Jump to content

shakermaker

Members
  • Content Count

    344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About shakermaker

  • Rank
    Reserve Team
  1. Aye. It's time to re carpet bomb Hamburg.
  2. But surely we have to include player trading as it is an incoming/outgoing of cash ? and yes there would have been a boost of 18mill the following season, all of which,unless I've read it wrong, would have been used to cover some of the previous years shortfall, still leaving more to need to be borrowed and then having already been used you'd be looking to borrow more the following season unless there were to be some drastic cost-cutting or an extra revenue stream (ie euro success) was found. On a side note I don't know if that fee incurred with the refinancing deal would have been payable reg
  3. I didn't have the time then, and I don't now either to fully respond to that post and I hate just picking certain points out of posts as it looks like you have no answer to the points you ignore. Having said that, that's precisely what I'm going to do now: When Ashley took over there was a refinancing package which was about to go through. What this entailed no-one ever revealed to my knowledge, but I can't see how anything like that would have been going ahead if the club was about to go bankrupt. It's a bit rich quayside saying the operating loss figure I quoted just for info was irr
  4. Didn't you follow the argument on online...or maybe didn't read the posts ?. You bought up West Ham you weasel without a blind clue of the implications. Don't open a christmas cracker unless it's christmas. What actually is your girly faux argument? "I want less debt"??? Fuck me you could bore a chess player. You put "I want less less debt" in quotes as if it's something I said. Check anything I've said and I haven't said that. What I do think is that you can reach a point beyond which more debt is going to do you in. This may be through having nothing to securitise
  5. Didn't you follow the argument on online...or maybe didn't read the posts ?.
  6. But if you are paying that, losing more money, like the near 30mill in 2006-07 who's going to lend you more with nothing to securitise it against ? Ps I've said elsewhere and you know that I have that he should have spent some of his money in January (even if only to protect his investment...hate talking about NUFC in those terms but it's what it has come down to) Get this into your head. It's harder to refinance in the CCC It's even harder to refinance if you go into voluntary admin. You can't refinance if the owners are bankrupt vis a vie West Ham. Simple things ea
  7. Just like old times on Online eh ?
  8. But if you are paying that, losing more money, like the near 30mill in 2006-07 who's going to lend you more with nothing to securitise it against ? The cunt should have put his hand in his pocket in January as he should have seen relegation coming. I was busy typing as you were. See my edit in my previous post.
  9. But if you are paying that, losing more money, like the near 30mill in 2006-07 who's going to lend you more with nothing to securitise it against ? Ps I've said elsewhere and you know that I have that he should have spent some of his money in January (even if only to protect his investment...hate talking about NUFC in those terms but it's what it has come down to)
  10. I don't even mind NUFC running on debt providing it's affordable.
  11. Cause for one Leeds didn't even own their own players and for two their wages was actually HIGHER than income. Surely borrowing more would have solved this ? Got them through the rough time. Borrowing more what? Do you understand the concept of ADMINISTRATION???? Last year there were 8 PL clubs with higher wages to income ratio than us....This is news to you I guess? Did they have as much debt as us ? If so to whom was it owed ? Did they make as much of a loss as us ? Had they been making losses for as long ? Do you think those clubs can continue doing that ? Why did the
  12. Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit) If success guaranteed clubs against financial ruin 95% of the PL would be bancrupt. The key is tv money. FS was in the process of scaling down is why SA was bought in. Put up a coherent argument and do some research before I wipe your arse for you. Success doesn't
  13. Cause for one Leeds didn't even own their own players and for two their wages was actually HIGHER than income. Surely borrowing more would have solved this ? Got them through the rough time.
  14. Newcastle is a monopoly ? So it's a monopoly that people can walk away from. The debts you have linked to...did they include Leeds, West ham, Pompey, Luton (on a smaller scale..similar thing though, risked on buying players in the hope success would pay for it, the success didn't come and they ended up in the shit)
  15. Having a big crowd means little if you are having to borrow every year to make ends meet through ridiculous wages (both fred and ashley).....so do you think we should have kept on borrowing and paying over the top wages to compete ? Do you think that eventually it has to stop....quite often not by choice ? As you say all the succesful clubs have debt....which ones get themselves into a position where the banks can't see them breaking even or even being able to finance their debts without borrowing more ? Why didn't leeds just borrow more ? Why do you think almost everyone think
×
×
  • Create New...