Christmas Tree

According to Booby Moncur (at the game) it was the players that didnt turn up, in particular Jonas.

The temptation to leave an arseprint on Dekka's office window next week may be to much to resist careful, you never know whose reading.

A cracking article here from the northern echo that really tells it as it is. AS part of his ongoing charm offensive, Derek Llambias used last weekend’s programme notes to issue the following missive to Newcastle United supporters: “If it wasn’t for Mike’s (Ashley) continued input, I genuinely think we would be in a similar position to the one Portsmouth find themselves them in at this moment.” At which point, it’s easy to call his bluff and reply: “What? You mean still in the Premier League and looking forward to an FA Cup semi-final at Wembley?” After months of media silence, Llambias has put his head above the parapet repeatedly in the last few weeks in an attempt to recast the Ashley regime as saviours rather than scoundrels, victims instead of perpetrators. “A small and very negative group...still insist on chanting ugly and abusive comments about the club’s owner Mike Ashley,” he went on. “I have tried to ignore this abuse but frankly something needs to be said.” Like a stern schoolmaster ticking off an errant pupil, Llambias has just about had enough of it. Much more of the negativity, and he’s going to take away his ball. The initial response, in the face of such misplaced piety, is to trot out the list of lies, mistakes and crises that have discredited the Ashley regime. But is there a kernel of truth to some of Llambias’ comments? Had Ashley not bought out Freddy Shepherd, might Newcastle have been in a far worse state than they are now? Even his most hardened critic would have to concede the possibility of such a scenario. Newcastle were in a financial mess when Ashley arrived on the scene, with a catalogue of ill-advised signings, unaffordable wage packages and badlystructured commercial deals contributing to a balance sheet that was rapidly spiralling out of control. The sportswear magnate has pumped in £280m of his own money to reduce the debt to a manageable level, and unlike the scenario currently playing out at Manchester United and Liverpool, his investment has been in the form of interest-free loans rather than packages that have saddled the club with even more debt. He has come up with more than £30m this season just to keep Newcastle afloat, and provided £5m of transfer fees during the January window to increase the likelihood of an immediate return to the Premier League in May. While high-earning players left last summer, he resisted the temptation to sell all and sundry, preferring instead to retain the highest wage bill in the Championship in the hope that it would result in promotion. Financially, it is hard to pick holes in much of what he has done, but the question Llambias should be asking himself, rather than simply lauding Ashley’s supposed largesse, is why his boss has been forced to act in such a manner. Ultimately, the answer is twofold. One, because he inexplicably failed to complete a full process of due diligence and therefore did not appreciate the full extent of what he was getting himself into when he bought out Shepherd. And two, because a series of disastrous policies – the appointment of Kevin Keegan, the promotion of Dennis Wise, the purchase of Xisco and Ignacio Gonzalez, the dismissal of Keegan, the appointment of Joe Kinnear, the list is just about endless – led to Newcastle’s relegation to the Championship. If Ashley hadn’t messed up so disastrously last season, Newcastle wouldn’t have been relegated. And if Newcastle hadn’t been relegated, Ashley wouldn’t have had to dig into his pockets to bail the club out. Make no mistake about it, the millionaire businessman hasn’t splashed out £30m since last summer because he’s desperate for his club’s supporters to enjoy a promotion party. This isn’t some sort of altruistic crusade to improve Tyneside’s collective mood. If Ashley had been able to sell the club last summer, he would have been counting his pennies in the sunset by now. Because he was unable to find a buyer, though, he finds himself stuck with a diminishing asset. Any businessman in that position has two choices. They either cut their losses and get out as quickly as they can, or they speculate to accumulate in the hope that things will eventually get better. Option one was never really available. Had Ashley not found the money to keep Newcastle going this season, the club would have gone into administration and as by far the biggest creditor, he would have walked away with next to nothing. So instead, he invested the minimum required to keep things ticking over. Stumble through to the end of the season, win promotion to the Premier League, and suddenly a club worth less than £100m is back on the market for double that price. It’s the reality of the business world, and while Ashley can hardly be blamed for protecting his asset, so he should not be praised for looking after number one either. Not when it is little more than a year-and-a-half since Wise was allowed to sign a player he had only seen on You Tube as a ‘favour’ to two South American agents. Not when it is only six months since the Keegan tribunal ruled that Newcastle officials had systematically misled the club’s supporters. And not when it is only four months since the controversial decision to sell the naming rights to St James’ Park and sweep away more than a century of history in the process. As Newcastle supporters watch events unfold at Portsmouth, they will begrudgingly accept that things could be worse. But as they glance towards the directors box at St James’, they will also conclude that they could be an awful lot better. And for all of Llambias’ protestations, it will be a long time before that situation changes. Print Email Share Comments(0) MORE SPORT STORIES

aNd the Guardians take on it..... Mike Ashley is seeking a rapprochement with those Newcastle United fans whose militant demeanour has put an end to his once famous nights out on the Toon. The Newcastle owner's often controversial modus operandi has been staunchly defended by Derek Llambias, the managing director, who revealed that Ashley recently invested a further £25m in a club he now shows no sign of trying to sell. Llambias is saddened that, even though Chris Hughton's team top the Championship, some supporters continue to abuse Ashley throughout matches and seem unable to forgive him for allowing Kevin Keegan to leave St James' Park before presiding over last season's relegation from the Premier League. "That needs to stop," said Llambias, referring to the abuse. "Enough's enough. It frustrates me because we know what we've done behind the scenes and what Mike's committed to financially. We'd like to be able to go out on the town after a win – we always used to – and enjoy the crowd but it's very difficult for us to do that now. We understand we've made mistakes but they happened. Now we need to move forward." Llambias and Ashley – once regulars in Bigg Market watering holes such as Blu Bambu – have been accused, with considerable justification, of a failure to communicate properly with the fans but the former said: "Whenever we've tried to communicate it's always ended up backfiring somewhere along the line. We're quite happy now to sit back and let our team do the talking." How long will it be Ashley's team though? "The club's not for sale," said Llambias. "Mike took it off the market. He's decided that's it, he's going to back it as much as he can. He's committed to getting it up to the Premier League. That's why we spent so much money, why we spent £5.5m on new players in the January transfer window. "We are going to carry on, put the club back to where it needs to be and move it along on our original business plan. With promotion we'll be able to grow and, two years down the line, we'll have a much better pot for buying players." While the original Ashley plan featured a continental-style director of football, namely Dennis Wise, it is thought this aspect of the owner's blueprint has been scrapped. However, Newcastle now refuse to buy players over the age of 26 as they want every signing to have re-sale value and impose a strict wage ceiling on new recruits. Not that Llambias wants to give the impression Ashley is cheapskating. "Mike put £25m into the club in December to keep it going," he said. "We needed to support our manager in January and we spent £5.5m on the team. We are fully committed." Unfortunately an element of Newcastle fans still cannot wait to see the back of Llambias and Ashley. "It's just a very small minority," said Llambias. "There's no reality about them." In his view, such dissenters cannot see that, in attempting to cut costs, Ashley has been a prophet in the footballing wilderness. "Slowly reality is coming into football - look at Portsmouth and West Ham," said Llambias. "The reality is football is not what it was."

Newcastle United will head to Middlesbrough on Saturday aiming to strengthen their leadership of the Championship and Llambias has warned that continued barracking of the sports retail tycoon at the Riverside could undermine the promotion challenge. "The team enjoys the support of a great and loyal fan-base and we all appreciate that and the positive effect it has on the players," Llambias said. Related Articles Ashley curbs big-spending Newcastle 'no longer for sale' Carroll aims to fire for England U21s Watford 1 Newcastle United 2 'Ashley's money keeps Newcastle in business' "That said, the following comments are aimed at a small and very negative group that despite the efforts on and off the pitch, still insist on chanting ugly and abusive comments about the club's owner, Mike Ashley, especially away from home where we need that 12th man most. "We are doing all we realistically can to get this great football club back up to the Premier League and despite the abuse directed at him by that section of supporters, Mike continues to underline his commitment by pumping in money. "That negativity doesn't help the atmosphere and certainly doesn't help the players. We are trying to create a positive, family atmosphere inside this great stadium, something we have underlined by extending our family area for next season and beyond." Llambias, who runs the club for Ashley, defended his paymaster who remains a villain of the peace is some supporters' eyes and is held responsible for the club's relegation from the Premier League last season. "I have tried hard to ignore this abuse but frankly something needs to be said." Llambias added. "Let me set the record straight about Mike's commitment to Newcastle United. Since the beginning of the season he has pumped in £25.5 million into this football club and this week a further £5 million was needed. "In addition to these amounts, Mike, realising the need to bring in new faces and back his manager's request, spent £5.5 million in the January transfer window. "This cash, as with all the funds that Mike has put in is interest-free. This money in critical and is needed to cover the shortfall between what we bring in as a club income - and what we pay out in costs. "Not all football clubs have such a benefactor and some are on the verge of bankruptcy or have already gone into administration." Llambias also took a swipe at the Newcastle United Supporters' Trust which was set up to give fans representation on the club's board. "The supporters' trust, surely a well intentioned initiative by a group of loyal NUFC supporters is simply not realistic," Llambias said. "It is time this group also got behind the management so we can all move forward in a positive manner with the same objective -we all want to see our club in the top flight and successful. "It is time to move on, draw a line under what has gone on in the past, stop the negativity and concentrate on giving the team complete, 100 per cent support."

The sun came out for the Tories 2 months ago.

Fucking weirdos.... Talk about pandoras box !!!

Don't know the full details but £200 of free plants and vegetables if you buy the daily mail tomorrow. http://www.bargainspy.co.uk/node/351835

A B these days is like someone telling a lass "you aren't that fat really". Your wife get a C? Lovely comeback

I've often wondered if you could look at your life history on some sort of google map, how close I've been to a serial killer or murderer..... 5 miles.....10... In the back of the taxi!!! Lots more rNdom thoughts. Anyone else have any good uns

David Gill does it at Man U and David Dein used to do it at Arsenal. You'll notice how both these men had experience in football before being appointed to the post. Also, they weren't involved in identifying players, this is left to the manager and his scouts. Had a quick search and found this re Arsenal... Whether they have the title or not I am sure each of the top clubs has people doing these roles. It really is such a big job these days made worse I guess by the number of foreign languages spoken by players. Llambias is hopeless and Hughton inexperienced so I would say this role is a must for us. It always needs to be manager directed tho imo.

I think in this day and age, ALL clubs need one. However getting a good one is probably as difficult as getting a good manager. None of the top clubs in this country have one and the top clubs in this country are, with the exception of Barcelona, the top sides in Europe so I'm not sure that's true. You just need a manager who is a good judge of a player. I'm not saying you can't have success with one but I don't really know how you can argue you need one. Maybe they have different tags etc at other clubs but I cant see Ferguson or Wenger getting involved in the nitty gritty of contract negogiations, player contracts, etc etc Whether they have better MD's who handle this I dont know.

Cause its 2010 and most are dropping the kids off on the way to work to earn money and pay taxes towards your retirement.

I've never apologised for advocating class warfare - as far as I'm concerned the war was declared by them centuries ago. And which class are we talking about.....The disney make believe one? The real scum bag underclass, the 2 car home owning working class, the 3 car, detatched house owning middle class?????

I've never apologised for advocating class warfare - as far as I'm concerned the war was declared by them centuries ago. Not really even sure what either of these statements means, particularly in day to day life.

If they win, will it be a coincidence that the two most powerful men in the UK will have gone to the same most expensive school in the country, or will it say something about privilege in the tory party? If they win, it's down to the electorate surely? Yes, but what's your point? Do you think its an indication the tory party are the party of the priviliged or not? I couldnt care less how the person was educated as long as they are "able" to do the job. However in this day and age I would have thought the better educated the better. Perish the thought of John Prescott flying the world as leader. Do you seriously think going to Eton provides you with better qualities to lead the country than going to a normal school? Keeps you in touch with the average guy? I've been accused as an inverted snob on this thread (with some justification) but your last comment reeks of good old school snobbery. Ive put it in Bold because you must have missed it first time round. OK then I'll rephrase, do you think that a persons upbringing may affect the job they do, in a political sense? What do you actually mean by 'do a good job'. For instance, is wealth generation your main concern for this country or do you have concerns about equality? First part of your question is a how longs a piece of string question. Their upbringing may effect them in a good or bad way. Someone whose had a poor upbringing may bring a chip on the shoulder to the table with them. Someone who has been very privelidged may have an overwhelming desire to give back. With regard to your second point, one can help create the other and a good government looks at the problems of the day and acts accordinly. An irresponsible government (traditionally labour) spends too much on the needy causes without first generating the wealth, hence fucking up the finances.

If they win, will it be a coincidence that the two most powerful men in the UK will have gone to the same most expensive school in the country, or will it say something about privilege in the tory party? If they win, it's down to the electorate surely? Yes, but what's your point? Do you think its an indication the tory party are the party of the priviliged or not? I couldnt care less how the person was educated as long as they are "able" to do the job. However in this day and age I would have thought the better educated the better. Perish the thought of John Prescott flying the world as leader. Do you seriously think going to Eton provides you with better qualities to lead the country than going to a normal school? Keeps you in touch with the average guy? I've been accused as an inverted snob on this thread (with some justification) but your last comment reeks of good old school snobbery. Ive put it in Bold because you must have missed it first time round.

I'm neither pro-Tory, anti-Labour or vice versa so therefore I must be Sorry, in my flurry of posts I thought I was directing that at CT. You see thats where you are wrong. Things I like / dislike from all parties. Was very hopeful when NEW labour got in but they never quite lived up to their promise. (Blair being Bush's poodle scuppered any real good they could have done) Cameron and Osbourne dont really appeal to me but I prefer to look past the personality a bit and see what the policies are unlike some of you who will vote Labour because you always do. The problem as Happy Face or Alex commented on is the absolute knats willies difference between the two parties. It may be worthwhile someone chucking up some real differences between a cameron government and a Brown one. (Based on actual policies rather than "Cameron will steal your first born, brown wont" crap)

If they win, will it be a coincidence that the two most powerful men in the UK will have gone to the same most expensive school in the country, or will it say something about privilege in the tory party? If they win, it's down to the electorate surely? Yes, but what's your point? Do you think its an indication the tory party are the party of the priviliged or not? I couldnt care less how the person was educated as long as they are "able" to do the job. However in this day and age I would have thought the better educated the better. Perish the thought of John Prescott flying the world as leader.

If they win, will it be a coincidence that the two most powerful men in the UK will have gone to the same most expensive school in the country, or will it say something about privilege in the tory party? It will say something about the electorate

So what was Lloyd George's contribution? Karma Chameleon

But you cant for all time hold every conservative government responsible for what a previous government did? Where would you draw the line in history? Not just the Thatcher government though was it? Historically tory governments have always been about representing the affluent and priveleged, and the South of England. Have you seen the make up of the present tory party? Virtually all went to private schools, and most of them not even 'normal' private schools at that. Cameron and Osbourne, obviously the most significant tories, are both Etonians ffs. What on Earth makes you think this particular blue leopard will change its spots? Because they have a tree drawn by a 5 year old as their logo? While not a great political historian, I am quite confident your comments have little truth or sense behind them. Others will be more informed on the subject but didnt the tories introduce the pension, unemployment benefit and carry out massive social housing and school building programs in the pre second world ward days? Hardly representing the affluent!!! I am sure there are plenty of other great achievements by Tory governments. And as for having a go at potential leaders of the country for going to a very good school!!!!! Would you rather they went to Bensham comp? Were the tories ever responsible for the things you mention? I don't honestly know, hopefully someone else does, but its telling you have to go back over 70 years to name any examples of how they have benefitted 'the common man'. They were resolutely against the foundation of the NHS though, I know that much. More fundamentally they obviously do not have socialist values by definition. I'd rather have a leader based on merit, not privilege, wherever they're from. A person from Bensham has as much right to lead this country as one of those silver-spooned nobheads imo. Tell that to all the commen folk who now own their council house. Nice to know Thatcher's bribe still has sway with people. Pity it has resulted in a housing crisis for so many people though, who now can't afford to buy their own property but can't find decent accomodation to rent. This is all part of the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude which has plagued our society since the 80s imo. Where are they all then??? And lets not forget, Labour has had 13 years to address any housing shortage.

But you cant for all time hold every conservative government responsible for what a previous government did? Where would you draw the line in history? Not just the Thatcher government though was it? Historically tory governments have always been about representing the affluent and priveleged, and the South of England. Have you seen the make up of the present tory party? Virtually all went to private schools, and most of them not even 'normal' private schools at that. Cameron and Osbourne, obviously the most significant tories, are both Etonians ffs. What on Earth makes you think this particular blue leopard will change its spots? Because they have a tree drawn by a 5 year old as their logo? That argument about private education doesn't really wash with me I'm afraid Renton. Yes, both of them when to private but significant members of the Labour Party likely did the same. And as for the blue leopard not changing its spots, are you forgetting that John Major left Grammar School at 16 with only 3 'O' Levels? They went to Eton Craig, not any normal public school. It's a matter of degree as well - yes some Labour MPs went to private schools but the proportion is much less than it is for the tories. John Mayor is irrelevant, two Etonians carry the tory torch tree now, they're reverting back to type. You'd have been better citing Thatcher actually, she wasn't especially privileged, I'll give her that. Why? Because he doesn't fit into your model? From a neutral perspective your view appears to be very biggotted. Always had him down as a snob This is the problem with politics. It should be about judging the people standing on their own personal merits / political history and the program of government (manifesto) being put forward. To simply always vote one way because of a particular bias is just plain stupid imo.

Any of the previous governments could have addressed the shortage if they had so desired.