Happy Face

My figures assume the same investment in players as between '98 and '06. A period in which we were some of the biggest spenders in the league. I did make the mistake of using the wrong graph though, as one of the links states... "the total loss the club has made since 1998 which is £27m turns into a loss of £62m when the shareholders have taken their cut." As a tax paying PLC the club should have aimed at breaking even every year in that period. That £27 million equates exactly to the amount paid to finance our debt in that period.

I'm sure he wouldn't be happy warming Newcastles bench, but we need to convince average to good, versatile players like him and Zoggy that it's a good place for them because we're wanting in midfield and I can't see us buying 5 or 6 as good or better.

Expensive, long winded and who knows what will come out in the wash. ie No. The papers then run with it and serialise it. I'm certain it's the papers that approached this American company to see if they'd be interested. They run the story, then ring the company back for a comment to confirm they were approached. Gives legitimacy to a story they've concocted out of thin air. I don't believe that. Yet you believe US Helicopters fired rockets at the twin towers to bring them down? Selective conspiracy theorisist.

Expensive, long winded and who knows what will come out in the wash. ie No. The papers then run with it and serialise it. I'm certain it's the papers that approached this American company to see if they'd be interested. They run the story, then ring the company back for a comment to confirm they were approached. Gives legitimacy to a story they've concocted out of thin air.

Maybe he has his eyes on another club. I can't see many clubs being offered to him if he gets himself a track record for using clubs for short term personal profit.

Leicester City are a bigger club than Newcastle too. Having won the Carling cup as many times as Spurs in the last ten years.

Clearly that in itself is what makes it an attractive investment for Bin Laden and that. I just can't see why any investor would want to walk away from that kind of return at the moment. Shepherd certainly didn't want to. All the shrewdest businessmen and investment companies are coming into football these days, not getting out.

It's getting bandied about all over what Ashley has spent on the club (£235M) and how he can now sell at a profit. Has anyone worked out exactly what he's personally making from the club and whether or not it makes business sense to sell? Now that there's no interest payments to keep up, is he not sitting on a pretty little earner? Isn't that why he's sorting the wage bill to make it an even more profitable concern for himself rather than anyone else? Between '98 and '06 the club wasn't profitable for 4 of those 8 years (to the tune of -£39.5M)... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/profits2.htm But in that period, the owners took out £30M in pay for themselves and spent £26M on financing debt (total £56M)... http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/costs2.htm Those costs have now gone so the loss turns into a £17M profit to add to the £11M profit in the other 4 seasons. Even if we keep up the kind of investment in players that the previous owners made, Ashley should be making money year on year, while sitting on an assett of ever-increasing value.

Fat Pig. What are the examples of this regime saying one thing and doing another? I remember Shepherd promising world class signings and bringing in Sibierski and Bernard, but I have no recollection of being let down by any promises in the last year. He's right about one thing, we aren't fools. That's why we ignore every story in his shitty little rag about a different buyer being lined up every week for the last 6 months.

St James' yesterday.

Do I have to buy it for a week before I boycott it? Otherwise it won't really have a noticeable effect.

Matt, who always seems to be writing a post, but never seems to add the reply. Best wishes to you on your birthday. May your next year be twice as good as the last.

Project A One of the earlier films both written and directed by Jackie Chan. Outside of the action it's not got much of a plot and doesn't have a great deal to look at, but like most Jackie Chan films (at least prior to 1990) it's worth every penny to see some of the amazing stunts. All of the fights look like they REALLY hurt (Kung Fu legends Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao also star), but the major set piece where he falls from a three storey clock tower (as inspired by Harold Lloyd's Safety Last) was a timely reminder for me of the thrill of seing a human being in physical danger on screen, rather than a CGI representation which can only ever create an impression at an effects level rather than an emotional one. The fact that three seperate takes of the fall are seen in the film left me all the more impressed as a viewer, as chan lands on his head in every one of them. This whole scene is class, but if you just want to see the fall (2 of them anyway) go to the last 30 seconds in this badly dubbed version...

Is that a joke? Not at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A9on_(fi...irector.27s_cut

As with every season, I look forward to stopping up and drinking enough before each game to ensure I can't remember a thing about it the following morning.

Have you's seen the extended cut when they go to the restaurant and Matilda gets pissed and sleeps with him when they get home? Ruined it for me.

Heidfeld unlucky. Great stuff from Barrichello too.

...gentile Andouillette? I can't imagine Kosher is available.

the point being, that rather than being some sort of fairy godmother who's came along and paid off the stadium expansion as some sort of favour, what he's done is make the business more valueable, like any businessmen would do if they could. Nothing more, nothing less. Why didn't Shepherds/Halls? whats your point ? I'm just wondering, if any businessman worth his salt knows that paying off all the debt would double the value of the business, why didn't the previous owners do just that? Especially the Halls who sold their stake in the club willingly. because they didn't have the money ? Do you think expanding the stadium was the wrong thing to do then ? Whats your opinion on the Halls itching to sell and Shepherd wanting to carry on, if Ashley also sells and makes big bucks ? Of course I don't. Don't be so defensive. Your point always seems to be that every club with an ounce of success is ran from a position of monumental debts. His actions would suggest he wants the club in a position to be sold at a profit if needs be, whether or not he actually intends to sell any time soon. If any businessman knows paying off the debt increases the value for sale, John Hall missed a trick when he sold his shares on to Ashley. His personal fortune would easily cover it.

the point being, that rather than being some sort of fairy godmother who's came along and paid off the stadium expansion as some sort of favour, what he's done is make the business more valueable, like any businessmen would do if they could. Nothing more, nothing less. Why didn't Shepherds/Halls? whats your point ? I'm just wondering, if any businessman worth his salt knows that paying off all the debt would double the value of the business, why didn't the previous owners do just that? Especially the Halls who sold their stake in the club willingly.

Andouillette

Would have been Brian Woolnough that made the approach.

That there London. I view it the same way Homer views New York. If I must go I'm in and out as quckly as possible.

the point being, that rather than being some sort of fairy godmother who's came along and paid off the stadium expansion as some sort of favour, what he's done is make the business more valueable, like any businessmen would do if they could. Nothing more, nothing less. Why didn't Shepherds/Halls?

Fuck Steve Round. Good to see Terry Mac has kept doing what he does best (whatever that is) all these years and is now back in his rightful position as the number 2 man in Toon.