Only £20 million to spend according to this

[Snake 0]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...mp;in_page_id=1

 

Must have been very cramped in that meeting room

[Torres 0]

If true, that`s the end of Owen at Newcastle.....................and proves why he went there in the first place. 120,000 a week for a crock is a bizarre sum.

[Gemmill 44879]

If true, that`s the end of Owen at Newcastle.....................and proves why he went there in the first place. 120,000 a week for a crock is a bizarre sum.

 

Agreed. But at the time we didn't have much else to attract him with.

 

EDIT! Still don't.

 

And the argument that he won't leave because the other clubs that would want him couldn't afford his wages (Everton, Villa, Spurs, etc.) has taken a bit of a blow if there's any truth to this rumour.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Gemmill

[luckyluke 2]

"Ashley called for an end to the civil war tearing the club apart"

 

What a load of shite.

[Howay 12496]

"Ashley called for an end to the civil war tearing the club apart"

 

What a load of shite.

I was just about to quote that never mind mountains out of molehills these fuckers are just making mountains up.

[Asprilla 96]

"Ashley called for an end to the civil war tearing the club apart"

 

What a load of shite.

I was just about to quote that never mind mountains out of molehills these fuckers are just making mountains up.

There is now a thread for all this shite!

 

I'll post this in it.

[Kid Dynamite 7027]

I actually hope thats true!!! It would be nice to have an owner who wanted to get the wage structure sorted out. Owen should be thankful to be on £80k a week!!! 120k is taking the piss

[Ketsbaia 0]

So we were going to make Modric our only summer signing then?

 

Utter tosh.

[Jimbo 175]

Don't you think there is a conflict here ? one minute Ashley is supposedly insensed that Keegan thinks we can't break into the top 4, and in the next breath there is only £20m to spend ?

[Howay 12496]

"Ashley called for an end to the civil war tearing the club apart"

 

What a load of shite.

I was just about to quote that never mind mountains out of molehills these fuckers are just making mountains up.

There is now a thread for all this shite!

 

I'll post this in it.

4 shite stories in one morning it's quite impressive how quick they churn this shit out.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Don't you think there is a conflict here ? one minute Ashley is supposedly insensed that Keegan thinks we can't break into the top 4, and in the next breath there is only £20m to spend ?

 

It's the Daily Mail - the newspaper that believes Richard Littlejohn actually has some journalistic qualities. It's garbage.

[ewerk 30610]

So we were going to make Modric our only summer signing then?

 

Utter tosh.

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

And why would Ashley have an office in Freshfields? Surely they mean Mort.

[Mick the Knife 0]

The amount of different "stories" and rumours to me just prove the media are clueless as to what's going on.

 

Ashley is a self made billionaire so you'd like to think he has an ounce of intelligence about him and so I can't see him "severely reprimanding" one of the clubs most loved and respected figures in Keegan because he says it's going to be impossible to break the top four and then to turn around and say "we can do it Kevin and to help you here's only 20 million"

 

Didn't Fulham spend more than 20 million this season? Look at Sun'lun they've spent a fortune in the past year, so if smaller clubs can manage to spend that then you'd like to think there is easily more than 20 million available to Keegan. When you look at how thin the current squad is talk of him having to sell before he can buy has to be rubbish also because if Keegan sells anyone it'll just be him and Terry Mac in the dressing room!

 

And if Ashley sacked Keegan and replaced him with a cockney barrowboy like Wise he'd never be able to set foot in the North East again!!!!

[Hadrian 0]

For modric we offered 6.2 mill per season for 3 year .

that 20 mill budget could turn out tobe true , as in there is 20 million there that can be spent this summer, but you can take deals over a number of years .

 

anyone else sick of this 100mill (gets bigger every week!) that is being held over our heads as a reason for lack of major investment ?

any chance mort gets thats all we here from him , ashleys spent 250mill , 100mill debt we didnt know about ! ,yeah right .

[Gemmill 44879]

anyone else sick of this 100mill (gets bigger every week!) that is being held over our heads as a reason for lack of major investment ?

any chance mort gets thats all we here from him , ashleys spent 250mill , 100mill debt we didnt know about ! ,yeah right .

 

Are you questioning whether it's true, questioning whether it should impact the level of investment, or just plain annoyed that it's been mentioned more than once?

[Hadrian 0]

anyone else sick of this 100mill (gets bigger every week!) that is being held over our heads as a reason for lack of major investment ?

any chance mort gets thats all we here from him , ashleys spent 250mill , 100mill debt we didnt know about ! ,yeah right .

 

Are you questioning whether it's true, questioning whether it should impact the level of investment, or just plain annoyed that it's been mentioned more than once?

 

 

all three actually , im pretty sure we were told 80 mill at first , then they stuck the transfer fee's from last season on it and started throwing around the 100mill number as how much had been invested , now thats just purely debt apparently so yeah im not sure if its true .

you dont buy clubs and 100 mill debt pops up out of nowhere aswell .

should it impact investment ? its being used as a reason for lack of it , but is it our problem that the club was bought and the new owner supposedly found this debt ?

 

whats the debt for aswell , is it debt owed out in the future ? or debt we have now ,as ive heard stories that some of its for players transfer fee's thats still due ect , (only forked out 4 mill so far for oba ) if thats the case the money is in the player and nothing is lost , sell the player and get money back plus some of the debt .

Edited May 10, 2008 by Hadrian

[Snake 0]

anyone else sick of this 100mill (gets bigger every week!) that is being held over our heads as a reason for lack of major investment ?

any chance mort gets thats all we here from him , ashleys spent 250mill , 100mill debt we didnt know about ! ,yeah right .

 

Are you questioning whether it's true, questioning whether it should impact the level of investment, or just plain annoyed that it's been mentioned more than once?

 

 

all three actually , im pretty sure we were told 80 mill at first , then they stuck the transfer fee's from last season on it and started throwing around the 100mill number as how much had been invested , now thats just purely debt apparently so yeah im not sure if its true .

you dont buy clubs and 100 mill debt pops up out of nowhere aswell .

should it impact investment ? its being used as a reason for lack of it , but is it our problem that the club was bought and the new owner supposedly found this debt ?

 

whats the debt for aswell , is it debt owed out in the future ? or debt we have now ,as ive heard stories that some of its for players transfer fee's thats still due ect , (only forked out 4 mill so far for oba ) if thats the case the money is in the player and nothing is lost , sell the player and get money back plus some of the debt .

 

The actual debt as per the accounts when Ashley took over was £80 million I think and was rising by £1 million every month. It is well documented that extra 'hidden debt' was found when his team looked deeper

[Ketsbaia 0]

anyone else sick of this 100mill (gets bigger every week!) that is being held over our heads as a reason for lack of major investment ?

any chance mort gets thats all we here from him , ashleys spent 250mill , 100mill debt we didnt know about ! ,yeah right .

 

Are you questioning whether it's true, questioning whether it should impact the level of investment, or just plain annoyed that it's been mentioned more than once?

 

 

all three actually , im pretty sure we were told 80 mill at first , then they stuck the transfer fee's from last season on it and started throwing around the 100mill number as how much had been invested , now thats just purely debt apparently so yeah im not sure if its true .

you dont buy clubs and 100 mill debt pops up out of nowhere aswell .

should it impact investment ? its being used as a reason for lack of it , but is it our problem that the club was bought and the new owner supposedly found this debt ?

 

whats the debt for aswell , is it debt owed out in the future ? or debt we have now ,as ive heard stories that some of its for players transfer fee's thats still due ect , (only forked out 4 mill so far for oba ) if thats the case the money is in the player and nothing is lost , sell the player and get money back plus some of the debt .

 

They always knew the debt was there, just not on the level that they discovered. Considering they didn't undertake due dilligence it's not surprising they didn't know all about it.

 

If you're really advocating the selling of players to write off the debt then you're a bit wrong in the head. The majority of our first team squad was probably bought on that premise and I doubt a players value is going to rise that much when playing in the lower half of the league.

[Hadrian 0]

right , so what debt did he know about when buying the club ?

where is the 'hidden debt' debt from , and how is it rising by 1 mill per month if he payed it off ?

i know he found we have got some future payments already spent , but to use this debt as a reason we are not spending like spurs seem to want to , surely we should be given an idea of where its from ? this is what i dont like about privately owned clubs

 

and no i didnt mean sell players , just that the money is there still, i buy a house for 100k , as much as i might owe 100k out ive still got the money in the house plus more if its value go's up .

Edited May 10, 2008 by Hadrian

[Ketsbaia 0]

right , so what debt did he know about when buying the club ?

where is the 'hidden debt' debt from , and how is it rising by 1 mill per month if he payed it off ?

i know he found we have got some future payments already spent , but to use this debt as a reason we are not spending like spurs seem to want to , surely we should be given an idea of where its from ?

 

and no i didnt mean sell players , just that the money is there still, i buy a house for 100k , as much as i might owe 100k out ive still got the money in the house plus more if its value go's up .

 

The debt we all knew about. We all knew we were somewhere between 60-70 million in the red but £100 million was too much. Why do you think every other consortium couldn't get out of the city quick enough after conducting due dilligence.

 

I've nee idea what you're going on about when you talk about the debt rising. We're debt free now and have been for months, Mort has said as much.

 

There is nothing to say we aren't going to spend about from a few shite articles. Chin up.

[Asprilla 96]

right , so what debt did he know about when buying the club ?

where is the 'hidden debt' debt from , and how is it rising by 1 mill per month if he payed it off ?

i know he found we have got some future payments already spent , but to use this debt as a reason we are not spending like spurs seem to want to , surely we should be given an idea of where its from ? this is what i dont like about privately owned clubs

 

and no i didnt mean sell players , just that the money is there still, i buy a house for 100k , as much as i might owe 100k out ive still got the money in the house plus more if its value go's up .

Trouble is, most of our players are the housing equivalent of this:

 

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/video/Watch...home.3426037.jp

Edited May 10, 2008 by Asprilla

[Hadrian 0]

right , so what debt did he know about when buying the club ?

where is the 'hidden debt' debt from , and how is it rising by 1 mill per month if he payed it off ?

i know he found we have got some future payments already spent , but to use this debt as a reason we are not spending like spurs seem to want to , surely we should be given an idea of where its from ?

 

and no i didnt mean sell players , just that the money is there still, i buy a house for 100k , as much as i might owe 100k out ive still got the money in the house plus more if its value go's up .

 

The debt we all knew about. We all knew we were somewhere between 60-70 million in the red but £100 million was too much. Why do you think every other consortium couldn't get out of the city quick enough after conducting due dilligence.

 

I've nee idea what you're going on about when you talk about the debt rising. We're debt free now and have been for months, Mort has said as much.

 

There is nothing to say we aren't going to spend about from a few shite articles. Chin up.

 

 

ive no idea about the 1mill debt rising either , just asking snake what he was on about .

 

so there was 30mill worth off debt that caught him offguard ?

he bought the club for 134m , spent 100m on debt . so he got the toon for 234 ? and the clubs income this year was 100mill ?

[Snake 0]

right , so what debt did he know about when buying the club ?

where is the 'hidden debt' debt from , and how is it rising by 1 mill per month if he payed it off ?

i know he found we have got some future payments already spent , but to use this debt as a reason we are not spending like spurs seem to want to , surely we should be given an idea of where its from ?

 

and no i didnt mean sell players , just that the money is there still, i buy a house for 100k , as much as i might owe 100k out ive still got the money in the house plus more if its value go's up .

 

The debt we all knew about. We all knew we were somewhere between 60-70 million in the red but £100 million was too much. Why do you think every other consortium couldn't get out of the city quick enough after conducting due dilligence.

 

I've nee idea what you're going on about when you talk about the debt rising. We're debt free now and have been for months, Mort has said as much.

 

There is nothing to say we aren't going to spend about from a few shite articles. Chin up.

 

 

ive no idea about the 1mill debt rising either , just asking snake what he was on about .

 

so there was 30mill worth off debt that caught him offguard ?

he bought the club for 134m , spent 100m on debt . so he got the toon for 234 ? and the clubs income this year was 100mill ?

 

We were paying out more money than we were bringing in, to the tune of about £1m per month

[JawD 99]

Also dont confuse income with gross profit or nett profit. If we have an income of £100M (gates, Sky income, commercial sales), in the past on similar turnover we have lost money. Part of this though was to shareholders which we do not now have the burden of.

[Park Life 71]

anyone else sick of this 100mill (gets bigger every week!) that is being held over our heads as a reason for lack of major investment ?

any chance mort gets thats all we here from him , ashleys spent 250mill , 100mill debt we didnt know about ! ,yeah right .

 

Are you questioning whether it's true, questioning whether it should impact the level of investment, or just plain annoyed that it's been mentioned more than once?

 

 

all three actually , im pretty sure we were told 80 mill at first , then they stuck the transfer fee's from last season on it and started throwing around the 100mill number as how much had been invested , now thats just purely debt apparently so yeah im not sure if its true .

you dont buy clubs and 100 mill debt pops up out of nowhere aswell .

should it impact investment ? its being used as a reason for lack of it , but is it our problem that the club was bought and the new owner supposedly found this debt ?

 

whats the debt for aswell , is it debt owed out in the future ? or debt we have now ,as ive heard stories that some of its for players transfer fee's thats still due ect , (only forked out 4 mill so far for oba ) if thats the case the money is in the player and nothing is lost , sell the player and get money back plus some of the debt .

 

The actual debt as per the accounts when Ashley took over was £80 million I think and was rising by £1 million every month. It is well documented that extra 'hidden debt' was found when his team looked deeper

 

Is there any evidence it was rising by £1m a month? I genuinely interested.