Happy Face

Hurricane season is looming.

They got to him before the yanks!

If you're heading to London.

That's why I resurrected the thread tbh. We can now compare Keegan's only full season in the second division with Hughton's....and Hughton's done better. It's comparing cheese with cheese. It's not really though, the circumstances each manager inherited prior to their first full seasons are completely different. However, that's just one of the problem with statistics. That's what I said earlier... Hughton's seen as a young manager with lots to learn, but by his age Keegan had already managed England, so obviously, taking it all into account Keegan is head and shoulders above. That's why statistics aren't a problem. Overall they show how much better Keegan's record is. Similarly, they don't lie that Hughton's won the second division better than Keegan did.

That's why I resurrected the thread tbh. We can now compare Keegan's only full season in the second division with Hughton's....and Hughton's done better. It's comparing cheese with cheese.

RIP

All for under a tenner.

Given that £37.7 million was lost in 2009 and £32.5 million is the expected loss for 2010, from the statement the club intend to keep reducing yearly losses by about £5.4m every year to break even in 2016: 2009 = £37.7m loss 2010 = £32.5m loss 2011 = £27.1m loss 2012 = £21.7m loss 2013 = £16.3m loss 2014 = £10.9m loss 2015 = £5.5m loss 2016 = £0.1m loss In order for the accounts to be signed off, Ashley will be forced to put that money into the club to cover those losses, every year. So by 2016 Ashley will have loaned us a further £81.6m. He could spend that on players in the summer and have us in the champions league in 2011/2012

But if he plans to spend the tv revenue on players rather than capital outlay, then he's going to have to loan the club more money to cover the losses the TV revenue was going to cover. It's nonsensical. I know, evey time i come up with an idea to explain it, i realise i'm contradicting myself. I suspect he did this deliberately. The only explanation as far as i can see is that the plan covers the worst case scenario...relegation back to the Championship. So, like West Brom, we'll be set up not to lose money even if we go down.

They've postponed the Tories 1m raise until the Libs 10k tax threshold is achieved (I'd guess 2 or 3 years) Didn't they say that would be in effect by late 2011?

That's not from the tribunal by the way. that's what Keegan said in his statement after the tribunal.

Newcastle capacity - 48,500 Ashley trying to skim a few tickets off?

Just on the promotion seasons, not including the back end of 91/92 when Keegan inherited the shit or the 08/09 when Hughton inherited the shit.... Hughton P51 W32(62.75%) D13(25.49%) L6(11.76%) = 2.13 points per game Keegan P53 W32(60.37) D11(20.75%) L10(18.86) = 2.01 points per game That's what really is bothering me: Just looking at the stats and records from last season is misleading and makes the squad and games look far too good. It's a really shame that the likes of Smith, Ameobi and Nolan as well as Ashley and Lambiarse can now say they did better than Keegan and his squad in 1992/93. Disgusting tbh. I think Hughton should be congratulated for doing every bit as well as Keegan tbh. Just in the second division. We fondly remember attractive, free scoring world beaters in '93 but complain about last season being effective at best....but the goal difference was better last year as well as the win, draw and loss ratios. Obviously Hughton started with a squad that should have been good enough for the Premier League in the first place, and Keegan started with one that was heading for the third division. But by the same token, Hughton had to cope with actually being relegated and his squad being ripped apart, wheras Keegan wasn't relegated and was given cash to spend.

But if he plans to spend the tv revenue on players rather than capital outlay, then he's going to have to loan the club more money to cover the losses the TV revenue was going to cover. It's nonsensical.

Just on the promotion seasons, not including the back end of 91/92 when Keegan inherited the shit or the 08/09 when Hughton inherited the shit.... Hughton P51 W32(62.75%) D13(25.49%) L6(11.76%) = 2.13 points per game Keegan P53 W32(60.37) D11(20.75%) L10(18.86) = 2.01 points per game

Has anyone posted the free TV's deal if England win the world cup? http://www.viking-direct.co.uk/emptySpecia...o?ID=WorldcupTV They're a canny price in the first place so if you were about to invest in a new telly, you might as well go through them. Beats a £30 bet at shitty odds.

I guess the £14.6m is the base figure everyone gets....then you get more based upon the number of your games shown.....so the £45m average takes into account the top few teams that are on tv twice as much as anyone else. I was mistaken, it's not quite cloud cuckoo land, but we've never got more than £42 million before, even when we were in the champions league. Either way, it's difficult to see how they arrive at 5 years to break even, without a few million being spent on players or debt each season.

There's not many people seriously defending a thing about it tbf. I'm sure in a few years you'll make out as if you were the only one to raise any opposition like.

As long as he knows where his shorts are.

Cloud cuckoo land if you think we'll get £45m over our first season back...perhaps if we won it we'd get two thirds of that... Here's how the prize money breaks down... http://english-premier-league.suite101.com...tball-clubs-get So (for example) Sunderland earned about £20m this year from Premier league position and TV income. You can add to that a few million on sponsorship. We will be a lot better off but as you say, we had a parachute payment for relegation. I reckon we'll be about £10m better off in the top flight. When the daily mail say that the play off game is worth £45m, they're factoring in the £15m for your first season up and then the 2 parachute payments that follow over the next two seasons. Actually, looking into it more..... 2008 (Ashley's first year) was the most we ever earned from TV in a non Champions league season. It was £41.1m. The new tv package for 2010 - 2013 is supposed to be 5% more at £1.782Bn. However even if all that money went to top flight clubs only, it's 1.782 divided by 3 = £594m per season....between 20 clubs, that's £29.7m each per season. Perhaps overseas rights are worth £15m a season.

Cloud cuckoo land if you think we'll get £45m over our first season back...perhaps if we won it we'd get two thirds of that... Here's how the prize money breaks down... http://english-premier-league.suite101.com...tball-clubs-get So (for example) Sunderland earned about £20m this year from Premier league position and TV income. You can add to that a few million on sponsorship. We will be a lot better off but as you say, we had a parachute payment for relegation. I reckon we'll be about £10m better off in the top flight. When the daily mail say that the play off game is worth £45m, they're factoring in the £15m for your first season up and then the 2 parachute payments that follow over the next two seasons.

I wouldn't worry about your data being on an ID card, worry about photocopiers/printers....

About as much as they care about human rights abuse in China, Saudi Arabia or anywhere else.