shakermaker

Aye. It's time to re carpet bomb Hamburg.

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 regardless,kind of a mortgage arrangement style fee, anyone know ? Just out of curiosity UV, do you think in the latter years of the previous board we were going forwards as a club, backwards or treading water ? as I'm fairly sure the majority on here seen us as going backwards. Nice to discuss this with someone who answers the question and doesn't resort to name calling though. Cheers.

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 irrelevant (I also quoted the loss after trading & amortisation & interest payments and used that figure in my argument) and then going on to base his arguments on the reduction of the net worth of the company. The majority of the reduction in the net worth of the company in the last years of the old board was due to the reduced book value of the players due to amortisation. This is a consequence of spending a large amount in one season (Owen & Luque, etc) which boosts the assets of the company in that year, but will inevitably reduce year on year if subsequent years do not have the same outlay on players. The value of the playing staff on the accounts is quite often not a true reflection of the actual value of the squad if you were to try and sell them, so to use these numbers in a year on year comparison can be very misleading. It leads to people saying things like "we lost £30m in 05-06" when in fact we spent about £10m more than we brought in which I think gives a much clearer idea of how we actually did in that financial year. As I said at the time, not great, but certainly not spiralling out of control considering we were due to get a £18m boost in turnover the following year from TV revenue alone. In contrast, the man who was sorting out our finances managed to spend £30 to £40m* more than we brought in in his first year, even with that extra TV money, whilst weakening the squad, and people were praising him for it! You've actually got to give the man some credit for being able to pull that one off. * I've not actually seen the 07-08 accounts, but these figures are based on the reported debt levels in 07 and 08. Are you sure that re-financing package wasn't the one that was aborted not long before ashley came on the scene and cost NUFC around 2million. ? I agree about the way players are valued is quite arbitrary but that doesn't take away that the club was making quite hefty operating losses on real cash. Was the 18million actually 18million extra ? as in for example, one season we received 12mill tv/media revenue then the season after 18million. which isn't a new 18million into the revenue stream but an extra 6mill on the previous season.

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 the debt against to making too big an operating loss and carrying debts so as to be unable to finance it. My problem has always been to those who think we've only gone to the shitter since ashley came along. The rot had set in well before. As Steve Hraper pointed out. Yes ashley has made a balls out of things and with his cash he should have done something. However we shouldn't have to rely on a sugar daddy, most clubs don't. and Fred ceratinly wasn't one. This sums up my position far better than I could put over.........Quaysides post that received little argument back

Didn't you follow the argument on online...or maybe didn't read the posts ?.

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 easily remembered I'd imagine. The playing field of the PL has changed you simply have to compete (especially with the advantage of a billionaire owner) if you don't you're gone. You have to make that choice. Ashley made the wrong choice. As it is football as a revenue model still has a long way to go, but you have to be in the PL to take advantage. If your talking about a debt free club your talking about a 1st division outfit not a PL one. Look at the stupid fuck and the carry on now....asking 100m for a CCC club. Utterly clueless and a risk taking bufoon of barage balloon proportions. I don't give a fuck about debt, if a PL club isn't carrying debt it isn't trying. Get this into your head. I've already said he should have spent some of his money to stop us going down (because the other things are glaringly obvious) I've already said I don't mind us running on debt and lets see how many others without private backers run up the sort of debt and wages ratio we did. I'm still awaiting links to those other clubs from the previous posts mind... you know the one with the prem clubs with more debt, who were making big operating losses, hellish wages to turnover and were still spending to compete.... you can get away with one for a bit..not all three and not for long.

Just like old times on Online eh ?

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.

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)

I don't even mind NUFC running on debt providing it's affordable.

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 banks say "no more " to west ham ? Why did the porttsmoth owners want out saying they couldn't afford to keep it going ? Administration......is that the way you think we shoiuld have gone as you know I meant borrowing more money....like Leeds couldn't do because of the sityation they were in (and West ham)

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 guarantee it but it does bring in more money..........being able to finance your debts is the key. Remember Ashley made profits in the windows etc so what extra scaling down would Allardyce have done ? Would you and Leazes have been happy with that, if so why wasn't you happy when Ashley started doing it ? Good of you to walk away from the Monopoly idea as even you see it's pointless in this argument.

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.

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)

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 thinks Fred ran us terribly in his last 3 or 4 years ?

Does that mean you were saying the same as in what is in Steve Harpers interview, that "for five or six years now it's been a gradual slow implosion" ? nothing lasts forever. We had a good 15 years, the best in my time supporting the club by miles. This is all I ever said, it was construed differently by many people who tried to make it say differently to what it did. We will see how many years and how many owners it takes to match the Halls and Shepherd. Simple fact is tosspots such as you implied constantly that "anyone would be better". What a load of shite that was wasn't it ? Tragic thing is, it wasn't rocket science to see it either. Even more tragic, there are still some who can't see it. Thats not all you ever said. You quite often said was that Fred would have shown more ambition whislt also saying that Allardyce had been brought in to run it a lot tighter financially (where was the ambition then ?). What you never said was where the money was going to come from to be ambitious, all you'd say was "other clubs have debt" without ever once conceding that all clubs debts are different (ie who the debt is owed to or if they are turning over enough operating profit to finance it). You never once admitted that what you wanted was the club to keep on borrowing and being unable to finance it till success or bankruptcy, whichever comes sooner. I never once said "anyone would be better than fred" infact some on here may even remember me defending Fred on the old merged board. I'd guess most on here would agree with most over there and Steve Harper that we've been very poorly ran for about 6 years. PS course I'm a tosser. Every red blooded male is.................though maybe you've stopped at your age.

Does that mean you were saying the same as in what is in Steve Harpers interview, that "for five or six years now it's been a gradual slow implosion" ?

Johnny Cash Woody Guthrie Willy Mason Vashtie Bunyan

Isn't there a get-out clause when you're transferring between clubs in different leagues though? I think it's 3 clubs in one season.

After taking into account the OP (particularly the footage) and they way I have seen the Police behave in the past (to others aswell as myself) it's not surprising that a group like fitwatch has came into being.

re Happy face's fit watch statement. Pretty sure if I was intent on peaceful protest I'd do quite a bit of that aswell.

Do they state how they would hinder the police ? It just may mean they will use the law to stop the police surveilance breaching the law or used for strengthening the case about anti-terror law being abused by the police.

Ask any policeman why they sometimes turn up without their numbers on and they'll usually be honest. It's so if they go well over the top with violence it's hard for the person assaulted to get a conviction as the identification is difficuilt. On a side note, when the anti-terror laws were going through a lot of people wanted safeguards built in so that the legislation wouldn't be misused in more civil areas. We were told it wouldn't be so there was no need. Another big fat steaming lie.

piss off. You're a deluded PC correct arsehole if you can't see what is happening to the country Im not PC correct, I just know what the BNP is really about I wonder if you would feel the same if you were born Black British and he wanted your parents deported? What would happen if Nick Griffin got in power? I wonder what his policies on the NHS look like? 40% of the workforce would be deported if he had his way. What about penal reform? A large number of his supporters have been in jail. Would racist crimes be overlooked? How would he cope with the current North Korea situation? I can just see him sitting at a desk with the world leaders talking over the finer points of European foreign policy Get a fucking grip man They aren't going to get into power with their current policies are they ? Why don't you read my earlier post, where I clearly said that if x amount of voters [ie millions] voted for them then they would be representative of their voters ? However the initial core attraction being to address what is becoming a more and more serious problem for the country which the 2 major parties aren't going to do. I'm talking about how they would evolve, not the situation now with Griffin as leader. I also said the UKIP are more electable, which they are. As Stevie has said, Ketsbaia is 21 are you about the same age, no offence meant but you don't realise how this country has changed during your lifetime. Well I'm 42 and some things have got better and some have got worse.

Theres a huge difference between being concerned about the level of immigration and wanting repatriation,wanting a return to the ethnic make up of 1948. I'm concerned about the level of immigration but not enough to take on the other BNP shit.