BigWalrus

Again, the point is being missed that turnover just isn't important. We weren't cash rich. We had player contracts in place that committed us to paying out the vast majority of that turnover in wages. We were spending way beyond our means, and continued losses for a conmpany with no cash spells disaster. The Hall I'm referring to is Douglas Hall, not SJH. SJH had a very limited role in the period you're on about. SJH had some huge flaws, but that's for another time.

1. At the end of the day, all the average Newcastle fan wants is an ambitious group of people backing them behind the scenes. Shepherd and Hall contributed £0 to NUFC. That's no backing at all. 2. Newcastle could've won the league in 2002, and in 2003. We had Champions League football, and 20 odd million quid is neither hear nor there for a big football club. £20m is a hell of a lot when you're haemorrhaging cash and surviving on borrowing even more from the bank to get by. 3. The fact is FFS was wise enough to get good sponsorship deals for the time, commercially we were in another world to where we are now, we were told as supporters that we'd be challenging for CL spaces, not only that but they delivered their promises. And where did this extra sponsorship money go? Into the pockets of Sherpherd and Hall. It had no benefit to the club whatsoever. 4. There was a great mood about the club, Shepherd told the world we were Newcastle United, we're a big club and everybody else can fuck off! I loved it. We were a big club. Commercially we are 1/3rd the club we were then. Your opinion, but can't be proven. 5. We have an owner who gets his puppet Llambias and his other fucking puppet Pardew to tell everybody concerned, we're basically just a nobody club in North East England who have no right to even be competing with Tottenham let alone Manchester United. Show me the quotes. You asked for figures and they were delivered. Show me the quotes.

I suppose you could hold it down with your hand, then unspring it once the ball is played.

From Tim Krul? Whilst wearing a keeper glove?

Oh that's alright then. The net outflow of £28m over the three years is acceptable as we broke even in 2003 and 2004. Shepherd calls himself a fan. In reality, his tenure was akin to going round to his mam's house with a box of chocolates for her birthday, only to eat all the chocolates himself and take all the cash out of her piggy bank.

How can you defend the idea of the shareholders (Shepherd and Hall and family) taking out £30m+ in dividends throughout that entire period? The club was losing money yet they were still milking the club of all its cash. In my mind, it's completely indefensible.

There's the profit figures before the shareholders have taken their dividends out. That's a total loss of £27m, which turns into a total loss of £62m after dividends. I'll rephrase your question. Would you rather have a club with turnover of £100m making healthy profits every year, or a club with a turnover of £125m losing money every year and heading for financial meltdown?

Not sure I'd class Williamson as an underachiever. If anything, he's playing at his level. His level may not be good enough, but he's not underachieving. Can you be offside by virtue of your cock being further forward than the last man?

No we weren't. We were turning over more, but the money wasn't going anywhere but into the pockets of the players, the agents and the board. The club was losing money hand over fist. Turnover doesn't mean everything. The size of the transactions highlighted isn't important - it serves the purpose of showing how unethical their business practices were. What about all the other schemes they had going on that the auditors missed or they did off the balance sheet?

He used the loan to fund the working capital of the business though. Taking out a mortgage to fund the building of a stadium or expansion is fine, as you can link it to future rewards. Shepherd took out a huge loan and used it to buy players and pay wages. It was absolutely scandalous.

A more orthodox goal is obviously the preferred option, but if it came to it, a genitally directed finish would have to do.

Where should we start? How about selling assets to the club for inflated prices? Or buying property from the club for next to nowt then renting it back to the club for a heavily inflated fee (while the club was making big losses and the directors are taking massive, disproportionate salaries). Or Douglas Hall selling his private number plate to NUFC for £50k? As much as Ashley gets the tag of being a dodgy cockney wideboy, Freddy Shepherd and Douglas Hall were far more suspect characters. They not only milked the club dry but didn't contribute a penny of their own. Their tenure at NUFC was littered with dodgy deals, scams and fiddles they had going on.

I'd happily watch Cabaye arouse Debuchy, allowing him to use his erect penis to bat the ball into the net, if it meant we won the game.

My instinct is to be pissed off with him, but I just have a feeling there's more to it than meets the eye. Part of me wants to know the full story. Part of me thinks it's clearly a private matter and is probably best left that way. It's an unusual situation though, that much is clear.

Aye, fair point. I can only think of a handfull of examples of players buying out their contract, but none in England. Didn't we buy a player who bought his own contract out? Sketchy..

As far as footballers go, that's pretty down to earth! Most people earning that sort of money will have a nice car, whether they're a footballer or a businessman. The difference is that outside of football, he doesn't spunk his money up the wall on drink and flashy clothes. Moot point I suppose, given that it's probably unrealistic for him to buy out his own contract.

In normal situations, it would cost far less than that to buy out the contract. I suppose NUFC might want full value given his value to the side and the potentially dubious reasons he has for wanting away.

You're right - the original loan was around £90-100m (can't remember the exact number) with an additional £50m lent to the club during the year we were relegated.

FS was completely wrong in his approach in that he ran the club completely dry, borrowed to the absolute limit whilst paying himself and his fellow board members millions and millions in dividends. A manageable amount of debt is fine, but FS advocated using debt alone to fund the club. He didn't put a single penny in of his own money. Ashley's approach is to make the club self-sufficient. He has already funded the club with £50m on top of repaying the original Barclays loan and has taken nothing out of the club (although it could be argued that the SD advertising for free is equivalent to a decent salary for him). I'd go as far as saying FS's approach was completely flawed and extremely risky, hence the club being on the verge of bankruptcy when it was taken over by Ashley. MA's approach has its flaws, but it's fundamentals are very much founded on sensible strategic decisions and long term stability.

Aye, he has a car which probably cost him two weeks wages. He could afford to buy out his contract, but he'd need to liquidise some assets. The point I'm obviously failing to make is that I don't believe he has blown all of his salary on prostitutes in Vegas or buying champagne for everyone at a bar. His money might be tied up in assets, but they're assets that still have considerable value.

I know a couple of lads who work at the club, I know a lad whose girlfriend provides a regular service to him and I know a lad whose kid goes to the same school as his. All paint a very similar picture of the sort of bloke he is. Both Coloccini and Jonas are down to earth people. They don't wear flash clothes or try to promote the flash lifestyle that many footballers do.

Nah, Coloccini lives a fairly modest lifestyle considering his salary. He isn't a flash bloke at all. I still reckon there's more to the story than has been revealed, and I'm sure the truth will come out at some point.

Ashley bought the club - including all of its debts - from Shepherd and Hall. One of the loan covenants stated that the loan was repayable in the event of a change in ownership. Therefore Ashley was bound by contract to pay the full cost of the loan back (about £140m) immediately. Mike Ashley knew this was the case up front, so in substance he'll treat it as part of his purchase price. The loan from Ashley to NUFC (£140m) is stated as a loan because he paid it back after acquisition of the club. If MA was to sell the club, he would want to recoup the sum paid to Shepherd an Hall as well as the cost of repaying the Barclays loan - this is essentially the acquisition cost in MA's eyes.

I reckon he'll go out on loan next season. He needs to play regular games, but he isn't good enough to do it in the PL yet.

How do we know the letter was written by him? It could have been written by his dad to appease his employers. South American football isn't the most ethical and violence and corruption are quite common.