Any reaction to Mandaric tonight?

[topharry123]

Pull your knickers up and dry your eyes.

I countered your "He employed Pearson" with a list of everyone else he cocked up by employing, pointing out in the process why this is a bad thing. It was me disagreeing with you sweetcheeks and you're the one having a pissyfit because you're unable to counter with any point worthy of debate.

So it's a business. In business you get rid of the bad staff and replace them with better members of staff. Who cares if he fired a few employees when it's gotten us to where it has today. Would you rather him have fired noone at all and stick with exactly the same employees we had 3 years ago with less debt? Or would you rather him take a hardline approach and fire people when necessary and get us to a better point in existence with a bit more debt. Debt is not a problem if it can be managed well. The new owners are set on taking us to the big time and are going to be investing money in the club. We may be making a loss now, but the new owners are looking at turning that around and Mandaric was the one that put us in that position.

[Daggers]

So it's a business. In business you get rid of the bad staff and replace them with better members of staff. Who cares if he fired a few employees when it's gotten us to where it has today. Would you rather him have fired noone at all and stick with exactly the same employees we had 3 years ago with less debt? Or would you rather him take a hardline approach and fire people when necessary and get us to a better point in existence with a bit more debt. Debt is not a problem if it can be managed well. The new owners are set on taking us to the big time and are going to be investing money in the club. We may be making a loss now, but the new owners are looking at turning that around and Mandaric was the one that put us in that position.

Debt is not a problem if it can be managed well?

When our annual income is vastly outstripped by our costs? If this were a mortgage the house would be back with the bank and back on the market before you could say B&B.

Yes you fire bad staff - but what you also aim to do in any organisation is appoint the best staff for the job in the first place and then give them the tools to do their job. Our debt grew as a direct result of Mandaric's inability to recruit effectively and as a direct result of his insistance to then stick his beak in. Robbie Fowler? Jimmy Floyd Hasslebank? Edgar fooking Davids?

So who cares if he fired people? I cared. I cared and a stack of others who also recognise that it was the politics of a madhouse to operate like that.

Who pays for this debt? You do. Your ticket has risen in price and it now costs more than £30 if you turn up on the day and buy one at the ground. Your club shirt is tacky and more expensive and your program is full of pretty guff used as filler to justify a ridiculous cover price.

And if the Thais suddenly go who is going to pick up the tab? Look at Portsmouth - if we make it four years without this coming home to roost I'll be relieved.

[topharry123]

Debt is not a problem if it can be managed well?

When our annual income is vastly outstripped by our costs? If this were a mortgage the house would be back with the bank and back on the market before you could say B&B.

Yes you fire bad staff - but what you also aim to do in any organisation is appoint the best staff for the job in the first place and then give them the tools to do their job. Our debt grew as a direct result of Mandaric's inability to recruit effectively and as a direct result of his insistance to then stick his beak in. Robbie Fowler? Jimmy Floyd Hasslebank? Edgar fooking Davids?

So who cares if he fired people? I cared. I cared and a stack of others who also recognise that it was the politics of a madhouse to operate like that.

Who pays for this debt? You do. Your ticket has risen in price and it now costs more than £30 if you turn up on the day and buy one at the ground. Your club shirt is tacky and more expensive and your program is full of pretty guff used as filler to justify a ridiculous cover price.

And if the Thais suddenly go who is going to pick up the tab? Look at Portsmouth - if we make it four years without this coming home to roost I'll be relieved.

Yes debt is not a problem if it is managed well. Take Man United for example. Everyone is going on about how bad their debt is, but is it really? No it's not. They make a profit and are able to make repayments without breaking the bank. Debt is a part of business and is not a problem as long as it is managed well. Granted, we are not currently making a profit which will become a problem if it is not turned around. However, the new owners are marketing us in other countries, and they have the money to invest rather than loan us to help us make a profit. I can understand that this isn't Mandaric it is the new owners, but he made the club attractive to them so they would invest. Would they have invested when we were struggling in the championship before he took over? Very unlikely. What he has done for the club has attracted richer owners and given us this opportunity. And yes what if they do go? Could we end up like Portsmouth? Possibly i'm not going to argue there. But what is the point in thinking about a what if situation? We currently have the stability of the new owners which Mandaric gave us and if they decide now to up and leave it's their fault, not his and we can all complain about them.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people that got fired, but it is a part of business, and if these people weren't working in the way wanted then he had no choice but to change his staff around. In any job people come and go regularly (especially in a business this size) it's just in the media a lot more with us being a football club.

Tickets have gone up all over the country, not just at Leicester. If the team has to be strengthened then where is the money supposed to come from? The customer, which is us the fans. The prices are still pretty reasonable and even though they have gone up they're not at ridiculous levels yet. I like the shirt, maybe it's not as well made as in the past but that's cutting costs. You can't complain that we're making a loss but you still want a top quality shirt and a program filled with something other than advertising. You either cut costs and increase profits or reduce losses, or you spend more and it goes the other way.

As said previously, I don't think he's been perfect by any means. But he's made us into a club that is challenging to be back in the premiership again, and because of him we were a more attractive club for a buyer.

[hackneyfox]

Man U's debt isn't bad????

Are you mad?

They were the most profitable team in the world and could afford almost any player they wanted, they now have to pay the interest on a 750k debt before they can even think about buying a player.

And we are currently 14th, we are not yet challenging to be back in the premier and even if we were if you have huge debt you are NOT an attractive proposition.

[hackneyfox]

£30 plus for second division football is not reasonable

[topharry123]

Man U's debt isn't bad????

Are you mad?

They were the most profitable team in the world and could afford almost any player they wanted, they now have to pay the interest on a 750k debt before they can even think about buying a player.

And we are currently 14th, we are not yet challenging to be back in the premier and even if we were if you have huge debt you are NOT an attractive proposition.

From an accounting perspective, their debt is not bad. Any accountant int he world will agree with me. They have a debt which they are comfortably paying and are still making a profit. The reasons for getting into debt are not good at all I am not saying that. But they have a business model that allows them to repay the debts and to carry on making a profit.

Say for example that they had a 500m debt to build a new stadium which had an extra 10,000 seats. If their profits dropped because of interest payments, they would still be managing their debt well as long as they were able to continue making a profit and the other parts of the business were performing the same. In this case, the reason for debt was good. Their real reason is bad, but the debt itself is not a problem for them to repay. Every business has debt, theirs just seems like a lot more because they it is so vast, but in comparison to other businesses the ratio to income is not that bad at all.

If debt is managed, it is not a bad thing. What creates the debt itself is the bad thing. I'm not going to pretend that I know why we owe money to certain people because I don't, but if we are improving in revenue and profits minus the interest payments then it is not a bad thing, it can be managed well. I know we fell back in league one but that is expected. I'd be interested in seeing two years worth of accounts before deciding whether or not the debt is being managed well and what it was created for.

Can someone enlighten me on the difference in debt between the pre Mandaric era and today? What exactly was the money spent on, and how has the revenue changed between the 2 dates as well? If you cannot, it's hard to see how anyone really knows how manageable our debt is.

[topharry123]

£30 plus for second division football is not reasonable

It's not unreasonable either. It may not be cheap, but I don't think it's over the top. Some are more expensive than us, and others are cheaper. The average in 2007 was 24 pounds, can't find an updated figure but it's probably closer to 30.

[CosbehFox]

And who was the one that employed the right manager at the right time for us? Mandaric that's who.

He also forced him to virtually quit the clyb cos he wanted to flog the club off anyone who'd take it. It's a fact he employed Phil Zahavi to find someone willing to give us a go. That's not caring for the club and the potential of it going tits up. Really the answer to question isn't Mandaric....we needed a manager the season before who'd show some belief in the existing squad before slowly changing it...like the way Derby currently are or Coventry are without considerable investment. As many people use some parallel universe to say if Mandaric never took us over, we'd be playing League 1 or 2 (and so what if it did I support my club for other reasons than divisional status): equally we could have performed a Burnley or a Blackpool under the right appointed manager.

[hackneyfox]

What percentage of their turnover goes on paying the debt?

It was 0% before

If £30 for second division football isn't unreasonable at what price would a premiership ticket become unreasonable?

[topharry123]

What percentage of their turnover goes on paying the debt?

It was 0% before

If £30 for second division football isn't unreasonable at what price would a premiership ticket become unreasonable?

You're not understanding what I am saying. I'm talking about managing debt, not the debt itself. In Man United case, the debt was created for selfish reasons and is bad for the club BUT it is manageable as they are able to keep the day to day operations going and still make a profit. The debt is not going to put them under.

In our case, if we are able to keep the day to day operations going and increase our profit or minimize our loss, we are managing it well. Is it bad we are in debt? I don't know as I do not know what it is for so it's a redundant argument in my case. As I said previously, can anyone enlighten me on exactly where our debt comes from?

I've seen Chelsea and Arsenal in the last 5 years in the PL. The chelsea ticket cost 48 and the arsenal ticket was over 50. Chelsea was a little overpriced, arsenal doesn't seem so as the club has to recoup the stadium costs. I look at us the same way. I'm assuming a large part of our debt is for the stadium so I don't mind paying a few quid extra a ticket as we now play in a very nice stadium (Filbert street was also excellent but behind the times). The money to finance the stadium has to come from somewhere and it can only come from the clubs income, which comes from the fans.