Happy Face

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left? One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield. After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time? I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too. He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down.... http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419 And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it? I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here. If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year. Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price. We weren't a top club though Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation. And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas? You say that as if you're proving me wrong on some imagined statement or other, rather than proving yourself wrong on the claim that Ashly didn't try to cut costs prior to relegation Because you say it as if it's a bad thing How were we going to get back into the top 4? By increasing costs? Where? You said "There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there?" Now you accept there were cuts and insist there had to be. Get back to me once you've caught your tail.

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left? One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield. After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time? I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too. He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down.... http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419 And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it? I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here. If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year. Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price. We weren't a top club though Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation. And Ashley didn't buy a top club, he bought one that'd just finished bottom-half. So comparing Shay wanting to leave to Ronaldo and Fabregas? You say that as if you're proving me wrong on some imagined statement or other, rather than proving yourself wrong on the claim that Ashly didn't try to cut costs prior to relegation

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left? One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield. After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time? I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too. He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down.... http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419 And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it? I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here. If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year. Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price. We weren't a top club though Exactly, that's why we were making savings even prior to regulation.

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left? One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield. After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time? I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too. He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down.... http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419 And that's a good thing? If a player wants out, then blocking a move isn't exactly going to best move, is it? I think we're in the process now of proving that it's a much healthier team when the players actually want to be here. If they're a good player and the fee isn't what it should be of course it's right to block a move...like Man U did with Ronaldo the season he won them the title....or Arsenal did with Fabregas this year. Top clubs don't let their best players run to other clubs with more ambition at a cut price.

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left? One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield. After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time? I think if Manchester City with an oil tycoon had bid for Shay when Bellamy was throwing chairs about and calling Souness a liar... he'd have wanted out then too. He might have.....but then any approach would have been turned down.... http://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/sunder..._move_1_1118419

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left? One is whingey little french prick, Shay has been releasing whinges in the press about needing to sign players to challenge for a few seasons, he'd obviously got wind of City's interest imo. Insomnia was already replaced in Jonas. Milner arguably wasn't replaced properly, though the club did sign both Guthrie and Nolan, so in terms of numbers it could have been thought that we were ok in midfield. After all those years at the club, they just decided it was time? Nothing to do with being touted around by the club or having a laughing stock of a manager in Joe Kinnear hurtling us towards relegation one cringeworthy soundbite at a time?

Why did those players want out and why weren't they replaced once they left?

I started a thread on Sunday called "Time to support Mike?" I got derailed and ended up deleting it like....nevertheless we seem to be turning the ship around slowly and if we all held a zero tolerance view of the bloke it wouldn't do the club any good. He's shut up Llambias has shut up Two good transfer windows in a row. Installed the longest serving manager in half a decade or something. Playing well enough to consolidate. I'll back him as long as it goes on like this.

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts Thought it was because he sounds like Joe Pasquale

You're not keeping up are you? I'm not trying to discard it. I'm saying it makes little difference to the current picture when you decide to it comes into play. There's a reason to bring it into the frame at the point Ashley arrived....because that's when it became instantly payable in full and we probably couldn't get another one if we'd tried. That's what I did in graph 1. There's a reason to include it all along...because whenever it was repayable...it was debt...which is what I've done in graph 2. Irrspective of the mortgage though....the growth in net debt takes a massive leap in 2008 onwards.

Shame you couldn't put me right.

I choose 2001 because it's the worst year of our previous excesses before Shepherd reigned in spending/increased income. I'm not fussed about raking over old decisions, who did what right and who did what wrong, I'm no fan of either owners but i know they both wanted the best for Newcastle. The only question for me is "where are we now?" If you read the papers they'd have you believe Ashley has stabilised everything, that the debt has been wiped out and the club is going to break even within 5 years. I'm much less optimistic when i look at these numbers. £175m comes from £149m of debt reported on the last set of accounts plus the amount the club says they've gone on to borrow since.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t...ted/8553411.stm £25.5 + £5 + £5.5 = £36m £149m + £36m = £175m

I’m not trying to be a prick with this answer, I’m just trying to clarify something. I’ve not put any spin on the definition of debt, here it is from an online dictionary and the wording has nothing to do with me. An amount owed to a person or organization for funds borrowed. Debt can be represented by a loan note, bond, mortgage or other form stating repayment terms and, if applicable, interest requirements. These different forms all imply intent to pay back an amount owed by a specific date, which is set forth in the repayment terms. A mortgage has got to be classed as debt and the one I took out on my house was debt the day I signed for it and that will be the case until I have paid it off in full. You're confusing me. You've come in here and had a pop cos I don't have the necessary qualifications to comment and then you've used an online dictionary definition you know has little to do with the accountancy tricks the club (and every other business) use when reporting on their accounts.. As far as the reported results for the past decade go, it seems to me the mortgage only became part of the "net debt" in 2007 after the buyout (otherwise, if you take the mortgage out of the numbers above we were actually in profit most of the decade....which isn't the case). That's the main reason the chart goes up so much at that point (though not the only one). I've no problem with including the mortgage in the club debt earlier than that....but there's no point arbitrarily including it for one year before Ashley arrived to make it look like Shepherd went mad one year. If you want to include it then it has to be applied from the moment it was taken out..... So between 2001 and 2007 the debt grew 3.5% Between 2007 and 2010 it's grown 45%

Find Smith's passes in any game this season. In fact find Mascherano's in any game (THE most overrated player in football) and compare. I'm not saying Ray Wilkins was a bad player.

Ray Wilkins Mk II I think there's one forward pass in the whole lot

So you’re now saying that the debt in 2007 was £124 million and not £70 million as you had suggested earlier, this is laughable. If it was a loan then it was a debt, simple as that. Honestly, you can’t blame Ashley for debt which the club had before he arrived. http://www.nufc-finances.org.uk/ Click '2008 results' and then 'debt'. It's not a cut and dry situation. The way I see it...I have a £100,000 mortgage and a house it's taken out on and loans for £5,000....my Net Debt is £5,000. If I was forced to repay the mortgage tomorrow (like ashley was when he bought), I'd have to borrow £100,000 from somewhere or someone. I'd then own the house, but my net debt would be £105,000. That's how I see it. Is that wrong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_spor...ker/9016342.stm Link includes video Good lad.

I'll give him credit when he's gone the season without screwing up.

I think so. The £70m debt from 2007 became £124m immediatley due to clauses triggered from the sale. Are you seriously trying to put that across as fact? Where do you think this £54 million was hidden before the sale took place? Anything triggered by clauses due to the takeover was already in the accounts as debt. The only hidden debt was our sponsorship money from NR and Adidas showing up as future income when we'd already spent it. Other than that we had to pay an early settlement fee on top of the loan for the expansion, the mortgage as some people call it. From NUFC Finances.... "The difference (between the reported debt in 2007 of £70m and £124m) comes from that change in the view of what Ashley did when he bought the club. What seems to have not been clear was that when he bought the club he would immediately have to pay off the mortgage on the stadium, as it wasn't listed in the previous accounts as being anything more than a long term loan. This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in. It was also necessary to put money in to cover the £34m loss for that year."

I used to use it...but ignored it and didn't see the point in slowing my PC with having it running constantly.

Alisa Weilerstein Lovely bit of Cello.

Only where it says "add a comment" at the bottom.

Sol Campbell & Christopher Biggins Nude Photos

Haper's not going to get much chance to improve them is he