Chris Gray on NUFC under Ashley

[Guest alex]

How do you measure whether or not something it immeasurably better though?

[Toonpack 9963]

Im predicting nothing Im reminding you of what (I think) the financial document predicted would happen this year. As relegation has been avoided, it shouldnt really alter that forecast.

 

And how does that negate anything I've said?

 

You were saying he's yet to break even and I was just giving you a gentle reminder that they did forecast in March (I think) that they were on course to break even for the season just finished.

 

In case you had forgotten

 

Thought it might cheer you up on your birthday

 

I hadn't fporgotten at all.

 

Of course, breaking even won't get the finances looking immeasurably better either. It'll just stop the rot.

 

Which as TP illustrates above is progress.

 

Please don't agree with me, my arguments/statements/opinions lose credibility.

[Toonpack 9963]

How do you measure whether or not something it immeasurably better though?

 

 

You can't to be honest.

 

But I would contend owing £150Mill to yourself is better, by an immeasurable amount, than owing £150Mill to a bank.

[LeazesMag 0]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ??

 

As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

 

this is becoming more and more like the crap posted on Newcastle Online. Do people like you buy scarves, and wave them at games, to celebrate making profits ?

[Christmas Tree 4831]

Please don't agree with me, my arguments/statements/opinions lose credibility.

 

Oh dear What a prick.

[Happy Face 29]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ??

 

I've given Ashley all due credit, even in this thread, when the banks refused to loan his insolvent business the money to stay afloat, he used his own money to protect his investment.

 

The fact the debt is larger than ever before should put a stop to any suggestion we're financially better off though. We've effectively transferred our credit card balance to a 0% introductory offer and spent more on the new card.

 

The fact we aren't paying interest is great. I'm not having a pop here, but Ashley apologists like you are getting ahead of yourself by insisting the financial mess is well on the way to being resolved.

 

 

As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

 

£20-£30m year on year? Up to 2007 we only ever lost over £20m one time....the average loss was £10m a year for the five years before he arrived. Losses were £0-£2m for three out of the five years before Ashley arrived.

 

We went from a £19m loss in 2000 to break ebven in 2003, without the slash and burn approach. I sniffed at that, so I'll sniff at this too.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Happy Face

[NJS 4411]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ??

 

As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

 

this is becoming more and more like the crap posted on Newcastle Online. Do people like you buy scarves, and wave them at games, to celebrate making profits ?

 

I take it we'll never see "8th richest club in the world" in a post of yours again then.

[Happy Face 29]

Im predicting nothing Im reminding you of what (I think) the financial document predicted would happen this year. As relegation has been avoided, it shouldnt really alter that forecast.

 

And how does that negate anything I've said?

 

You were saying he's yet to break even and I was just giving you a gentle reminder that they did forecast in March (I think) that they were on course to break even for the season just finished.

 

In case you had forgotten

 

Thought it might cheer you up on your birthday

 

I hadn't fporgotten at all.

 

Of course, breaking even won't get the finances looking immeasurably better either. It'll just stop the rot.

 

Which as TP illustrates above is progress.

 

Which I illustrate above is not.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Happy Face

[Christmas Tree 4831]

Aye, fuck him

[LeazesMag 0]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ??

 

As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

 

this is becoming more and more like the crap posted on Newcastle Online. Do people like you buy scarves, and wave them at games, to celebrate making profits ?

 

I take it we'll never see "8th richest club in the world" in a post of yours again then.

 

not under Mike Ashley you won't.

[Toonpack 9963]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ??

 

I've given Ashley all due credit, even in this thread, when the banks refused to loan his insolvent business the money to stay afloat, he used his own money to protect his investment.

 

The fact the debt is larger than ever before should put a stop to any suggestion we're financially better off though. We've effectively transferred our credit card balance to a 0% introductory offer and spent more on the new card.

 

The fact we aren't paying interest is great. I'm not having a pop here, but Ashley apologists like you are getting ahead of yourself by insisting the financial mess is well on the way to being resolved.

 

 

As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

 

£20-£30m year on year? Up to 2007 we only ever lost over £20m one time....the average loss was £10m a year for the five years before he arrived. Losses were £0-£2m for three out of the five years before Ashley arrived.

 

We went from a £19m loss in 2000 to break ebven in 2003, without the slash and burn approach. I sniffed at that, so I'll sniff at this too.

 

I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary.

 

2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary.

 

Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course.

 

We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's.

 

I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

[Happy Face 29]

I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary.

 

2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary.

 

Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course.

 

We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's.

 

I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

 

I don't think anything he does is part of an evil plan. Again, I've given him credit for a lot of his financial decisions. I just think he talks utter shit and misrepresents any of the good he's done as a result. People like this Chris Gray and you perpetuate it.

 

As discussed, in the 5 years before Ashley we lost £0, £0, £2m, £15m and £33m. The last couple are worrying and not sustainable. There's nothing to suggest Shepherd would have tried to sustain it though.

 

On 7 June '07 we signed Viduka on a free. Being a free suggests to me Shepherd was looking for proven Premier League players on a budget with the intention of cutting the losses of the previous season. His wages were a twat, but he only got a 2 year contract.

 

He'd already sold Scott Parker for £7m too.

 

Ashley took a controlling share on exactly the same day though. We went on to sign Barton(£5.8m), Rozenhal(£3m), Smith(£6m), Enrique(£6m), Faye(£2m) and Beye(£2m) - as well as a free Geremi, but on a 3 year deal at huge wages. That's just short of £25m he spent. Losses for the year went on to total £20m, which can't be laid at anyone elses door, as Ashley sanctioned all those buys.

 

Yet all we hear from the propaganda machine is how Ashley has inherited a mess, as if he hasn't contributed to it himself at all. The above 'waste' pales in comparison to then getting us relegated. I don't want to hear about not taking a penny out of the club, or how much he's pumped in, because he's just as much to blame as the last lot...the difference being 12th would have been a failure in their eyes for the level of investment.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

It can be argued that Ashley has done well to control spending and have us where we were in the league when he took over. And that he's done well to transfer all the debts to himself interest free, so we aren't throwing money away. There's no argument to support the suggestion that "the finances are immesaurably better" right now though, when Ashley has still only been able to add to the overall debt, decrease overall income and is yet to break even in any season after he's been here 4 years.

 

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ??

 

I've given Ashley all due credit, even in this thread, when the banks refused to loan his insolvent business the money to stay afloat, he used his own money to protect his investment.

 

The fact the debt is larger than ever before should put a stop to any suggestion we're financially better off though. We've effectively transferred our credit card balance to a 0% introductory offer and spent more on the new card.

 

The fact we aren't paying interest is great. I'm not having a pop here, but Ashley apologists like you are getting ahead of yourself by insisting the financial mess is well on the way to being resolved.

 

 

As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

 

£20-£30m year on year? Up to 2007 we only ever lost over £20m one time....the average loss was £10m a year for the five years before he arrived. Losses were £0-£2m for three out of the five years before Ashley arrived.

 

We went from a £19m loss in 2000 to break ebven in 2003, without the slash and burn approach. I sniffed at that, so I'll sniff at this too.

 

I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary.

 

2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary.

 

Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course.

 

We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's.

 

I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

 

[ChezGiven 0]

Happy Face, can you point me towards the £288m debt figure in the Deloitte report, i cant seem to find it.

 

I am a bit concerned that someone (i.e. you) has been adding up losses and converting it into debt, which would be a very stupid thing to do. When we post a loss, its for tax purposes and through amortised assets and not money we've borrowed.

 

I may be wrong (so apols if i am) but i cant work out how to get to that figure. Also, if the club as an entity is in debt that much, it would include the price Ashley paid for the club which would also imply, quite scandalously, that it was a form of leveraged buy out, which no one seems to have ever mentioned.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, can you point me towards the £288m debt figure in the Deloitte report, i cant seem to find it.

 

I am a bit concerned that someone (i.e. you) has been adding up losses and converting it into debt, which would be a very stupid thing to do. When we post a loss, its for tax purposes and through amortised assets and not money we've borrowed.

 

I may be wrong (so apols if i am) but i cant work out how to get to that figure. Also, if the club as an entity is in debt that much, it would include the price Ashley paid for the club which would also imply, quite scandalously, that it was a form of leveraged buy out, which no one seems to have ever mentioned.

 

 

The aggregate net debt of the 24 Championship clubs

has increased to £875m at the end of the 2009/10

season. Excluding

Newcastle United, the figure falls to £587m in

summer 2010

 

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-United..._highlights.pdf

 

Last page 3rd last bullet.

 

Like I said somewhere else, I have no idea how they arrive at those figures.

[Toonpack 9963]

Happy Face, can you point me towards the £288m debt figure in the Deloitte report, i cant seem to find it.

 

I am a bit concerned that someone (i.e. you) has been adding up losses and converting it into debt, which would be a very stupid thing to do. When we post a loss, its for tax purposes and through amortised assets and not money we've borrowed.

 

I may be wrong (so apols if i am) but i cant work out how to get to that figure. Also, if the club as an entity is in debt that much, it would include the price Ashley paid for the club which would also imply, quite scandalously, that it was a form of leveraged buy out, which no one seems to have ever mentioned.

 

 

I did, at some point today, can't remember where But not sure it's leveraged (in the true sense of the word as the purchase was not financed) a'la Liverpool were or Man U are, in so much as their purchase was funded by external finance (banks)

 

The debt is held in the parent company (St James' Holdings Ltd) which is Ashley's so whilst he's bought the club with his own cash the purchase price is held as a debit in SJPH Ltd.

 

Dunno if that makes it a leverage or not.

[Toonpack 9963]

I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary.

 

2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary.

 

Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course.

 

We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's.

 

I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

 

I don't think anything he does is part of an evil plan. Again, I've given him credit for a lot of his financial decisions. I just think he talks utter shit and misrepresents any of the good he's done as a result. People like this Chris Gray and you perpetuate it.

 

As discussed, in the 5 years before Ashley we lost £0, £0, £2m, £15m and £33m. The last couple are worrying and not sustainable. There's nothing to suggest Shepherd would have tried to sustain it though.

 

On 7 June '07 we signed Viduka on a free. Being a free suggests to me Shepherd was looking for proven Premier League players on a budget with the intention of cutting the losses of the previous season. His wages were a twat, but he only got a 2 year contract.

 

He'd already sold Scott Parker for £7m too.

 

Ashley took a controlling share on exactly the same day though. We went on to sign Barton(£5.8m), Rozenhal(£3m), Smith(£6m), Enrique(£6m), Faye(£2m) and Beye(£2m) - as well as a free Geremi, but on a 3 year deal at huge wages. That's just short of £25m he spent. Losses for the year went on to total £20m, which can't be laid at anyone elses door, as Ashley sanctioned all those buys.

 

Yet all we hear from the propaganda machine is how Ashley has inherited a mess, as if he hasn't contributed to it himself at all. The above 'waste' pales in comparison to then getting us relegated. I don't want to hear about not taking a penny out of the club, or how much he's pumped in, because he's just as much to blame as the last lot...the difference being 12th would have been a failure in their eyes for the level of investment.

 

 

He absolutely inherited a mess, no doubt in my mind, similarly there is no doubt he deepened the hole (as I've said before) BUT it's cost no-one but himself, hence my "thanks" for, or appreciation of, his deep pockets.

 

We were unsustainable, we needed deep pockets, we got some. We could have done better or been luckier, undoubtedly.

[LeazesMag 0]

I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary.

 

2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary.

 

Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course.

 

We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's.

 

I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

 

I don't think anything he does is part of an evil plan. Again, I've given him credit for a lot of his financial decisions. I just think he talks utter shit and misrepresents any of the good he's done as a result. People like this Chris Gray and you perpetuate it.

 

As discussed, in the 5 years before Ashley we lost £0, £0, £2m, £15m and £33m. The last couple are worrying and not sustainable. There's nothing to suggest Shepherd would have tried to sustain it though.

 

On 7 June '07 we signed Viduka on a free. Being a free suggests to me Shepherd was looking for proven Premier League players on a budget with the intention of cutting the losses of the previous season. His wages were a twat, but he only got a 2 year contract.

 

He'd already sold Scott Parker for £7m too.

 

Ashley took a controlling share on exactly the same day though. We went on to sign Barton(£5.8m), Rozenhal(£3m), Smith(£6m), Enrique(£6m), Faye(£2m) and Beye(£2m) - as well as a free Geremi, but on a 3 year deal at huge wages. That's just short of £25m he spent. Losses for the year went on to total £20m, which can't be laid at anyone elses door, as Ashley sanctioned all those buys.

 

Yet all we hear from the propaganda machine is how Ashley has inherited a mess, as if he hasn't contributed to it himself at all. The above 'waste' pales in comparison to then getting us relegated. I don't want to hear about not taking a penny out of the club, or how much he's pumped in, because he's just as much to blame as the last lot...the difference being 12th would have been a failure in their eyes for the level of investment.

 

 

He absolutely inherited a mess, no doubt in my mind, similarly there is no doubt he deepened the hole (as I've said before) BUT it's cost no-one but himself, hence my "thanks" for, or appreciation of, his deep pockets.

 

We were unsustainable, we needed deep pockets, we got some. We could have done better or been luckier, undoubtedly.

 

but, at the time ie in 2005-06, you supported the spending, right ? You said you did on this very site ?

[Happy Face 29]

I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary.

 

2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary.

 

Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course.

 

We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's.

 

I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

 

I don't think anything he does is part of an evil plan. Again, I've given him credit for a lot of his financial decisions. I just think he talks utter shit and misrepresents any of the good he's done as a result. People like this Chris Gray and you perpetuate it.

 

As discussed, in the 5 years before Ashley we lost £0, £0, £2m, £15m and £33m. The last couple are worrying and not sustainable. There's nothing to suggest Shepherd would have tried to sustain it though.

 

On 7 June '07 we signed Viduka on a free. Being a free suggests to me Shepherd was looking for proven Premier League players on a budget with the intention of cutting the losses of the previous season. His wages were a twat, but he only got a 2 year contract.

 

He'd already sold Scott Parker for £7m too.

 

Ashley took a controlling share on exactly the same day though. We went on to sign Barton(£5.8m), Rozenhal(£3m), Smith(£6m), Enrique(£6m), Faye(£2m) and Beye(£2m) - as well as a free Geremi, but on a 3 year deal at huge wages. That's just short of £25m he spent. Losses for the year went on to total £20m, which can't be laid at anyone elses door, as Ashley sanctioned all those buys.

 

Yet all we hear from the propaganda machine is how Ashley has inherited a mess, as if he hasn't contributed to it himself at all. The above 'waste' pales in comparison to then getting us relegated. I don't want to hear about not taking a penny out of the club, or how much he's pumped in, because he's just as much to blame as the last lot...the difference being 12th would have been a failure in their eyes for the level of investment.

 

 

He absolutely inherited a mess, no doubt in my mind, similarly there is no doubt he deepened the hole (as I've said before) BUT it's cost no-one but himself, hence my "thanks" for, or appreciation of, his deep pockets.

 

We were unsustainable, we needed deep pockets, we got some. We could have done better or been luckier, undoubtedly.

 

I reckon it's cost supporters too like. We have to watch James Perch.

[OTF 7492]

Newcastle United have just finished in a better premiership position than when Ashley took over. Fact.

True, we’ve been down and come up again but I’m with those who claim that was a good thing (although it didn’t feel like it at the time).

 

The finances at Newcastle are immeasurably better than they were then. Football clubs have to get their financial house in order first – then they might have a chance of moving forward on a firm footing. Fact.

 

Only picking up on one of the obvious and monumental errors in this 'article', but there's no basis for the argument that being relegated was good for the club financially or otherwise. At best you can suggest that the relegation was a catalyst for some financial decisions with long term benefits, though the fact is that just as many players (if not more) could have been sold if we weren't relegated. In addition it's likely that they could have been sold for higher fees for the following reasons:

(1) We would have been in a much stronger position to negotiate if we weren't relegated.

(2) They won't have been buying players who weren't good enough to keep the team up.

 

So we could have sold exactly the same players without doing damage to the reputation of the club through being relegated. Plus of course the small matter of the £40 odd million of television money that was forfeited and the dramatic decline in corporate revenue that would have occurred. If the 'finances at Newcastle are immeasurably better than they were then' despite the relegation then just think how fucking fantastic they could have been had the owner not completely fucked everything up and contributed heavily to a relegation that likely had a cost approaching £50M.

 

How exactly is that a good thing?

[Deano 0]

Newcastle United have just finished in a better premiership position than when Ashley took over. Fact.

True, we’ve been down and come up again but I’m with those who claim that was a good thing (although it didn’t feel like it at the time).

 

The finances at Newcastle are immeasurably better than they were then. Football clubs have to get their financial house in order first – then they might have a chance of moving forward on a firm footing. Fact.

 

Only picking up on one of the obvious and monumental errors in this 'article', but there's no basis for the argument that being relegated was good for the club financially or otherwise. At best you can suggest that the relegation was a catalyst for some financial decisions with long term benefits, though the fact is that just as many players (if not more) could have been sold if we weren't relegated. In addition it's likely that they could have been sold for higher fees for the following reasons:

(1) We would have been in a much stronger position to negotiate if we weren't relegated.

(2) They won't have been buying players who weren't good enough to keep the team up.

 

So we could have sold exactly the same players without doing damage to the reputation of the club through being relegated. Plus of course the small matter of the £40 odd million of television money that was forfeited and the dramatic decline in corporate revenue that would have occurred. If the 'finances at Newcastle are immeasurably better than they were then' despite the relegation then just think how fucking fantastic they could have been had the owner not completely fucked everything up and contributed heavily to a relegation that likely had a cost approaching £50M.

 

How exactly is that a good thing?

 

You make a very good point. But hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

Personally it happened, it could and should of been avoided but it wasnt. End of.

 

I think like iv said before it was a positive in the sense that it enabled us to shift the shit, get rid of the bad apples, reconfigure our goals and come together as a solid unit.

 

We stormed the CC, kept the crux of that solid dressing room and had a very good 1st season back in the PL. Yes it could of been much better but again hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

All i know is the NUFC ship was rotting well before FMA came in, SJH and FFS gave us some great times but it was unsustainable, they seen an oppertunity in FMA to get out of a sinking ship. They had there fun and fucked off leaving us in a mess.

 

FMA came in and took us without doing due diligence but im glad he did...but not without fault.

 

SJH and FFS had years of experience running the club and should of known better, FMA was new to this kinda business and brought in Moat (who i think was good for the club) and then Llambias to help with the running.

 

Obviously mistakes were going to be made, we never thought it at the time but looking back it was inevitable.

 

Fact is...with all the shit thats went on, the mistakes made and the anger caused, i am happy with the direction he is taking us now.

 

This summer is where it can go well and we can all join together and be optimistic and give him this season to prove to us he can take us forward, or he doesnt learn from his mistakes and everyone will be signing from LM hymsheet (Me included). Then we can only hope for a sale...which is possible.

 

I for one think we will have a strong summer and enter the new season a better, stronger and more talented squad than last and we will go on and have a good one. 7th and the FA Cup would be a fantastic return and only what we deserve after the last however many years. Now is a good time to be aiming for it.

 

Matter of opinion though isnt it?

[peasepud 59]

[McFaul 35]

I will say one definitive thing. Anyone who generally feels positive about what Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias have done since coming to Newcastle United, is by definition an arsehole.

[Toonpack 9963]

I will say one definitive thing. Anyone who generally feels positive about what Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias have done since coming to Newcastle United, is by definition an arsehole.

 

I would add that, anyone who thinks everything they've done is bad is similarly by definition.....................

[McFaul 35]

I will say one definitive thing. Anyone who generally feels positive about what Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias have done since coming to Newcastle United, is by definition an arsehole.

 

I would add that, anyone who thinks everything they've done is bad is similarly by definition.....................

Everyone who has some level of power over a long period is going to make a fuck up from their true ways and do some good. I mean even Hitler did good, he gave Germany the best transport infrastructure in the world.