Administration?



radjee gadjee said:
So we have spent 10 years in the Premier League during the most lucrative period in TV money being pumped into the game. And what do we have to show for it under Short's tenure ? Not a pot to piss in !!!
Given the money that has been poured into the game from Sky it would be virtually impossible for any well run club to be on the brink of administration with spiralling debts.
Yet somehow, our owner has completely mis managed us to the point that those 10 years will be very quickly forgotten when we are scrambling about in League 1 trying to make ends meet.
The man is an incompetent buffoon who deserves no thanks, praise or credit for anything he has done whilst owner of our club. He is destroying us but by bit every day he remains here !!
Click to expand...
All valid opinions except there is no evidence that we are in the brink of administration or that we have even defaulted on our debt. We are in a financial mess but to answer your question, we have 10 years in the Premier League to show for it.
 
Patch Lafayette said:
Mancini had a right job in his hands with a few players at City with their drinking. Hart and Johnson stood out, it'll have been 2010 when the story came out of Johnson attending a charity auction paying for a date with Katie Price!!
Click to expand...
I've got to get this straight, was this for a date or a erm...you know, a 'date'? :oops:

Patch Lafayette said:
Mancini had a right job in his hands with a few players at City with their drinking. Hart and Johnson stood out, it'll have been 2010 when the story came out of Johnson attending a charity auction paying for a date with Katie Price!!
Click to expand...
Just found about it here. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ga...l-news/adam-johnson-pays-12k-date-3699607.amp

Crikey. Tbf, it was a charity doo but it's no surprise their careers have gone to shit.
 
Last edited:
Sykes The Pop Man said:
Im not denying he has taken us down or arguing the case for him to stay, just making the point that the Short Out brigade weren't complaining when we were enjoying our longest ever run in the top flight.

He has got us into a lot of debt but administration is highly unlikely, despite the rumours.
Click to expand...
They bloody well were though.
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
All valid opinions except there is no evidence that we are in the brink of administration or that we have even defaulted on our debt. We are in a financial mess but to answer your question, we have 10 years in the Premier League to show for it.
Click to expand...
Fuckin hell,man. 10 years in the Premier with fuck all to show for it. Are you that blind to what is in front of you ??
 
sidneyeric said:
He was a known drinker.


For charity..
Click to expand...

I think this was well documented at the time.

The poster was alluding to more though with his "odd practices" comment.
There was nothing to suggest that Johnson was "odd" when we purchased him and most footballers are known to have a sinking culture.

The poster that stated that was just making it up to indicate that the purchase of Johnson was a poor one from the off set (a disaster waiting to happen) when in reality he was one of our better signings.
If he had not of done what he had of, we would have made money back off this transfer which the fact of the matter is would have been only one of countless signings that would have been a success during shorts reign.
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
We were in the top flight for the past 10 years. That is a fact and even you know it. It's not tosh.

Again, I suggest you read my post again. There was no mention of a magical £40m or of net spend. Just spending around £40m a year on players. That was a ball park figure off the top of my head. I'm sure you can find the accurate figures if you would like them but they won't affect the substance of my argument, which is that we wouldn't have been in the Premier League for 10 years had it not been for Short and that nobody complained when he was spending big money on players.
Click to expand...

Fuck me, how can someone be so dense? I don't need to read any of your bullshit posts again thank you very much. You said Short spent 40M per year (or thereabouts since you backtracked) and we need to thank Short for the greatest 10 years of our lifetime. Pure bullshit.

2008-2009 Ins; 15M outs; 3.75M = 12.25M net
2009-2010 Ins; 30.5M outs; 20M
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
Im not denying he has taken us down or arguing the case for him to stay, just making the point that the Short Out brigade weren't complaining when we were enjoying our longest ever run in the top flight.

He has got us into a lot of debt but administration is highly unlikely, despite the rumours.
Click to expand...

Not sure this forum was around from 1890 to 1958. Might be wrong though
 
Sykes The Pop Man said:
We were in the top flight for the past 10 years. That is a fact and even you know it. It's not tosh.

Again, I suggest you read my post again. There was no mention of a magical £40m or of net spend. Just spending around £40m a year on players. That was a ball park figure off the top of my head. I'm sure you can find the accurate figures if you would like them but they won't affect the substance of my argument, which is that we wouldn't have been in the Premier League for 10 years had it not been for Short and that nobody complained when he was spending big money on players.
Click to expand...

Fuck me, how can someone be so dense? I don't need to read any of your bullshit posts again thank you very much. You said Short spent 40M per year (or thereabouts since you backtracked) and we need to thank Short for the greatest 10 years of our lifetime. Pure bullshit. Only 1 year even came close to your bullshit. Spending big money ffs :oops:.

2008-2009 Ins; 15M outs; 3.75M = 12.25M net spend
2009-2010 Ins; 30.5M outs; 20M = 10.5M net spend
2010-2011 Ins; 23.5M outs; 45M = minus 21.5M net spend
2011-2012 Ins; 17M outs; 0 = 17M net spend
2012-2013 Ins; 27M outs; 10M = 17M net spend
2013-2014 Ins; 18M outs; 11M = 7M net spend
2014-2015 Ins; 16M outs; 2M = 14M net spend
2015-2016 Ins; 37M outs; 0 = 37M net spend
2016-2017 Ins; 27M outs; 37M = minus 10M
2017-2018 Ins; 0.5M outs; 2M = minus 1.5M

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2493&teamTabs=transfers

These figures don't include any loan fees received either. So going by these figures Short has spent roughly a grand total of £80M in transfer fees 10 years. Canny big spender like, oooh those heady days, how will we ever cope without him? Wanker.

Grumpy Old Man said:
The interesting thing about those Soccerbase figures is that they bear no relationship to the additions to intangible assets in the accounts. The highest totals in any one year were £51.9m in 2010/11 (under Bruce) and £58.6m in 2012/13 (under O'Neill). Total expenditure under Short up to 2015/16 was about £247m; adding on Moyes estimated spend brings it up to about £285m. Getting at actual disposal numbers is harder (it has to be inferred from nbv of intangibles disposed of plus or minus profit or loss on sales), but I'd estimate it at about £110m up to 2015/16.
Click to expand...

The lad wasn't talking about expenditure or turnover etc. He was talking about how much Short spent on player transfers every year.
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
Fuck me, how can someone be so dense? I don't need to read any of your bullshit posts again thank you very much. You said Short spent 40M per year (or thereabouts since you backtracked) and we need to thank Short for the greatest 10 years of our lifetime. Pure bullshit. Only 1 year even came close to your bullshit. Spending big money ffs :oops:.

2008-2009 Ins; 15M outs; 3.75M = 12.25M net spend
2009-2010 Ins; 30.5M outs; 20M = 10.5M net spend
2010-2011 Ins; 23.5M outs; 45M = minus 21.5M net spend
2011-2012 Ins; 17M outs; 0 = 17M net spend
2012-2013 Ins; 27M outs; 10M = 17M net spend
2013-2014 Ins; 18M outs; 11M = 7M net spend
2014-2015 Ins; 16M outs; 2M = 14M net spend
2015-2016 Ins; 37M outs; 0 = 37M net spend
2016-2017 Ins; 27M outs; 37M = minus 10M
2017-2018 Ins; 0.5M outs; 2M = minus 1.5M

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2493&teamTabs=transfers

These figures don't include any loan fees received either. So going by these figures Short has spent roughly a grand total of £80M in transfer fees 10 years. Canny big spender like, oooh those heady days, how will we ever cope without him? Wanker.



The lad wasn't talking about expenditure or turnover etc. He was talking about how much Short spent on player transfers every year.
Click to expand...

The amounts capitalised are the amounts spent on players - not just amounts paid to other clubs, but related agents fees, transfer levies, and any other costs relating to the whole of the contract (which may or may not include signing on fees). That's actually the most accurate measure available of the amount committed in any one year (because of instalments, spent, ie cash leaving the club) may happen at a different time).
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The amounts capitalised are the amounts spent on players - not just amounts paid to other clubs, but related agents fees, transfer levies, and any other costs relating to the whole of the contract (which may or may not include signing on fees). That's actually the most accurate measure available of the amount committed in any one year (because of instalments, spent, ie cash leaving the club) may happen at a different time).
Click to expand...

Not doubting your accounting credentials but we have posters on here saying that Short bankrolled us players to the tune of £40M per year, over 10 years that's £400M over his tenure. That's simply not true. Those stats I put up might be crude but they reflect the amount of money we have spent on players each of his seasons. I know they don't include agent fees wages etc, but quite frankly I don't give a shit, that's the responsibility of the owner and his competency in running a business in reducing liabilities.

If my business was losing money hand over fist and high interest loans were needed just to keep it afloat, who would I blame? The people I appointed or myself for not having a clue how to run a business?
 

Back
Top