José Enrique

[Guest alex]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

Probably the biggest issue I have with him is that he's spent a lot of money on the club, but he's done it (so often) in completely the wrong way. To the detriment of his own finances and to the club itself. Unfortunately, because of this, he's playing the long game in terms of getting back as much as possible. I think there's a canny bit of vindictiveness in that as well like after the way the fans have turned on him. I'm not sure what he expected there either.

[ChezGiven 0]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

[Guest]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

Probably the biggest issue I have with him is that he's spent a lot of money on the club, but he's done it (so often) in completely the wrong way. To the detriment of his own finances and to the club itself. Unfortunately, because of this, he's playing the long game in terms of getting back as much as possible. I think there's a canny bit of vindictiveness in that as well like after the way the fans have turned on him. I'm not sure what he expected there either.

 

 

Most definitely

[Guest alex]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

[Phil 6]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Phil

[Guest alex]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanaged of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

We signed Jonas, Colo and Xisco on similar (and in Colo's case) higher wages a year later under Llambias and Wise so I'm not sure how Llambias fares any better on that score. I'd also question whether anyone came in for Taylor at the time he signed his new contract.

[LeazesMag 0]

The club debts have rocketed because it signed bargain basement loan players, such as Martins, on loan at Brum, for preposterous fees, that didn't bother turning up for training and we got relegated

 

No, the club played regularly in europe and the Champions League more than everbody bar 4 clubs over a 15 year period, by backing their managers in the way NUFC should who subsequently brought players to the club like Shearer, Lee, Ferdinand, Ginola, Beresford, Venison, Cole, Sellars, Bellamy, Robert, Dyer, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Dabizas, Ferguson, Speed, Solano, Given, Ambrose, Fox, Hamman, N'Zogbia, Milner, Given, Barton, Pistone, Peacock etc etc

 

Of course, they accumulated huge debts to the cries of dismay of the 15000 supporters who supported the club in 1991 as they watched all those years of high profile football, and massive steps forward in the profile of the club and establishing and furthering the fanbase worldwide, the stadium totally revamped and the value of the club rocket from less than 1.25m quid to anything up to 200m quid.

 

Of course, you know what you are talking about here

 

Edit.

 

And - we were relegated for selling players like Given, Milner, N'Zogbia, signing inferior players, losing a manager like Keegan instead of backing him to buy possibly 2 quality players that could have got us back into europe, and creating a demotivated and disenchanted football club

Edited February 15, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

[Toonpack 9964]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

 

From a totally independent/review/source

 

the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

[Guest Marshall-Baines]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

 

From a totally independent/review/source

 

the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

The overall point you're making I understand but the bits in bold highlight the anti-Shepherd propaganda which exists even to this day. 38+7+5 = £50m not £55m, and to be honest FFS deserved something, more than Douglas Hall anyway, we were a thriving CL club and he put us there as much as anyone. FFS was a good businessman for NUFC up to 2004. It's incredible we're having this debate AGAIN.

[manc-mag 1]

The 'stadium revamp' line gets trotted out as though it was some sort of 2001 black obelisk moment of inspiration, with Freddie banging a Greggs sausage roll against the back of the Milburn and Thus Spake Zarathustra going in the background.

 

The revamp is quality but practically every club has either rebuilt or relocated their ground in the last 20 years. It's just what has happened in football generally. Debt discussions to one side (where it remains relevant), it needs to stop being cited as this example of great foresight that distinguished us from other clubs or indeed Shepherd from succeding owners.

[Guest]

The club debts have rocketed because it signed bargain basement loan players, such as Martins, on loan at Brum, for preposterous fees, that didn't bother turning up for training and we got relegated

 

No, the club played regularly in europe and the Champions League more than everbody bar 4 clubs over a 15 year period, by backing their managers in the way NUFC should who subsequently brought players to the club like Shearer, Lee, Ferdinand, Ginola, Beresford, Venison, Cole, Sellars, Bellamy, Robert, Dyer, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Dabizas, Ferguson, Speed, Solano, Given, Ambrose, Fox, Hamman, N'Zogbia, Milner, Given, Barton, Pistone, Peacock etc etc

 

Of course, they accumulated huge debts to the cries of dismay of the 15000 supporters who supported the club in 1991 as they watched all those years of high profile football, and massive steps forward in the profile of the club and establishing and furthering the fanbase worldwide, the stadium totally revamped and the value of the club rocket from less than 1.25m quid to anything up to 200m quid.

 

Of course, you know what you are talking about here

 

Edit.

 

And - we were relegated for selling players like Given, Milner, N'Zogbia, signing inferior players, losing a manager like Keegan instead of backing him to buy possibly 2 quality players that could have got us back into europe, and creating a demotivated and disenchanted football club

 

Comprehension issues. One inferior replacement is the top goalscoring midfielder in the league the other was a full Argentina international with the most assists in la liga when Milner was still in th u21s.

 

Then again it's all about th fees with you imbocile

[Guest alex]

I've heard this mentioned before about Jonas and was always a bit sceptical about it. Anyway, according to ESPN he wasn't even in the top 20 for assists in either of his seasons in La Liga. Was this just something else put about by the regime when we signed him that journos ignored / never picked up on? Or are ESPN 'wide of the mark'?

[snakehips 0]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

 

From a totally independent/review/source

 

the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

The overall point you're making I understand but the bits in bold highlight the anti-Shepherd propaganda which exists even to this day. 38+7+5 = £50m not £55m, and to be honest FFS deserved something, more than Douglas Hall anyway, we were a thriving CL club and he put us there as much as anyone. FFS was a good businessman for NUFC up to 2004. It's incredible we're having this debate AGAIN.

 

Isn't the £55m, 38+7+5+5 (ie 'salaries') ?

 

I'm just guessing he (the author) is implying that.

[ewerk 31209]

I've heard this mentioned before about Jonas and was always a bit sceptical about it. Anyway, according to ESPN he wasn't even in the top 20 for assists in either of his seasons in La Liga. Was this just something else put about by the regime when we signed him that journos ignored / never picked up on? Or are ESPN 'wide of the mark'?

 

More than likely something that was fed to the regime that they didn't bother verifying.

[Guest alex]

I've heard this mentioned before about Jonas and was always a bit sceptical about it. Anyway, according to ESPN he wasn't even in the top 20 for assists in either of his seasons in La Liga. Was this just something else put about by the regime when we signed him that journos ignored / never picked up on? Or are ESPN 'wide of the mark'?

 

More than likely something that was fed to the regime that they didn't bother verifying.

Funny how it's often quoted about him though. He got 0, 3 and 5 assists respectively in his 3 seasons there. The only thing I can think of is a (possibly deliberate) confusion with Guti

[toonotl 3112]

If I can just get back on to Enrique for a second.

 

Enrique's contract talks have been put on hold until we are safe from relegation.

 

Does anyone read this as: Enrique, or possibly his agent, laying the foundations for the manufactoring of a move away in the summer?

 

Let's be honest whether he signs a new contract now or not he will move in the summer if we are relegated.

 

The only difference is if he doesn't sign now and clubs start making bids in the summer the club is forced into selling him cheaper to recoup some of fee we paid for him, thereby making his move out of the club easier.

 

I hate to be cynical but it just seems like bullshit to me on the part of Enrique and/or his agent.

 

Owen did the same and we all knew what it meant at the time. Granted his contract was expiring but the circumstances are similar. Given that no one in the PL that Owen wanted to play for would have paid a transfer fee for him whereas they will for Enrique.

[Guest alex]

If I can just get back on to Enrique for a second.

 

Enrique's contract talks have been put on hold until we are safe from relegation.

 

Does anyone read this as: Enrique, or possibly his agent, laying the foundations for the manufactoring of a move away in the summer?

 

Let's be honest whether he signs a new contract now or not he will move in the summer if we are relegated.

 

The only difference is if he doesn't sign now and clubs start making bids in the summer the club is forced into selling him cheaper to recoup some of fee we paid for him, thereby making his move out of the club easier.

 

I hate to be cynical but it just seems like bullshit to me on the part of Enrique and/or his agent.

 

Owen did the same and we all knew what it meant at the time. Granted his contract was expiring but the circumstances are similar. Given that no one in the PL that Owen wanted to play for would have paid a transfer fee for him whereas they will for Enrique.

He was probably thinking about signing one until Carroll left. Now he's keeping his options open. I wouldn't blame him for leaving anyway. He's not going to win anything here or even play in Europe any time soon.

[acrossthepond 878]

Yup he's good enough to play for a club getting into europe on a regular basis or challenging for titles.

 

He'll be off, Spanish contingent will probably all be gone this summer

 

That's what we all said when we went down, but all three stayed. I don't think any of Jose, Colo or Jonas actively want to leave the club. I think they're more interested in seeing how we'll progress, so they'll stick around until they see how the Carroll money will be (or more likely won't be) spent, then look to move on.

[LeazesMag 0]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

 

From a totally independent/review/source

 

the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

 

Absolutely no point in talking to you. You obviously preferred the club when the likes of McKeag and Seymour ran it. People like you probably complain about Keegan "being a chequebook manager and lost a 12 point lead".....tell me any other owners we have had who have appointed managers that put a team out who qualified for europe more than any other club in 15 years at Newcastle ?

 

Do you still go to games regularly ? Did you ever ? If you did, when was it ? Who attracted you to the club most ?

 

I don't give a shit how much they sold the club for, and why should you ? What matters is what sort of team and progress the club made while they owned it, and how much supporters of the club enjoyed it.

[LeazesMag 0]

The club debts have rocketed because it signed bargain basement loan players, such as Martins, on loan at Brum, for preposterous fees, that didn't bother turning up for training and we got relegated

 

No, the club played regularly in europe and the Champions League more than everbody bar 4 clubs over a 15 year period, by backing their managers in the way NUFC should who subsequently brought players to the club like Shearer, Lee, Ferdinand, Ginola, Beresford, Venison, Cole, Sellars, Bellamy, Robert, Dyer, Jenas, Viana, Bramble, Dabizas, Ferguson, Speed, Solano, Given, Ambrose, Fox, Hamman, N'Zogbia, Milner, Given, Barton, Pistone, Peacock etc etc

 

Of course, they accumulated huge debts to the cries of dismay of the 15000 supporters who supported the club in 1991 as they watched all those years of high profile football, and massive steps forward in the profile of the club and establishing and furthering the fanbase worldwide, the stadium totally revamped and the value of the club rocket from less than 1.25m quid to anything up to 200m quid.

 

Of course, you know what you are talking about here

 

Edit.

 

And - we were relegated for selling players like Given, Milner, N'Zogbia, signing inferior players, losing a manager like Keegan instead of backing him to buy possibly 2 quality players that could have got us back into europe, and creating a demotivated and disenchanted football club

 

Comprehension issues. One inferior replacement is the top goalscoring midfielder in the league the other was a full Argentina international with the most assists in la liga when Milner was still in th u21s.

 

Then again it's all about th fees with you imbocile

 

spellin issues

 

Remind me again, when did Mike Ashley run the club when it qualified for europe again ? He's into the 4th year of his "plan" now isn't he ?

 

Comprehension and basic common sense issues.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

[Kevin 1]

:|

[LeazesMag 0]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

 

From a totally independent/review/source

 

the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

The overall point you're making I understand but the bits in bold highlight the anti-Shepherd propaganda which exists even to this day. 38+7+5 = £50m not £55m, and to be honest FFS deserved something, more than Douglas Hall anyway, we were a thriving CL club and he put us there as much as anyone. FFS was a good businessman for NUFC up to 2004. It's incredible we're having this debate AGAIN.

 

any old stick to beat Shepherd with, its astounding how some people just won't let go. If Mike Ashley was running a better club and doing better on the pitch I could understand it. Talk about having their heads up their arses, and most of them didn't support the club before the Halls and Shepherd and have probably stoppled going so often since they left too.

 

Unbelievable hypocrisy.

[Kevin 1]

The debt/credit thing is a bit of a red herring given the availability of credit has dried up and banks are much more prudent in handing out high risk loans. To me it's an issue as to whether you 'speculate to accumulate' to use a tired, old cliche. Specifically whether Ashley spends a bit of money in order to gain some success and push for Europe in order to generate a greater turnover. This is risky (in that everything involved in owning a football club is anyway) but it's probably far more risky to do it on a shoestring and gamble on PL survival over the next few seasons. Especially given he's already seen the club relegated in his time here and doesn't appear to have learnt that many lessons from it.

 

 

Is correct. So basically, the only way to do it would be to do the opposite of what Shepherd did, put money IN to the club

 

Actually not sure it is correct, the greater risk to Ashley is the option involving him dipping into his personal wealth. The greater risk to the club is the option where he doesnt use his own wealth to invest. Doing things on a shoestring is the least risky option and the most prudent for Ashley but risks survival in the league.

 

What is at risk is the initial investment but that already been heavily discounted and he's also seen the club bounce back from it once. I know what alex means and i agree, its just there is more than one 'entity' under discussion i.e. Ashley and his private wealth and the club.

I see what you're saying. Surely he'd have to dip into that personal wealth if we went down. I think it's all a bit moot anyway given the course he's apparently set on, i.e. reduce costs as much as possible.

 

When Ashley first came to the club we signed Viduka, Smith and Barton all on unsustainable wages. Most people liked Mort, but I thought he was a disaster. His mismanagement of the books ultimately led to the appointment of penny pitching Llambias.

 

I think its a bit early to say we will always be run on a shoestring. If that was the case Taylor would have been sold.

 

What happens with Barton and Jose contracts in the summer will indicate which direction we are going in, as both seem to be enjoying their football.

 

Mort was an arsehole. Quite a lot of supporters thought he was OK though because he wasn't Fat Fred

 

From a totally independent/review/source

 

the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/ne...ource=BP_recent

The overall point you're making I understand but the bits in bold highlight the anti-Shepherd propaganda which exists even to this day. 38+7+5 = £50m not £55m, and to be honest FFS deserved something, more than Douglas Hall anyway, we were a thriving CL club and he put us there as much as anyone. FFS was a good businessman for NUFC up to 2004. It's incredible we're having this debate AGAIN.

 

any old stick to beat Shepherd with, its astounding how some people just won't let go. If Mike Ashley was running a better club and doing better on the pitch I could understand it. Talk about having their heads up their arses, and most of them didn't support the club before the Halls and Shepherd and have probably stoppled going so often since they left too.

 

Unbelievable hypocrisy.

 

Sheperds gone you stupid old man, he's not coming back, so will you please get your 3" hardened penis out of his fucking ass! Fuck me this gets annoying, you'd fucking think you're about 9.