Park Life

Actually Taxi Driver just missed mine.

Orance of Arabia x9 Dark Star x7 Annie Hall x7 **Try not to inc films you just happen to watch causer they're on every Christmas ie Doctor No. etc...

I've thought this too and i dont get it either. The difference being Bush did most of his sneaky stuff in favour of the rich and powerful.

I was sometimes Hoddle.

Al Fayed at Fulham.

I think he announced the sale to take himself out of the firing line as well as steering clear of having to do anything pro-active during the summer. Saying the club was for sale as he did was the dumbest option as it removed most of his bargaining power in one swathe as well as inviting negative eyes at our situation.

WASHINGTON—According to the findings of a recent Department of Health and Human Services study, school lunch programs that teach children to avoid all contact with food may not be an effective method of reducing teen obesity rates."

Totally agree. I reckon from the age of 5 to 14, 95% of my living thoughts were about football. Even worse though are blokes who just don't like football, I haven't got one male mate who is a football hater, I don't think I could have neither. How can you have a mate who doesn't like football? The only two of my mates who don't like footie are gay. Case closed.

Second that. Nothing else makes sense. To paraphrase Sherlock H;"when all possibilities have been elimi­nated what remains, no matter how im­probable, must be the answer." I could have a guess at it......... gwaan then Better not, everyone is too depressed.

It's ridiculous how long these heap of shit, no substance, popcorn blockbusters are getting. It's incomprehensible to me that they've made Transformers 2 even longer than the first one...150 bastarding tedious minutes. I would have preferred to be waterboarded for the length of the first film...but at least they had an excuse then. They could claim the backstory had to be told....though it wasn't. Certainly not looking forward to the 153 minutes long Half Blood Prince if it doesn't return to the form of Prisoner of Azkaban. I was saying the same thing recently (might have been on here). It seems like blockbusters are all around the 2 1/2 hour mark now when that sort of film should be more like 90-100 mins more often than not. I'd have expected films to get shorter, given the modern propensity to cater to folk with short attention spans... Wouldn't have been surprised to see Ad breaks during films, although I suppose there is enough product placement. In the olden days there used to be in some films iirc? There was usually two features as well. Proper night out. Btw HF, you don't have to see this Harry Potter bollocks you know. Just say No. I wouldn't feel comfortable slagging off something I hadn't seen. I'm not Parky. ...Or an English football columnist. Steady.

Second that. Nothing else makes sense. To paraphrase Sherlock H;"when all possibilities have been elimi­nated what remains, no matter how im­probable, must be the answer." I could have a guess at it.........

I think he's got a plan like. Can't work out what the fuck it is but I'd imagine it'll be a shit plan. Guaranteed.

It's ridiculous how long these heap of shit, no substance, popcorn blockbusters are getting. It's incomprehensible to me that they've made Transformers 2 even longer than the first one...150 bastarding tedious minutes. I would have preferred to be waterboarded for the length of the first film...but at least they had an excuse then. They could claim the backstory had to be told....though it wasn't. Certainly not looking forward to the 153 minutes long Half Blood Prince if it doesn't return to the form of Prisoner of Azkaban. Very enjoyable.

No, that would depend on the outcome of administration. But they are free to walk away for £0 aren't they? No, in administration the company's contractual rights are unaffected If the club went into liquidation then the contracts would be terminated and the players could walk Thought in the Darlington administration situation they could (and did) walk away with no fees, but . Maybe Darlington just let them and it was mutually beneficial? The administrator can disown the contracts if he thinks the cost of paying wages outweighs the value of keeping transfer/playing rights - it's his choice though, not the players' That's what I'm getting at. My feeling is that the contracts will be struck. I might be giving MA less credit than he deserves.

I'd say the true cost of getting hold of NUFC under the Ashley package is 300m.

What I really want to know is whether admin will nullify the player contracts???

The rules have to be changed reg: Budgets for players per season Wage cap Squad size Debt ceilings Supporter involvement

Only if the administrator sells the club to someone else Which he can just as easily do himself, without the costs of administration or the reduction in price caused by the points deduction Whoever owns the club has got to fund it to keep it trading as a going concern, or else see it go into liquidation and lose all their money The problem with all this logic is that the club is actually worth jack shit. In fact it seems more in the toxic debt territory. I don't really know but I have a bad feeling about this. Nah there's definitely some value in there... - player contracts - intellectual property and image rights - goodwill (future ticket sales) - the land and stadium It's a valuable collection of assets, just a bit distressed at the present time I can't see us getting much for the players maybe 25m tops for all that leave Beye, Bassong, Martins, Ricky etc..(We are into Barclays for at least 40m and counting - ((20m every 3 months)). Image rights and intel prop is worth about 5m a year tops we have no Kaka's or a big brand sponsor. Future ticket sales was and always will be our ace in the hole, but 2/3 in the CCC will put paid to that reg price matching and supporter negativity. We don't own the land. Not sure what the value of a half empty stadium is. We still owe MA/or ANother 110m.

Only if the administrator sells the club to someone else Which he can just as easily do himself, without the costs of administration or the reduction in price caused by the points deduction Whoever owns the club has got to fund it to keep it trading as a going concern, or else see it go into liquidation and lose all their money The problem with all this logic is that the club is actually worth jack shit. In fact it seems more in the toxic debt territory. I don't really know but I have a bad feeling about this.

It's how Bates got hold of Leeds isn't it? Admin doesn't get MA his cash back that's for sure, but it does release him from ever having to put money in again...Non?

I doubt Administration will occur. The main principal of Administration is to protect a company from it's main creditors whilst the business is restructured, in the case of Newcastle Mike Ashley a the main creditor as he gave a £100 million loan towards paying off the clubs debt. Should Newcastle go into Administration then this means that Mike Ashley will likely not get his £100 million investment back, which of course being the businessman he is he will be determined to get as much as he can out of the club. Himself hoping for £100 million out of a sale, then another £100 million from the new owners paying that loan back. Administration would be cutting his losses, and I think its quite clear that the greedy fat cunt is not about to do that. But what if there is no buyer and we can't get rid of the expensive players? Even if we do we might end up getting poor value for them as well as having to cover a part of their salaries.

That's as far as I got tbh. There are some good long and considered posts in that thread. When starting it I thought I would just take a kicking start to finish, didn't turn out that way.

each to their own Oh aye, I wasn't having a pop Is it Jimbo who doesn't like The Wire?

Worth reading through. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/...ic,62694.0.html

I'm pretty certain the buyers have walked away bar one (FS 60m).