Mike Ashley

[Owl999]

8 hours ago, Steve Down South said:

Simply that most football supporters will have a view on Ashley (probably negative) whereas many will never have heard of Chansiri.  Can’t imagine any future owner being a Wednesday fan.

Right I’ve got you, a British owner rather than a foreign owner, for me I’m torn over the issue of Ashley becoming the owner, morally how he runs his businesses with zero hours contracts etc doesn’t sit right with me but his investment in Newcastle has been vast all be it with little success 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Owl999

[East Yorks Owl]

I actually prefer the idea of us having an owner who is prudent with the club’s finances. Personally, even though Milan invested far less than DC I actually much preferred the time he owned our club to the current period. With regards to Mike Ashley I’ve no problem with him being careful with his money, but I worry far more about him as a person and whether he could bond a winning, harmonious philosophy at our club. 

[benitocarbonara]

On 29/04/2020 at 12:05, WalthamOwl said:

He can fizz right off. I’m no fan of DC but Ashley would be even worse. 

just interested. are you not a fan of dc because of his mistakes and the stubborn  nature he seems to have and it appears he may not learn or you think hes trying make a quick buck and just has no interest in club as such

[WalthamOwl]

5 minutes ago, benitocarbonara said:

just interested. are you not a fan of dc because of his mistakes and the stubborn  nature he seems to have and it appears he may not learn or you think hes trying make a quick buck and just has no interest in club as such

Definitely the first option, mistakes, stubborn nature and the mess he has got us in to with regards FFP etc. 

[Buxtongent]

On 29/04/2020 at 12:22, j17tjp said:

would he bring Steve Bruce back 

 

Hope not.let him stick to Geordieland. We've enoughof his type around here.

[soldierboyblue]

On 03/05/2020 at 09:41, East Yorks Owl said:

I actually prefer the idea of us having an owner who is prudent with the club’s finances. Personally, even though Milan invested far less than DC I actually much preferred the time he owned our club to the current period

What exactly did MM invest? He loaned the money against the club's assets he did not invest his own funds as DC has done

[Buxtongent]

What we need is a well-heeled leader(s) maybe a consortium, who will look on SW as a business deal, whereby they can appoint someone to run the football side of things. The appointed someone will need to be football-wise, have a reputation as a winner worldwide, able to attract excellent footballers and weld them into a team.. They then need to sit back in their air-conditioned apartments in whatever country they may choose as their tax-haven, and slowly but surely watch the profits roll in.

I have no call against anyone making money out of Wednesday's success.Profit is not a dirty word, it is simply the reward of success.

[Rogers]

On 03/05/2020 at 18:41, East Yorks Owl said:

I actually prefer the idea of us having an owner who is prudent with the club’s finances. Personally, even though Milan invested far less than DC I actually much preferred the time he owned our club to the current period. With regards to Mike Ashley I’ve no problem with him being careful with his money, but I worry far more about him as a person and whether he could bond a winning, harmonious philosophy at our club. 

I’d have Stuart Gray back any day, as such. He seems to get players in for nowt and got them playing 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Rogers

[Guest]

On 03/05/2020 at 09:41, East Yorks Owl said:

I actually prefer the idea of us having an owner who is prudent with the club’s finances. Personally, even though Milan invested far less than DC I actually much preferred the time he owned our club to the current period. With regards to Mike Ashley I’ve no problem with him being careful with his money, but I worry far more about him as a person and whether he could bond a winning, harmonious philosophy at our club. 

 

I understand the sentiment of wanting a steadier ship but under Milan we were still losing £5M a season with attendances in the top 6 in the division and a budget in the bottom 6. 

Milan himself said it wasn't sustainable and would likely have just been a slower trip towards financial problems without the play-off campaigns.

 

Some point towards teams getting promoted from this division without significant overspending and the blunts were put forward as an example of this - until their 2018-19 accounts revealed a £21M loss for the year. Despite Wilder's mantra of not putting the club at risk financially it seems another season in the Championship wold probably have seen them breach the rules. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Rogers said:

I’d have Stuart Gray back any day, as such. He seems to get players in for nowt and got them playing 

 

Stuart Gray managed over 5 years ago. You'd have expected him to take a chance in management, or someone to take a chance on him by now if that was his career path. He seems far more suited to being an assistant or a coach than a manager.

 

He did a steady job for us but it was turgid to watch at times, we barely scored a goal from open play at Hillsborough in the first half of one season under him. 

[Dick_Turpin]

1 hour ago, soldierboyblue said:

What exactly did MM invest? He loaned the money against the club's assets he did not jizz away his own funds as DC has done

 

[horny owl]

Would much rather have Ashley running our club than a Saudi owner like them across the city

 

I’d even rather keep chansiri in charge than that

[Owling with laughter]

1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I understand the sentiment of wanting a steadier ship but under Milan we were still losing £5M a season with attendances in the top 6 in the division and a budget in the bottom 6. 

Milan himself said it wasn't sustainable and would likely have just been a slower trip towards financial problems without the play-off campaigns.

 

Some point towards teams getting promoted from this division without significant overspending and the blunts were put forward as an example of this - until their 2018-19 accounts revealed a £21M loss for the year. Despite Wilder's mantra of not putting the club at risk financially it seems another season in the Championship wold probably have seen them breach the rules. 

Promotion bonuses were the reason for the higher than normal loss.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Owling with laughter said:

Promotion bonuses were the reason for the higher than normal loss.

 

Of the £21.3M losses, how much was attributed to these bonuses? 

[Owling with laughter]

20 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Of the £21.3M losses, how much was attributed to these bonuses? 

Not sure exactly but found this which explains a lot.

 

https://financialfootballnews.com/category/sheffield-united/

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Owling with laughter said:

Not sure exactly but found this which explains a lot.

 

https://financialfootballnews.com/category/sheffield-united/

 

Doesn't say how much the bonuses were does it. However, with the additional income and the big prize of staying in the PL, Utd's squad are reported to be on a £10M bonus this year for staying up. 

It is reasonable to think that the promotion bonus was not as high as that so even without the bonuses, the losses would have been above the £13M per season permitted by P&S rules.

 

United had total income of £22M last season. The wage bill was £41M - this includes the bonus payments but the previous season when finishing mid-table the wage bill was £20M so with an increase in salary and players added last season, the wage bill alone would still have been significantly above total income - hardly the well run ship that it was reported to be. 

[Owling with laughter]

1 hour ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Doesn't say how much the bonuses were does it. However, with the additional income and the big prize of staying in the PL, Utd's squad are reported to be on a £10M bonus this year for staying up. 

It is reasonable to think that the promotion bonus was not as high as that so even without the bonuses, the losses would have been above the £13M per season permitted by P&S rules.

 

United had total income of £22M last season. The wage bill was £41M - this includes the bonus payments but the previous season when finishing mid-table the wage bill was £20M so with an increase in salary and players added last season, the wage bill alone would still have been significantly above total income - hardly the well run ship that it was reported to be. 

Nobody’s disputing they were making a loss, just that they were within permitted allowances. If they paid out £8m in promotion bonuses they would have been under the permitted £13m a season?

 

It’s not unreasonable to think that bonuses of at least that they got for staying up would have been made given the vast rewards for getting there. 

[Dick_Turpin]

6 minutes ago, Owling with laughter said:

Nobody’s disputing they were making a loss, just that they were within permitted allowances. If they paid out £8m in promotion bonuses they would have been under the permitted £13m a season?

 

It’s not unreasonable to think that bonuses of at least that they got for staying up would have been made given the vast rewards for getting there. 

 

It's more complicated than just £13m a season isn't it - or indeed £39m over 3 seasons which is what it was? This is quite a good explanation - albeit with a few too many Leeds references. https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/

[TINGLE75]

Apologies if it's been mentioned but has anyone seen the Dutch consortium hoping to buy an unnamed English club? If all else fails they can get their boots back on. Consortium involves Bergkamp. Larson and Davids

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Owling with laughter said:

Nobody’s disputing they were making a loss, just that they were within permitted allowances. If they paid out £8m in promotion bonuses they would have been under the permitted £13m a season?

 

It’s not unreasonable to think that bonuses of at least that they got for staying up would have been made given the vast rewards for getting there. 

I don't know where you got your mathematical education but in my book £21.3M losses minus £8M bonuses as you suggest leaves a loss of over £13M not less than £13M.

 

The fact is Utd often portrayed the fact that they were not prepared to gamble the financial stability of the club against the quest for promotion as some Championship clubs do. Given that they lost £21.3M (minus the promotion bonus) in one year, that would certainly have been called into question if they had not been promoted.