Toonpack

Mismanagement of money. The sale of Andy Carroll for 35M is only a good sale if we end up with a better team as a result. We've been lied to over and over again, about money, player retention, you name it. This is just another one of the lies, another con that the gullible will seemingly gulp down eagerly. If the core of the supporters stopped acting like mugs then they'd have to stop treating them like mugs. Has anyone said different ??? The lies Grow up FFS

How am I obsessed with a book ?? I've never actually read it, it's a single quote I found. I have never read a football related book in my life, apart from a couple of annuals when I was a nipper, couldn't think of anything worse tbh. Is there a book that explains why the best owners we ever had ran for the hills as soon as the gravy train dried up ??? I might read that one. You're off ignore btw, can't let your Goebel's-esque revisionist history pass, sadly. Will just spend my days poo poo-ing the pathetic child-like hysteria on here now I think. is this why you recommended to me that I read it ? Is this something else you have made up, like "the most memorable match you have ever been to" - which never existed ? What else are you making up ? Are you Billy Liar or just living in a fantasy world ? Based on the quote I suggested you read it as it's patently a contrary view, from someone who would know, just for you to consider, you see?. Never said "my most memorable match" your words not mine, please provide a link if I'm wrong, big deal, I got a score wrong You got the opposition wrong for your "favourite player ever"'s testimonial, I don't carp on and on and on about that. FYI my most memorable football match ever was the FA Amateur Cup final in 1969. My life doesn't orbit around NUFC or football, far from it, when I watch a game I feel happy or sad for a while, when they lose it does fuck up my night/weekend a bit but soon I consign it to the "typical Newcastle" dustbin in my head. I remember snippets, that's all, amazes me how people can remember every fucking goal from years ago to be honest (or why they'd even want to). Life as an all consumed football fan is a life doomed to disappointment and misery with all too brief highs, shit even Man Utd fans whinge. When I was not long married, I came in from a game fucking spitting because we'd been shite and lost (couldn't tell you what the game was, it mustn't have existed). The Mrs after putting up with my sulk for a while, rather bluntly, made the immortal statement "It's only a game for heavens sake", I lost it ranted and raved and chucked the TV remote at the telly, remote smashed to bits fortunately the telly was OK. We hardly had two pennies to rub together, if I'd knacked the telly fuck knows when I'd have been able to replace it because we'd saved and saved to get it in replacement for me Gran's old portable we'd been given, changing channel on the box was a fucking huge pain in the arse even with only 3 channels. I "grew up" around that time and have been happily married for 30 years this year, it was actually the Mrs who bought me my first season ticket because she was pissed off at the time I was having to leave the house to get in the ground when KK came back as manager. I do care, to a point, but it doesn't really matter that much anymore, sure it can somewhat cloud my weekend, for an hour or two, but that's all. Maybe that's why I can look at stuff with a certain detachment. In the grand scheme of things, all those years ago, the Mrs was right, even moreso now, given the vastly overpaid mercenary, badge kissing, tarts who today masquerade as footballers playing a supposedly contact sport. I must be a heretic.

Ashley loving apologist tbh

A dog that can type can't be considered naughty by any stretch. The moral thought that goes into a dogs decision making is nothing to do with typing ability. He could have dictated it anyway. Or maybe written a ruff draft

A dog that can type can't be considered naughty by any stretch.

Which 12 year old set up that blog ??

Well there were some negative effects, and some positive ones. E's definitely changed me a little bit I was never ever paranoid, but when I chucked them when I was about 22, I was a bit fucked up cos I did that many, I was areet, but I'd have proper bouts of paranoia. Sometimes though after good uns, I be really uppy for a few days could still feel them, the worse thing for me though even worse than the paranoia was me memory. I'd try to remember the most basic things, and I had proper amnesia quite often, like I'd try to remember what I was talking about 5 minutes ago and feel proper confused wasn't nice. I just did too many, I've got an addictive personality, so I always end up having too much of something or nothing, gambling, beer, drugs, getting sensible now though and aboot time, but aye that was the hardest thing that. From 2000, I only did e one more time, did six in one neet in 2002, and nee cowies since then am pleased to say and I never would again. That post explains a lot tbh

How am I obsessed with a book ?? I've never actually read it, it's a single quote I found. I have never read a football related book in my life, apart from a couple of annuals when I was a nipper, couldn't think of anything worse tbh. Is there a book that explains why the best owners we ever had ran for the hills as soon as the gravy train dried up ??? I might read that one. You're off ignore btw, can't let your Goebel's-esque revisionist history pass, sadly. Will just spend my days poo poo-ing the pathetic child-like hysteria on here now I think.

Good crack. Look at these heed the baals though. So he's got fawa holes in feet and his hands, his side absolutely pissing of blood, and he walks 3,000 mile to India for a curry. You have to question the sanity of these people, you really do. Let them believe what they want though. Hasn't like

careful we aren't overcharged half a million quid for a promising player and end up paying 2m quid for Jay Boothroyd instead because its "better value for money" To be honest leazes i would expect to pay about 12mil for him so its a suprise to me Stoke going in with half of that. If we could get him for about 8mil then i'd be delighted. 4mil more to spend on the rest of the squad eh? Dont think we will end up with any shite like Boothroyd. We've already shown our intent in the standard of player we are after. Boothroyd is shite. We wont sign him. Put that in the prediction thread. Leazes is talking about buying Dean Sturridge according to a thread he's put elsewhere so £12 Mill is a bit of a stretch tbh.

Fucking hell, I know Ashley is a cunt but if you want to go down that route you would have to talk about Shepherd and his relationship with Willie McKay. I have absolutely no doubt at all that FS made money out of NUFC. I also have no doubt that he made more than is reported. That doesn't mean that Ashley is squeaky clean. See, this is something I can't really see the point of disputing, everybody wants to make money out of something, it's not a crime, it's just life. I don't care if the Halls and Shepherd made money, they saved the club and took risks, however minimal in proportion to what came later, in fact what came later came because it was a success. They took their financial rewards like people do, but as supporters, they gave us a good 15 years, shame we didn't win a trophy or two, but we came close a lot of times and it was by far the best years in half a century. If Mike Ashley does the same I wouldn't begrude him selling on and making money either. That's the point I'm making. There may be a few owners who are losing money running premier league clubs, some of them because they love the game and are rich enough to indulge themselves. I don't think Ashley is one of them despite what the accountants say. I'm with you in that the FCB could make as much as he wants if his ambition matched it. The only owners who are making money are those who charge interest on their loans to their clubs, even terming that as "making money" is a bit of a stretch. (the owners who charge interest is basically all of them btw, except Ashley and Al Fayed, last I looked, and maybe the Stoke guy but he's in for less than £10Mill). Said it before, there's plenty of sticks to beat Ashley up with, but money isn't one of them, seriously it's not.

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle. I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!! I hesitate to say it as know I'm wasting my breath, but Leazes' argument that football clubs never go 'bust' because someone always comes in to save them (and he does genuinely advocate that approach) does have the intrinsic weakness that the personality of the person who arrives as 'saviour' becomes a key factor. So if you like, ironically, despite everything he says about Ashley, the person who has really got his man is Leazes. You can't have it both ways after all. Ok yeah, it could have been an Arab. But it wasn't. As to sniffer, I imagine it is worth Ashley 'keeping it going' as long theres nobody currently willing to buy it off him. What would be your alternative suggestion for him, like? You make a decent point.

I don't see any need to speculate with regards to club finances when we can turn to Chez for the cold hard facts that exist only in his imagination. Last I heard the club were waiting until they sell some NUFC mugs so they can put some petrol in the lawnmower and give the pitch a good once over. What do you do for a living, as a matter of interest ???

Please explain, I'd really like to understand that theory. As I guess would HMRC and companies house etc etc Other than Dekka and Mike perfecting Alchemy in the Lab of Cockney Evil in the bowels of SJP, I'm struggling to find an explanation to explain this huge fiddle. I mean the auditors Price Waterhouse Coopers (or some such) sign off the accounts on the basis that the owner underwrites and is subsidising the club as a going concern and yet he's coining it in, fucking outrageous, someone should be told !!!!!!

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case. Glad I chose to un-ignore this post. Still making stuff up I see. Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance. Got to laugh at these people who make a big thing about putting someone on ignore yet still peep at every post that person makes. Either ignore or dont ignore ffs. Please provide links to all of leazes' posts where I have responded directly, is it all of them dimwit eh?

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day. nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ? No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second. They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there. I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment. I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place. There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time. Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money. Let's be clear. Spending the £35 million would not be a change in policy at all. The statement following promotion said there would be no capital outlay on players...and reinvesting the £30m-£35m wouldn't deviate from that policy at all. A policy which pissed off an awful lot of people at the time. It's been a great exercise in lowering expectations once again, that if we do reinvest the £35m then it will signify Ashley is 'GREAT' when saying he'd do exactly that one year ago saw him lambasted. To repeat, spending the £35m is just what they've promised as a minimum and have always stated. It's telling that this is now the peak of what Ashley's strongest supporters can hope for in their wildest dreams. If they spend MORE than that, then it could be seen as evidence of a more ambitious policy change. However, if they DON'T spend that much, I won't be too worried about it, I've never believed a word they've said. Your getting Loonatic LM syndrome, there are no Ashley supporters man, there are those of us who can see some method in the madness (I even see some necessity in it). There are simply some of us who refuse to believe that everything he does is a zany personal vendetta against NUFC and it's fans. IF we have a decent sized transfer deficit it means he is "building the team" and not recouping or reducing his exposure, or lining his pockets as the eejits say. IF there is another transfer profit, then he is recouping and the extent of that will not be known until the accounts come out, as you originally said. BUT there'll be enough evidence to suggest a direction change, if there is one.

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case. Glad I chose to un-ignore this post. Still making stuff up I see. Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance. good job "Fred" bought Laurent Robert and Craig Bellamy then, instead of doing it the Mike Ashley way ie selling someone like Alan Shearer and Rob Lee to balance the books, or we would have wrapped ourselves in bottom half of the league splendour with a terrific bank balance instead of going to the Nou Camp [again] and the San Siro etc. Who the fuck wants to do things like that eh ? What would the club need to do from now until the end of the summer to make you think again? I dont mean change your mind completely, one good summer doesnt make an ambitious owner of course but what would be acceptable for you? Be sold to an owner that gives a fuck? That's another thing that puzzles me about the bloke. Why does he go to the games, I can't work that one out at all, especially if he "doesn't give a fuck". He's a bazillionaire, he's put his team in place to run the thing, he gets dogs abuse when he goes, so why, there is no need ?? I doubt he visits his stores that often, certainly not them 200+ miles from his home. That just doesn't stack up.

Good Break into someone's house, all bets are off IMO. All this if you put barbed wire on your fence without a sign and someone gets cut you can be sued malarkey, is nonsense.

fucking great this man, on the one hand we have those [ie Toonpack - anything "Fred" did, lets do it differently] who think they dish out champions league and european places by virtue of your bank balance, and those of us who largely realise this is not the case. Glad I chose to un-ignore this post. Still making stuff up I see. Champions league places are "won" largely on ability to spend, which I would suggest equates to the health/depth of your (or your owners) bank balance. So indeed Champions League places are by virtue of said bank balance.

They are implicit based on what is available. If the club decides to spend £10m the 'budget' was £10m, if they decide to spend more, the budget was more. Its limited by what is available. When you've just transferred £5m to a club in France, thats £5m less available than you had the previous day. nice financial lessons Chez but are you saying NUFC are one of those clubs that need to sell to survive here ? No not at all, just establishing what is available and the limitations associated with it. There are 2 debates going on all the time, one is about where the club is in reality and the other is about what the club ought to do. If you dont understand the first, you cant have an informed discussion on the second. They wont do what they ought to do but if you think we are loaded and have £35m sloshing around doing nothing then we ought to spend at least that. If we are recovering from relegation and still have high wage costs, then perhaps they ought to spend a bit less. Ultimately they wont spend what they should but the level of disaffection should be tempered by knowing that there isnt quite the amount of money presumed to be available actually there. I'm not having either of those discussions at the moment. I'm sticking to the utter drivell that comes from the club which means the reality based discussion can't happen in the first place. There's only once a year that the reality based conversation changes, that's when the books come out. So we can look at the effect of the Carroll sale in about 9 or 10 months time. Why wait that long?? If there's been a policy change, it'll be evident by 1/9 and if that happens it'll be safe to accept that it was down to the Carroll money.

I can see both sides of this argument, Chez is right as far as Im concerned that the purchase was made in January however you'd be right to argue that the purchase wasnt a new one, we already had Ben Arfa and as far as the fans were aware we were planning on buying him regardless of whether Carroll stayed or went. To then include him as a "its alright we sold Carroll because we got Ben Arfa" would be a strange one. As has been said before, its too early to call either way on this transfer window. We've brought in some early and could continue to. On the other hand we could now get rid of all those that have been mentioned and end up in the brown stuff. Lets see come September, Im sure you can guess what I think the likely scenario is. As for Toonpacks statement that a transfer fee is not creative accounting, no the fee itself isnt but thats not what Oz was getting at, it was the inclusion of future wages into the whole spending of that income. We purchased Cabaye for £4.5m and are paying him £35k p/w on a 5 year contract which equates to a total outlay of £13.6m as far as the club are concerned. So out of the £35m Carroll money we now have £21.4m after Cabaye alone. Stick Ba on the same money and even on a free youve knocked another £9.1m off. Its very creative accounting. It works to a fashion if, when we sell players, we also add their remaining contract wages to the pot but you can be sure that wont happen. We've spent £13m on Cabaye but if we were to sell him next year for £10m say then you can bet your house that the value we get told we're spending is £10m and not £17m as it really should be. As for the original statement from Derek about it all going back into the club then yeah hes right but ultimately that equates to a saving for Ashley. I know that's what he was getting at. That income is club income just like any other, and thus wages have to be catered for out of the whole pot (which includes the Carroll cash and anything else). Just because it's a transfer fee in doesn't make it any different or mean it can be "ringfenced". p.s. According to the reports in France Cabaye is on £50K/week (60K Euros) I've said all along we "should" have a net spend of north of £20Mill, I still believe that is the case. As an aside, what's going to matter come 1st September the total the sum comes out at, or the content of the squad ??? (and before LM thinks I'm moving goalposts I'm not, it is a simple question)

Chez has common sense.

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc. We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it. It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price. Yeah, you're right. Anyone got the number for the Puma sweatshop? We'll get them to churn out some Andy Carrolls. Half a dozen or so at 35M a pop and we'll we debt free. I've seen the light. You're better than that. Don't be a spastic

..and what about the loss of our leading scorer and most promising local player in some time? Completely different to selling a shirt. You surely must concede that. Andy Carroll is an asset to the club, one that would have helped to maintain premiership status, helped to sell those same shirts you talk about, would have sold the dream to the local youth coming through, kept fans entertained and attending matches, no doubt kept the tabloids going etc etc. We've been conned into thinking the sale of Carroll was too good to turn down because that money could easily be used to improve our squad. I'd stake my membership here on it. It is only different in terms of magnitude otherwise it is exactly the same. A club asset was sold for a price. The club now has money, this summer it should use that money, I've said that all along. The sale of Carroll (at that price) was absolutely too good to turn down. We wait to see if that good is undone (or not).

Like the money received for a new shirt in the club shop, a transfer fee received is just income to the club, it's not creative accounting, why don't some people get this ???