Newcastle Finances in the Championship

[Toonpack 9950]

oh dear.

 

The lad is full of u-turns and confused to boot......wasn't our stadium "debts" secured against future revenues

 

Of course it was secured, as was all our debt to the point where everything we had, or were likely to have was spoken for, our liabilities exceeded our assets, which means (in the real world) you can't borrow any more. How hard to understand is that, eh ??

 

Please tell me how we could borrow more money??

 

Think of a house with negative equity, then try and get a new mortgage

 

Edit - don't quote this, don't comment, you are beyond redemption. Why don't you disect and destroy my take on your book ???

Edited April 8, 2011 by Toonpack

[LeazesMag 0]

oh dear.

 

The lad is full of u-turns and confused to boot......wasn't our stadium "debts" secured against future revenues

 

Of course it was secured, as was all our debt to the point where everything we had, or were likely to have was spoken for, our liabilities exceeded our assets, which means (in the real world) you can't borrow any more. How hard to understand is that, eh ??

 

Please tell me how we could borrow more money??

 

Think of a house with negative equity, then try and get a new mortgage

 

Edit - don't quote this, don't comment, you are beyond redemption. Why don't you disect and destroy my take on your book ???

 

so where do you think your man will have us competing in 5 years time ? For the champions league places alongside the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, or playing the likes of Stoke and Wigan in relegation battles in front of a half full stadium ?

[Toonpack 9950]

oh dear.

 

The lad is full of u-turns and confused to boot......wasn't our stadium "debts" secured against future revenues

 

Of course it was secured, as was all our debt to the point where everything we had, or were likely to have was spoken for, our liabilities exceeded our assets, which means (in the real world) you can't borrow any more. How hard to understand is that, eh ??

 

Please tell me how we could borrow more money??

 

Think of a house with negative equity, then try and get a new mortgage

 

Edit - don't quote this, don't comment, you are beyond redemption. Why don't you disect and destroy my take on your book ???

 

so where do you think your man will have us competing in 5 years time ? For the champions league places alongside the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, or playing the likes of Stoke and Wigan in relegation battles in front of a half full stadium ?

 

The former, which is significantly better than what we faced if his wallet hadn't come along.

 

Any idea where that cash we needed would have come from yet ?

[LeazesMag 0]

oh dear.

 

The lad is full of u-turns and confused to boot......wasn't our stadium "debts" secured against future revenues

 

Of course it was secured, as was all our debt to the point where everything we had, or were likely to have was spoken for, our liabilities exceeded our assets, which means (in the real world) you can't borrow any more. How hard to understand is that, eh ??

 

Please tell me how we could borrow more money??

 

Think of a house with negative equity, then try and get a new mortgage

 

Edit - don't quote this, don't comment, you are beyond redemption. Why don't you disect and destroy my take on your book ???

 

so where do you think your man will have us competing in 5 years time ? For the champions league places alongside the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, or playing the likes of Stoke and Wigan in relegation battles in front of a half full stadium ?

 

The former, which is significantly better than what we faced if his wallet hadn't come along.

 

Any idea where that cash we needed would have come from yet ?

 

well, as has been pointed out, raising revenues [rather than cutting them] wasn't a problem for the ex owners, but they were "shit" in your view weren't they ? Maybe they did a better job than suits you to admit

 

Anyway, just to clarify this point so their is no misunderstanding - If in 5 years time, we have done nothing other than fight relegation fights, have never qualified for europe and are firmly seen as a selling club because we sell our best players, playing in front of thousands of empty seats and maybe even giving free tickets away like the mackems did under Bob Murray when we laughed at them, you will still cling to your "opinion" that the Halls and Shepherd were shit owners and Mike Ashley has done better than they did at the football club ?

 

Edit. Oh sorry....he's had 4 years already, but you are giving him until this summer aren't you

Edited April 8, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 9950]

oh dear.

 

The lad is full of u-turns and confused to boot......wasn't our stadium "debts" secured against future revenues

 

Of course it was secured, as was all our debt to the point where everything we had, or were likely to have was spoken for, our liabilities exceeded our assets, which means (in the real world) you can't borrow any more. How hard to understand is that, eh ??

 

Please tell me how we could borrow more money??

 

Think of a house with negative equity, then try and get a new mortgage

 

Edit - don't quote this, don't comment, you are beyond redemption. Why don't you disect and destroy my take on your book ???

 

so where do you think your man will have us competing in 5 years time ? For the champions league places alongside the likes of Spurs and Liverpool, or playing the likes of Stoke and Wigan in relegation battles in front of a half full stadium ?

 

The former, which is significantly better than what we faced if his wallet hadn't come along.

 

Any idea where that cash we needed would have come from yet ?

 

well, as has been pointed out, raising revenues [rather than cutting them] wasn't a problem for the ex owners, but they were "shit" in your view weren't they ? Maybe they did a better job than suits you to admit

 

Anyway, just to clarify this point so their is no misunderstanding - If in 5 years time, we have done nothing other than fight relegation fights, have never qualified for europe and are firmly seen as a selling club because we sell our best players, playing in front of thousands of empty seats and maybe even giving free tickets away like the mackems did under Bob Murray when we laughed at them, you will still cling to your "opinion" that the Halls and Shepherd were shit owners and Mike Ashley has done better than they did at the football club ?

 

Edit. Oh sorry....he's had 4 years already, but you are giving him until this summer aren't you

 

Revenues, on their own, mean fuck all as has been pointed out a million times. Even if we raised revenues by £20 mill a year (how likely is that) we'd still be £10 mill a year short JUST to cover operations (as at 2007). Where'd the £100 mill lump we needed come from??

 

And the second bit, we'll see in the summer, what his real aim is, but yes IMO he's a better owner, for no other reason than he's got the financial clout to keep the thing going (with his own money). You still don't get it do you, I don't like the bloke in the slightest

 

Third bit, three of those years were filling in the hole certain persons had left behind, the fourth year is looking likely to finish better than 50% of the time under the previous regime on the pitch, financially even more so than 50%, so yes he gets to the summer because the club now has money.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Toonpack

[LeazesMag 0]

well, as has been pointed out, raising revenues [rather than cutting them] wasn't a problem for the ex owners, but they were "shit" in your view weren't they ? Maybe they did a better job than suits you to admit

 

Anyway, just to clarify this point so their is no misunderstanding - If in 5 years time, we have done nothing other than fight relegation fights, have never qualified for europe and are firmly seen as a selling club because we sell our best players, playing in front of thousands of empty seats and maybe even giving free tickets away like the mackems did under Bob Murray when we laughed at them, you will still cling to your "opinion" that the Halls and Shepherd were shit owners and Mike Ashley has done better than they did at the football club ?

 

Edit. Oh sorry....he's had 4 years already, but you are giving him until this summer aren't you

 

Revenues, on their own, mean fuck all as has been pointed out a million times. Even if we raised revenues by £20 mill a year (how likely is that) we'd still be £10 mill a year short JUST to cover operations (as at 2007). Where'd the £100 mill lump we needed come from??

 

And the second bit, we'll see in the summer, what his real aim is, but yes IMO he's a better owner, for no other reason than he's got the financial clout to keep the thing going (with his own money). You still don't get it do you, I don't like the bloke in the slightest

 

Third bit, three of those years were filling in the hole certain persons had left behind, the fourth year is looking likely to finish better than 50% of the time under the previous regime on the pitch, financially even more so than 50%, so yes he gets to the summer because the club now has money.

 

we/you should really let this go for the sake of the others on the forum. At the end of the day, the Halls and Shepherd have been by far the best owners we have had at NUFC for half a century, they left the club a million miles better than where they found it, they saved it from administration, they transformed the stadium which everybody else had failed to do for 80 years, they made us one of the top clubs in the country.

 

The ball is firmly in Mike Ashleys court to take it higher, unless he does that, then you CANNOT say he is or has been "better". This is the bottom line.

 

My opinion is that he won't. Yours is - well, you aren't going to tell us, because your hatred is getting in the way of any sensible conclusion and you won't make the prediction that you would like to make, partly because you know it won't be proved correct in the long run.

 

As for wait until the summer ? Bollocks man. He's had 4 years, there was no need to sell Carroll, they KNEW he was going and waited until the last moment to pull the wool over the eyes of people like you.

 

One thing I would like to add before I go out, and I AM leaving this thread now, is when you refer to me [and 50,000 others] as being "done", I don't consider that to be the case at all. I pay my money and watch this team hoping to see top quality footballer and the club doing its best to compete at the levels it ought to be, hopefully to win a trophy. I only consider myself to be "done", when they don't make the effort and sell the club short, like Ashley is doing, but I'm still renewing my 3 year season ticket at the end of the month.

[Toonpack 9950]

well, as has been pointed out, raising revenues [rather than cutting them] wasn't a problem for the ex owners, but they were "shit" in your view weren't they ? Maybe they did a better job than suits you to admit

 

Anyway, just to clarify this point so their is no misunderstanding - If in 5 years time, we have done nothing other than fight relegation fights, have never qualified for europe and are firmly seen as a selling club because we sell our best players, playing in front of thousands of empty seats and maybe even giving free tickets away like the mackems did under Bob Murray when we laughed at them, you will still cling to your "opinion" that the Halls and Shepherd were shit owners and Mike Ashley has done better than they did at the football club ?

 

Edit. Oh sorry....he's had 4 years already, but you are giving him until this summer aren't you

 

Revenues, on their own, mean fuck all as has been pointed out a million times. Even if we raised revenues by £20 mill a year (how likely is that) we'd still be £10 mill a year short JUST to cover operations (as at 2007). Where'd the £100 mill lump we needed come from??

 

And the second bit, we'll see in the summer, what his real aim is, but yes IMO he's a better owner, for no other reason than he's got the financial clout to keep the thing going (with his own money). You still don't get it do you, I don't like the bloke in the slightest

 

Third bit, three of those years were filling in the hole certain persons had left behind, the fourth year is looking likely to finish better than 50% of the time under the previous regime on the pitch, financially even more so than 50%, so yes he gets to the summer because the club now has money.

 

we/you should really let this go for the sake of the others on the forum. At the end of the day, the Halls and Shepherd have been by far the best owners we have had at NUFC for half a century, they left the club a million miles better than where they found it, they saved it from administration, they transformed the stadium which everybody else had failed to do for 80 years, they made us one of the top clubs in the country.

 

The ball is firmly in Mike Ashleys court to take it higher, unless he does that, then you CANNOT say he is or has been "better". This is the bottom line.

 

My opinion is that he won't. Yours is - well, you aren't going to tell us, because your hatred is getting in the way of any sensible conclusion and you won't make the prediction that you would like to make, partly because you know it won't be proved correct in the long run.

 

As for wait until the summer ? Bollocks man. He's had 4 years, there was no need to sell Carroll, they KNEW he was going and waited until the last moment to pull the wool over the eyes of people like you.

 

One thing I would like to add before I go out, and I AM leaving this thread now, is when you refer to me [and 50,000 others] as being "done", I don't consider that to be the case at all. I pay my money and watch this team hoping to see top quality footballer and the club doing its best to compete at the levels it ought to be, hopefully to win a trophy. I only consider myself to be "done", when they don't make the effort and sell the club short, like Ashley is doing, but I'm still renewing my 3 year season ticket at the end of the month.

 

 

Now THAT is well said. I don't agree with a lot of it but we'll leave it there.

[McFaul 35]

A good read for a sad cunt like HF.

 

The most startling thing from this is Villa - 82% of their income goes on wages. 50% is the safe barometer. Would be lovely if the yank got sick, they'd be in all sorts of trouble.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/05/li...e-strategy.html

[LeazesMag 0]

A good read for a sad cunt like HF.

 

The most startling thing from this is Villa - 82% of their income goes on wages. 50% is the safe barometer. Would be lovely if the yank got sick, they'd be in all sorts of trouble.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/05/li...e-strategy.html

 

wasn't Randy Lerner another new owner who had a "plan" and was showing us how it really should be done etc etc etc blah blah blah

 

What a shame eh.

 

To be fair, I don't remember HF being one of those who trot out this sort of shite Stevie, his football awareness is pretty good, unlike his politics

[NJS 4411]

A good read for a sad cunt like HF.

 

The most startling thing from this is Villa - 82% of their income goes on wages. 50% is the safe barometer. Would be lovely if the yank got sick, they'd be in all sorts of trouble.

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/05/li...e-strategy.html

 

wasn't Randy Lerner another new owner who had a "plan" and was showing us how it really should be done etc etc etc blah blah blah

 

What a shame eh.

 

To be fair, I don't remember HF being one of those who trot out this sort of shite Stevie, his football awareness is pretty good, unlike his politics

 

Lerner did exactly what you've just suggested we should do - spent a load of money.