Jump to content
IGNORED

Newcastle Preparing For Life In The Championship/Steve Bruce Resigns (Merged)


fishy

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Southport Red said:

If it happened @Owl Visiting how would you feel?  Angry? Betrayed? Relieved?

Not that bothered really, we've done well since he arrived but the revival had begun before he came along. Until the financial situation is sorted I don't really think it makes much difference who's in charge really.

He's walked out on several clubs for another job, (managed Sheffield United before us and Birmingham before Villa so I don't think his Sunderland past will effect his likelihood of taking the Newcastle job) so don't expect him to stay loyal after we waited for him patiently at the beginning of the year.

Everyone seems to want Hughton if he goes but apparently he's not keen on managing in the north again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Owl Visiting said:

Not that bothered really, we've done well since he arrived but the revival had begun before he came along. Until the financial situation is sorted I don't really think it makes much difference who's in charge really.

He's walked out on several clubs for another job, (managed Sheffield United before us and Birmingham before Villa so I don't think his Sunderland past will effect his likelihood of taking the Newcastle job) so don't expect him to stay loyal after we waited for him patiently at the beginning of the year.

Everyone seems to want Hughton if he goes but apparently he's not keen on managing in the north again.

That sounds like good stuff for a stonking triv question ... there can’t be many managers who’ve been at the helm at that many pairs of rivals - Sheff Utd/Sheff W .... Birmingham/Villa ... Sunderland/Newcastle (potentially) ... cracking! Anyone know any others? 

Danny Wilson?

Does he count? City/Swindon ... Barnsley/Sheff W ... Barnsley/Sheff Utd ...Sheff Utd/Sheff W ... Chesterfield/Barnsley...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Owl Visiting said:

Not that bothered really, we've done well since he arrived but the revival had begun before he came along. Until the financial situation is sorted I don't really think it makes much difference who's in charge really.

He's walked out on several clubs for another job, (managed Sheffield United before us and Birmingham before Villa so I don't think his Sunderland past will effect his likelihood of taking the Newcastle job) so don't expect him to stay loyal after we waited for him patiently at the beginning of the year.

Everyone seems to want Hughton if he goes but apparently he's not keen on managing in the north again.

Fair comment OV. In all honesty, with Bruce, I had you down as an outside bet for the top 6 next season. He just knows what he's doing at this level. Without him, and I would be happy to be proven wrong, I don't think you'll threaten the promotion places WTGR.

As you said, the finances are the overbearing issue but, with Bruce, you've a chance, without him, given your precarious finances, I'm not so sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Owl Visiting

No offence to you personally, you're a good poster etc but your club are cheating scummers.  No wonder Gibson rounded on you and some other clubs.

Selling Hillsborough for £38m profit- cheats- cheating pricks. I hope Bruce leaves and your new free signings kick off as they're no longer under him. *******.

I don't necessarily agree and, at times like this, I'm reminded of the fact that - if I've got my history right as I am bit too young for this and it is based on what I've read rather than my own memory - in 1982 we were the first club to go bankrupt but continue by restarting as a new business and taking the old business' place in the league. It is common practice these days but I understand there was abuse and resentment for other clubs as we were perceived to be cheating the situation.

The point I am making I suppose is that this is sport, and it's not surprising that teams aim to get whatever advantage they can under the rules. I don't like clubs getting around FFP by selling their stadiums, and I wonder if it is a mistake in the long-term as it could have unforeseen consequences - but I feel it is more of a need for the league to tighten up the rules rather than a need to condemn clubs for utilising loopholes that exist. Perhaps I am being too generous though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I don't necessarily agree and, at times like this, I'm reminded of the fact that - if I've got my history right as I am bit too young for this and it is based on what I've read rather than my own memory - in 1982 we were the first club to go bankrupt but continue by restarting as a new business and taking the old business' place in the league. It is common practice these days but I understand there was abuse and resentment for other clubs as we were perceived to be cheating the situation.

The point I am making I suppose is that this is sport, and it's not surprising that teams aim to get whatever advantage they can under the rules. I don't like clubs getting around FFP by selling their stadiums, and I wonder if it is a mistake in the long-term as it could have unforeseen consequences - but I feel it is more of a need for the league to tighten up the rules rather than a need to condemn clubs for utilising loopholes that exist. Perhaps I am being too generous though. 

The rule was removed for reasons unknown it appears- this is on the EFL too, clubs should be consulting lawyers in all honesty, if only to force an enquiry. How will SL be feeling about this??

It's cheating, end of story- if it is to a related party such as these 3 moves were. Increased cheating when it is substantially above net book value- net book value may not represent sales price but there's certain reasonable upticks and there's taking the piss. These 3 moves appear to fall into the latter camp.

We went bankrupt or all but, and paid a penance, had a long period of rebuilding- this is a way of circumventing a penance- in modern parlance either an embargo, points deduction or even just stagnation/few years transition. We were the first to do this yes, but we paid a heavy price.

I don't feel I was too harsh in my post at all.

Their net book value for Hillsborough based on a 2013 revaluation and subsequent additions and depreciation was around £22-23m, they sold it to their owner or a related party for £60-61m.

That's before even factoring in, when was it sold- how can it be in 2017/18 accounts if sold say after July 2018?

Cheating scumbags is spot on IMO.

Hope Bruce leaves and Sheffield Wednesday crash and burn. Arrogance in abundance, like Aston Villa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

That sounds like good stuff for a stonking triv question ... there can’t be many managers who’ve been at the helm at that many pairs of rivals - Sheff Utd/Sheff W .... Birmingham/Villa ... Sunderland/Newcastle (potentially) ... cracking! Anyone know any others? 

Danny Wilson?

Does he count? City/Swindon ... Barnsley/Sheff W ... Barnsley/Sheff Utd ...Sheff Utd/Sheff W ... Chesterfield/Barnsley...

Depends on how vague you are with 'rivals' I suppose.

On the above basis, anyone who's managed Barnsley would have a shot at being up there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

I don't necessarily agree and, at times like this, I'm reminded of the fact that - if I've got my history right as I am bit too young for this and it is based on what I've read rather than my own memory - in 1982 we were the first club to go bankrupt but continue by restarting as a new business and taking the old business' place in the league. It is common practice these days but I understand there was abuse and resentment for other clubs as we were perceived to be cheating the situation.

The point I am making I suppose is that this is sport, and it's not surprising that teams aim to get whatever advantage they can under the rules. I don't like clubs getting around FFP by selling their stadiums, and I wonder if it is a mistake in the long-term as it could have unforeseen consequences - but I feel it is more of a need for the league to tighten up the rules rather than a need to condemn clubs for utilising loopholes that exist. Perhaps I am being too generous though. 

Too generous by half.

For 3 seasons Villa, Derby and Wednesday, along with the rest of the championship clubs,  knew full well the financial rules and constraints that would be applied and  for which they would be accountable come the Spring of 2019. In Villa's case those 3 years were the season in which they also enjoyed premier league parachute payments.

During those three years most championship clubs took whatever steps were appropriate - including selling players, recruiting cheaper players, i.e. compromising their competitive position on the pitch - in order to ensure they did not breach ffp. Despite having the same 3 years in which to get their act together, Villa, Derby and Wednesday all had to resort to seeing their stadia ( in an artificial way - which is what so many are het up about) in order to bail themselves out of the ffp mess into which they had mismanaged.

That one of those clubs gained promotion is what really makes many mad, as by not taking financially prudent steps, as the majority of their competitor clubs had done, they gained an on field advantage, which paid off. You say it's not surprising that teams aim to gain whatever advantage they can, but does that make it right? WE now know that the EFL cocked up the issue of stadium sales within the new rules, but these in my view these 3 clubs have stuck 2 fingers up to the integrity of the championship competition and their fellow championship clubs.

As far as I am aware  none of these 3 clubs have "sold" their stadia in order to keep the club afloat and avoid administration/bankruptcy. However, in 1982 the steps that City took were to keep the club in existence. The clubs might not have liked it at the time, but I don;t think you compare that to what has happened in the last few months at Derby, Villa and Wednesday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Too generous by half.

For 3 seasons Villa, Derby and Wednesday, along with the rest of the championship clubs,  knew full well the financial rules and constraints that would be applied and  for which they would be accountable come the Spring of 2019. In Villa's case those 3 years were the season in which they also enjoyed premier league parachute payments.

During those three years most championship clubs took whatever steps were appropriate - including selling players, recruiting cheaper players, i.e. compromising their competitive position on the pitch - in order to ensure they did not breach ffp. Despite having the same 3 years in which to get their act together, Villa, Derby and Wednesday all had to resort to seeing their stadia ( in an artificial way - which is what so many are het up about) in order to bail themselves out of the ffp mess into which they had mismanaged.

That one of those clubs gained promotion is what really makes many mad, as by not taking financially prudent steps, as the majority of their competitor clubs had done, they gained an on field advantage, which paid off. You say it's not surprising that teams aim to gain whatever advantage they can, but does that make it right? WE now know that the EFL cocked up the issue of stadium sales within the new rules, but these in my view these 3 clubs have stuck 2 fingers up to the integrity of the championship competition and their fellow championship clubs.

 As far as I am aware  none of these 3 clubs have "sold" their stadia in order to keep the club afloat and avoid administration/bankruptcy. However, in 1982 the steps that City took were to keep the club in existence. The clubs might not have liked it at the time, but I don;t think you compare that to what has happened in the last few months at Derby, Villa and Wednesday.

:clap:

Bloody well said- my thoughts exactly. I still maintain Derby fall into a bit of a middle ground as I looked at their 3 year accounts and am unsure they breached and as part of this they sold significant players, but well said indeed. The worst for me are Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday IMO.

EFL, the best we can say about them is that they cocked it up that's for sure. None did it to avoid bankruptcy, whereas our situation was literally do or die! Completely different as you rightly say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RUSSEL85 said:

IRA Stock plan:blink:

I hate to be all serious, but this is what led to the myth that Avon Cosmetics supported the IRA in the 70s.

IRA in America is something to do with pensions, and is often seen in job related salary stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

:clap:

Bloody well said- my thoughts exactly. I still maintain Derby fall into a bit of a middle ground as I looked at their 3 year accounts and am unsure they breached and as part of this they sold significant players, but well said indeed. The worst for me are Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday IMO.

EFL, the best we can say about them is that they cocked it up that's for sure. None did it to avoid bankruptcy, whereas our situation was literally do or die! Completely different as you rightly say.

I’m not clear on our own situation in 82 to compare it to what Villa and Wednesday have done...but we were trying to save the club, getting rid of players, cutting costs left right and centre....and we ultimately left a set of unpaid creditors who got virtually zilch or zilch, so we can’t take complete moral high ground, but it appears vastly different to what Villa and Wednesday have done.

Derby I have a bit of sympathy because they have tried to control costs by selling some players.

What do we think about Reading....have they done a sell and leaseback too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Coxy27 said:

Depends on how vague you are with 'rivals' I suppose.

On the above basis, anyone who's managed Barnsley would have a shot at being up there!

Not quite, only if someone had managed all their rivals too, think you missed the point a bit - Wilson has managed both Sheff clubs, Barnsley and Chesterfield ... as well as City and Swindon ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not clear on our own situation in 82 to compare it to what Villa and Wednesday have done...but we were trying to save the club, getting rid of players, cutting costs left right and centre....and we ultimately left a set of unpaid creditors who got virtually zilch or zilch, so we can’t take complete moral high ground, but it appears vastly different to what Villa and Wednesday have done.

Derby I have a bit of sympathy because they have tried to control costs by selling some players.

What do we think about Reading....have they done a sell and leaseback too?

Agreed, well and truly. As you say quite a few creditors did get shafted somewhat, but yeah we paid a penance too, we took a medicine I think- certainly my understanding in any case.

Agreed- always had the gut feeling but had to wait for these apparent Sheffield Wednesday accounts that Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday the worst 2- I think I consistently doubted Derby had necessarily breached FFP throughout the year, independent of their ground transaction- unclear either way still, but different kettle of fish to these two IMO. Player sales definitely would count in their favor as a mitigating factor too.

Reading- now this is an odd one. Sale and leaseback to owners, it appears to be the Madejski. I assumed given the profit and indeed the sale price was so low that it was the traning ground, a carpark being sold for flats or some general high value land the club owned. Losing money undoubtedly, Sale Price £26.5m- however that in no way reflected the profit which was a mere £6.5m. They sold their ground to their owners to allieviate FFP, yet didn't do it much hence the soft embargo they're still under and now don't own their ground, they pay rent! Both the profit and above all the sale price are strikingly low, considering it was an RPT to help allieviate FFP. Built 1998 or completed then at least, holds 24,000- modern ground. Strikingly low like I say- but maybe they carried out the process and treated it as if it was a truly third party transaction?:dunno:

Here's the other thing too- accounts which were due April 30th 2019, as they were to July 31st 2018, were signed off on June 21st 2019- got to have doubts about the dates of this particular transaction. Big doubts- cannot believe an RPT would take not far off 11 months!

Struggle to see how the Land Registry stuff would take 11 and a bit months to turnaround too!

A penny for Birmingham's thoughts right now...hopefully consulting lawyers as we speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, downendcity said:

Too generous by half.

For 3 seasons Villa, Derby and Wednesday, along with the rest of the championship clubs,  knew full well the financial rules and constraints that would be applied and  for which they would be accountable come the Spring of 2019. In Villa's case those 3 years were the season in which they also enjoyed premier league parachute payments.

During those three years most championship clubs took whatever steps were appropriate - including selling players, recruiting cheaper players, i.e. compromising their competitive position on the pitch - in order to ensure they did not breach ffp. Despite having the same 3 years in which to get their act together, Villa, Derby and Wednesday all had to resort to seeing their stadia ( in an artificial way - which is what so many are het up about) in order to bail themselves out of the ffp mess into which they had mismanaged.

That one of those clubs gained promotion is what really makes many mad, as by not taking financially prudent steps, as the majority of their competitor clubs had done, they gained an on field advantage, which paid off. You say it's not surprising that teams aim to gain whatever advantage they can, but does that make it right? WE now know that the EFL cocked up the issue of stadium sales within the new rules, but these in my view these 3 clubs have stuck 2 fingers up to the integrity of the championship competition and their fellow championship clubs.

As far as I am aware  none of these 3 clubs have "sold" their stadia in order to keep the club afloat and avoid administration/bankruptcy. However, in 1982 the steps that City took were to keep the club in existence. The clubs might not have liked it at the time, but I don;t think you compare that to what has happened in the last few months at Derby, Villa and Wednesday.

The clubs concerned probably knew the rules and knew if they sold there stadium, effectively to themselves, they would comply with FFP as a last resort, IMO. This was not a case of a last minute Hail Mary it is a case of clubs lawyers telling them there was a get out of jail free card if necessary 

Obviously it might be a case of one of them knew and the other two said FLI CK Me what a good idea, but I doubt it. 

You only have to look at the multi billion dollar business soccer is to know the boards of directors get very good advice...What I don’t understand is why people seem surprised by that...Look around you, you know there is at least ONE multi billionaire at every game we play within 150 yards of you where-ever you sit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2019 at 22:56, BS4 on Tour... said:

That sounds like good stuff for a stonking triv question ... there can’t be many managers who’ve been at the helm at that many pairs of rivals - Sheff Utd/Sheff W .... Birmingham/Villa ... Sunderland/Newcastle (potentially) ... cracking! Anyone know any others? 

Danny Wilson?

Does he count? City/Swindon ... Barnsley/Sheff W ... Barnsley/Sheff Utd ...Sheff Utd/Sheff W ... Chesterfield/Barnsley...

John Ward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...