Stable Financial Footing

[trophyshy 7073]

I wonder if we'll ever see this endgame, if he'll get us to debt free and stable. He could keep us in perpetual crisis if he chooses. I mean off the field, but on too.

 

Will he make it or will he flog us before he gets there?

[Guest]

I don't like how B ) is a smiley btw, awful for people structuring their posts using letters!

[Asprilla 96]

I don't like how B ) is a smiley btw, awful for people structuring their posts using letters!

agreed....

[Flair 0]

you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp.

 

 

Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't.

 

Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others?

 

1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc.

2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive

3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests

4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both.

5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this.

 

I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle.

 

 

Ashley started as a 1,3 and 5. Failure to do due diligence and the fallout with the fans puts him now at a 3 and 2. I don't think 4 is really what he's about, he makes enough from Sports Direct, the ball ache of trying to make a premiership club profitable for him on a personal level is probably pointless, because the profits would be relatively small to him anyway. If you offered him break even right now he'd probably bite your hand off though. It was much easier for the Halls/Shepherd to be a 5, because they were doing it 1) in the middle of a footballing boom and 2) without any personal risk

 

I think he is at 4 to recoup what he lost at the minimum, which you state (I perhaps should have expended 4 to include 'not make a loss' but that was tacit). I don't agree that he thinks he makes enough from SD, many rich people are invariably interested in making more and more money. Otherwise he would have quit when he reached his first million/10 million/100 million/billion. Why make a special case out of us?

 

 

Because football clubs are generally not profitable, if he wanted to make money, he'd buy a business where his staff get £6 an hour, not £30k per week. It's easy to say he's at a 4 to recoup his losses but the more likely scenario is that it's to reduce the club's annual losses, otherwise it'll never be in a position to spend money to a) pay it's debts and "speculate"

Fuck me your dense.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Flair

[Guest]

Aye, you're a stand out intellect aren't you, petition boy

 

 

Perhaps you'd like to offer some insight on which part of the quoted post you disagree with. Otherwise, Deep, I propose you fuck off.

Edited February 7, 2011 by AshleysSkidMark

[Guest]

Another point worth making it is if he bought it to make money and that was his intention, then skipping due diligence makes even less sense. Even Mike Ashley isn't that stupid.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way.

 

 

I hear Man Utd are also a selling club

 

Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits.

 

Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players.

 

But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable.

 

He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid.

 

 

Deary deary me.

 

What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ?

 

No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk.

 

Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ????

 

How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it.......

 

Where's the money coming from Flid ???

 

P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968

 

It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now...

 

Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears]

 

But where's this money (debt) comming from ??

 

speculate to accumulate.

 

Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ?

 

I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ??

 

speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ?

 

The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ?

 

Knowledgeable - NOT

 

I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ?

 

Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding.

 

 

WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL

 

Same place as the Halls and Shepherd found it you silly boy

 

 

We are still paying for the money they spent you sillier boy, or do you think they had a bottomless pit. They'd STOPPED spending big for a reason before they left.

 

Have a word with the Halls and Shepherd and ask them lad, because when your man bought the club, they left him the 14th highest turnover in football. Plenty of money coming in. Are you saying that your man dismantled all of that with no alternative ?

 

 

Money coming in is fucking irrelevant if there's more going out. Basic stuff

 

so you agree that he took over a club generating and bringing in enough money ? So why are you asking where the money should come from, when you accept when he bought the club, it was there to apply in whichever way he wanted ?

[LeazesMag 0]

you've lost me here ASM. Mike Ashley is hardly a tramp.

 

 

Mike Ashley isn't bankrolling us. Like Shepherd didn't.

 

Well with the free loans he has put into the club he clearly is bankrolling us to some degree. Of course it is his money, his club and his choice as to how far he is prepared to invest, or indeed speculate, with Newcastle United. For me it comes back to the question why would anyone want to own a big club in the world's top league? There are five reasons I can think of, but I would be interested to see if anyone on here has any others?

 

1. A hobby - a bit of interest, crack, fun etc.

2. Kudos, you are a massive egotist and wish to show off etc by owning something very expensive and exclusive

3. Advertising - a big club presents a huge international opportunity to promote your interests

4. Money, there's a lot of money sloshing around the game and a bit of wheeling and dealing you can perhaps make a pretty penny - either through transfer dealings and other income or through eventually selling the club on at a profit, ideally both.

5. Ambition - you are driven to make that club a success for its own reasons, money, kudos and advertising would be a bonus behind this.

 

I understand your neverending war with Leazes, but I suppose outside of that I want to ask you - where do you think Ashley's approach lies within the above? I think he is mostly 3 and 4 with a splash of 2 and in the early days 1, 5 is the least important to him with the exception of having just enough ambition to be involved in the top flight to keep 3&4 up there on a budget. The Halls and Sheperd were mostly 4 and 5 combined. I know which I would prefer, but I also know how much debt the latter accrued at the club, which of course brings us full circle.

 

 

Ashley started as a 1,3 and 5. Failure to do due diligence and the fallout with the fans puts him now at a 3 and 2. I don't think 4 is really what he's about, he makes enough from Sports Direct, the ball ache of trying to make a premiership club profitable for him on a personal level is probably pointless, because the profits would be relatively small to him anyway. If you offered him break even right now he'd probably bite your hand off though. It was much easier for the Halls/Shepherd to be a 5, because they were doing it 1) in the middle of a footballing boom and 2) without any personal risk

 

I think he is at 4 to recoup what he lost at the minimum, which you state (I perhaps should have expended 4 to include 'not make a loss' but that was tacit). I don't agree that he thinks he makes enough from SD, many rich people are invariably interested in making more and more money. Otherwise he would have quit when he reached his first million/10 million/100 million/billion. Why make a special case out of us?

 

 

Because football clubs are generally not profitable, if he wanted to make money, he'd buy a business where his staff get £6 an hour, not £30k per week. It's easy to say he's at a 4 to recoup his losses but the more likely scenario is that it's to reduce the club's annual losses, otherwise it'll never be in a position to spend money to a) pay it's debts and "speculate"

Fuck me your dense.

 

he's not that clever

[Guest]

 

Andy Carrol isn't going to be sold is he skidders ? No way.

 

 

I hear Man Utd are also a selling club

 

Only difference is Manchester United aren't rummaging around the bargain bin to see what fits.

 

Laughable, are people like Skidmarks. History shows that every single team who has ever won the championships and/or has had consistent high league placings has done it with spending money when necessary on the best players from other smaller acting clubs ie as in Liverpool buying Andy Carroll. The winners take gambles, and the losers sell their best players to the gamblers. We know SOME players come through the ranks, and we know SOME players are found by having good judgements by managers or scouts of up and coming players.

 

But quite why, after over 100 years of football in England, Skidders etc come along and insist they have all been getting it wrong and there has been absolutely no need to do it, and you can put together a team exclusively of bargains found kicking a ball in the lower divisions for peanuts, is unbelievable.

 

He'll come along now and say he hasn't been serious, or something equally as stupid.

 

 

Deary deary me.

 

What would people rather see at this football club. A club selling its best players and being a yo-yo club with a profit on the balance sheet, or a club competing and maximising potential revenue even to the tune of having some debt and playing in the Champions League in the San Siro and Nou Camp ?

 

No brainer, except to Skidmarks and his ilk.

 

Where'd the money (or debt) come from Leazes ????

 

How does a football club move forward if there is no debt? Arsenal are in debt, Man. U are in debt, Chelsea are in debt. Who are the three teams challenging for the Premierships/Champions League (from England). Yes, you gussed it.......

 

Where's the money coming from Flid ???

 

P.S. Leazes my first game was in 1968

 

It's self sustaining. You win titles, you win cups, you get into Europe, that's how money comes in. You generate interest abroad, sell shirts, attract world class players, sell more shirts, sponsorships. Come on now...

 

Far too easy for some people this, including a lot of posters on skunkers [which is where Toonpack gets his idea from, it appears]

 

But where's this money (debt) comming from ??

 

speculate to accumulate.

 

Are you happy to be back to being a 2nd rate selling club like we were under McKeag, Seymour ? Or are you telling us porkies and are another one of those attracted back to the club by the Halls and Shepherd only to slate them later for not giving you the premiership title ?

 

I completely understand the principle, but where's the money to speculate withgoing to come from Leazes ??

 

speculate to accumulate. Look at the figures posted elsewhere, it clearly shows that you generally in most cases need to play in europe and particularly the Champions to avoid losing money. I'm quite happy for you that you appear to be unable to answer my simple question regarding your support for the club ie you were attracted back to the club by the very owners you now slate for not winning the title. Do you concede that you need to speculate in order to do this, and that the Halls and Shepherd had the correct approach, which is all my point is at the end of the day ?

 

The alternative is you continue to deny what I am pointing out to you, like other people on skunkers, who lapped up every minute of playing in the Nou Camp etc but now also slate the buying of the very players and the policies adopted by the club which provided it ?

 

Knowledgeable - NOT

 

I am not paid to run a football club. The people who are paid, are paid to find ways to raise money and then more again, like the Halls and Shepherd did. I'll give you a clue though, once sponsors drop out, shirt sales dive due to not buying "trophy players" who attract shirt sales, you drop out of europe due to buying 2nd rate footballers, season ticket sales drop as a result, attendances drop as a result, expectations drop as a result, then you sell or lose your best players...it isn't helping very much is it ?

 

Fact is, Toonpack, the vast majority of posters who slate the policies of the Halls and Shepherd weren't really supporters of the club before they were attracted back by them, which is why they have absolutely no idea what they did for the club hence their lack of understanding.

 

 

WHAT MONEY IS THERE TO SPECULATE YOU SILLY TOOL

 

Same place as the Halls and Shepherd found it you silly boy

 

 

We are still paying for the money they spent you sillier boy, or do you think they had a bottomless pit. They'd STOPPED spending big for a reason before they left.

 

Have a word with the Halls and Shepherd and ask them lad, because when your man bought the club, they left him the 14th highest turnover in football. Plenty of money coming in. Are you saying that your man dismantled all of that with no alternative ?

 

 

Money coming in is fucking irrelevant if there's more going out. Basic stuff

 

so you agree that he took over a club generating and bringing in enough money ? So why are you asking where the money should come from, when you accept when he bought the club, it was there to apply in whichever way he wanted ?

 

 

I'm not going to have to expain turnover to you am i? Fucking hell ok. When your wage/dole hits the bank leazes, if you spend it 'speculating' instead of paying your bills, what do you think will happen? If outgoings are greater than incomings, irrespective of the size of the incomings, if outgoings are bigger then they are not there to apply in whichever way he wants to. How fucking thick can you get man, this is fuckin primary school stuff, basic addition and subtracting.

[Guest]

And no I don't agree that the club was generating and bringing in enough money. It's only enough when it covers the money going out

Edited February 7, 2011 by AshleysSkidMark

[LeazesMag 0]

And no I don't agree that the club was generating and bring enough money . It's only enough when it covers the money going out

 

14th biggest turnover in football wasn't enough then ?

[Guest]

And no I don't agree that the club was generating and bring enough money . It's only enough when it covers the money going out

 

14th biggest turnover in football wasn't enough then ?

 

 

NOT IF IT'S LESS THAN WE'RE SPENDING

Edited February 7, 2011 by AshleysSkidMark

[LeazesMag 0]

And no I don't agree that the club was generating and bring enough money . It's only enough when it covers the money going out

 

14th biggest turnover in football wasn't enough then ?

 

 

NOT IF IT'S LESS THAN WE'RE SPENDING

 

Look Skidders. When Mike Ashley took over the club, we had the 14th biggest turnover in football. You - and Toonpack - are asking where does the money come from, right ? So, what has happened to the 14th biggest turnover in football, all your man had to do was retain the income and reduce the outgoings, right ? Simple, good "plan", right [pity nobody else has thought of this eh ? ]

 

So, what has gone wrong, how can the 14th biggest turnover in the world = having to sell your best players ?

[Guest]

And no I don't agree that the club was generating and bring enough money . It's only enough when it covers the money going out

 

14th biggest turnover in football wasn't enough then ?

 

 

NOT IF IT'S LESS THAN WE'RE SPENDING

 

Look Skidders. When Mike Ashley took over the club, we had the 14th biggest turnover in football. You - and Toonpack - are asking where does the money come from, right ? So, what has happened to the 14th biggest turnover in football, all your man had to do was retain the income and reduce the outgoings, right ? Simple, good "plan", right [pity nobody else has thought of this eh ? ]

So, what has gone wrong, how can the 14th biggest turnover in the world = having to sell your best players ?

 

 

Because... not sure if I've said this... the outgoings were too much.

[Guest]

It doesn't sink in. Sometimes you post something and think that's got to sink in that, nobody can read that post and not realise they're being a stupid cunt. There's only you Leazes who continues to spectacularly makes a tit of themselves, shows a fucking catastrophic comprehensive deficiency, and make bollocks posts thinking you're right when the very logic of what you're trying to say beats you up, and you end up proving yourself wrong. I just sit here and take you apart, then when I do, you fail to acknowledge it and post something unrelated to the argument with a " " thinking that this makes you right. Then I take you apart again, wash rinse repeat. Honestly, I reckon if you apologised and swallowed your pride, Newcastle-Online would take you back.

[Flair 0]

Aye, you're a stand out intellect aren't you, petition boy

 

 

Perhaps you'd like to offer some insight on which part of the quoted post you disagree with. Otherwise, Deep, I propose you fuck off.

 

He hasn't bought the club to make money is the part I completely disagree with. Why?

 

Using the club to bolster Sports-direct sales, even fkn naming the ground Sportsdirect.com@St.James' Park isn't attempting to sponge of Newcastle United, is it now?

 

Add to that, when one considers we have a net spend of -£47million in the transfer market, have gained parachute payments, reduced wages to lower than low rates and still you think your home boy isn't making a profit.

 

He runs the club like a pound shop and you think that he isn't remotely profiting from it.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Flair

[Guest]

Aye, you're a stand out intellect aren't you, petition boy

 

 

Perhaps you'd like to offer some insight on which part of the quoted post you disagree with. Otherwise, Deep, I propose you fuck off.

 

So using the club to bolster Sports-direct sales, even fkn naming the ground Sportsdirect.com@St.James' Park isn't attempting to make sponge of Newcastle United.

 

Add to that, when one considers we have a net spend of -£47million in the transfer market, have gained parachute payments, reduced wages to lower than low rates and still you think your home boy isn't making a profit.

 

He runs the club like a pound shop and you think that he isn't remotely profiting from it.

 

 

So are you saying he IS making a profit, contrary to what the accounts say?

 

Btw, you've already told me you're down south, so if anything, he's YOUR home boy.

 

Oh and is lending the club over £100m not a decent price to pay for some advertising, irrespective of how rank it looks? Mong.

[Guest]

Btw Deep, why don't you ask your home boy Leazes what he thinks of somebody with the name Deep Biswas living in the UK

[Flair 0]

Aye, you're a stand out intellect aren't you, petition boy

 

 

Perhaps you'd like to offer some insight on which part of the quoted post you disagree with. Otherwise, Deep, I propose you fuck off.

 

So using the club to bolster Sports-direct sales, even fkn naming the ground Sportsdirect.com@St.James' Park isn't attempting to make sponge of Newcastle United.

 

Add to that, when one considers we have a net spend of -£47million in the transfer market, have gained parachute payments, reduced wages to lower than low rates and still you think your home boy isn't making a profit.

 

He runs the club like a pound shop and you think that he isn't remotely profiting from it.

 

 

So are you saying he IS making a profit, contrary to what the accounts say?

 

Btw, you've already told me you're down south, so if anything, he's YOUR home boy.

 

Oh and is lending the club over £100m not a decent price to pay for some advertising, irrespective of how rank it looks? Mong.

 

The accounts? You mean the out-dated ones?

 

Moreover, I doubt the accounts would factor in his gain from Sports-Direct sales...

 

Lending the club £100m? Fuck me.

[Flair 0]

Btw Deep, why don't you ask your home boy Leazes what he thinks of somebody with the name Deep Biswas living in the UK

 

Couldn't care less. We are talking football, one is entitled to their opinions.

[Guest]

Aye, you're a stand out intellect aren't you, petition boy

 

 

Perhaps you'd like to offer some insight on which part of the quoted post you disagree with. Otherwise, Deep, I propose you fuck off.

 

So using the club to bolster Sports-direct sales, even fkn naming the ground Sportsdirect.com@St.James' Park isn't attempting to make sponge of Newcastle United.

 

Add to that, when one considers we have a net spend of -£47million in the transfer market, have gained parachute payments, reduced wages to lower than low rates and still you think your home boy isn't making a profit.

 

He runs the club like a pound shop and you think that he isn't remotely profiting from it.

 

 

So are you saying he IS making a profit, contrary to what the accounts say?

 

Btw, you've already told me you're down south, so if anything, he's YOUR home boy.

 

Oh and is lending the club over £100m not a decent price to pay for some advertising, irrespective of how rank it looks? Mong.

 

The accounts? You mean the out-dated ones?

 

Moreover, I doubt the accounts would factor in his gain from Sports-Direct sales...

 

Lending the club £100m? Fuck me.

 

Is correct. It's a fact? Why would I want to fuck you over that?

 

Let's say you earn a grand a month. You're outgoings are £1500. You get a demotion (relegation) and for a year you earn £500 a week, your outgoings also go down because of cuts, to say 1200 a month. By the time you get your old job back, you now have a £35 grand overdraft and are earning £1000 a week again, but your outgoings are now only £1200. But wow you win £35k on a scratchcard.

 

That still doesn't mean you're not losing money, does it?

[Guest Your Name Here]

Dekka said relegation cost the club £50m. He also said Ashley had to lend the club £25m to balance the books last season. Assuming returning to the PL increased our revenues by £50m and there was no significant increase in the wage bill that would mean the club were heading for a profit of around £25m this season. Guess work I know, but if the club isn’t making a profit this season where has the money gone?

Edited February 7, 2011 by Your Name Here

[LeazesMag 0]

And no I don't agree that the club was generating and bring enough money . It's only enough when it covers the money going out

 

14th biggest turnover in football wasn't enough then ?

 

 

NOT IF IT'S LESS THAN WE'RE SPENDING

 

Look Skidders. When Mike Ashley took over the club, we had the 14th biggest turnover in football. You - and Toonpack - are asking where does the money come from, right ? So, what has happened to the 14th biggest turnover in football, all your man had to do was retain the income and reduce the outgoings, right ? Simple, good "plan", right [pity nobody else has thought of this eh ? ]

So, what has gone wrong, how can the 14th biggest turnover in the world = having to sell your best players ?

 

 

Because... not sure if I've said this... the outgoings were too much.

 

So, all he had to do was reduce the outgoings while retaining the clubs position as the 14th biggest turnover in football ?

You are asking where the money is coming from ? How much more do you want to generate than the 14th biggest turnover in football ?

 

Edited February 7, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest]

How do you propose he reduced the outgoings? an IVA?

[Guest]

Wonder why the old board didn't follow your simpleton plan