Happy Face

Quayside on N-O has produced a summary of what's come out of mails back and forth to the NUST... These are clearly annual amounts and are based on a 2010 projection. I don’t know whose projection – was it the clubs own work or someone external? This projection showed income of £64m, costs of £62.5m leading to a small profit of £1.5m. The income in this projection included £22m from matchday revenue and £5m from TV. As for the rest of it I think the parachute payment is about £11m – so that leaves a balance of £26m, which must be commercial revenues. Commercial revenues are defined as sponsorship, merchandising, conference and banquet. So in summary the income in this 2010 projection of unknown origin was £22m matchday, £16m media and £26m commercial – total £64m. In 2008 when we were in the Premiership our revenue was £32m matchday, £41m media and £26m commercial – total £99m. The costs in the 2010 projection are very simply £53m wages and £9.5m other costs (including amortisation, running costs of SJP etc) – total £62.5m. In 2008 our wage bill was £70m and other costs were £50m – total £120m. So working forward from this mystery projection and bringing in the revised estimates in the latest email (and whose revised estimates are these?) the assumption is now that the accounts for the year end 30th June 2010 will look something like this: INCOME: TV £8m Parachute £11m Matchday £27m Commercial £29 TOTAL INCOME = £75m PROFIT ON PLAYER TRADING = £19M COSTS Wages £38m Other Costs £10m TOTAL COSTS = £48M Therefore Profit for the year will be £75m + £19m - £48m = £46m You could question almost every number in that scenario but a few points that occur to me: - Have we actually taken £32m out of our wage bill since 2008? - Is it possible that we have cut other costs by £40m since 2008? - Is our commercial income in the Championship really more than it was when we were in the Premiership in 2008? Sorry this is so long and hope it can be followed by those interested! - Have we actually taken £32m out of our wage bill since 2008? Possibly. Owen and Viduka were £10m between them. So that leaves £22m (or £423K per week) to save from Given, Martins, Milner, Nzogbia, Cacapa, Duff, Bassong, Beye, Gonzales and Xisco (assuming Santander pay his wage). Did those 10 players have an average salary of £42,300 a week? Probably not quite, but it must be a good slice of that.

There were women getting their tits out and coppers flying around in the ultras corner. that's where I belong. With the scum. It made me think, why don't the ultras buy up the seats in Bar 1892? I was 20 yards from Ashley and Llambias last night and if I'd been drunk enough and not so soft that I need back up he could have been made to feel very uncomfortable by a torrent of abuse at close quarters. For the sake of an extra tenner i think it's something the Ultras need to organise come the next home cup game.

I went cos I'm a soopafan, not a part-timer I even paid for the expensive seats. First time in Bar 1892. Christ it's dull isn't it? Must have been an average age of 55 in there.

A couple of years back I got every UK number one sorted by year. Just got round to hoying them on my ipod recently and thoroughly enjoyed this one. It's no Doop like. Aye that one too.

A couple of years back I got every UK number one sorted by year. Just got round to hoying them on my ipod recently and thoroughly enjoyed this one.

Why punch the ball when you can punch the striker?

Why? The club staff at Newcastle has been cut from 1500 to 500. The queues outside don't clear until 15 minutes after the game has started because half of the gates remain closed to lower costs. What do Newcastle pay for that West Brom don't? Our wages are £35m compared to their £22m, so that's £13m more outgoings we've got. As I said, the gate receipts alone more than cover that difference. That's before you look at how much better we do from merchandise, advertising and other commercial interests. How much have we saved Mike on his Sports Directs advertising budget? What would they have had to pay any other club for blanket advertising around the stadium & the stadium renamed for them? That's got to be worth 7 figures. That's all a bit simplistic, isn't it. Of course Newcastle have drastically cut costs. The expenses are still likely to be much higher than West Brom's. The bigger turnover and higher gate receipts don't just equate with a bigger profit. There are a lot of other running costs that have to be considered, e.g. a bigger ground means higher maintenance costs, same applies for the training complex etc. Undoubtedly. West Broms other costs that season came to £13m Newcastles Premier league other costs the same year (07/08) were £50m (£120m total outgoing - £70m salary) so they were ran at a quarter of the cost of us. But we've drastically reduced those running costs in the last 2 years, it remains to be seen if it's by enough. I think it's safe to say it is for a Premier league club.

Why? The club staff at Newcastle has been cut from 1500 to 500. The queues outside don't clear until 15 minutes after the game has started because half of the gates remain closed to lower costs. What do Newcastle pay for that West Brom don't? Our wages are £35m compared to their £22m, so that's £13m more outgoings we've got. As I said, the gate receipts alone more than cover that difference. That's before you look at how much better we do from merchandise, advertising and other commercial interests. How much have we saved Mike on his Sports Directs advertising budget? What would they have had to pay any other club for blanket advertising around the stadium & the stadium renamed for them? That's got to be worth 7 figures.

The seasonal year isn't over. August to december is 5 months, not 12 so you have to ask if he could have made £35m in that period to get an average figure of £7m per month. I don't know if that's realistic, but i know West Brom made £11m+ in their last season in the championship which is about £1m a month...and they didn't have half the income we do.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/ju...ier-league-debt Just on the gate receipts, their £7m is dwarfed by the £23m our 40,000+ crowds bring in. Since August we've also sold Martins, Bassong, Beye & Duff. With no outgoing transfer costs how much is that?

Get a knuckle duster on here and Ashley's getting dropped.

The unfortunate thing is whatever is happening on the balance sheet this season (and i believe he IS turning a profit now) the accounts for 2009 are due in the next couple of months and will show a loss which loses NUST credibility even if their inside dope is spot on.

oooh indeed. You can also hear the new Spoon album a week before it's released here.... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122279793

The New Eels album Always quality.

The target was the British army. And I guarantee you that if you were an Irish Catholic then you would have fully supported the attack. < Couldn't careless about any paramilitary getting shot, frankly we'd be a lot better off if they all got locked in a warehouse and blew themselves to bits. Comparing the likes of a trained special forces solider to the like of an average Squady is also daft. @troops being in Iraq, yup glad they're there and the place might have a bit more of a chance sorting itself out, all this crap about there not being weapons etc and it being our reason for going is besides the point imo, yes they prob knew Hussain hadn't got anything, but then they got rid of an evil dictator in a country where the normal people couldn't get shot of him themselves. if the better off nations can't help when it's needed what's the point, solider's etc sign up knowing they might well end up in such a situation, if you don't wanna do it pick another career frankly. trouble with the war in Iraq was they didn't finish the job first time round in 1990. As Saddam had used chemical weapons before on his own people too, is it not beyond a possibility that he had stockpiled them again or would to again ? In my view, this was reason enough anyway, but they should have finished the job the first time. If you take that to mean we should learn from past mistakes we probably wouldn't even attempt to occupy places like Iraq and (in particular) Afghanistan. I meant they let Saddam off the hook but I suppose they may have had their reasons ie balance of power in the area or his replacement may have been even more undesirable. I take your point above though. You can't be the worlds policeman but the UN is hopeless and nobody else gives a shit. Nor do we or the US. Sanctions against Iraq killed half a million children over there (more than Hiroshima). The civilians of Iraq do not come into consideration when we decide on foreign policy.

your naivety totally exposed by this. In what way? everything. British forces are highly professional and highly trained units. They obey orders which is part of their training and why they are so professional. Many millions of people realise this, but the trouble is that not too many of your younger age group realise it such is the direction this country has taken in recent decades and the brainwashing of left wingers on our kids, which is very very sad to be honest. They exist to protect YOU and the way of life you have and you do not realise how it is being slowly eroded. I am fully aware of all that and would only disagree with youngsters not realising it or that it's being eroded. I respect and am grateful to have the forces. We have a responsibility to repay their deedication by ensuring they only get put in harms way when it is absolutley necessary. Using our forces against unspecified targets in Iraq or Aghanistan is a disgraceful exploitation. Their deployment only exacerbates the problem. If you supported the troops you too would protest the political leadership that has failed them so miserably. I actually agree with some of this. The troops do their best and yes the policital leaders have failed them in terms of support and some decision making ie it is always our troops who end up at the thick end of it and other countries just allow the stupid British to put their boys in the firing line. However, if we - and the Americans - didn't do it. Who would and what sort of state would these countries be in ? Blame the UN, a toothless organisation, and other countries. Blame us for being mugs, but touching on what Alex has just said, they are volunteers and know what they are letting themselves in for. My point is just that we should support them as much as possible and not allow vermin on our streets to demonstrate against them. Back to where we started. If they are opposed to our forces in Afghanistan and they want to do something about it, put a uniform on and fight the fair fight or fuck off and shut up. i am opposed to my government putting our forces in Afghanistan, but I don't want to kill British soldiers or innocent civilians. As I have freedom of speech, can't i just voice my opposition? Do you think the occupation/stabilisation of Iraq/Aghanistan is a justified and achievable goal worth sacrificing our people for? But aren't these shitbags hurling abuse at the soldiers ? I don't know. Are they? I'd expect anyone of any religion, colour or sexuality to get a lot of grief if they hurled abuse at soldiers. If it has happened, I'm not sure what that kind of unsavoury behaviour by a few has got to do with restricting the rights of an entire group to protest or to wear a certain item of clothing. If we restrict those basic rights we turn into the oppresive regime we despise. Again, I don't know enough about any specific banners. Which banner has offended you? There are many anti-war banners I'd agree with and I'm certainly not anti-British. I'm too young to remeber what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam. But that war was waged for years on the threat of what would happen when we left, yet I am unaware of any lasting negative effects on my way of life (or any Americans). The middle east is different as we have such a pervasive presence and it's not as simple as pulling out of Afghanistan alone. Al Qaeda will keep fighting as long as BP is drilling over there. But by investing in growth in the region rather than bombs, by investing in local producers rather than stealing their natural resources, you'd massively reduce the potential for al qaeda recruitment and we'd be exponentially safer in our planes and high rise buildings.

your naivety totally exposed by this. In what way? everything. British forces are highly professional and highly trained units. They obey orders which is part of their training and why they are so professional. Many millions of people realise this, but the trouble is that not too many of your younger age group realise it such is the direction this country has taken in recent decades and the brainwashing of left wingers on our kids, which is very very sad to be honest. They exist to protect YOU and the way of life you have and you do not realise how it is being slowly eroded. I am fully aware of all that and would only disagree with youngsters not realising it or that it's being eroded. I respect and am grateful to have the forces. We have a responsibility to repay their deedication by ensuring they only get put in harms way when it is absolutley necessary. Using our forces against unspecified targets in Iraq or Aghanistan is a disgraceful exploitation. Their deployment only exacerbates the problem. If you supported the troops you too would protest the political leadership that has failed them so miserably. I actually agree with some of this. The troops do their best and yes the policital leaders have failed them in terms of support and some decision making ie it is always our troops who end up at the thick end of it and other countries just allow the stupid British to put their boys in the firing line. However, if we - and the Americans - didn't do it. Who would and what sort of state would these countries be in ? Blame the UN, a toothless organisation, and other countries. Blame us for being mugs, but touching on what Alex has just said, they are volunteers and know what they are letting themselves in for. My point is just that we should support them as much as possible and not allow vermin on our streets to demonstrate against them. Back to where we started. If they are opposed to our forces in Afghanistan and they want to do something about it, put a uniform on and fight the fair fight or fuck off and shut up. i am opposed to my government putting our forces in Afghanistan, but I don't want to kill British soldiers or innocent civilians. As I have freedom of speech, can't i just voice my opposition? Do you think the occupation/stabilisation of Iraq/Aghanistan is a justified and achievable goal worth sacrificing our people for?

your naivety totally exposed by this. In what way? everything. British forces are highly professional and highly trained units. They obey orders which is part of their training and why they are so professional. Many millions of people realise this, but the trouble is that not too many of your younger age group realise it such is the direction this country has taken in recent decades and the brainwashing of left wingers on our kids, which is very very sad to be honest. They exist to protect YOU and the way of life you have and you do not realise how it is being slowly eroded. I am fully aware of all that and would only disagree with youngsters not realising it or that it's being eroded. I respect and am grateful to have the forces. We have a responsibility to repay their deedication by ensuring they only get put in harms way when it is absolutley necessary. Using our forces against unspecified targets in Iraq or Aghanistan is a disgraceful exploitation. Their deployment only exacerbates the problem. If you supported the troops you too would protest the political leadership that has failed them so miserably.

Maybe. The reason why they don't make the truth public is obvious to anyone with half a brain that understands how security works Sadly, this board has too many muslim sympathisers and leftie brainwashed do gooders to get it....... Why don't you sympathise with Muslims Leazes?

your naivety totally exposed by this. In what way?

All these examples and sidetracks take away from the point that Leazes sees British forces killing/torturing as a clean, professional, justified and righteous thing which has been brought on by muslim atrocity. Anyone responding to the invasion of their country and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are either evil, motiveless killers without value for human life or disgraceful peaceful protesters who are hurting the feelings of the soldiers that killed their family. I didn't think such people actually existed. It is so illogical as to be alien to me. How can you run bombing campaigns or inavde 5 muslim countries and expect them not respond in some way, either peacefully or violently?

Yeah I know and I realise that Alex - especially when you consider a lot of recruits come from the NE but I still think theres a large choice element. I don't go as far as calling them "Murderers" or anything like that (though that does apply to the SAS imo and they're usually careerists) but I stand by the lack of full sympathy. Whether you look at the British armed forces or the American or the resistance in the 5 countries being bombed i think you'll generally find that the majority involved in direct combat come from the poorer walks of life back home so choices are limited. I have nothing but sympathy for those men and women.

Since they don't involve a uniform amd a "fair fight", does that mean that covert ops such as those done by the SAS are cowardly terrorism? do you find SAS or SBS blokes planting bombs and killing innocent civilians ? Give over man. Stop defending these wankers and support your own troops instead. Yes they do. Many tiimes now and in history. If you honestly think British forces have clean hands then you're even dafter than I thought. I don't support British troops - there hasn't been any "war" since 1945 that I would have supported - they'all been unjustified, imperialistic bollocks and being honest any fucker who signs up when conscription isn't in force gets no sympathy from me if they die. oh well, come the revolution. Not supporting British troops is pretty shameful in my opinion. You have zero understanding, which clever lecturer who's seen fuck all taught you that at college ? When you claim other people have zero understanding I think what you mean is you have zero ability to articulate a point.

Yes deliberately killing civilians in acts of terrorism ? I don't think so chum. Deliberately killing civilians yes. http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/216...and-sprung.html

Yes

Top bloke.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t...nty/8453055.stm