£100m

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unofficial Newcastle United Football Club BBS : One Thread

It was back in March that DH gave the famous £100m interview. Within days Shepherd and Stonehouse were downplaying it. What actually happened?

I just did a quick search on the net for details of the interview. (Yes - I know I should get out more). I quickly found 3 or 4 sites carrying the story - there may be more. EVERY single one carried the figure of £100m. SOME said it was players + wages over 2 years, others didn't specify. Every single one carried quotes from the interview. I don't think any of the quotes matched up. (Aren't they duty bound to be exact about something in quote marks?)

NOT A SINGLE QUOTE mentioned £100m, just a commitment to supplying YBR with funds. What's going on here? In the light of the furore generated DH ought to have clarified the position at least. But the original interview was given, inexplicably, to the NotW apparently.

Remarkably, given that we are less than 25% of the way through that 2 year period, the transfer spend plus commitment to wages for new players is now very approx £25m (guessing at wages), although I can't see this rate of spend being maintained.



-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Answers

Response to £100m

In the Deloitte review from April, they noted that 70% of player costs were now in wages, or 30% only on the transfer fee. I know this means that players like Giggs, Beckham skew the figures but it still seems that if you spend £30m on player sin transfer fees you roughly spen £100m over the lifetime of their contract. There may well be a sell on value.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Moderation questions? read the FAQ