Happy Face

From the football ramble, apologies if it's a re-post.... While Alan Pardew and his players are receiving rave reviews for their performances on the pitch, isn't it time Mike Ashley took his share of the praise? Comebacks have always been an irresistible part of the wider football narrative, so it’s no surprise that Newcastle have been turning a lot of heads this season. Two and a half years after being relegated from the Premier League in a storm of negativity, the Toon are not only back in the top flight but, astonishingly, on course for the club’s highest finish since 2004. As turnarounds go it has been nothing short of miraculous, especially when you consider that such lightning progress has been achieved in spite of significant fan unrest, a change of manager and a net profit of almost £40 million on transfers. Now a club which still remembers fondly the days of title challenges under Kevin Keegan and Champions League nights with Bobby Robson is defying reduced financial circumstances to enjoy an Indian summer back among the Premier League big boys, and its followers have a new set of heroes worthy of their adulation. Alan Pardew, having overcome misgivings at his appointment by taking Newcastle to unexpected heights, now hears his name chanted from the stands. Demba Ba, the club’s top scorer, has also won over the crowd with clinical finishing and tireless work rate. Cheik Tiote, too, has been adopted for his sheer physicality and passion for the cause. But when the Toon Army are singing, the name ‘Mike Ashley’ is conspicuous only by its absence. For while the painful memories of relegation may have dimmed in the light of recent successes, Newcastle’s much-maligned owner has yet to be forgiven for the role he played in bringing about one of the club’s darkest days. It is hard to argue against the view that, for the first two years of his reign, Ashley effectively provided a free masterclass in how not to run a football club. His first mistake – and arguably his biggest – was the failure to do the required due diligence which would have made him aware of the full extent of Newcastle’s debts prior to his purchase in June 2007, believed to be around £100 million. The sacking of Sam Allardyce was also misguided, but even more ill-advised was the brazen attempt to win over the fans by tempting Keegan out of a three-year self-imposed exile from the game to succeed him. The Toon legend was never likely to tolerate the more continental scouting structure and strict financial controls which were also being implemented by Ashley and, when he walked out of St James’ Park eight months later complaining of interference, the owner’s popularity went with him. One final heart-over-head gamble was taken with the brief appointment of all-time record goalscorer Alan Shearer, and Newcastle paid for it with their Premier League status. If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. After abandoning the idea of selling up and taking what was left of his battered reputation elsewhere, this appears to have been the conclusion Ashley reached, for it is the mantra to which he has stuck ever since. Relegation meant humiliation but it also offered the possibility of a fresh start and, this time, Ashley was determined to do things his way, regardless of the criticism he might receive. Under the new regime, established stars on huge wages have become a thing of the past. Whether domestic talents or underrated foreign imports, their replacements are invariably younger, cheaper, hungrier footballers. The notion of an all-powerful manager has also been dismissed in favour of something more resembling a head coach, under strict instructions to work with the resources at his disposal. What has emerged is a more vibrant, more cohesive and, most importantly, more successful football club. At every stage, Ashley has shown a willingness to take risks and make unpopular decisions. The replacement of Chris Hughton with Pardew in December 2010 as Newcastle lay comfortably mid-table in the Premier League was initially incomprehensible but, while admittedly ruthless, it has been utterly vindicated by the success which has followed. The sale of local hero Andy Carroll to Liverpool for £35 million appeared a ludicrously brilliant piece of business at the time despite fan hostility, and it looks even better with every match that replacement Ba continues to make a mockery of Stoke’s medical department. Many shook their heads in disbelief when club captain Kevin Nolan and Twitter-botherer Joey Barton were jettisoned last summer, but Newcastle now enjoy a more united dressing room, lower wage bill and, in Tiote and Yohan Cabaye, also boast one of the best central midfield partnerships in the land. Pardew and his players have rightly received credit for the club’s revival, and some more insightful observers have also identified chief scout Graham Carr as worthy of praise. By contrast, the acclaim directed at Ashley by the Toon faithful has been grudging at best, yet the resurgence they celebrate could not have occurred without him. Sadly, the relationship between the Newcastle fans and their owner remains one of necessity rather than genuine affection and, after everything which has happened, it might be too much to hope for any improvement. But if this particular comeback story turns out to have a few more spectacular chapters left, Mike Ashley might finally get his share of the credit.

Mine was Betty Boo doing the Do. An equally important landmark in hip hop history

Yeah, I got that totally wrong But you got to the nub of it... Of course, everyone in the world of football seems to be concerned with debt these days, so most attention is inevitably focused on this part of the balance sheet. Aston Villa’s reported net debt has increased by 18% from £72.3m to £85.2m, though this would be nearly £100m if the post balance sheet loan notes of £12.5m were included. The net debt as at 31 May 2009 comprises £84.5m loan notes and £9.2m of bank loans and overdrafts less £8.5m cash. Although the debt is getting larger, it still looks reasonable compared to Manchester United, as it’s much lower (£100m vs £716m) and, in stark contrast to the Glazers, is financed from Lerner’s own company, rather than banks. However, it is high compared to most other clubs in the Premier League. According to The Times review, only four clubs have more debt than Villa: obviously Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal, but also (worrying drum roll) Portsmouth. The interest charged on the debt is at a standard rate of LIBOR plus 2%, which is currently very low at below 3%, but it should be noted that if LIBOR rose to 5%, then the club would have to pay 7%. The accounts report £5.7m interest payable, including £4.5m on the loan notes (which goes to Lerner) and £0.8m on bank loans. This may not seem much, but it does represent about 5% of revenue. If that is added to Reform Acquisition Limited’s £7.7m management fees, then you could argue that Lerner took out nearly 15% of revenue, which would be excessive if repeated every year. So Lerner’s approach is rather more hard-nosed than has been reported in the media. This is not necessarily a bad thing, even though some clubs are lucky enough to have owners who do not charge interest on their loans (Stoke City and Fulham, to name but two). All I am saying here is that Lerner is not quite the saint that some Villa fans would seem to believe. I'd love to see the fuckers go down.

Very nice. Bonkers by Dizzee Rascal though?! i know what you mean, but I love it, and he's a rapper. I'm sure that's not the most egregious outrage with the list though, there's no Tupac, Biggy, Ice T, DMX, Mos Def, Outkast, LL Cool J, Fugees, Eric B and Rakim............Necro! I'll have to expand it to a top 200 I think.

Did he have an alternative? Not really, other than walking away from a 9 figure loss. The likes of Lerner at Villa are more than happy to see the club pay out interest to lenders on it's debt and leave the risk with the club rather than themselves though. Since promotion Ashley could likely have got some finance to recover the cost of relegation....but it wouldn't have left the books looking half as good. He seems less worried about walking away from a loss if it all goes tits up again, and more intent on recovering it from the sale of a club that's performing well. Which is a positive sign.

Remember that the cost of relegation has also been put on tick to Ashley. NUFCs debt to him is double what the debt to Barclays was when he bought the club. Most relegated clubs would need to finance that debt, which would hit the accounts hard. We're lucky Ashley is willing to pay for his mistake. The predicted "break even" accounts which are due are on the back of Ashley heaving off any arrears into the backend, which he hopes to recover when it comes to selling.

There's been loads of negative press since then. Renaming the stadium, telling people how Narsty they can be, "cashing in" on our top scorer, moving swathes of fans etc. Whatever your view of those choices and their necessity, they all pissed off supporters.

Why is it ironic that a bloke comes in and rides roughshod over the club, pissing on fans, the stadium, tradition & Premier League status so people stop buying his product? I don't get that at all.

Not sure why that deserves a laugh tbh. Alienating your entire fan base so much that the majority refuse to buy your product is very much mismanagement surely? People were pointing out that it would be the club that would suffer financially when fanzines and supporters clubs were telling fans to boycoutt club shops and confectioneries, so it seems daft to complain about it now now it's actually happened. People weren't deciding to boycoutt without provocation. It's a ridiculous notion that people should lap up whatever Ashley chooses to do with the club and keep throwing their money into something they don't condone. Or that Ashley should be oblivious to the financial implications of those unpopular off field choices. That seems very daft. It makes me laugh to see people state matter of factly what a good job Ashley has done with our finances in the face of lost income from relegation, reduced tv money, a slump in shirt sales, less advertising, less corporate, less ticket sales etc. as if all those reductions were beyond his control, rather than a direct result of his actions.

BTW, why don't we have this discussion next month, when the accounts come out and it's all there in black and white

Not sure why that deserves a laugh tbh. Alienating your entire fan base so much that the majority refuse to buy your product is very much mismanagement surely?

I pay 450 in leazes l2. Same as I did in l7.

£200 a person for the 50,000 that go. Sort it NUST.

They've actually spent more than they earn. It's not the method, it's what you do with it, that,s why I said Spurs spent well, oh and probably the most important thing is striking it lucky with a manager Not sure if that's a joke. Lucky that they were a more attractive opportunity to Redknapp than we were? Fortunate to stumble on Jol where Ashley headhunted Kinnear?

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field? £28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales. £50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales. http://www.soccerbas...mTabs=transfers A mixture of a huge sponsorship deal, qualifying for the Uefa cup which their fans got behind and a boost in sky revenue. Those were the achievements. I'm asking how they achieved it. Huge sponsorship deals aren't bestowed on clubs for running a tight ship, they go to clubs with a big following (we dwarf Spurs) and on field success.

How did they achieve that? Anything to do with performance on the field? £28m invested on the field in 05/06, £7m recouped on sales. £50m invested on the field in 06/07, £25m recouped on sales. http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2590&comp_id=1&teamTabs=transfers

Everton only spend what they have too. Why aren't they challenging for the league?

Taxpayers are part funding the redevelopment in N17 So it looks like Tottenham Hotspur have been granted their wish. Their application for public funding to make the Northumberland Park Development Project a reality has been accepted by the powers that be. Spurs have agreed a £27 million funding agreement, which will include £18 million directly from Mayor Boris Johnson’s £50 million fund, put together in the wake of the riots in order to regenerate affected areas. Of Boris’s overall budget, £20 million has come directly from central government to be invested specifically in the Tottenham and Croydon areas as a result of their being the worst affected by the riots of last August. What this figure will include will be £6 million invested via Haringey Council in highways and parking improvements, and a district-wide heating and power scheme, with the remainder focusing on public transport and infrastructure improvements. A further £9 million will also come from the coffers of Haringey Council ‘towards new and improved public spaces, heritage work and environmental improvements in North Tottenham’. Should tax dodger Joe Lewis should pay for this instead of us? Doesn’t that sound fair on the face of it? After all, won’t the local population – among the poorest of the great metropolis – benefit from improved infrastructure, transport and public spaces? Well, the fact of the matter is that those amenities would have needed to have been provided anyway if a new stadium had been built by Tottenham Hotspur in the area, under what is known as a ‘Section 106 Agreement’. In essence, local planning authorities come to an agreement over monies paid by developers to offset the costs of the external effects of their development. If we take as a hypothetical example a developer that wanted to build 200 new houses in any given area, there would be obvious effects on local schools, roads etc. which the Local Authority would have to deal with. Often, in that situation, there will be a s106 agreement as part of the granting of planning permission – for example, the developer might agree to make a contribution towards the provision of new schools to deal with the increased number of pupils brought in by the development. Tottenham Hotspur, therefore, would have had to foot the bill for developments such as infrastructure and transport improvements if they had wanted to build their significantly-larger new stadium in the Haringey area. However, as stated here by a local newspaper, the Tottenham & Wood Green Journal - ‘It is thought the money (provided by the public purse) would effectively subsidise Spurs’ compulsory payments to the council to carry out infrastructure and other improvements in the area; Haringey paying Spurs a lump sum, only for Spurs to pay it straight back to them.’ The BBC News website, in an article back in September, also reiterates this point, stating that Haringey Council had ‘agreed to scale down a list of community projects it wanted Tottenham to contribute to, saving the club a further £8.5m’. The amount that Tottenham Hotspur has been asked to contribute by Haringey Council as a s106 agreement amounts to £17 million, which is roughly around 3% of the overall development costs of the Northumberland Park Development plan. This is a comparatively low figure in comparison with other s106 agreements made in relation to similar developments – particularly the Ashburton Grove development, where Arsenal paid £60 million alone for a new state-of-the-art waste-recycling centre at Lough Road, and also included £7.6 million to upgrade local transport links, as well as a sum to provide affordable housing and the relocation of 83 businesses from the former Ashburton Grove Industrial Estate. As stated at the time by Islington Council leader Steve Hitchins, Arsenal was required to pay ‘the highest proportion of s106 improvements compared to the size of development, in any scheme in the country’. In contrast, despite the relatively low figure asked of Spurs, it seems it had done little to please them during their negotiations with the GLA. A close source quoted by the London Evening Standard stated that - ‘There is an extremely generous deal on the table. This is a sizeable chunk of public money. We cannot understand why the club is dragging its feet if it claims to be committed to the area’. When I initially wrote an article on this subject back in July, in response to Spurs’ initial application for public funds, there was a deluge of responses from Spurs fans avidly asserting that Arsenal had received public funds for building Ashburton Grove. However, as can be seen here in a statement from Tottenham MP David Lammy - ‘No public money was given to Arsenal at any point over the building and development process. This is quite clear in a letter sent from the Chief Executive of Islington Council to my colleague Jeremy Corbyn, the MP for Islington North.’ The source of misinformation to the contrary is clearly identifiable – various quotes made by Spurs CEO, Daniel Levy, on the subject. In referring to Spurs’ application for planning permission, Levy states that ‘the application also includes S106 costs in the region of £17m, relating to requests for contributions from Council departments and Transport for London as part of the planning consent. Meanwhile this development has not attracted a penny of public money… this is in contrast to the stadia developments of Arsenal and Wembley which were both awarded public sector assistance. These developments required substantial public sector intervention and assistance and would not have progressed without the injection of public sector money.’ However, regardless of who received public funding and who didn’t, surely Tottenham Hotspur are very much needed in the borough of Haringey at such a time of economic woe? Well yes, they very much are. Tottenham has the highest unemployment rate in London and the eighth-highest in the UK as a whole. The Haringey Independent also stated in June 2011 - ‘Figures show that in Tottenham, there are just 121 registered vacancies, with more than 6,000 people looking for work – meaning there are 54 people looking for every job’. 80% of the entire borough’s unemployed reside in the Northumberland Park Ward where White Hart Lane is situated; in fact it has the highest unemployment rate of all of London’s 634 council wards. The largest employer in the borough is Haringey Council, who have had 23% in annual cuts imposed upon them by central government, meaning that one in five council workers faces redundancy. Tottenham Hotspur are the largest Private Sector employer in the Borough, and probably the highest contributor of business rates too. As with most football clubs, there are also numerous smaller businesses that are reliant on the income that match day brings and that will subsequently go to the wall should Tottenham up sticks and leave the area. The essence behind Tottenham Hotspur’s bid for public funding, however, is the use of Machiavellian tactics to achieve their ends, such as their disingenuous concern for the plight of the natives who are, in reality, merely a human shield against criticism aimed at Spurs for laying claim to money from the diminished public purse to achieve their financial ends. As the link between the Northumberland Park Development Project and the creation of long-term employment for the locals is a tenuous one at best (in reality, it can justifiably be compared with enticing a starving dog with a rubber bone), it can be said that Spurs are deliberately playing on the fear of the dire consequences that would be inflicted upon the local populus should Tottenham Hotspur not get their own way and leave the borough. After all, Tottenham Hotspur were merely asked for £17 million to contribute to the extra strain they will put upon resources in Haringey should their project be given the green light. Seeing that, in the transfer window before last, Chelsea had bid £40 million for Luka Modric, £17 million is a figure they could easily have stumped up. Also, in an era of diminished public funds, what needs to be taken into account is the degree to which the needs of the population of North Tottenham are any more pressing than that of other parts of the metropolis also greatly affected by both the double-dip recession and the riots of last August. London Mayor Boris Johnson has taken a sudden interest in investing in the transport infrastructure of North Tottenham; however, on his arrival at City Hall nearly four years ago, he made a bonfire of many transport projects, claiming them to be commercially-unviable in the wake of the credit crunch. Two such projects in areas hit by the riots included an extension of the Croydon Tramlink and a cross-river tram from Peckham to Camden. Others in areas of long term decline with chronic under-employment include the extension of the DLR to Dagenham Dock and the Thames Gateway Bridge from Beckton to Thamesmead. In mitigation, Boris (who ironically resides in Highbury Fields, and can often be seen jogging through the area) stated that - ‘What we want to do is stop pretending the tooth fairy will come. Some of the plans we just don't have the money for and the others were never very good ideas anyway’. Why so hard-nosed on ideas such as these to regenerate run down areas of the metropolis, but so accommodating of others? Well, Tottenham Hotspur is 4% owned by Lord Ashcroft who is open that his involvement is for investment purposes only – though allegedly not quite so open in other areas regarding his finances. In the same week that Spurs came to an agreement with City Hall on public funding, Panorama highlighted the alleged undeclared links between Lord Ashcroft and a bankrupt construction company in the Caribbean tax-haven of the Turks and Caicos Islands. Ashcroft is not only a Conservative Party donor, but also the largest donor in British political history. Ultimately then, no great surprise that a Tory mayor was so forthcoming with providing public funds for a project that includes upgrading transport links and that would ultimately enrich the party’s very own ‘tooth fairy’, serial tax-dodger Lord Ashcroft. In my last article on this subject, I had also raised the issue of who effectively owned Tottenham Hotspur and the degree of their contribution to the public purse – i.e. ENIC, Joe Lewis and his non-domicile tax-exile status. I had this point in response, among others, from a Spurs fan within the comments section - ‘I am afraid you are not properly informed regarding Joe Lewis. He effectively has nothing to do with the club. One arm of his business (ENIC) has majority shares in the club, headed by Mr Levy. It's a PLC, or hadn't you noticed that?’ However, Joe Lewis’s involvement in the day-to-day running of Tottenham Hotspur is neither here nor there. The main beneficiary from ENIC selling their 85% share of the club will be tax-dodging banker, Joe Lewis. And believe me - once the ground is completed, Tottenham Hotspur will be sold on for great profit - at a value inflated by taxpayers’ funds that will ultimately enrich those with very broad financial shoulders, hiding away in a Caribbean tax-haven, who carry nothing of the financial burden that we are supposedly ‘all in together’. And, ultimately, it is they and not the beleaguered underclass of Haringey who will benefit from allowing Tottenham Hotspur public funds to build their new stadium. Register your displeasure now, before it’s too late.

Based on gross income of €200m, the share for distribution to the clubs will amount to €150m, with €90m in fixed payments and €60m in variable amounts (market pool) which will be distributed according to the proportional value of each television market represented by the clubs taking part in the UEFA Europa League (group stage onwards). Each of the 48 clubs involved in the group stage can expect to receive a participation bonus of €640,000. In addition, they will be entitled to a match bonus of €60,000 per match played in the group stage. Performance bonuses will also be paid – €140,000 for every win and €70,000 for every draw in the group stage. Turning to the knockout stages, clubs competing in the round of 32 will receive €200,000 each, clubs in the round of 16 €300,000, the quarter-finalists €400,000 and the semi-finalists €700,000. The UEFA Europa League winners can expect to collect €3m and the runners-up €2m. It is anticipated that a minimum amount of €1m per club will be paid out for the group stage. A club could receive, at best, €6.44m from featuring in this season's competition

By the same measure as Leazes uses to place us 5th best, if the league standings remain as they are, Ashley has us on average 10th best in terms of top flight finishes under his ownership.... 1.4 Manchester United 2.6 Chelsea 3.6 Arsenal 5.2 Liverpool 5.6 Manchester City 6.2 Tottenham Hotspur 7.0 Everton 8.4 Aston Villa 11.2 Fulham 12.0 Newcastle United

i've yet to see a best man speech that hasn't used at least one gag ripped from the internet. you need an ice breaker to warm up the crowd before you get into the embarrasing stories. the trick is picking one that hasn't been over used. There's the Don Rickles line (probably not his originally): "Your wife is a wonderful woman... what's her name again?" Take my wife...please!

Just taking into account top flight finishes, the clubs averaging top 10 over the 14 years following our promotion, before Ashley's arrival were... 1.6 Man U 3.2 Arsenal 4.1 Liverpool 5.4 Chelsea 7.6 Newcastle 8.1 Leeds (11 year average) 9.2 Blackburn (12 year average) 9.4 Villa 9.9 Spurs Being 6th best never did Leeds any good either like.

If we didn't genuinely want anyone better than Perch or Williamson, that's worrying.

I'm 4 seasons into my working.