Newcastle Finances in the Championship

[U_V 0]

The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner?

 

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How did the debt increase because it was transferred from an external creditor to Ashley? These clauses are usually at the insistence of the creditor btw.

 

The debts mainly increased firstly because we started to pay for players up front while selling the same net worth of players but with payments coming in over a number of years, and secondly of course due to the revenue drops due to relegation and lower sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.

Edited April 1, 2011 by U_V

[LeazesMag 0]

The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner?

 

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How did the debt increase because it was transferred from an external creditor to Ashley? These clauses are usually at the insistence of the creditor btw.

 

The debts mainly increased firstly because we started to pay for players up front while selling the same net worth of players but with payments coming in over a number of years, and secondly of course due to the revenue drops due to relegation and lower sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.

 

I was hoping he, and the dickheads on skunkers that he is referring to, could reach this obvious conclusion on their own.

As some of them have actually stopped going to games themselves, it stares them right in the face, having played their own part, however small. Hypocrites and a joke, all of them.

Edited April 1, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Guest Your Name Here]

I thought you weren't going to reply to me ? Oh , wait you haven't, what a surprise.

 

Maybe its best if you don't, there is a post just further up the page by UV instead, laced with irony, especially for people like you.

 

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question.

 

I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players.

 

It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs.

 

I wonder if Toonpack, or his chums on skunkers, can shed any light on this mystery ?

 

What's the point when as soon as someone with half a brain actual produces an analysis of the figures they are dismissed with insults and any half-baked opinions like this with no back up are quoted by you here and on Skunkers.

 

Doesn't matter what the subject, actual facts are ridiculed under the guise of "but we were in Europe" as if that's some kind of ultimate joker which trumps anything.

For starters this lad can either break down his "50m profit" (which I guess includes Carroll which has no bearing on current financial figures) or we could try some actual facts or questions you can't answer like how would Shepherd have refinanced loans since the credit crunch.

 

Shouting credit crunch as if this proves the club would have ceased to exist isn’t any better.

 

For a start, Ashley bought NUFC in May 2007, a full year before the banking crisis hit these shores. As Barclays had a vested interest in keeping the club going (for if the club had gone bust they wouldn’t have seen their existing loans repaid) it’s highly likely some kind of refinancing would have been agreed in the summer of 2007 if Ashley hadn’t waded in. I’m sure Barclays insisted on board level representation a year or two before the club was sold as part of an earlier refinancing package. They’d have looked like a right bunch of numpties if they’d lost £70m by foreclosing the business after having a big say on how it was run financially.

 

Nobody denies the club needed to sort out its cash flow situation, but the idea it would have ceased to exist if Ashley hadn’t bought it is more propaganda than fact. We don’t know and never will know what would have happened if the club hadn’t been sold. What we do know is that Shepherd didn’t force Ashley to pay £135m without undertaking due diligence. It is entirely Ashley’s fault a decision he took left him in a position where he either had to lend himself £110m or lose £135m. It had absolutely nothing to do with FF, and has everything to do with the cost cutting that is turning us into a selling club with no ambition intent on flogging our heritage to the lowest bidder.

 

It really is time people stopped buying the club’s propaganda and looked to the present/future instead of burying their heads in some hypothetical past.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Your Name Here

[Rob W 0]

aye ashley bought in 3 months before the Rock hit the wall - tho', TBH, it was all looking a bit sick already

 

I never had much time for Fta Fred but you have to say he was brilliant at selling a pig's ear to hard headed outfits - Woodgate to Real and NUFC to AShley - both without proper due diligence

 

wasted that man

[Gemmill 46030]

The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner?

 

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How did the debt increase because it was transferred from an external creditor to Ashley? These clauses are usually at the insistence of the creditor btw.

 

The debts mainly increased firstly because we started to pay for players up front while selling the same net worth of players but with payments coming in over a number of years, and secondly of course due to the revenue drops due to relegation and lower sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.

 

I was hoping he, and the dickheads on skunkers that he is referring to, could reach this obvious conclusion on their own.

As some of them have actually stopped going to games themselves, it stares them right in the face, having played their own part, however small. Hypocrites and a joke, all of them.

 

Is UV a willing participant in this tag team, or is he embarrassed at your constant "Haha aye you tell him mate! See what the dickheads on skunkers make of that " crack?

[Guest Your Name Here]

aye ashley bought in 3 months before the Rock hit the wall - tho', TBH, it was all looking a bit sick already

 

I never had much time for Fta Fred but you have to say he was brilliant at selling a pig's ear to hard headed outfits - Woodgate to Real and NUFC to AShley - both without proper due diligence

 

wasted that man

True, though it took another six months or so for the shit to hit the fan. It’s fairly irrelevant anyway, there were plenty of PL clubs in a less than healthy financial position at the start of 07/08 and none of them went out business due to the credit crunch.

 

If Ashley couldn’t afford to run NUFC in a manner befitting our status as one of the world’s best supported clubs he shouldn’t have bought the club. He should have kept his nose out of business and left Hall and Shepherd to deal with the financial issues they had created.

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

aye ashley bought in 3 months before the Rock hit the wall - tho', TBH, it was all looking a bit sick already

 

I never had much time for Fta Fred but you have to say he was brilliant at selling a pig's ear to hard headed outfits - Woodgate to Real and NUFC to AShley - both without proper due diligence

 

wasted that man

True, though it took another six months or so for the shit to hit the fan. It’s fairly irrelevant anyway, there were plenty of PL clubs in a less than healthy financial position at the start of 07/08 and none of them went out business due to the credit crunch.

 

If Ashley couldn’t afford to run NUFC in a manner befitting our status as one of the world’s best supported clubs he shouldn’t have bought the club. He should have kept his nose out of business and left Hall and Shepherd to deal with the financial issues they had created.

 

Leazes is ganna gan akka when he see's that, and then this thread will continue to become a tedious fucking debate of Ashley v Shepherd for the 400th fucking time!

[LeazesMag 0]

The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner?

 

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How did the debt increase because it was transferred from an external creditor to Ashley? These clauses are usually at the insistence of the creditor btw.

 

The debts mainly increased firstly because we started to pay for players up front while selling the same net worth of players but with payments coming in over a number of years, and secondly of course due to the revenue drops due to relegation and lower sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.

 

I was hoping he, and the dickheads on skunkers that he is referring to, could reach this obvious conclusion on their own.

As some of them have actually stopped going to games themselves, it stares them right in the face, having played their own part, however small. Hypocrites and a joke, all of them.

 

Is UV a willing participant in this tag team, or is he embarrassed at your constant "Haha aye you tell him mate! See what the dickheads on skunkers make of that " crack?

 

maybe he is intrigued by your view as an accountant, remembering how much you urged them to throw cash at Souness and your self-proclaimed expertise in the prevention of administration ?

 

Maybe you should be encouraging the likes of Toonpack to answer questions that others ask him ?

Edited April 1, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Park Life 71]

Epic doom in every football thread.

[Toonpack 9946]

Maybe you should be encouraging the likes of Toonpack to answer questions that others ask him ?

 

 

I will when I get a minute, busy day and gannin oot soon, haven't properly read it all yet.

 

You going to answer your share of questions elsewhere ??

[LeazesMag 0]

Maybe you should be encouraging the likes of Toonpack to answer questions that others ask him ?

 

 

I will when I get a minute, busy day and gannin oot soon, haven't properly read it all yet.

 

You going to answer your share of questions elsewhere ??

 

That was for Gemmill, there are a few on here for you that UV has posted.

[Guest Your Name Here]

aye ashley bought in 3 months before the Rock hit the wall - tho', TBH, it was all looking a bit sick already

 

I never had much time for Fta Fred but you have to say he was brilliant at selling a pig's ear to hard headed outfits - Woodgate to Real and NUFC to AShley - both without proper due diligence

 

wasted that man

True, though it took another six months or so for the shit to hit the fan. It’s fairly irrelevant anyway, there were plenty of PL clubs in a less than healthy financial position at the start of 07/08 and none of them went out business due to the credit crunch.

 

If Ashley couldn’t afford to run NUFC in a manner befitting our status as one of the world’s best supported clubs he shouldn’t have bought the club. He should have kept his nose out of business and left Hall and Shepherd to deal with the financial issues they had created.

 

Leazes is ganna gan akka when he see's that, and then this thread will continue to become a tedious fucking debate of Ashley v Shepherd for the 400th fucking time!

When Ashley bought NUFC he inherited a club with positive and negative aspects, yet his propaganda only mentions the negative. If people want to evaluate Ashley’s ownership on what he inherited both the good and the bad have to be considered. Unfortunately there is a tendency in certain quarters to attribute the bad to the last lot and ignore the good. This is why the debate is tedious and pointless.

 

My view is that the sale of the club marks a line in the sand and what has happened to the club since is the sole responsibility of Mr Ashley, and if he can’t handle that responsibility he should have stuck to selling cheap shellsuits to neds.

[NJS 4411]

When Ashley bought NUFC he inherited a club with positive and negative aspects, yet his propaganda only mentions the negative. If people want to evaluate Ashley’s ownership on what he inherited both the good and the bad have to be considered. Unfortunately there is a tendency in certain quarters to attribute the bad to the last lot and ignore the good. This is why the debate is tedious and pointless.

 

My view is that the sale of the club marks a line in the sand and what has happened to the club since is the sole responsibility of Mr Ashley, and if he can’t handle that responsibility he should have stuck to selling cheap shellsuits to neds.

 

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since.

 

My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios.

 

LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

[LeazesMag 0]

When Ashley bought NUFC he inherited a club with positive and negative aspects, yet his propaganda only mentions the negative. If people want to evaluate Ashley’s ownership on what he inherited both the good and the bad have to be considered. Unfortunately there is a tendency in certain quarters to attribute the bad to the last lot and ignore the good. This is why the debate is tedious and pointless.

 

My view is that the sale of the club marks a line in the sand and what has happened to the club since is the sole responsibility of Mr Ashley, and if he can’t handle that responsibility he should have stuck to selling cheap shellsuits to neds.

 

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since.

 

My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios.

 

LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

 

my view is the same as it has always been. This is one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to act like it, not like the Stokes and the Wigans etc. When we did, we had the best 15 years all of us on here has experienced so far in our lifetime. But as the above poster points out, far too many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine into thinking that we did it all wrong and could and should have done it without the expenditure involved, despite the absolute proof of history which shows if you want to be successful you have to spend the money.

 

I don't know how many times it has been stated that the vast majority of clubs are in debt, yet these morons continue to peddle the line that for some reason we were the only ones facing certain administration and, despite enjoying every single minute of playing in the champions league and buying the players that we did, pouring scorn on the people who owned the club and completely transformed the club, and attempting to say they should have instead aimed for mid table survival at best and been grateful for that. Some of them have actually stopped going to games since the club under the new owner chose to take this path, the one they now advocate, the hypocrisy is staggering.

 

At the end of the day, you go to watch your football team, you want to see it win, and you enjoyed it when it was winning, a damn sight more than now when it isn't. So don't bother spouting the bollocks you spout in your last comment ie "A few good years of football shouldn't blind anyone to that fact". This is precisely the rubbish the previous poster has highlighted. What has happened since Ashley took over is entirely his responsibility and nobody elses. The team is in danger of going down again and perhaps this will be the best season we will ever see under Ashley when he has now made it clear we will sell our best players, the club has gone backwards, the revenues are down, the ambitions and aims have been set at a lower level. This is nothing to do with the previous owners. It is Mike Ashley who has set up the club in this way, it is in decline and it will continue this decline until someone raises the bar again to where this club ought to set it and goes about doing it in the way the other clubs do it. Like Spurs are now doing, and Liverpool are attempting to do again. It's an absolute joke that some people appear to think we are getting it right and these clubs are getting it wrong. Try telling a Spurs supporter he shouldn't be enjoying the current run in europe, what a prize prick you would look if you did. No wonder people laugh at Geordies. Nobody else in my opinion would spout such utter nonsense, but we all get tarred with the same brush.

 

Even Toonpack said once "enjoy today and don't worry about what may or may not happen". Typically, the mug had no idea how that could be taken.

Edited April 1, 2011 by LeazesMag

[snakehips 0]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

[LeazesMag 0]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

 

the East Stand opened in 1973 mate. It was years too late though, same as the Milburn, owned by small time people, with no vision, no ambition, nothing. They resigned in the end [some of them] because Barclays bank asked them for 16 grand each [something like that] to save the club from going bust or to pay some debtors [ I was young, somebody can find it], after years of milking the club they fucked off. It was THAT bad, that is what the Halls and Shepherd saved us from, eventually. Lord Westwood actually said on Tv that if Brian Clough walked through the door of NUFC as manager he would walk out. Can you imagine such an absolute buffoon saying that on TV, so pathetic were they ?

 

I'm tired of this too. Some people just won't be told anything. What will it take for them to see ?

[NJS 4411]

When Ashley bought NUFC he inherited a club with positive and negative aspects, yet his propaganda only mentions the negative. If people want to evaluate Ashley’s ownership on what he inherited both the good and the bad have to be considered. Unfortunately there is a tendency in certain quarters to attribute the bad to the last lot and ignore the good. This is why the debate is tedious and pointless.

 

My view is that the sale of the club marks a line in the sand and what has happened to the club since is the sole responsibility of Mr Ashley, and if he can’t handle that responsibility he should have stuck to selling cheap shellsuits to neds.

 

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since.

 

My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios.

 

LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

 

my view is the same as it has always been. This is one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to act like it, not like the Stokes and the Wigans etc. When we did, we had the best 15 years all of us on here has experienced so far in our lifetime. But as the above poster points out, far too many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine into thinking that we did it all wrong and could and should have done it without the expenditure involved, despite the absolute proof of history which shows if you want to be successful you have to spend the money.

 

I don't know how many times it has been stated that the vast majority of clubs are in debt, yet these morons continue to peddle the line that for some reason we were the only ones facing certain administration and, despite enjoying every single minute of playing in the champions league and buying the players that we did, pouring scorn on the people who owned the club and completely transformed the club, and attempting to say they should have instead aimed for mid table survival at best and been grateful for that. Some of them have actually stopped going to games since the club under the new owner chose to take this path, the one they now advocate, the hypocrisy is staggering.

 

At the end of the day, you go to watch your football team, you want to see it win, and you enjoyed it when it was winning, a damn sight more than now when it isn't. So don't bother spouting the bollocks you spout in your last comment ie "A few good years of football shouldn't blind anyone to that fact". This is precisely the rubbish the previous poster has highlighted. What has happened since Ashley took over is entirely his responsibility and nobody elses. The team is in danger of going down again and perhaps this will be the best season we will ever see under Ashley when he has now made it clear we will sell our best players, the club has gone backwards, the revenues are down, the ambitions and aims have been set at a lower level. This is nothing to do with the previous owners. It is Mike Ashley who has set up the club in this way, it is in decline and it will continue this decline until someone raises the bar again to where this club ought to set it and goes about doing it in the way the other clubs do it. Like Spurs are now doing, and Liverpool are attempting to do again. It's an absolute joke that some people appear to think we are getting it right and these clubs are getting it wrong. Try telling a Spurs supporter he shouldn't be enjoying the current run in europe, what a prize prick you would look if you did. No wonder people laugh at Geordies. Nobody else in my opinion would spout such utter nonsense, but we all get tarred with the same brush.

 

Even Toonpack said once "enjoy today and don't worry about what may or may not happen". Typically, the mug had no idea how that could be taken.

 

 

I thought we'd got you off mentioning Spurs and Liverpool?

 

The latter have a billionaire owner and are a much bigger club than us despite your arguments on crowds - there's no getting away with it.

 

Spurs have been lucky on transfers - you still don't get that.

 

You mock Villa now because they have "failed" and because they were mentioned as a blueprint but fail to mention they did exactly what you advocate - they heavily backed their manager with 100m, and it failed miserably.

 

You don't mention the Mackems who have spent millions and shown "ambition" for almost no reward and a probable firesale in the summer because the owner is sick of it.

 

Would you rather Ashley say "We're aiming for the top 4" - that would bring a lot more ridicule than you mention as it would take 100s of millions at least - a thing you acknowledge.

 

You should also stop using the magic word of "revenues" - as I said HF proved that's shit.

 

"15 years of the best" is also utter, utter shit - we were good for 6 seasons at the most.

 

 

As I've said before I did enjoy watching the team when we were "good" but I also enjoyed it when we were halfway decent when nobody expected us to be like in the Gazza years - I always resigned myself to the fact we weren't destined to be a "winner" and I think its you that's deluded to the level that people take the piss. This talk of being as big as you say we are is a load of shit. We have never been one of the top clubs in England (apart from maybe the Edwardian days) for anything like any decent period and to claim otherwise based on crowdsize is exactly the kind of stereotypical shite you criticise.

 

I do think we're bigger than Stoke and Wigan but for the forseeable future there are 5 or 6 teams we won't better and no amount of unrealistic hot air will change that.

 

Unless of course you can tell us all how to achieve that.

[NJS 4411]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

 

the East Stand opened in 1973 mate. It was years too late though, same as the Milburn, owned by small time people, with no vision, no ambition, nothing. They resigned in the end [some of them] because Barclays bank asked them for 16 grand each [something like that] to save the club from going bust or to pay some debtors [ I was young, somebody can find it], after years of milking the club they fucked off. It was THAT bad, that is what the Halls and Shepherd saved us from, eventually. Lord Westwood actually said on Tv that if Brian Clough walked through the door of NUFC as manager he would walk out. Can you imagine such an absolute buffoon saying that on TV, so pathetic were they ?

 

I'm tired of this too. Some people just won't be told anything. What will it take for them to see ?

 

16k compared with the 100m some people took out of the club when they walked away.

[LeazesMag 0]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

 

the East Stand opened in 1973 mate. It was years too late though, same as the Milburn, owned by small time people, with no vision, no ambition, nothing. They resigned in the end [some of them] because Barclays bank asked them for 16 grand each [something like that] to save the club from going bust or to pay some debtors [ I was young, somebody can find it], after years of milking the club they fucked off. It was THAT bad, that is what the Halls and Shepherd saved us from, eventually. Lord Westwood actually said on Tv that if Brian Clough walked through the door of NUFC as manager he would walk out. Can you imagine such an absolute buffoon saying that on TV, so pathetic were they ?

 

I'm tired of this too. Some people just won't be told anything. What will it take for them to see ?

 

16k compared with the 100m some people took out of the club when they walked away.

 

they saved the club, transformed it, gave you great times, and sold it. Legit, above board and playing according to the rules. Get over it. If Mike Ashley gives me champions league football like they did, and even better topped it off with a trophy, I don't give a flying fuck how much he might make if he sells it either, he can have the Crown Jewels for all I care.

 

Drawing comparisons between Westwood, McKeag and the last owners of the club ? You're having a laugh. This is why I make the posts I make, to try and make people more aware. What a waste of time.

[Gemmill 46030]

The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner?

 

You're going to have to explain that one to me. How did the debt increase because it was transferred from an external creditor to Ashley? These clauses are usually at the insistence of the creditor btw.

 

The debts mainly increased firstly because we started to pay for players up front while selling the same net worth of players but with payments coming in over a number of years, and secondly of course due to the revenue drops due to relegation and lower sponsorship, advertising, and ticket sales.

 

I was hoping he, and the dickheads on skunkers that he is referring to, could reach this obvious conclusion on their own.

As some of them have actually stopped going to games themselves, it stares them right in the face, having played their own part, however small. Hypocrites and a joke, all of them.

 

Is UV a willing participant in this tag team, or is he embarrassed at your constant "Haha aye you tell him mate! See what the dickheads on skunkers make of that " crack?

 

maybe he is intrigued by your view as an accountant, remembering how much you urged them to throw cash at Souness and your self-proclaimed expertise in the prevention of administration ?

 

Maybe you should be encouraging the likes of Toonpack to answer questions that others ask him ?

 

"Self-proclaimed expertise in the prevention of administration". You've just made that up, you boring old arsehole.

 

"Oooo wonder what the dickheads on skunkers will make of that sir. Ooo. Oooo. Bet they will sir. Suits you sir."

[Guest Your Name Here]

When Ashley bought NUFC he inherited a club with positive and negative aspects, yet his propaganda only mentions the negative. If people want to evaluate Ashley’s ownership on what he inherited both the good and the bad have to be considered. Unfortunately there is a tendency in certain quarters to attribute the bad to the last lot and ignore the good. This is why the debate is tedious and pointless.

 

My view is that the sale of the club marks a line in the sand and what has happened to the club since is the sole responsibility of Mr Ashley, and if he can’t handle that responsibility he should have stuck to selling cheap shellsuits to neds.

 

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since.

 

My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios.

 

LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

 

my view is the same as it has always been. This is one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to act like it, not like the Stokes and the Wigans etc. When we did, we had the best 15 years all of us on here has experienced so far in our lifetime. But as the above poster points out, far too many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine into thinking that we did it all wrong and could and should have done it without the expenditure involved, despite the absolute proof of history which shows if you want to be successful you have to spend the money.

 

I don't know how many times it has been stated that the vast majority of clubs are in debt, yet these morons continue to peddle the line that for some reason we were the only ones facing certain administration and, despite enjoying every single minute of playing in the champions league and buying the players that we did, pouring scorn on the people who owned the club and completely transformed the club, and attempting to say they should have instead aimed for mid table survival at best and been grateful for that. Some of them have actually stopped going to games since the club under the new owner chose to take this path, the one they now advocate, the hypocrisy is staggering.

 

At the end of the day, you go to watch your football team, you want to see it win, and you enjoyed it when it was winning, a damn sight more than now when it isn't. So don't bother spouting the bollocks you spout in your last comment ie "A few good years of football shouldn't blind anyone to that fact". This is precisely the rubbish the previous poster has highlighted. What has happened since Ashley took over is entirely his responsibility and nobody elses. The team is in danger of going down again and perhaps this will be the best season we will ever see under Ashley when he has now made it clear we will sell our best players, the club has gone backwards, the revenues are down, the ambitions and aims have been set at a lower level. This is nothing to do with the previous owners. It is Mike Ashley who has set up the club in this way, it is in decline and it will continue this decline until someone raises the bar again to where this club ought to set it and goes about doing it in the way the other clubs do it. Like Spurs are now doing, and Liverpool are attempting to do again. It's an absolute joke that some people appear to think we are getting it right and these clubs are getting it wrong. Try telling a Spurs supporter he shouldn't be enjoying the current run in europe, what a prize prick you would look if you did. No wonder people laugh at Geordies. Nobody else in my opinion would spout such utter nonsense, but we all get tarred with the same brush.

 

Even Toonpack said once "enjoy today and don't worry about what may or may not happen". Typically, the mug had no idea how that could be taken.

 

 

I thought we'd got you off mentioning Spurs and Liverpool?

 

The latter have a billionaire owner and are a much bigger club than us despite your arguments on crowds - there's no getting away with it.

 

Spurs have been lucky on transfers - you still don't get that.

 

You mock Villa now because they have "failed" and because they were mentioned as a blueprint but fail to mention they did exactly what you advocate - they heavily backed their manager with 100m, and it failed miserably.

 

You don't mention the Mackems who have spent millions and shown "ambition" for almost no reward and a probable firesale in the summer because the owner is sick of it.

 

Would you rather Ashley say "We're aiming for the top 4" - that would bring a lot more ridicule than you mention as it would take 100s of millions at least - a thing you acknowledge.

 

You should also stop using the magic word of "revenues" - as I said HF proved that's shit.

 

"15 years of the best" is also utter, utter shit - we were good for 6 seasons at the most.

 

 

As I've said before I did enjoy watching the team when we were "good" but I also enjoyed it when we were halfway decent when nobody expected us to be like in the Gazza years - I always resigned myself to the fact we weren't destined to be a "winner" and I think its you that's deluded to the level that people take the piss. This talk of being as big as you say we are is a load of shit. We have never been one of the top clubs in England (apart from maybe the Edwardian days) for anything like any decent period and to claim otherwise based on crowdsize is exactly the kind of stereotypical shite you criticise.

 

I do think we're bigger than Stoke and Wigan but for the forseeable future there are 5 or 6 teams we won't better and no amount of unrealistic hot air will change that.

 

Unless of course you can tell us all how to achieve that.

The Gazza year. He played one season for us and then we sold him. In all the years I’ve followed the club flogging Gazza double quick irks more than anything. Imagine the joy watching Gazza in B&W would have brought, the memorable moments of genius, madness and inspiration. What we got was four new players and relegation the next season. The parallels with Carroll are there to be seen. We sold our best player, reinvested all the money in having a better squad and ended up bring totally shit and never really recovered until you-know-who prised the club away from McKeag.

 

I want our club to fight tooth and nail to hang on to our best players, not get the fucking helicopter ready.

[Guest Your Name Here]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

It might have been if he hadn’t used the money we got for Beardsley to fund it.

 

I sometimes think about it like this, how much would it have cost Mike Ashley to build an established PL football club with a modern 52k stadium from scatch? Something tells me it would be a hell of a lot more £135m, probably a hell of lot more than the £300m he’s sort of spent to date.

 

Alternatively you might ask how much it would have cost him to buy Sheffield Wednesday, get them back into the PL and completely modernise Hillsborough? Again I doubt it would be less than £300m.

 

He didn’t do either of the above because he could get an established high profile Premier League club with a huge fan base and a 52,000 all-seater stadium for £135m plus £70m of debt. Newcastle United offered everything he wanted and despite his endless moaning about the financial position he got it for a lot less than either of the above approaches. So perhaps instead of focusing on the how he ‘saved the club from extinction’ we should be talking about what he got for £200m and whether or not it was good value.

[snakehips 0]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

It might have been if he hadn’t used the money we got for Beardsley to fund it.

 

I sometimes think about it like this, how much would it have cost Mike Ashley to build an established PL football club with a modern 52k stadium from scatch? Something tells me it would be a hell of a lot more £135m, probably a hell of lot more than the £300m he’s sort of spent to date.

 

Alternatively you might ask how much it would have cost him to buy Sheffield Wednesday, get them back into the PL and completely modernise Hillsborough? Again I doubt it would be less than £300m.

 

He didn’t do either of the above because he could get an established high profile Premier League club with a huge fan base and a 52,000 all-seater stadium for £135m plus £70m of debt. Newcastle United offered everything he wanted and despite his endless moaning about the financial position he got it for a lot less than either of the above approaches. So perhaps instead of focusing on the how he ‘saved the club from extinction’ we should be talking about what he got for £200m and whether or not it was good value.

 

Yeah, I was going to continue on about where McKeag got the money for the Milburn but I got tired of typing so deleted some shite

[snakehips 0]

A line can never be drawn in the sand between owners. Some are good and have the luck of a good manager (I said years and years ago on here, or it's predecessor board, that getting a good manager who brings success is largely down to luck), some are bad. I can't recall who was running the club when the 'new' stand was built (Long John Westwood?), but surely that decision was good? McKeag ran the club when the new Milburn was built, and surely that was a good decsion. Hall and Shep owned the club when the L7 extensions were built and that was a good decision. So good decisions have been made over the years. However, bad decisions have been made - by all parties - so comparisons have to be made imo. However, to go on and on and on comparing the last lot to the current twat is getting pretty damned tiresome.

 

the East Stand opened in 1973 mate. It was years too late though, same as the Milburn, owned by small time people, with no vision, no ambition, nothing. They resigned in the end [some of them] because Barclays bank asked them for 16 grand each [something like that] to save the club from going bust or to pay some debtors [ I was young, somebody can find it], after years of milking the club they fucked off. It was THAT bad, that is what the Halls and Shepherd saved us from, eventually. Lord Westwood actually said on Tv that if Brian Clough walked through the door of NUFC as manager he would walk out. Can you imagine such an absolute buffoon saying that on TV, so pathetic were they ?

 

I'm tired of this too. Some people just won't be told anything. What will it take for them to see ?

 

Yeah, I knew the east stand opened around '73, but couldn't remember who was running the club at the time. I recall an artist's impression in one of the programmes showing how it was going to look once the Leazes was finished as well, and it looked really good at the time. How wrong we were to trust them!!

[snakehips 0]

When Ashley bought NUFC he inherited a club with positive and negative aspects, yet his propaganda only mentions the negative. If people want to evaluate Ashley’s ownership on what he inherited both the good and the bad have to be considered. Unfortunately there is a tendency in certain quarters to attribute the bad to the last lot and ignore the good. This is why the debate is tedious and pointless.

 

My view is that the sale of the club marks a line in the sand and what has happened to the club since is the sole responsibility of Mr Ashley, and if he can’t handle that responsibility he should have stuck to selling cheap shellsuits to neds.

 

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since.

 

My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios.

 

LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

 

my view is the same as it has always been. This is one of the biggest clubs in the country and ought to act like it, not like the Stokes and the Wigans etc. When we did, we had the best 15 years all of us on here has experienced so far in our lifetime. But as the above poster points out, far too many people have been brainwashed by the propaganda machine into thinking that we did it all wrong and could and should have done it without the expenditure involved, despite the absolute proof of history which shows if you want to be successful you have to spend the money.

 

I don't know how many times it has been stated that the vast majority of clubs are in debt, yet these morons continue to peddle the line that for some reason we were the only ones facing certain administration and, despite enjoying every single minute of playing in the champions league and buying the players that we did, pouring scorn on the people who owned the club and completely transformed the club, and attempting to say they should have instead aimed for mid table survival at best and been grateful for that. Some of them have actually stopped going to games since the club under the new owner chose to take this path, the one they now advocate, the hypocrisy is staggering.

 

At the end of the day, you go to watch your football team, you want to see it win, and you enjoyed it when it was winning, a damn sight more than now when it isn't. So don't bother spouting the bollocks you spout in your last comment ie "A few good years of football shouldn't blind anyone to that fact". This is precisely the rubbish the previous poster has highlighted. What has happened since Ashley took over is entirely his responsibility and nobody elses. The team is in danger of going down again and perhaps this will be the best season we will ever see under Ashley when he has now made it clear we will sell our best players, the club has gone backwards, the revenues are down, the ambitions and aims have been set at a lower level. This is nothing to do with the previous owners. It is Mike Ashley who has set up the club in this way, it is in decline and it will continue this decline until someone raises the bar again to where this club ought to set it and goes about doing it in the way the other clubs do it. Like Spurs are now doing, and Liverpool are attempting to do again. It's an absolute joke that some people appear to think we are getting it right and these clubs are getting it wrong. Try telling a Spurs supporter he shouldn't be enjoying the current run in europe, what a prize prick you would look if you did. No wonder people laugh at Geordies. Nobody else in my opinion would spout such utter nonsense, but we all get tarred with the same brush.

 

Even Toonpack said once "enjoy today and don't worry about what may or may not happen". Typically, the mug had no idea how that could be taken.

 

 

I thought we'd got you off mentioning Spurs and Liverpool?

 

The latter have a billionaire owner and are a much bigger club than us despite your arguments on crowds - there's no getting away with it.

 

Spurs have been lucky on transfers - you still don't get that.

 

You mock Villa now because they have "failed" and because they were mentioned as a blueprint but fail to mention they did exactly what you advocate - they heavily backed their manager with 100m, and it failed miserably.

 

You don't mention the Mackems who have spent millions and shown "ambition" for almost no reward and a probable firesale in the summer because the owner is sick of it.

 

Would you rather Ashley say "We're aiming for the top 4" - that would bring a lot more ridicule than you mention as it would take 100s of millions at least - a thing you acknowledge.

 

You should also stop using the magic word of "revenues" - as I said HF proved that's shit.

 

"15 years of the best" is also utter, utter shit - we were good for 6 seasons at the most.

 

 

As I've said before I did enjoy watching the team when we were "good" but I also enjoyed it when we were halfway decent when nobody expected us to be like in the Gazza years - I always resigned myself to the fact we weren't destined to be a "winner" and I think its you that's deluded to the level that people take the piss. This talk of being as big as you say we are is a load of shit. We have never been one of the top clubs in England (apart from maybe the Edwardian days) for anything like any decent period and to claim otherwise based on crowdsize is exactly the kind of stereotypical shite you criticise.

 

I do think we're bigger than Stoke and Wigan but for the forseeable future there are 5 or 6 teams we won't better and no amount of unrealistic hot air will change that.

 

Unless of course you can tell us all how to achieve that.

The Gazza year. He played one season for us and then we sold him. In all the years I’ve followed the club flogging Gazza double quick irks more than anything. Imagine the joy watching Gazza in B&W would have brought, the memorable moments of genius, madness and inspiration. What we got was four new players and relegation the next season. The parallels with Carroll are there to be seen. We sold our best player, reinvested all the money in having a better squad and ended up bring totally shit and never really recovered until you-know-who prised the club away from McKeag.

 

I want our club to fight tooth and nail to hang on to our best players, not get the fucking helicopter ready.

 

You see, Leazes, that's the type of post I love reading. My memory is jogged. I was pissed off when we sold Gazza and then thought the four players who came in was possibly a good trade. Unless I'm mistaken it was Robertson (who had scored a shitload for Hearts), Andy Thorn, the goalie from Wimbledon whose name escapes me right now, and was it O'Niell ? I think the first game of the season was a 4 - 0 away to Everton and we all knew then that the writing was on the wall.