Toonpack

It's a good guide to what we were, they had their very own FFS "but the vast sums splashed out on mediocre players (e.g. Manuel Fernandes, bought for €18 million, sold for €2 million, and Nikola Žigić, bought for €14 million, sold for €7 million) and the constant changes in management (costing over €30 million in severance payments) were certainly down to him. His attempts to “live the dream” resulted in no major trophies, exacerbated by failure to qualify for the Champions League, and massive debts". "they still carry a vast amount of debt. Soler’s excesses increased this from around €100 million when he took over to a crippling €550 million in 2009. Although this was reduced to €471 million in June 2010, it is still extremely high, only surpassed in Spain by Real Madrid €660 million and Barcelona €549 million, and those two clubs benefit from much higher revenue and greater borrowing capacity. In fact, Valencia’s annual revenue of €102 million means that their debt cover is only 0.22, which is the weakest in La Liga. The other particularly worrying aspect for Valencia is that a large amount of this debt is from bank loans with €249 million owed to Banaja – and most of that (€229 million) is short-term, so payable within a year. Apart from the standard trade creditors, accruals and provisions, Valencia also owe a large amount (€58 million) to other football clubs for transfer fees, while €31 million of the loan from local businesses remains".

Exactly

Can't be bothered to do the full thing but would suggest a start along the lines of: Did They win Yes – Allow minimum 48 hours before posting (you’ve been away, remember!) No – Post within 24 hours (Flash in the pan/I was right/going backwards)

This, as per the pre-Cisse signing ITK as well.

The difference quoted between Bolton etc. is how much MORE we have spent than them in the last 5 years. If only our stadium debt was the only debt we had. The other £52 Million was the kicker. Bottom line for me Jay, is YES the previous regime backed the manager. But only when that level of backing didn't effect their take. See the Bowyer summer, portrayed as a summer of taking stock and consolidating, i.e. being prudent. Shame the prudence didn't stretch to the £9 million taken in Divi and salary that year aint it. That £9 Mill might just have bought a player (or two) to have kept us challenging in/around the CL when the money really exploded.

Where have I EVER said, intimated, or even conveyed I may have thought that, seriously :icon_lol: The stadium debt (as mentioned as nauseum) was less than half of our total debt, it's the ONLY element of the total debt that was sensible.

has it impacted us more than the likes of Stoke, Bolton, Blackburn etc ie forced us to lower our ambitions to such levels ? Last I looked, we were still at least twice the club that these are, wouldn't you agree ? Was it the reason Spurs told Chelsea to fuck off when they asked about Modric ? With at least thrice the debt (to the banks) at the time BTW we've spent £20Mill more than each the first two, over the last 5 years, thick end of £50 Mill more than Blackburn.

Haven't criticised Pardew so far but geezus why we didn't go 442 at half time, they had nowt. Playing not to lose, usually gets just what we've got.

I'm not using spreadsheets, am speaking from experience. The only thing scarey about this exchange is that you think i'm scaremongering. I'm the positive soothsayer, trying to reassure people that their may be some method to the apparent madness, you're the merchant of doom, not me. The way we competed in the 90s was fantastic but there were exceptional environmental factors also driving the club forward. Thats why you cant compare the club's performance across time within the same framework. experience tells you that what I say in the clip from the book, above, is the truth ie the reality. Experience should tell you that football business is not the same as the High Street business, where coming 5th top company in 15 years is outstanding success and would not get you booed by knowledgeable shareholders. You are making the comparions, me - while I recognise football is of course still a business, the rules, expectations, demands are totally unique. Experience should tell you this. The simple fact is whatever conditions existed in the 1990's existed for all clubs, and the Halls and Shepherd competed with their rivals more than anybody else in their own particular eras because they knew the size of the club, the potential of the club and the desire to compete at those levels. There is no mystery about this, that is literally all they did. You keep quoting that part of the book, and it is pathetic and utter nonsense, as has been pointed out as many times.

The Star Walk app for the iphern/ipad is excellent. The night sky, if you are out in the sticks with no ambient light, is astounding.

You need to suffix it with .cymru

I dunno but there's a big ingot of lilac at the back, looks about £27 Mill's worth

Sadly that's not true, we recorded loss after loss and still strangely managed to pay dividend so shareholders could "pocket", which should make you feel even worse I knew that really, I was just simplifying. Not sure I can feel worse what with us being a selling club and clearly and evidently still on a downward trajectory. For the record 98 - 08 Total Profits in period = £12 Mill, Losses in same period = £146 Mill so cumulative losses £134 Mill. But hey, we managed £34 Mill in dividends in the same period.

Sadly that's not true, we recorded loss after loss and still strangely managed to pay dividend so shareholders could "pocket", which should make you feel even worse

Just one quick “point of order”, the Stadium debt was indeed good debt. Sadly it accounted for less than half of our total debt at the time. Additionally (it's a long time since I looked it up) but it was an interest only loan which was due to “expire” in a few years (as you say) but with that expiration the capital sum had to be repaid (in full). The loan was not "gone" in a few years (2014 I think) simply the term of the mortgage expired. (that was £37 Million-ish I believe, to be found in 2014 in full, in real readies, moolah etc etc).

Why won't people give Obertan time, he's 22 FFS. Collo and Enrique were branded shite early doors (and afair time after).

If it was a choice between England and Newcastle, everyone on here would pick Newcastle and it would be "fuck England". Club is WAY more important than country in football terms over here (that probably goes for any club as well).

There's three excuses really, the one you state and the others being someone further up the tree making an offer you can't (and the player won't) refuse. Those and remaining contract duration, where agents and players can coin it in with a move (see Enrique).

But why is the fact that he wasn't the owner significant in any way ??? On the other, I have numerous times in the last few months, not doing it again.

Yeah, cause that never happened under Shepherd..... 5th most qualified for europe and the Champions League in 15 years, 5th highest average league position in 15 years, transforming the club from one that couldn't raise 1.2m quid into the 14th biggest revenues in football, from a club with one foot in the 3rd division into one of the biggest clubs in europe, signing the world record transfer player......justifies the transfer policy they employed, wouldn't you agree ? PS. Shepherd never owned the club by the way. Just thought I'd point that out, in case you didn't know. Why do you believe that is significant in any way ???

Can't it also be argued that players like Duff, Boumsong are marquee signings on inflated wages? Duff by virtue of reputation, Boumsong by virtue of the fee paid? We have, under H&S, spent a lot of money and offered high wages. Often to secure players who who may have chosen the London clubs or Manchester/ Liverpool if it weren't for those deciding factors? I don't believe that we only ever paid over the odds, but I'd say that we did so more than a lot of Premier League clubs in our position. we also got higher positions for the money, much higher and more consistently high positions and european football and champions League. Which is the whole idea, wouldn't you agree ? What makes me laugh about posts like this, is the cherry picking on the presumption that we ought to get every single transfer correct and/or every other club bar NUFC does so. Nobody gets every transfer right, not even Peter Taylor and Brian Clough did that. The overall results of the 2 different strategies are crystal clear. It was borrowed money, i.e. money we didn't have and when wasted was irreplaceable and it ran out. (no-one outside of Leeds and Portsmouth operated like that as the "one and only" policy).

Quick question Yesterday player (bald cunt) through on keeper, knocks ball sideways, runs into advancing keeper = Penalty Today Player (Welbeck) through on keeper knocks ball past keeper, brought down by advancing keeper = clerance off the line, play on. How's that work ???

The high line is fine as a rule, it gets caught out by the "straight run" when the bloody midfield can't keep hold of the ball in front of the back 4 when moving forward. The back line are advancing and are wrong footed by a quick release back at them. Doesn't excuse some shoddy defending but the "high line" wasn't the main problem. Frankly just an appalling 20 minutes for us Midfield 2nd half (apart from last 15 mins or so) was attrocious Putting it down to one of those days, was thinking at half time, if we'd had a cutting edge we'd have been out of sight by the half !!

Ah a man without black & white glasses on You sound happy

Chalk and cheese frist half to this, Duff's artistic impression moment changed it big time, but why we just capitulated fuck knows, utterly on top first half.