TicTacWoe 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I hate to keep referring to Leeds United but the similarities are unreal. We were in the same postion after the CL semi final and made ridiculous investments to take us to the very top. That failed and from there on in we were no more. If Freddie Sheperd ahd continued to run the club in a Peter Risdale textbook fashion you would have been the same. Relegation yes a major possibility but Newcastle are financially sound thanks to Mike Ashley. Unfortunately the transitional phase to taking the club to the next level failed and you are where you are but even if you do go down there aint gonna be a freefall into the midst of the championship and possibly league 1. What are the similarities? I'll go first, Smith and Viduka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3640 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I hate to keep referring to Leeds United but the similarities are unreal. We were in the same postion after the CL semi final and made ridiculous investments to take us to the very top. That failed and from there on in we were no more. If Freddie Sheperd ahd continued to run the club in a Peter Risdale textbook fashion you would have been the same. Relegation yes a major possibility but Newcastle are financially sound thanks to Mike Ashley. Unfortunately the transitional phase to taking the club to the next level failed and you are where you are but even if you do go down there aint gonna be a freefall into the midst of the championship and possibly league 1. What are the similarities? I'll go first, Smith and Viduka Wrong. Leeds never actually owned Viduka and this is where they fucked up. They leased a number of big money players so when things were tough they couldn't sell them to cash in and they couldn't renegotiate their contract because they didn't own it. Oh and Smith scored goals for Leeds, something he's never done at Newcastle, so you're wrong twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TicTacWoe 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I hate to keep referring to Leeds United but the similarities are unreal. We were in the same postion after the CL semi final and made ridiculous investments to take us to the very top. That failed and from there on in we were no more. If Freddie Sheperd ahd continued to run the club in a Peter Risdale textbook fashion you would have been the same. Relegation yes a major possibility but Newcastle are financially sound thanks to Mike Ashley. Unfortunately the transitional phase to taking the club to the next level failed and you are where you are but even if you do go down there aint gonna be a freefall into the midst of the championship and possibly league 1. What are the similarities? I'll go first, Smith and Viduka Wrong. Leeds never actually owned Viduka and this is where they fucked up. They leased a number of big money players so when things were tough they couldn't sell them to cash in and they couldn't renegotiate their contract because they didn't own it. Oh and Smith scored goals for Leeds, something he's never done at Newcastle, so you're wrong twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I think many businessmen would tell you otherwise. I will for starters Well you're wrong. The only reason NUFC may end up "doing a Leeds" is is Ashley gets us relegated and then either decides to sell us to someone that can't actually afford it at a knock down price or liquidates the club. Do you think Man U and Liverpool are about to do a Leeds btw? Do you know the level of their debt? Leeds problem was they ran up a massive level of debt compared to their non-CL income and didn't have much in the way of assets. NUFC is a different kettle of fish and barring the Ashley nightmare should never have come close where we are (that's not to say we could have gone on being run like we were in the last few years pre-Ashley indefinitely, we couldn't, but it's incredible how much damage Ashley has done to the club in such a short time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But is it really that bad if we owe money to ourselves? Or technically ourselves anyway. We don't though, like Asprilla says. Newcastle United still have all that debt and more....until Mike Ashley says he'll forfeit it all. The debt is growing at a slower rate than it was though. But then our Premier league status and full houses every week meant we could sustain the debt we had. Without either of those, it's less likely. He 'internalised' the debt as far as i am aware. Therefore defaulting on any credit we have isnt subject to the `leeds' model of disintegration. So really his the person that would call up the debt anyway? Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. We still owe other clubs for players bought as well as the ongoing costs of paying staff and suppliers. If the club doesn't earn enough to pay them (which it hasn't for 5 years, even in the Premier league) and Ashley refuses to loan the club more money to pay them, we'd be screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But is it really that bad if we owe money to ourselves? Or technically ourselves anyway. We don't though, like Asprilla says. Newcastle United still have all that debt and more....until Mike Ashley says he'll forfeit it all. The debt is growing at a slower rate than it was though. But then our Premier league status and full houses every week meant we could sustain the debt we had. Without either of those, it's less likely. He 'internalised' the debt as far as i am aware. Therefore defaulting on any credit we have isnt subject to the `leeds' model of disintegration. So really his the person that would call up the debt anyway? Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. We still owe other clubs for players bought as well as the ongoing costs of paying staff and suppliers. If the club doesn't earn enough to pay them (which it hasn't for 5 years, even in the Premier league) and Ashley refuses to loan the club more money to pay them, we'd be screwed. Who puts us into administration? There are only 2 routes, petitioned at court by the creditors (Mike Ashley will take Mike Ashley to court to get Mike Ashley's money back?), or voluntary, which destroys the residual value of the asset. Netither seem like a good idea to me. The issue is complicated though by what you point out, the guarantee against future losses. There are also two types of administration (and you'd need an accountant to precise the details), one where your costs are too high and one where the 'books' are not balanced, which includes all the amortisation of assets and the rest of the complicated stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31587 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. I think Ashley's guarantee to continue 'bank rolling' us is only relevant to the auditors and signing off on our accounts as a going concern. I don't think we'd go into administration if they didn't do so, we'd just find it very hard to get credit and creditors could start calling in debts, though I'm not sure that would be enough to push us over the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But is it really that bad if we owe money to ourselves? Or technically ourselves anyway. We don't though, like Asprilla says. Newcastle United still have all that debt and more....until Mike Ashley says he'll forfeit it all. The debt is growing at a slower rate than it was though. But then our Premier league status and full houses every week meant we could sustain the debt we had. Without either of those, it's less likely. He 'internalised' the debt as far as i am aware. Therefore defaulting on any credit we have isnt subject to the `leeds' model of disintegration. So really his the person that would call up the debt anyway? Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. We still owe other clubs for players bought as well as the ongoing costs of paying staff and suppliers. If the club doesn't earn enough to pay them (which it hasn't for 5 years, even in the Premier league) and Ashley refuses to loan the club more money to pay them, we'd be screwed. Who puts us into administration? There are only 2 routes, petitioned at court by the creditors (Mike Ashley will take Mike Ashley to court to get Mike Ashley's money back?), or voluntary, which destroys the residual value of the asset. Netither seem like a good idea to me. The issue is complicated though by what you point out, the guarantee against future losses. There are also two types of administration (and you'd need an accountant to precise the details), one where your costs are too high and one where the 'books' are not balanced, which includes all the amortisation of assets and the rest of the complicated stuff. Depends on the loss being made (which relegation is bound to make worse one way or another). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. I think Ashley's guarantee to continue 'bank rolling' us is only relevant to the auditors and signing off on our accounts as a going concern. I don't think we'd go into administration if they didn't do so, we'd just find it very hard to get credit and creditors could start calling in debts, though I'm not sure that would be enough to push us over the edge. Apparently, we dont have any. Thats to be seen though if things get worse than they already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But is it really that bad if we owe money to ourselves? Or technically ourselves anyway. We don't though, like Asprilla says. Newcastle United still have all that debt and more....until Mike Ashley says he'll forfeit it all. The debt is growing at a slower rate than it was though. But then our Premier league status and full houses every week meant we could sustain the debt we had. Without either of those, it's less likely. He 'internalised' the debt as far as i am aware. Therefore defaulting on any credit we have isnt subject to the `leeds' model of disintegration. So really his the person that would call up the debt anyway? Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. We still owe other clubs for players bought as well as the ongoing costs of paying staff and suppliers. If the club doesn't earn enough to pay them (which it hasn't for 5 years, even in the Premier league) and Ashley refuses to loan the club more money to pay them, we'd be screwed. Who puts us into administration? There are only 2 routes, petitioned at court by the creditors (Mike Ashley will take Mike Ashley to court to get Mike Ashley's money back?), or voluntary, which destroys the residual value of the asset. Netither seem like a good idea to me. The issue is complicated though by what you point out, the guarantee against future losses. There are also two types of administration (and you'd need an accountant to precise the details), one where your costs are too high and one where the 'books' are not balanced, which includes all the amortisation of assets and the rest of the complicated stuff. Depends on the loss being made (which relegation is bound to make worse one way or another). I went through the figures the other day, assuming we can change the terms of the player contracts, i dont see why losses would have to be bigger, as we'd knock around 30m off the wage bill, maybe more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 There has been a lot of speculation regarding a lack of relegation clauses in the players' contracts which might be another spanner in the works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31587 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Chez might correct me, but the way I see it is he doesn't have to call in the existing debt for us to go into administration, he just needs to refuse to guarantee future losses. I think Ashley's guarantee to continue 'bank rolling' us is only relevant to the auditors and signing off on our accounts as a going concern. I don't think we'd go into administration if they didn't do so, we'd just find it very hard to get credit and creditors could start calling in debts, though I'm not sure that would be enough to push us over the edge. Apparently, we dont have any. Thats to be seen though if things get worse than they already are. Well every business runs on a certain amount of credit, the likelihood is that it's a reasonably small amount, hence why I don't think it would be enough to push us over the edge. Thankfully we don't have an overdraft that can be taken away at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3640 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 What's the figure NOTW claimed he'd sell for if we are relegated 120M? It's still a lot of money for a 2nd tier club. And don't doubt this cunt will want to hold his "loan" over any new owners. The future doesn't look bright regardless of what division we're in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 There has been a lot of speculation regarding a lack of relegation clauses in the players' contracts which might be another spanner in the works. I thought they were now a requirement? Even if there are no clauses, am sure the club could argue for changed circumstances. When a normal company make redundancies, they have to demonstrate a significant change in their financial circumstances, to break the employee contract. Again, am speculating but i reckon relegation would allow us to legally change the contracts even without the clauses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 There has been a lot of speculation regarding a lack of relegation clauses in the players' contracts which might be another spanner in the works. I thought they were now a requirement? Even if there are no clauses, am sure the club could argue for changed circumstances. When a normal company make redundancies, they have to demonstrate a significant change in their financial circumstances, to break the employee contract. Again, am speculating but i reckon relegation would allow us to legally change the contracts even without the clauses. No idea to tell the truth. I'm just repeating what some papers have been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TicTacWoe 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 (edited) Don't think theyre a requirement it's more just common sense. However the wage bill would be gigantic for a championship team even if we did have these clauses. Duff would go from earning 60k to 54k per week going by a typical 10% wage clause which the Reading team all took last year IIRC so although it does all add up, we'd still be paying mad money for a championship club, clauses or no clauses. Edited May 7, 2009 by TicTacWoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinofbeans 91 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 that is staggering. duffs on 60k a week, mind you so's barton, viduka, owens on 100 to 120k a week, martins has to be on stupid money as well? scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man U Hater 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 that is staggering. duffs on 60k a week, mind you so's barton, viduka, owens on 100 to 120k a week, martins has to be on stupid money as well? scary. thought Owen was on 75k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14021 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 £115K I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You could be in a worse situation. At least Ashley has a bit of money. God knows how you are going to cut the wage bill if you go down. I can't see many in for Duff, Viduka etc. especially if they demand the sort of crazy wages you've been too happy to fork out. You've had to suffer some stupid managers and chairmen who were far too happy to throw money at crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 You could be in a worse situation. At least Ashley has a bit of money. God knows how you are going to cut the wage bill if you go down. I can't see many in for Duff, Viduka etc. especially if they demand the sort of crazy wages you've been too happy to fork out. You've had to suffer some stupid managers and chairmen who were far too happy to throw money at crap. The problem hasn't been spending what we have. It's been not spending what we haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2207 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) You could be in a worse situation. At least Ashley has a bit of money. God knows how you are going to cut the wage bill if you go down. I can't see many in for Duff, Viduka etc. especially if they demand the sort of crazy wages you've been too happy to fork out. You've had to suffer some stupid managers and chairmen who were far too happy to throw money at crap. I think Viduka and Owen's contracts are up at the end of the season. And you'll buy Barton, it's written in the stars . Oh yes Take your point though. I guess some players will assist in moving on as they'd be too good for the championship (in their heads). We may have to take losses on some deadbeats like Geremi and Duff just to get them off the wage bill. Some we will never ever shift and I look forward to Shola's stint as player manager in ten years time. Edited May 8, 2009 by Kitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TicTacWoe 0 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) You could be in a worse situation. At least Ashley has a bit of money. God knows how you are going to cut the wage bill if you go down. I can't see many in for Duff, Viduka etc. especially if they demand the sort of crazy wages you've been too happy to fork out. You've had to suffer some stupid managers and chairmen who were far too happy to throw money at crap. I think Viduka and Owen's contracts are up at the end of the season. And you'll buy Barton, it's written in the stars . Oh yes Take your point though. I guess some players will assist in moving on as they'd be too good for the championship (in their heads). We may have to take losses on some deadbeats like Geremi and Duff just to get them off the wage bill. Some we will never ever shift and I look forward to Shola's stint as player manager in ten years time. Some players will be easier to get rid of than others, here's how I see it- Geremi/Cacapa/Viduka-will probably and likely dissappear to some godforsaken leagues Collocini/Jonas and maybe Enrique will return to Spain and have their memories wiped of all recollection of their time at Newcastle Bassong/Martins Will probably move to half decent clubs Owen To Man City after they fail to sign any of their original targets Barton- We pay Sam 4 million to take him away Its the likes of Duff, Nolan, Butt, Smith, RTaylor that I just can't imagine anyone coming in for. Who would want these guys? Who could afford their wages? The only team stupid enough to do so is probably us..maybe we'll buy them again off ourselves or something....where did I put that noose... Edited May 8, 2009 by TicTacWoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 New person to take over the toon. Didn't know US property tycoons still existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7095 Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 New person to take over the toon. Didn't know US property tycoons still existed. "However, now well into his 80s, Hines – although London-based – would appear an unlikely candidate to succeed Mike Ashley in the high-profile, high-pressure role of Toon benefactor." Great, an octogenarian running the show. Stadium already full of shite, going to stink of piss too is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now