Newcastle Finances in the Championship

[Guest Your Name Here]

Beasant (shite)

Andy Thorne (shite)

John Robertson (decent but never got going at SJP)

John Hendrie (very decent but never got going at SJP)

[snakehips 0]

Beasant (shite)

Andy Thorne (shite)

John Robertson (decent but never got going at SJP)

John Hendrie (very decent but never got going at SJP)

 

Yip. Thanks.

[LeazesMag 0]

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 ?

 

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

 

No I haven't. You said it somewhere.......anyway, what exactly IS your views ? Don't deny you were in the camp who thought anybody but the hopeless Fred would be better ?

 

You seem to be very shy when talking about this particular topic lately, not really like you

[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.

 

 

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.

 

precisely

[LeazesMag 0]

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.

 

Actually, I disagreed with most lads I met at that time, who said selling Gazza was a good move "because the club would invest the money and we would end up with a better team". Some people said we would qualify for europe, and over the years in "The Mag", writers have said as such. Incredible. I knew at the time it was the beginning of the end and the path to relegation had begun.

 

That opening defeat at Everton didn't surprise me in the slightest. I had a gut feeling we would be relegated.

 

You don't sell your best players, unless you really do replace them with absolute quality , and who was as good as Gazza and Beardsley ? IN FOOTBALL TERMS, ITS BAD BUSINESS . I make no apologies for putting that in capitals for the likes of Toonpack to read and relay it to his chums/Keeganbandwagonjumpers on skunkers.

[Phil 6]

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?

 

That's a bit harsh, not many mortgages are transferable without prior authorisation - credit checks etc...

 

It was either a school boy error by a billionaire and his legal team (unlikely) or a lie to get away with spending nowt while he got the debt under control.

[Guest Your Name Here]

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.

 

Actually, I disagreed with most lads I met at that time, who said selling Gazza was a good move "because the club would invest the money and we would end up with a better team". Some people said we would qualify for europe, and over the years in "The Mag", writers have said as such. Incredible. I knew at the time it was the beginning of the end and the path to relegation had begun.

 

That opening defeat at Everton didn't surprise me in the slightest. I had a gut feeling we would be relegated.

 

You don't sell your best players, unless you really do replace them with absolute quality , and who was as good as Gazza and Beardsley ? IN FOOTBALL TERMS, ITS BAD BUSINESS . I make no apologies for putting that in capitals for the likes of Toonpack to read and relay it to his chums/Keeganbandwagonjumpers on skunkers.

Carroll isn’t in Gazza’s class but both players brought something irreplaceable to the team, that’s why ambitious clubs were prepared to pay big money for them. Football may be team game but most matches are won on moments of individual quality – a killer pass, a quality cross, a towering header. This what people mean when they talk about a cutting edge. Pure team goals are few and far between.

 

If Gazza had come through the ranks during Keegan’s first stint as manager we’d have won the league and probably established ourselves as CL regulars. It’s just our luck that Gazza, Waddle, Beardsley and now Carroll were at the club when we had short-sighted owners at the helm.

[StoneColdStephenIreland 74]

How come you don't acknowledge the fact Leazes, that we were on a downward spiral when we were coming to the end of Shepherds reign at the club, and yes we were you cant deny that fact, but you seem to ignore each and every post about it, because you can't defend it, and no i'm not defending Ashley or bigging the fat bastard up, becasue he sped up the process of us going spiralling downwards, but ignoring the failings of the Shepherd reign is pure ignorance and only seeking out the good in his reign is ignorance too, and yes there were good times, yet there was bad times which you seem to paper over with the same constant babble

[McFaul 35]

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.

Sorry like but 8 or 9. Your point about Liverpool being much bigger than us. They've won more trophies since Shankly, and that is an obvious thing to say, but if they are that much bigger how come from 1995 to 2003 Newcastle generally had a higher turnover? A little bit of success on the pitch and you wouldn't even mention that.

[McFaul 35]

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.

Thorn, Hendrie, Beasant and Robertson. I remember speaking to an older lad the next day and he was telling me the toon fans on the bus going to Merseyside were singing we're gonna win the league. Cottee scored after 34 seconds, and that was that. Of them only Hendrie was any good, and they sold him 6 fuckin month later to Leeds and got Frankie Pingel in as his replacement.

[McFaul 35]

How come you don't acknowledge the fact Leazes, that we were on a downward spiral when we were coming to the end of Shepherds reign at the club, and yes we were you cant deny that fact, but you seem to ignore each and every post about it, because you can't defend it, and no i'm not defending Ashley or bigging the fat bastard up, becasue he sped up the process of us going spiralling downwards, but ignoring the failings of the Shepherd reign is pure ignorance and only seeking out the good in his reign is ignorance too, and yes there were good times, yet there was bad times which you seem to paper over with the same constant babble

Even as someone who is pro-FFS, that is my only issue with Leazes, as I wrote in more depth last week.

[NJS 4507]

Sorry like but 8 or 9. Your point about Liverpool being much bigger than us. They've won more trophies since Shankly, and that is an obvious thing to say, but if they are that much bigger how come from 1995 to 2003 Newcastle generally had a higher turnover? A little bit of success on the pitch and you wouldn't even mention that.

 

Possibly - I was trying to go as low as possible to make the point that there was shit amongst the good.

 

The thing about Liverpool is that when the Moores were in charge and like Man U before the Yank, their ticket prices were extremely low compared with the rest of the league. I remember Hall saying he was looking at other clubs to see how they were ran but unfortunately he took the ST pricing model from the London clubs and not the more appropriate NW teams (in terms of fanbase type etc). I think this may explain a lower turnover - I could be wrong.

 

I think if we'd won the league in 96 we would have become a bigger club than at any time in our history but I think in terms of worldwide size the ship has already sailed - Man Utd and Liverpool "own" vast tracts of the rest of the world and I can't see that changing if the latter didn't win the league for another 10 years - their history since the 60s is too much to overcome.

 

Now on a day to day basis I agree with Leazes that Liverpool fans aren't as great as they think and taking away the Irish and Skandos from their crowds would hit them bad but I think to try and deny that they are still a much bigger club than us - especially in terms of pulling power - is very naive.

[NJS 4507]

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.

Thorn, Hendrie, Beasant and Robertson. I remember speaking to an older lad the next day and he was telling me the toon fans on the bus going to Merseyside were singing we're gonna win the league. Cottee scored after 34 seconds, and that was that. Of them only Hendrie was any good, and they sold him 6 fuckin month later to Leeds and got Frankie Pingel in as his replacement.

 

Thorn wasn't too bad once he got over a bit of rabbit in the headlights phase - he could have gone on to be decent if we hadn't gone down imo.

[Pacinofan 0]

.

Sorry like but 8 or 9. Your point about Liverpool being much bigger than us. They've won more trophies since Shankly, and that is an obvious thing to say, but if they are that much bigger how come from 1995 to 2003 Newcastle generally had a higher turnover? A little bit of success on the pitch and you wouldn't even mention that.

 

They generally didn't, not a great deal of difference though. I'm not sure when your ground capacity went up to 52,000 but match day revenue would make a difference. Liverpool/Anfield was run like a corner shop under Moores and Parry. They never maximised the profit Liverpool could have been making, it took them years of resistance to even bring in corporate boxes. The one good thing Hicks/Gillett did was to appoint a commercial director, which we'd never had before, who has certainly increased profits very highly just on sponsorship deals alone.

 

There was a pricing policy in place between Liverpool, Everton, United and City for a long time which kept prices surprisingly low considering the success of Liverpool, United and Everton, but that all went when the respective Yanks came in. Liverpool and Everton still have a season ticket allocation curb as far as I know. Each club only allow, I think, 29,000, which is the reason Liverpool have such a large and long standing waiting list.

 

The below figures are interesting in as much as it shows how good your wage ratio was in comparison to ours. What on earth were you doing employing all of those people though?

 

Liverpool

Year Turnover Pre-tax profit Wages / Turnover ratio (%) Employees

2007/08 159.052 10.199 56.4 369

2006/07 133.910 -21.665 57.9 335

2005/06 119.499 -5.161 57.6 313

2004/05 121.054 9.463 52.4 290

2003/04 92.576 -21.903 60.0 280

2002/03 102.504 3.641 53.1 285

2001/02 98.668 9.092 56.8 265

2000/01 82.155 0.406 59.5 268

1999/00 46.609 2.242 86.1 256

1998/99 45.265 -8.061 80.1 251

1997/98 36.366 4.139 66.3 207

1996/97 39.153 7.579 38.4 205

1995/96 27.396 -4.882 48.3 186

1994/95 19.878 -2.753 167

 

Newcastle

Year Turnover Pre-tax profit Wages / Turnover ratio (%) Employees

2007/08 99.358 -20.309 75.0 425

2006/07 87.083 -32.892 71.7 1,463

2005/06** 83.086 -12.033 62.8 1,358

2004/05 87.087 0.016 57.7 1,270

2003/04 90.468 4.220 49.8 1,376

2002/03 96.449 4.369 46.9 1,416

2001/02 70.858 -3.079 45.2 608

2000/01 54.916 -8.854 45.0 326

1999/00 45.090 -18.923 64.0 313

1998/99 44.718 1.373 54.8 306

1997/98 49.177 5.010 45.4 338

1996/97 42.162 -23.604

1995/96 24.723 -11.020

Edited April 2, 2011 by Pacinofan

[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.

 

 

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.

Sorry like but 8 or 9. Your point about Liverpool being much bigger than us. They've won more trophies since Shankly, and that is an obvious thing to say, but if they are that much bigger how come from 1995 to 2003 Newcastle generally had a higher turnover? A little bit of success on the pitch and you wouldn't even mention that.

 

because he believes the shite spouted by others, and doesn't have the sense to see that Liverpool are what they are, because they MADE themselves successful, and the ONLY time we attempted it, we showed we could match them at the very least .... they owe a lot to Shankly and were a magnificent club for a long time, but if Shankly had came to Newcastle and backed by a good board the world would have been ours too.

 

People are so short sighted its unbelievable.

[LeazesMag 0]

How come you don't acknowledge the fact Leazes, that we were on a downward spiral when we were coming to the end of Shepherds reign at the club, and yes we were you cant deny that fact, but you seem to ignore each and every post about it, because you can't defend it, and no i'm not defending Ashley or bigging the fat bastard up, becasue he sped up the process of us going spiralling downwards, but ignoring the failings of the Shepherd reign is pure ignorance and only seeking out the good in his reign is ignorance too, and yes there were good times, yet there was bad times which you seem to paper over with the same constant babble

Even as someone who is pro-FFS, that is my only issue with Leazes, as I wrote in more depth last week.

 

a blip on the pitch, appointing a poor manager ? Is that a long term decline, when you retain the ambition, desire and understanding of how to be successful ?

 

Big difference. You could say that after the blip of Gullit and Dalglish on the pitch, relatively speaking after the previous high standards and we did reach 2 FA Cup Finals, the first few years of Bobby Robson was a catch up period too....but they re-grouped and bought Robert and Bellamy to top off the rebuilding. If Mike Ashley, or anyone else with limited ambitions, had been owner, we would likely have sold Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books instead. HUGE difference in outlook isn't it ?

 

My point about decline Stevie, is that it is a decline, because it is rooted in the aims being set differently ie lower. And the revenues have consequently and predictably fallen as a result.

 

Edit

 

I've said this before actually. I hope this is the last time somebody asks, one or two people may not agree because it suits their irrational hatred of a personality, but in my opinion it is correct and makes perfect sense, particularly as the facts show it to be true and our current chairman [whatever his title is] only confirmed it this week.

Edited April 2, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 4507]

because he believes the shite spouted by others, and doesn't have the sense to see that Liverpool are what they are, because they MADE themselves successful, and the ONLY time we attempted it, we showed we could match them at the very least .... they owe a lot to Shankly and were a magnificent club for a long time, but if Shankly had came to Newcastle and backed by a good board the world would have been ours too.

 

People are so short sighted its unbelievable.

 

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful.

 

I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key.

 

Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs.

 

Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately.

[NJS 4507]

How come you don't acknowledge the fact Leazes, that we were on a downward spiral when we were coming to the end of Shepherds reign at the club, and yes we were you cant deny that fact, but you seem to ignore each and every post about it, because you can't defend it, and no i'm not defending Ashley or bigging the fat bastard up, becasue he sped up the process of us going spiralling downwards, but ignoring the failings of the Shepherd reign is pure ignorance and only seeking out the good in his reign is ignorance too, and yes there were good times, yet there was bad times which you seem to paper over with the same constant babble

Even as someone who is pro-FFS, that is my only issue with Leazes, as I wrote in more depth last week.

 

a blip on the pitch, appointing a poor manager ? Is that a long term decline, when you retain the ambition, desire and understanding of how to be successful ?

 

Big difference. You could say that after the blip of Gullit and Dalglish on the pitch, relatively speaking after the previous high standards and we did reach 2 FA Cup Finals, the first few years of Bobby Robson was a catch up period too....but they re-grouped and bought Robert and Bellamy to top off the rebuilding. If Mike Ashley, or anyone else with limited ambitions, had been owner, we would likely have sold Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books instead. HUGE difference in outlook isn't it ?

 

My point about decline Stevie, is that it is a decline, because it is rooted in the aims being set differently ie lower. And the revenues have consequently and predictably fallen as a result.

 

Edit

 

I've said this before actually. I hope this is the last time somebody asks, one or two people may not agree because it suits their irrational hatred of a personality, but in my opinion it is correct and makes perfect sense, particularly as the facts show it to be true and our current chairman [whatever his title is] only confirmed it this week.

 

By 2007 Chelsea had come along and Villa and Liverpool were spending more - your re-grouping would have hit a brick wall even if he could have funded it (which would have been impossible).

[LeazesMag 0]

because he believes the shite spouted by others, and doesn't have the sense to see that Liverpool are what they are, because they MADE themselves successful, and the ONLY time we attempted it, we showed we could match them at the very least .... they owe a lot to Shankly and were a magnificent club for a long time, but if Shankly had came to Newcastle and backed by a good board the world would have been ours too.

 

People are so short sighted its unbelievable.

 

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful.

 

I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key.

 

Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs.

 

Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately.

 

sigh.

 

Who doesn't understand the times ? NUFC were one of the biggest clubs in the country pre and post WW2 man. Westwood etc dragged the club down into the also rans, just like Mike Ashley is doing. Joe Harvey was a top man-manager but would have done much better with a board like Liverpools [at the time]. This is the times. The big clubs who attempt to reach their potential have ALWAYS been the most successful, and always will be. The key phrase is "attempt to", if you don't attempt it you don't achieve it. NUFC do NOT belong among the also rans of ANY era of football, they belong with the top clubs and always have. Bloody hell....

 

Edit. by the way, it was ManU and Munich, not Liverpool

Edited April 2, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 4507]

because he believes the shite spouted by others, and doesn't have the sense to see that Liverpool are what they are, because they MADE themselves successful, and the ONLY time we attempted it, we showed we could match them at the very least .... they owe a lot to Shankly and were a magnificent club for a long time, but if Shankly had came to Newcastle and backed by a good board the world would have been ours too.

 

People are so short sighted its unbelievable.

 

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful.

 

I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key.

 

Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs.

 

Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately.

 

sigh.

 

Who doesn't understand the times ? NUFC were one of the biggest clubs in the country pre and post WW2 man. Westwood etc dragged the club down into the also rans, just like Mike Ashley is doing. Joe Harvey was a top man-manager but would have done much better with a board like Liverpools [at the time]. This is the times. The big clubs who attempt to reach their potential have ALWAYS been the most successful, and always will be. The key phrase is "attempt to", if you don't attempt it you don't achieve it. NUFC do NOT belong among the also rans of ANY era of football, they belong with the top clubs and always have. Bloody hell....

 

Edit. by the way, it was ManU and Munich, not Liverpool

 

I meant Man Utd would have dominated the 60s and beyond but for Munich.

 

 

We were relegated in 1961 - and even after promotion did nothing in the league - a pattern which we have repeated with the odd blip throughout our history. We do have a proud history overall but saying Westwood dragged the club down is bollocks - from what?

 

Compared with clubs that you seem to think we are above we always have been also-rans - we may be towards the top of the next level of clubs but suggesting we have only been robbed of our rightful place at the top by a couple of individuals is ludicrous.

[Guest Your Name Here]

because he believes the shite spouted by others, and doesn't have the sense to see that Liverpool are what they are, because they MADE themselves successful, and the ONLY time we attempted it, we showed we could match them at the very least .... they owe a lot to Shankly and were a magnificent club for a long time, but if Shankly had came to Newcastle and backed by a good board the world would have been ours too.

 

People are so short sighted its unbelievable.

 

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful.

 

I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key.

 

Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs.

 

Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately.

 

sigh.

 

Who doesn't understand the times ? NUFC were one of the biggest clubs in the country pre and post WW2 man. Westwood etc dragged the club down into the also rans, just like Mike Ashley is doing. Joe Harvey was a top man-manager but would have done much better with a board like Liverpools [at the time]. This is the times. The big clubs who attempt to reach their potential have ALWAYS been the most successful, and always will be. The key phrase is "attempt to", if you don't attempt it you don't achieve it. NUFC do NOT belong among the also rans of ANY era of football, they belong with the top clubs and always have. Bloody hell....

 

Edit. by the way, it was ManU and Munich, not Liverpool

 

I meant Man Utd would have dominated the 60s and beyond but for Munich.

 

 

We were relegated in 1961 - and even after promotion did nothing in the league - a pattern which we have repeated with the odd blip throughout our history. We do have a proud history overall but saying Westwood dragged the club down is bollocks - from what?

 

Compared with clubs that you seem to think we are above we always have been also-rans - we may be towards the top of the next level of clubs but suggesting we have only been robbed of our rightful place at the top by a couple of individuals is ludicrous.

What drags the club down is the acceptance of mediocrity amongst the support, which puts no pressure on the likes of McKeag and Ashley to strive for success. Its part of a cultural lack of ambition and confidence in our own worth that holds back the region far beyond the world of football. In many ways a successful NUFC acts as illustration of what the region can achieve if it shakes off its loser mentality, shows that we can be as good as anybody else if we put our minds to it. It’s no coincidence the only time the club has come close to fulfilling its potential post war was when we were owned by a man who championed a winning philosophy for the region.

 

There are a million holes in what I’ve just said but NUFC is more than a business and more than a football club. There is no excuse for Ashley’s small minded self centred approach to running our club.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Your Name Here

[LeazesMag 0]

because he believes the shite spouted by others, and doesn't have the sense to see that Liverpool are what they are, because they MADE themselves successful, and the ONLY time we attempted it, we showed we could match them at the very least .... they owe a lot to Shankly and were a magnificent club for a long time, but if Shankly had came to Newcastle and backed by a good board the world would have been ours too.

 

People are so short sighted its unbelievable.

 

And if it hasn't been for Munich, Liverpool would never have been as successful.

 

I don't see the point in hindsight - Liverpool got lucky with Shankly - I don't think the board had anything to do with it, as the Scouser said above, they were always pretty low key.

 

Also I hate the way people like you have a go at previous Newcastle owners with no understanding of the times - especially since you were around then. They weren't rich men and football simply could not attract the finance that was available to the Halls. Yes they treat the club like it was the family silver and deserve criticism for being too parochial but I'd like you to name one team since say 1970 but pre-sky who followed your idea of financing an assault on the top clubs.

 

Success pre-sky was pretty much marginal and down to managerial appointments - we had a good one in Joe Harvey who you can't say wasn't back within their means and within the context of the times but he wasn't top notch unfortunately.

 

sigh.

 

Who doesn't understand the times ? NUFC were one of the biggest clubs in the country pre and post WW2 man. Westwood etc dragged the club down into the also rans, just like Mike Ashley is doing. Joe Harvey was a top man-manager but would have done much better with a board like Liverpools [at the time]. This is the times. The big clubs who attempt to reach their potential have ALWAYS been the most successful, and always will be. The key phrase is "attempt to", if you don't attempt it you don't achieve it. NUFC do NOT belong among the also rans of ANY era of football, they belong with the top clubs and always have. Bloody hell....

 

Edit. by the way, it was ManU and Munich, not Liverpool

 

I meant Man Utd would have dominated the 60s and beyond but for Munich.

 

 

We were relegated in 1961 - and even after promotion did nothing in the league - a pattern which we have repeated with the odd blip throughout our history. We do have a proud history overall but saying Westwood dragged the club down is bollocks - from what?

 

Compared with clubs that you seem to think we are above we always have been also-rans - we may be towards the top of the next level of clubs but suggesting we have only been robbed of our rightful place at the top by a couple of individuals is ludicrous.

 

of course it isn't ludicrous, when these are the "individuals" [ie the collective boardrooms] who have ran the club and decided on strategy, policy and aims of the club.

 

I know we haven't won the league since 1927 - and the only time we came close since was under the vilified owners, ludicrously - but you are aware that, at the time, the FA Cup was considered to be the greater prize during the 1950's ?

 

Since then, or our relegation in 1961, its a fact that the odd bit of success is considered a blip, apart from the period 1992 until 2007 when not finishing in europe was also considered a blip.

 

As has been said, far too many people accept real mediocrity as being normal, real mediocrity, but for some reason considered a mid table position under the last owners as mediocrity but under this one they consider it success. The owners buddy has confirmed this is their aim, and they would be absolutely ecstatic at it, no doubt claiming they have restored pride back to the club or some other such bollocks, and people would act like lapdogs and scream how much better things are now than they were before. The people who booed when we only finished 5th, was that because it was a "blip".

 

They should get their heads out of their arse.

Edited April 2, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 4507]

I'm not saying it's wrong to have the ambition you talk about - I'm saying that expecting it based on our history is wrong - we have never had the "right" like Liverpool think they have to succeed just because of their past glories.

 

There was nothing wrong with the ambition shown by the club under Keegan and Robson - the reason I don't mention Hall is that I think the desire was driven by the managers and the fans given a taste of it more than the owners who only ever in my view cared about money - though Shepherd less so than Hall and his absolute cunt of a son.

 

The thing is both before the emergence of Sky and the boom of football we had owners made up of small local businessmen who simply could not have funded any kind of sustained splurge on players. You still can't answer the simple question of where any money could have come from because there were no possibilities. Other clubs like Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs all had much richer owners. As far as I can remember there were no rich benefactors available pre-Hall and even then his first attempt at raising money through flotation was an abject failure.

 

You talk about the sale as if it was forced and they were ready to continue on with the same ambition - if that's the case why did they spend 3m trying to find new owners? They knew the game was up by 2007 and needed to get out. Things have now moved on again and you still can't come up with an actual suggestion as to how any stated ambition is achievable.

 

So here's the question again - how would you suggest the club show ambition?

[Craig 6742]

I seem to remember Gazza playing in 85/86, 86/87 & 87/88 for us. He was here for more than a year.

 

As for the Milburn Stand, that wasn't club vision they were forced to do an account of what happened at Bradford.

[NJS 4507]

I seem to remember Gazza playing in 85/86, 86/87 & 87/88 for us. He was here for more than a year.

 

As for the Milburn Stand, that wasn't club vision they were forced to do an account of what happened at Bradford.

 

He made his debut in the last game of 85/86 I think but 86/87 was when he really arrived.