he hasn't sold previously (for a loss). Which is also why he isn't throwing good money after bad which is exactly what previous custodians of the club did.

How many other clubs have smaller wage bills now than they did 10 years ago? Very very few? Newcastle must do, unless their squad is a lot bigger now than 10 years ago. Certainly the average wage now will be less.

Top earner now is earning just half of what Owen was being given in 2005. Newcastle used to pay over the odds in terms of wages to attract players to the North East in years gone by. Ashley has stopped that. Was the point.

Edited July 31, 2014 by TheGayTent

[eFestivals]

Did I miss "to spend on Newcastle" off the end? Ashley wants a profit on his investment

yup .... you get to be the 5th richest man by not spending and by selling for a profit.

Newcastle used to pay over the odds in terms of wages to attract players to the North East in years gone by. Ashley has stopped that. Was the point.

Personally, I'll be very surprised if much of it is and was really how you're seeing it.

The high wages probably weren't really high wages, just as the club "expenses" definitely weren't all club expenses - there was a huge amount of financial fiddling going on at Newc under the two previous.

Hall and Shepard both claimed to pump money into the club, and yet from what got published in newspapers they were taking much more out via fiddles.

So it might simply be the case that Ashley is playing it all straight, because he doesn't need the money, and he certainly won't be wanting to bring a tax investigation onto himself.

[TheGayTent]

The high wages probably weren't really high wages, just as the club "expenses" definitely weren't all club expenses - there was a huge amount of financial fiddling going on at Newc under the two previous.

Well Owen was definitely receiving 100k+ a week. Whether that was the whole lot on PAYE or whether part/some/most of it was as "image rights" paid into some offshore account is another matter...

[eFestivals]

Well Owen was definitely receiving 100k+ a week. Whether that was the whole lot on PAYE or whether part/some/most of it was as "image rights" paid into some offshore account is another matter...

oh, Owen was defo working a number of fiddles. He wasn't PAYE at Newc, it was all thru his 'personal company' (I know I read that was the case, somewhere). And that was probably split too, so that the image rights were channeled in a different way to his 'wages'.

But, because H&S were definitely working fiddles (one was thru a 'service company' in Spain that traced back to them, for services supposedly supplied to the club [from an empty office]), it's very probably the case that some of what was being reported as payments to players was actually payments to them via a round-about route.

[TheGayTent]

Regardless of the well documented questionable behaviour of previous regimes at Newcastle, the fact remains players were getting paid higher wages in years gone by on Tyneside than they are now.

Ashley himself was quite public back in 2008? 2009? that the wage bill was too high and he was going to reduce it.

I've no idea about the current wages other than what has been stated on this thread, but if you take Colo on 50k a week, the likes of Viduka, Smith, Geremi, Barton, etc were all earning that years ago. That's ignoring Owen who was getting double that.

Regardless of how those "wages" were paid is irrelevant, the fact is that they were being paid over and above market rate to attract them in the first place. Which is what Everton are now being accused of.

Ashley has stopped it at Newcastle now.

Edited July 31, 2014 by TheGayTent

[Benj]

it's not making huge profits. On average, it's a losing money.

yup, mug punters.

A valuation of that level should be giving a profit of around £180M average a year.

so go on then, show me the dividends lol

Arf do you really believe that successful investments demand dividends?!

Glad i didn't invest in Facebook all those years ago when it wasnt making profits

Shares have risen circa 30% since March, anyone putting in money then would've been a right mug wouldn't they.

*Ponders*

...or perhaps its you who is the mug!

Do you really believe all these shares are being bought by fans?

[eFestivals]

Regardless of how those "wages" were paid is irrelevant, the fact is that they were being paid over and above market rate to attract them in the first place.

but what i'm getting at is that the "above the market rate" you're suggesting probably wasn't as much over the market rate as you're thinking.

Firstly, the players you've named with high wages were high-profile, high-wage players before they went to Newc, who would have got a similar-ish wage at most clubs.

And then there was probably a premium on top of their actual pay (with the scam possibly attached to one or more players), which was going in someone else's pocket.

Under Ashley the club has certainly (as a general rule, anyhow) gone for lower profile players, who will be on lower wages, which will have reduced the wages.

But also, I suspect he's cut out the scams too, that took the pay up a notch more previously. The scams carry a risk that he probably doesn't want, but they also deflate the value of the club by making its financial situation look weaker than it really is - and Ashley will see his biggest profit from selling* the club rather than owning it.

(*cos the price of clubs was dreadful at around the time H&S bought, it probably suited them better to run the scams, at least initially).

[eFestivals]

Arf do you really believe that successful investments demand dividends?!

Glad i didn't invest in Facebook all those years ago when it wasnt making profits

I see you're giving your expert knowledge here.

There's a massive difference between owning shares in a mature business and owning shares in start-up.

The very fact you made those comments only proves that you're making it up in your head, and not from how markets work.

Shares have risen circa 30% since March, anyone putting in money then would've been a right mug wouldn't they.

*Ponders*

...or perhaps its you who is the mug!

Do you really believe all these shares are being bought by fans?

Shares get bought for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily to make a profit. In times such as now, there's rich gits everywhere trying to find things that are safer than banks - and while Utd isn't that (and neither are most businesses, however stable &/or profitable they might be), it is something that most people would think is likely to hold a value better than most other places in a crisis, just on the basis of it being a premier brand in its market. If you know about markets, you should know what blue-chip investments are all about.

But anyway ... if you think these shares are being bought as an investment (rather than spiv-ing, a r5ather different thing), you need to show how the investors get a return - which either means a decent return on the shares via the club rising in its perceived value (which it's not done for at least 2 years) or via a divi ... both of which are absent.

And so, it's only use as an 'investment' at this time is not for a return on the money, it's as a 'safe' stash for money.

If the shares have really increased by 30% since March, that only gets to show how spiv-ing is out there.

[Benj]

I see you're giving your expert knowledge here.

There's a massive difference between owning shares in a mature business and owning shares in start-up.

The very fact you made those comments only proves that you're making it up in your head, and not from how markets work.

Its exactly how markets work!

People judge the values of their stock portfolios by the value of the shares not over getting a poxy dividend payout at the end of the year.

Investment houses are buying shares in Utd, not some fan in Thailand hoping to make a £10 dividend from the £1000 he bought

You want a better example than Facebook (I thought I'd keep it simple for you)?Well luckily enough there's a very appropriate one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26526405

Since the 11th March the shares have risen circa 30%, their £90 million investment is now worth £120 million

You need to get the granny waiting for her £100 dividend cheque vision out of your head. In the main people do not invest in companies hoping for a 10% profit like you say earlier, they invest in companies where they see growth.

The value of Utd has risen over 100% since the Glazers bought it, its been a fabulous investment on their part

[WS_Jack_III]

Didn't John Hall have some of his family on a wage from the club?

In regards to this wage debate, the club's policy is to bring in young players with potential, add value and sell them on. Ashley and co have been quite open about that. That's why most of the shopping is done in Europe. You can get decent players on silly low wages compared to an English player who is deemed to have potential, their fee and wages tend to be higher.

[eFestivals]

Its exactly how markets work!

not by comparing a risky investment in a start-up against a solid investment in a mature, as you did, it's not.

You want a better example than Facebook (I thought I'd keep it simple for you)?

that just showed you as simple.

Well luckily enough there's a very appropriate one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26526405

Since the 11th March the shares have risen circa 30%, their £90 million investment is now worth £120 million

that's called spiv-ing.

By buying a large chunk of the limited shares, it made the shares appear like they're in demand, so the purchase by that investment house is self-fulfilling profit ... tho the profit only gets to be realised is they can find a 30% greater-mug than they were in the first place.

That's a game to rip of the mugs that creates the "inventment house"'s turnover for it to be able to be in the game. It's not an investment (in the truest stock-market share-buying sense), because only a tiny part of what they profit by is actually profit to them. The rest is eaten up by the costs of their operation.

The value of Utd has risen over 100% since the Glazers bought it, its been a fabulous investment on their part

Until it's sold it's only a paper profit.

But yeah, it looks like it's worked out well for them in the end, tho it was damned shakey for them for a while ... and of course, much of their dealings have been surreptitious, so for all we know they could still be 100% in hock for the club's (new) value just as they were 100% in hock for it's value on the day they bought it.

But that's by-the-by in the main ... the only reason to mention the club's value today in this convo is to ask:....

If the shares have gone up by 30% since March and the shares are ownership of the club, why hasn't the club gone up in value 30% since March (particularly as there's no divi to bridge that gap)?

And that's why the 30% rise is spiving. It's not real, even if there is a mug punter to take those shares off that investment house's hands.

Edited July 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[Benj]

not by comparing a risky investment in a start-up against a solid investment in a mature, as you did, it's not.

that just showed you as simple.

Well if you're still not getting that I was simply using it as an example as to how investment is not all about profit at one particular moment in time as opposed to a deeply planned, sound long term investment advice , then you're more simple than I imagined!

If the shares have gone up by 30% since March and the shares are ownership of the club, why hasn't the club gone up in value 30% since March (particularly as there's no divi to bridge that gap)?

And that's why the 30% rise is spiving. It's not real, even if there is a mug punter to take those shares off that investment house's hands.

Erm who's saying it hasn't gone up?

[eFestivals]

Erm who's saying it hasn't gone up?

so the club value, that's been quoted as being £1.8Bn for at least the last 2 years, has gone up to be £2.3Bn in the last 3 months?

That's clearly not the case.

It's something completely different going on with those shares. Someone buying 25% of the available shares has created a rareity value in the other 75% (do bear in mind that only a very small share of Utd is publicly traded) ... and that new higher price is the price that shares can now be bought at, not what shares are actually being sold for. It's not quite the same thing; for them to sell at that price there has to be buyers at that price. Someone needs to look up the number of shares traded since March at that inflated price - and here's betting its a tiny number.

And come back and tell me that that investment house has *actualy* made 30% on those shares, when it's sold them. And at the time it's sold them and (only perhaps!) made that 30% profit on the shares (but not on the operation), only then is anyone able to count the profits and see if it's been good investment.

(but I bet it will be, cos it's unlikely they've been playing without an end-game. They'd have had their eyes on the 'lucky' eventual buyers before they even bought the shares. You tend not to lose in a rigged market).

But anyway, this is all a bit off-tangent for the footie thread because little of it is applicable to just footie.

To put it back to Utd.... they're priced as they are because of who they are, and not because it's a profitable investment from earning via the shares (which is what properly profitable businesses do, rather than earning from a sell-on). Ultimately, only profit sustains a real business.

Those 'red knights' a few years ago were talking nearer the real numbers (for that time).

Edited July 31, 2014 by eFestivals

[Benj]

Are you trying to suggest that their recent commercial deals would not have raised the club value?

The value has risen slowly since March on the back of these deals, not on Spiving (there was an initial 6% rise)

As you say the value is what people are willing to pay for it, currently Utd shares ARE trading at 30% higher than they were in March, the recent deals signed HAS increased the clubs value, it's that simple, the club is now more valuable than it was in March and I suspect if they are heading for the CL next March will be more valuable still

[kaosmark2]

I don't think it is.

Ridiculous that our star players get more than yours?

we've been consistently in the top 7-8 for the last 10 years now,

who's Newcastle's best player? Krul or Gouffran, well in my opinion they warrant less than that.

you wouldn't quarry what Spurs pay their players, then it's surprising to see you do about Everton, when us and Spurs are about the same in terms of ability,

And 10 years ago, when Robson was sacked, we'd just finished 5th after several years of challenging for titles.

I wouldn't consider Gouffran near our best player. Regardless though, I think the clubs are on a comparable level. Operating within a relatively tight budget but trying (and sometimes succeeding) to break into Europe and challenge the bigger teams. Clubs with a long-term history but nowt short-term, who're pushing high.

I don't comment on Spurs' because they're operating on a different budget level and trying to spend their way into success. I don't think Everton paying double what Newcastle do is proportionate.

[kaosmark2]

Did I miss "to spend on Newcastle" off the end? Ashley wants a profit on his investment, which is why he hasn't sold previously (for a loss). Which is also why he isn't throwing good money after bad which is exactly what previous custodians of the club did.

How many other clubs have smaller wage bills now than they did 10 years ago? Very very few? Newcastle must do, unless their squad is a lot bigger now than 10 years ago. Certainly the average wage now will be less.

Top earner now is earning just half of what Owen was being given in 2005. Newcastle used to pay over the odds in terms of wages to attract players to the North East in years gone by. Ashley has stopped that. Was the point.

Our wage bill 9 months ago was 2/3 or what it was 10 years before. It's gone down again since with a lot of high-earners leaving on frees and Cabaye and Debuchy being sold as well.

Regardless of the well documented questionable behaviour of previous regimes at Newcastle, the fact remains players were getting paid higher wages in years gone by on Tyneside than they are now.

Ashley himself was quite public back in 2008? 2009? that the wage bill was too high and he was going to reduce it.

I've no idea about the current wages other than what has been stated on this thread, but if you take Colo on 50k a week, the likes of Viduka, Smith, Geremi, Barton, etc were all earning that years ago. That's ignoring Owen who was getting double that.

Regardless of how those "wages" were paid is irrelevant, the fact is that they were being paid over and above market rate to attract them in the first place. Which is what Everton are now being accused of.

Ashley has stopped it at Newcastle now.

Viduka 80k, Smith 65k, Barton 70k according to reports I'd heard. Luque 75k as well.

Everton's players are performing a damn sight better than those were and inflation has obviously played a part, but I still feel they're overpaying on wages in proportion to every club (typically) below them except probably Stoke and QPR.

[lost]

I guess Newcastle's problem could be net debt:

Wages vs turnover Everton are in the same position as overall wages 10th, Newcastle drop down quite a bit 11th to 14th:

[kaosmark2]

Our "nebt debt" is mostly to Ashley. Who isn't paying a jot for all the sports direct advertising.

[eFestivals]

Are you trying to suggest that their recent commercial deals would not have raised the club value?

when taken in proper and full context, a rise in turnover is only a rise in turnover. It's profit that counts, and a rise in turnovcere does not necessarily equal a rise in profits.

And you're completely ignoring the recent fall in turnover too from lost CL income - so essentially you're picking (just) the convenient data to try and prove your point, rather than actually using the facts.

As you say the value is what people are willing to pay for it, currently Utd shares ARE trading at 30% higher than they were in March

oh good, if you know how many shares are being traded (your words there are a claim that you do), you'll be able to tell me how many shared were traded in the 3 months prior to March, and how many have been traded in the 3 months since.

Or, just perhapos, are you making things up?

[eFestivals]

I guess Newcastle's problem could be net debt:

probably not. Debt on footie clubs is usually used as a tax fiddle.

I'm laughing at the Utd claimed debt, when what's really happened is that the debt that used to be held by the club has been slowly transferred to the Glazers, rather than actually paid off. Ultimately, Utd remains in much the same precarious position.

[eFestivals]

So were Utd actually good in beating Real Madrid, or was it more the result of it being a friendly where some weren't trying as hard as they might for a real competition?

[Gucci Piggy]

I think it's just like all pre-season friendlies, in that not much can be taken from it. Like NY Red Bulls beat Arsenal last week, and Yaya Sanogo scored 4 goals yesterday; neither of those are a true reflection on anything.

I've been following a Manchester United thread on The Student Room through the Summer, however, and they say they've been playing brilliantly, especially Ashley Young at LWB, surprisingly. I also watched a bit of the Roma game and they looked really good.

Also Read Madrid finished bottom of the group, losing every game.

[WS_Jack_III]

Kaosmark2

Our own Ronaldo is looking like a good player.

[kaosmark2]

Kaosmark2

Our own Ronaldo is looking like a good player.

We have a Ronaldo? Do you mean the young Rolando guy?

[WS_Jack_III]

We have a Ronaldo? Do you mean the young Rolando guy?

Aww is that his name? How disappointing.

Saw the glowing reports of his performance today and read his name as Ronaldo.

Edited August 3, 2014 by III