Toonpack

Agree with all of that - I think you sum up the situation perfectly Just needs Leazes to quote and state "Exactly" and we'll have a full set

Makes sense. That's why buyers were all over PL clubs. My point still stands. Among all those clubs changing hands, we remain one of the most expensive. Doesn't tally with the financial mess being portrayed in hindsight. The financial "mess" is not hindsight, it's a nailed on fact and is evidenced in the accounts, liabilites exceeding assets, revenues spent in advance etc etc To contend there was nowt wrong is ridiculous. The sale price is driven by what someone is prepared to pay, no-one who did do due dilligence, in the previous year, was prepared to pay anything. People get stung on buying stuff all the time, if they don't do their research. More fool them, and more fool Ashley in particular, but thank fuck he had deep pockets.

you truly are a hopeless case. You saying the finances were sound when Ashley bought the club? I'm still waiting for you to show me where I said we would finish 4th Outside Liverpool and Man U I can't remember many clubs being sold for more than we were. Amazing to think we were such a hopeless cause. If Ashley had done his homework he wouldn't have bought the club, that's one of the reasons he runs it as he does. Based on what? What was written at the time Sourced from liars who also said "We did the typical due diligence one would do on a public takeover. There is no sense that anyone has tried to mislead us." ..and he bought shares. Stock prices reflect the market value, based on submitted accounts, don't they? Otherwise Shepherd would be done for fraud. Stock prices reflect what people are prepared to pay for the stock on the open market, the accounts purely reflect financial performance in a given year. When businesses change hands there's also usually an element inflated in the price based upon "goodwill" (a value that can't be defined exactly, customer loyalty etc etc). The year previous to the sale the club spent £6 Million courting potential buyers and facilitating due dilligence (and attempting unsuccesfully to refinance) those who did look in detail, ran a mile. I would suggest it's fair to say that anyone else latterly doing the same "depth of look" would have done similar, based simply upon the existing evidence.

the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ???? are you saying Swansea are ambitious ? As you think NUFC are, then anything is possible. Answer the question !

the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks. no club that signs Wayne Routledge and plays him regularly can be seriously regarded as ambitious. So you agree HF's hypothesis was wrong then ????

http://www.foot01.com/equipe/lyon/cissokho-une-fausse-blessure-et-un-transfert-lundi-a-newcastle,82919 The absence of Aly Cissokho in the group that travels to Montpellier on Saturday surprised many, the defender of the official Olympique Lyonnais with muscle pain. Depending on progress, this package could be justified by the imminent departure of Cissokho. The regional newspaper says it will do in the next 72 hours the trip to Newcastle to undergo a medical examination. If it is positive, while Aly Cissokho could commit on Monday with the Magpies, who coveted for quite some time. No price has been raised so far, but we know that in this case Jean-Michel Aulas wanted to get a sum of around 10 th, even if now we talk now 9ME. A relatively respectable for a defender given the current status of the transfer market.

say something worthwhile or pipe down. It's my thread now Dave

the club, any club, that sells its best players and pockets the cash rather than allowing the manager to manage and build on its core of best players with the cash from sales is a selling club. What is so difficult about this that you don't grasp it, and continue to insist that we are doing things like Spurs do now, when this is clearly not the case. Newcastle United are too big a club to be a selling club, Mike Ashley was left a club maximising its potential income, or pretty damn close to it, when he bought it. The 14th biggest turnover in football should tell you that. How can he possibly mess up such a legacy ? Being such an astute businessman and taking over from such clowns as people like you say he did, only further clouds the issue, which is why we are selling our best players and pocketing the cash. At what stage does such a big club, one of the biggest in europe, have to stop selling its best players and pocket the cash - or I'll explain it in simple terms for you as you clearly didn't read Happy Face when he explained it for you - or divert it elsewhere, either to Sports Direct or other parts of the club. Do you or do you not think such a status ie 14th biggest turnover in football and one of the biggest in europe, is large enough to resist selling your best players and/or at least enabling you to back your manager with the full proceeds of the sale ? Or do you think this cash is being deliberately withheld ? Big clubs do NOT sell their best players and fail to back their managers, they keep their best players or if they have to sell or choose to sell, back their managers with the cash and so he builds on their core of best players. Oh but I did (page 32 I believe, was travelling last night/evening so didn't read it until today and couldn't be arsed to respond), he uses net spend as a measure, net spend over time is an irrelevance and therefore is as about as valid as nonsense. The ONLY figure that is of any value is total spent, and in that we're 8th over the last 6 years, not too shabby IMO. By HF's logic, Swansea (for example) are more ambitions, or more driven, than us because they have a bigger net deficit than we do, we however have spent seven and a half times MORE than them. so aye they're more ambitious than us, utter bollocks.

The chicken tikka bridies (a pasty to the non-teuchters) from one of the butchers there are immense

I like that.

at the time, bonny lad, at the time. You're showing your ignorance. Jack Walker bought the title, as you don't appear to know this. Of course I know but was hardly on the scale of City. We finished 6th that season, so 7th this year won't be too bad don't you think?? read the post properly man. I did, it reads like 95% of all your posts. as I have said to you, your posts are so varied, interesting and knowledgeable deluded, its unreal Deluded?? Finishing 7th? admitting players will get sold? Saying we can't compete financially with some clubs? Which one of these, enlighten me o wise one who has finished 7th ? You and others said we were going to finish 4th a couple of months ago ? When did I say that? The seasons not over yet but I think we are capable of finishing 7th, which would be progress progress to what ? I'm telling you now, the club has NO desire to do what is required to go higher than that. Consequently, it will go backwards and downwards, that is absolutely nailed on. It is a selling club again, like it was under the McKeags, Seymours etc, not a big club anymore. In my opinion (you can write this down so you don't missrepresent it). The club is operating in a way that will, and should, maximise it's potential over the long term in a wholly sustainable fashion, futhermore it will continue to progress in direct proportion to it's size. It is not selling club any more than any other, and it will not, as a rule, sell it's best players, unless it's for top wedge or the matter's out of their hands - player power/contract length etc. It is still a big club, and will continue to be so. If it has the money to spend, it will, if it doesn't it won't. (based on HF's table NUFC are the 8th biggest spenders in the last 6 years despite a year in the Championship, I expect that position to improve - because we will be able to afford it). AMEN P.S. There's a problem with the "we'll always sell our best players as a policy" statement/belief. To sell your best players pre-supposes there's a market for them, for that to be true said player(s) have to be better than what a team above you in the pecking order has already. If that happens to be the case, you're screwed by the nature of the game today, not any wish of your own. Furthermore, as we are a BIG club and our spending on playing staff is limited to a % of turnover (so it appears), that % for us is likely to be a bigger pie to share out than most. So in truth we are only really at the mercy of the Champions League clubs or those clubs who have benefited from CL recently (i.e. the richer one's than us), and that is something every club on the planet faces, any wish on our part to sell, or not, is irrelevant in that scenario. Outside of that players will be moved on, on our terms.

You are muddled. That is your opinion. Your opinion can be supported by facts but it is not a fact in its own right. Also, disregarding all that. Can I assume that from your point of view we are currently competing at the level you deem acceptable but you are disregarding it as acceptable because its not being done the way you want it to be done? What you want is for us to compete for EL qualification while spending lost of money on players. I think, he doesn't want us to sign good free players like Ba, but he'd rather we spent a fortune of someone's money (a banks money even) on expensive shite like Luque, Boumsong and Owen (as examples), relative league position is irrelevant, we just need to spend money as that's all that counts.

T'is true, but the problem is Leazes takes someone's opinion, completely disregards it, and starts stating their opinion is what he says it is, usually something completely different to the originally stated opinion. Hard for folks not to bite at that. Also it's a bit of a game, first person to get Leazes to answer a question, wins.

Highland Hotel on Crown Street, manager (or his son - I forget) is a mag, has all the dodgy satelite channels and for a small bar has about 20 TV's in it, every table has it's own, all of various sizes. The food there's excellent an all.

I guess the point I'm driving at is that For the foreseeable future the top 4 positions are out of our reach (or anyone else bar Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal). I mean, sure, Spurs and Liverpool may flirt with the top table now and again, but those four will consistently occupy those positions and Spurs and Liverpool will run out of steam/money. Every single NUFC fan wants to be back in the Champions League, wants to be holding our own against Barcelona, wants the excruciating drama again. But even if Ashley backed Pardew with a war chest that is proportionate to the funds provided by H&S we couldn't assail that position. I think this is the major problem; you're entire position is grounded on the assumption that it's the same game. It's quite simply not. H&S only had the financial behemoth that is Man U to contend with. Now it's Chelsea, Man City, etc. etc. In addition players are further from the paragons of loyalty and "home town lad done well" that you grew up with. I can count on one hand the number of players who make a move because of what their heart says. Everybody is a mercenary, everyone is out for themselves, sure they'll kiss the badge and provide the same tired old clichés about loving the club, I swear to God Lampard (Chewsee frew an' frew) would fuck off the minute the cheques stopped. How then can a club with modest means look to get a place at the top of the Premier League? We can't afford to throw huge wages at a gamble of Champions League (see what happened to Leeds), we can't afford to pay over the odds for players any more, look at the team that took us down. Big money signings on the whole. Owen, Martins, Duff, Coloccini, Enrique, Jonas, Nolan, Barton... all cost more than £5m. The game has changed Leazes and not even H&S's strategy would have us on the top table and it would instead have us bankrupt sooner, rather than later. wrong. The previous regime had the global appeal of ManU and the bankrolling of Jack Walker to beat and compete against. The only thing that is different is there are now 2 teams bankrolled, instead of 1. This is also NOT the reason why people wanted rid of the old regime. The reason was because they were considered to be "useless/had no planning/were embarrassing/appointed managers at the "wrong time" [delete as appropriate] and "anybody would do better than this". People know this, but are moving the goalposts. There is absolutely NO reason why any of this means that NUFC ought to be selling their best players and pocketing the cash, and not backing their managers. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that only one more club is being bankrolled, it has everything to do with showing the ambition to get in there and compete with the other big clubs, and acting like the big club that NUFC are, as suitable for a club that had the 14th biggest turnover in football when this man bought the football club. Aye it's exactly the same, ignoring that the Champions League money has exploded out of all proportion and there's 4 lots of it that gets circulated to the point the same 4 are all but locked in and get it year on year. But yes, it's exactly the same. so tell me again, when exactly does the club with the 14th biggest revenues in football needs to stop selling their best players and pocketing the cash to be "self sufficient" ? And what was your view of Mike Ashley before you revised it after the summer transfer window, as he didn't spend the cash from the Carroll sale and back his manager ? You do realise your "14th biggest revenues in football", probably wouldn't get us into the top 25 or maybe even top 30 these days don't you. Oh and we're not selling our best players (except for mega wonga) and we're not having our cash pocketted.

I guess the point I'm driving at is that For the foreseeable future the top 4 positions are out of our reach (or anyone else bar Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal). I mean, sure, Spurs and Liverpool may flirt with the top table now and again, but those four will consistently occupy those positions and Spurs and Liverpool will run out of steam/money. Every single NUFC fan wants to be back in the Champions League, wants to be holding our own against Barcelona, wants the excruciating drama again. But even if Ashley backed Pardew with a war chest that is proportionate to the funds provided by H&S we couldn't assail that position. I think this is the major problem; you're entire position is grounded on the assumption that it's the same game. It's quite simply not. H&S only had the financial behemoth that is Man U to contend with. Now it's Chelsea, Man City, etc. etc. In addition players are further from the paragons of loyalty and "home town lad done well" that you grew up with. I can count on one hand the number of players who make a move because of what their heart says. Everybody is a mercenary, everyone is out for themselves, sure they'll kiss the badge and provide the same tired old clichés about loving the club, I swear to God Lampard (Chewsee frew an' frew) would fuck off the minute the cheques stopped. How then can a club with modest means look to get a place at the top of the Premier League? We can't afford to throw huge wages at a gamble of Champions League (see what happened to Leeds), we can't afford to pay over the odds for players any more, look at the team that took us down. Big money signings on the whole. Owen, Martins, Duff, Coloccini, Enrique, Jonas, Nolan, Barton... all cost more than £5m. The game has changed Leazes and not even H&S's strategy would have us on the top table and it would instead have us bankrupt sooner, rather than later. wrong. The previous regime had the global appeal of ManU and the bankrolling of Jack Walker to beat and compete against. The only thing that is different is there are now 2 teams bankrolled, instead of 1. This is also NOT the reason why people wanted rid of the old regime. The reason was because they were considered to be "useless/had no planning/were embarrassing/appointed managers at the "wrong time" [delete as appropriate] and "anybody would do better than this". People know this, but are moving the goalposts. There is absolutely NO reason why any of this means that NUFC ought to be selling their best players and pocketing the cash, and not backing their managers. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that only one more club is being bankrolled, it has everything to do with showing the ambition to get in there and compete with the other big clubs, and acting like the big club that NUFC are, as suitable for a club that had the 14th biggest turnover in football when this man bought the football club. Aye it's exactly the same, ignoring that the Champions League money has exploded out of all proportion and there's 4 lots of it that gets circulated to the point the same 4 are all but locked in and get it year on year. But yes, it's exactly the same.

If the cash is a surplus, it should go onto the field, if it's not it can't. That's how they all work, the playing staff and associated costs aren't a separate item from eveything else and as such cannot be looked at in isolation ( and isn't in any of the major clubs)

That table is meaningless, the spend reflects the wealth of the clubs "within their means" , for the big boys, those with more cash spend more. Leazes has no comprehension what pocket ting means, your attemp to defend him is misplaced he's said on many occasions the money's going into Ashley's back pocket, it simply is not. If someone higher up the pecking order comes in your player will leave. End of. Modric is currently the exception, but he still hasn't signed his new pacification bumper contract.

A lot of Wenger's early success was built on the money they got for Petit and Overmars. It's interresting that LM derides the "live within your means" view but I thought that's what we did pretty much until about 2003. It was only when Shepherd started spending through credit that I think it got dodgy. Agreed. We actually made a profit in 2002 I think it was, off the top of my head.

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time. Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary. IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end). Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends. usual rubbish. You tell me any "big" club that sells their best players and pockets the cash without backing their manager. All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger. It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often. Man U - Ronaldo Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc Scouse - Alonso, Torres Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov why are you not answering the question in its entirety ? Oh sorry, you patently don't understand what "pocketting the cash" means, therefore a response would have been usueless. Ashley has NOT pocketted any cash, the previous regime however...........................

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time. Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary. IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end). Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends. usual rubbish. You tell me any "big" club that sells their best players and pockets the cash without backing their manager. All of them do it man!, They really do, their "profits on player trading" tell you all you need to know, and they only back their managers to the point they can afford. If they don't need to sell to generate cash they won't, but the minute they do, they'll pull the trigger. It's not always necesarily their "best" players but they always get good wedge for some of their better one's every so often. Man U - Ronaldo Arsenal - Henry, Viera, Fabregas, Nasri etc Scouse - Alonso, Torres Spurs - Carrick, Berbatov

sadly, this is where you and others like you fall down. What I say is correct. There is no reason whatsover why we should behave like Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs etc, like we did previously. Who consistently "cash in" on players and thus make profits and thus are sustainable and thus have become relatively succesfull. Edit: The other two you mention do not, as a rule, make losses on player transactions either btw. and the absolutely don't "go into debt" to buy players - ever. What you are complaining about at NUFC is EXACTLY 100% how the succesfull teams operate, i.e. within their means. Greater means = greater player investment (much of which is based upon a history of buying low and selling high). It really is that simple. please explain how a club that had the 14th largest turnover in football [higher than Spurs, and finished above Spurs during all the years they were ran by Alan Sugar on the same lines as Mike Ashley is running Newcastle] has suddenly had to start living "within their means" Then tell us where the Carroll cash has done, and why the club - if it didn't intend to give the cash back to the manager - didn't tell Liverpool to fuck off like Spurs told Chelsea when they asked about Modric ? Your comparison with Spurs is a joke, we are doing nothing like Spurs and haven't ever since Mike Ashley bought this football club. NO, it'd be a waste of time, you are too thick to understand it. BTW we're living within our means beacause that's the way to do it (as proven by ALL the succesfull clubs). You don't live beyond your means and be succesfull long term (ask Leeds and Porstmouth).

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenham...ual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time. Seems strange to only go back 7 years when reporting how well they're run then. Could understand if it was going back to Levy's arrival or summat. Seems quite arbitrary. IF you're referring to me "only going back 7 years" or being arbitrary implying some agenda driven reason of mine (not). The 7 years stuff is the easy summarised/tabulated stuff to find, beyond that was a bit more of a dig, which I've not dug before. Until you brought up the deeper past (was interested to have a look to see if indeed they did "speculate to accumulate", which apparently they didn't - I would add that loss in 2002 was primarily down to them changing their year end). Bottom line for me is that ALL the succesfull clubs (outside the bankrolled two) do exactly what we are doing now, but have been doing it for years. Not one of them has gone into debt to buy players. The "truth" of how a "big" club operates is exactly the oppsoite to what LM contends.

They've made profits year on year since 1999 (a loss of £2.1 Mill on 2002 apart) http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/investor/investor_annual_report.html They've been playing the sustainable game for a hell of a long time.

sadly, this is where you and others like you fall down. What I say is correct. There is no reason whatsover why we should behave like Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs etc, like we did previously. Who consistently "cash in" on players and thus make profits and thus are sustainable and thus have become relatively succesfull. Edit: The other two you mention do not, as a rule, make losses on player transactions either btw. and the absolutely don't "go into debt" to buy players - ever. What you are complaining about at NUFC is EXACTLY 100% how the succesfull teams operate, i.e. within their means. Greater means = greater player investment (much of which is based upon a history of buying low and selling high). It really is that simple.