http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php

OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.

Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
What the hell have they spent this on ...

Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>
>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>
>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>
wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
shocking.

>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.

they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
income/rent.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
 wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>
>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>
>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>
>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>
>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>shocking.
>
>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>
>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>income/rent.

Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 12:45:12 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2007 11:57:07 +0100, Chris F
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2007 10:52:09 GMT, Hulker69  wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/news/display.var.1438208.0.newcastle_finish_fifth_in_wagebill_league.php
>>>
>>>OK, but look at the end of the article, where it goes on about debts.
>>>
>>>Fulham have a debt of £167m!!!!!! Only (sic) £13m less than Chelski!
>>>What the hell have they spent this on ...
>>>
>>wages, transfer fees, coupled against a lack of revenue. theyve been
>>losing money ever since they came into the prem, so that's not that
>>shocking.
>>
>>>Man City are also skint but at least they have a new stadium.
>>
>>they don't own it though, they're only renting it from the council and
>>i'm not sure how long-term the lease is, or what the agreement is re:
>>income/rent.
>
>Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
>boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
>Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
>recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
>run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

saha's really the only sale of note though.

remember when they came up, they were buying players like van der sar
for 6mill, malbraque for 11mill, etc.

they have spent a lot, though maby not so much recently.

when you factor in wages, signing on fees, etc, it all adds up, and if
theyre not bringing in much revenue, it's not a surprise to me to see
them so badly in debt.
-- 

gamertag: Chrisflynnuk
http://live.xbox.com/member/Chrisflynnuk
Current eBay auctions: http://tinyurl.com/hutcb
360, DS, PS2 and Saturn Games For Auction.

> >Still £167m is an awful lot of money. Many EPL clubs are in the same
> >boat as Fulham (Bolton & Blackburn spring to mind) regarding revenue.
> >Plus have they really spent so much on transfers? Haven't they
> >recouped on sales (Saha for instance). The club must be really badly
> >run. Makes FFS et al look good in comparison.

I expect the £400m trust fund Walker set up for Blackburn takes the sting
out the tail

On Thu, 31 May 2