Toonpack

In a statement when the accounts were released, "10th or above year on year" I believe was the quote.

Do fuck off - they expanded the ground but apart from that heaped debt on the club and destroyed cash flow by spending sponsorship money upfront. Why did they cut and run if it was all about the long term? Exactly Interesting that the "cut and run" happened just when the cash was really drying up an all. Not hate, I don't care enough to hate, just the truth. Oh and paging Stevie, while I'm on, I am awaiting my post of yesterday, you know the one you stated was "pish" to be "properly replied to" as you said you would.

Would it be a total surprise, or do you think he had a hunch ???

So when a negative connotation can be put on anything it's gospel, all else is lies To be fair that's how it's gone in the past so there's no reason to think any different, you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise tbh. I have little expectation about what will happen, it'll be what it'll be, but I do find it amusing how everything is made out to be negative all of the time.

So when a negative connotation can be put on anything it's gospel, all else is lies

Id suggest having a conversation with any of the local journos, Bird, Caulkin, Starforth. All will tell you what a joke this football club is. Could also have a chat with the fake sheik for balance. There's some short memories on here.

If that's all the Liz and Phil the Greek could afford, that is what they would have to do. To continue the analogy, they'd mortgaged all the tiara's and had maxed out the credit cards and STILL they needed more money. But if they still trolled around in their state coaches waving to the crowds they'd be exactly like we were, all fur coat and no knickers, till the day the baillifs turned up. Look, Ashley rightly get's villified for many things but the one thing above all that he get's hammered for, the so called skinflint and "lining his pockets" is absolutely and utterly wrong. Even with our record revenues we made losses year on year, it had to stop somewhere. There comes a time when you have to realise that you've "missed the boat" the ONLY way to increase our revenues to the levels necessary (and the factual trend was down year on year from the "high" of 2003) was to be in the champions league, we just did not have the money to do that, we didn't really even have the money to troll around mid-table. You can set your sights as high as you like but you have to be able to back it up with hard £££'s. Everyone ignores debt "because all clubs have debts and they don't matter", well sorry like, but they do matter the minute you can't service them. As I've said before, our debt was incomparible to "other" football club debt, it was ALL leveraged and secured on the club and it's income streams (future and present). It was NOT like other club debt - Do the research (I have) and you'll see it's true. We did not have a pot to piss in. Our debt is now closer to not mattering than it ever was because it is now, LIKE other teams debts, underwritten by an owner, cunt though he may be. It remains different in one respect in that Ashley does NOT charge any interest on his loans, unlike almost every other owner, some like Lerner make a huge wedge from their "benevolence" (circa 15% of turnover). That is not a bad/evil thing, surely!. Even if turnover could be boosted to the £120 Million Stevie stated "easily" all that would do (because of our annual losses - even before Ashleys relegation genius) would have been to stand still because when your bleeding at £20-£30 million a year you'd better find some cash somehwere. All the above is factual (apart from the Queens knickers bit) and like it or not Ashley (or someone like him) was desperately needed at this club. Destroy the bloke for pissing off KK, sticking tacky adds on the roof, appointing Joe Kinnear, getting us relegated BUT to villify him for anything to do with the clubs money is beyond preposterous. I would fucking LOVE for someone to destroy my post with facts/evidence, anything substantial and I would gladly be shown up as wrong. But you know what, I don't think I am. We are what we are, because we are reaping what we (the club) sowed, and regretably we are all that we can afford to be. FACT.

So where'd the money come from to make this assault on the top 4 (or top 2 according to you). I'd love to know. I can't abide Ashley personally, but I do appreciate his moolah.

Man Utd - no chance Man City - no chance Arsenal - no chance Chelsea - no chance Liverpool - as I've said used generated funds to buy new players and as the Livepool fan said will probably spend a fair bit in the summer. they are a long way ahead of us. Spurs - used transfer profits over the last 4 years to build a squad which is a lot better than us The latter two is a level I'd like to aim for and I accept your argument that there's nothing wrong with that but they are streets ahead of us - that's simple realism without millions being spent which is what I keep saying. So where does that leave us? - you keep mentioning Blackburn but I'd say its more Villa, Everton, the Mackems and "functional" teams like Stoke. That is the next tier and thinking that we can compete above that is unrealistic - again as I keep saying "accepting" that Ashley won't invest. The funny thing is if a new owner did come in and try and do the same turnover expansion as the previous regime using revenue and loans only, you're probably talking a maximum spend of £50m - do you think that would give us a better squad than Spurs or Liverpool? you've just said how Spurs and Liverpool are aiming higher than we are, now. I like how you concede inferiority to Arsenal, where exactly do you think they will go when Wenger goes and if they don't make a similar calibre appointment ? Nothing is permanent, that is a fundamental you and others appear to fail to grasp. We have one of the biggest clubs and fanbases in the country, there is simply no excuse for any owner not attempting to capitalise on it. They are aiming higher because obviously they have better owners - what I'm saying is that they have funded most of their recent squad building by either transfer profits or debt in Liverpools case which has then been written off. At the end of the day they still have lot better squads than us which is why its unrealistic to expect competition in the immediate future. Arsenal will have to be judged when the new owner shows his hand - they may have a lot of money to spend to go with a much better academy than us at the moment. If you want to predict how things will be in 5 or 10 years time then good luck - obviously we agree we should be going all out but I think its going to be difficult given the present situation. As I've said before I've never been able to figure Ashley out and to a large extent I don't think he know what he wants either. We are of course the victims of that but I don't see the point of railing against it until things become clearer. We didn't have debt by buying players NJS. Our debt was down to a leveraged buy out and the two owners putting the buying of the club on to the club itself a year after they'd 'bought' it. Player transfers showed a net profit for their last two and a half years ownership. Prior to the Yanks all profit from annual turnover (usually around 10 to 15 million) and player sales were put back in to the club. David Moores made a complete hash of selling the club, and his merchandising of it during his time was shit, but neither he nor the directors ever took a penny out of it in dividends or anything. That's how it always was before him too. I thought that's how all clubs had to work. DM invested 12 million to buy the majority of shares in '92 and sold them for 80 million 15 years later, that was the way it always worked wasn't it? The owners made a profit only when they sold their shares on? I remember the uproar when Martin Edwards made himself Chief exec so that he could draw a wage because the FA had said one board member could be paid. Our new owners paid 300 million for the club to RBS because that's who the debt of buying the club was owed to. If they hope to make money from it surely the best way is to build it up, win things, and then sell it on at a profit 6 or 7 years down the line. Be interesting to see what your lot do in the summer, whether they do what's been done before, spend what the pot generates itself, or if JH flashes some of his own money. I suspect the former.

I agree and what that also confirms is, that if SBR had been in work, he wouldn't have come when he did. I also agree with LM's "end the career in ablaze of glory at the hometown club" sentiment, but only because the vacancy, and thus that opportunity, arose when he was otherwise unengaged.

I didn't. I'm not going to keep arguing about it tbh but I think you're being completely naive if you don't think the stature at that time was the main motivator in his coming to the club. If he'd come post KK you'd have a point. I also accept if we were in the third division he wouldn't have come when he did. I suspect if he was in work, he wouldn't have come when he did either. He did come post-KK Touche

If all our debt was for the stadium and on a reducing balance basis, that'd be fine. It wasn't sadly. Reet agreement turned back on

I didn't. I'm not going to keep arguing about it tbh but I think you're being completely naive if you don't think the stature at that time was the main motivator in his coming to the club. If he'd come post KK you'd have a point. I also accept if we were in the third division he wouldn't have come when he did. I suspect if he was in work, he wouldn't have come when he did either.

Can't let that one pass, sadly. Yes football clubs run with large debts and yes NUFC is totally different kettle of fish, why, not because we're "bigger" BUT because our debt was structured/held totally different to ALL other Prem Club debt. As in what it was secured against. Our debt was 110% guaranteed by the fabric of the club. Other clubs debt is partially secured against assets but without exception is guaranteed/undwerwritten by owners. Meaning if the debts are called in, the owners lose the cash and assetts of the club remain. We did not have that.

He wanted the job because he was out of work AND it was his hometown club, stature was immaterial. When KK left they went for Robson (credit to them for that) who was at Barca at the time, I remember seeing an interview with him, he was absolutely torn (anguished even) between staying there, because he was contracted, or coming here as it was a question of "his honour over his heart", he actually used words very close to those. Of course Barca shortly thereafter repaid his "honour" by canning him. I know all that and I remember the interview in question. It was on the pitch or at the training groung of Barcelona iirc. It's absolute fucking bollocks to say the stature of the club at the time wasn't a factor in his decision to come here though. In fact I would suggest it played a major role in the reason why he was torn about whether or not to take the job when it was offered to him on the occasion you're talking about. Are you seriously suggesting he'd have considered leaving Barcelona at that time (which we both agree he did consider) were it not for the position the club was in then? Laughable to suggest it wasn't a major factor in his being initial thinking about coming here and also taking the job not long afterwards. Of course being a fan and being available were also factors but he was never interested in being Newcastle manager before the previous regime transformed our fortunes. Of course the "stature" or position of the club made the approach worth considering, post KK, but to say the same circumstance existed when he was finally appointed is rubbish. He was out of work. Was he ever even approached previous to the Hall/Shep regime ???

He wanted the job because he was out of work AND it was his hometown club, stature was immaterial. When KK left they went for Robson (credit to them for that) who was at Barca at the time, I remember seeing an interview with him, he was absolutely torn (anguished even) between staying there, because he was contracted, or coming here as it was a question of "his honour over his heart", he actually used words very close to those. Of course Barca shortly thereafter repaid his "honour" by canning him.

The owners took advantage of good timing within football and a good manager. I remember KK saying when we got promoted and he told Hall he was aiming to win the league, Hall didn't believe him as they'd never envisaged that - it was KK who drove the initial ambition. I actually agree with whoever it was who said going PLC and John Hall taking a back seat is what really ended the momentum - after that it was all money we didn't have being spent and increasing desperation which is why its Shepherd I criticise more than John Hall. Their model wouldn't work now as they never injected capital themselves - that's what I keep trying to argue is why its no good holding their ways up as relevant for the situation now - in the current times we unfortunately need Ashley's pockets as is true for almost all the clubs in the country. it doesn't matter man, they weren't "lucky" to get Bobby Robson etc, he was a good appointment and Keegan was an inspired appointment, Dalglish and Gullit despite not doing so well as hoped were at the time, top appointments, you can only beat your competitors at the time. We need owners who set these standards all the time, give credit where its due FFS. We don't need Ashleys pockets to set our aims higher than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn and attempt to compete with clubs like Spurs and Liverpool Out of work, available and he called them I seem to recall

I soooo want to reply to that. But I won't

Well that was a well thought out argument and post Spot on though. Not at all, I refer you to NJS' post above

Well that was a well thought out argument and post

He's French, it's absolutely normal behaviour, read nowt into it (or any of his future strops, which are guaranteed) never try and measure their mood to Brit standards/emotions. I've been working with them on and off for the last 12 months, never happy unless there's a drama, all the better if they can create said drama out of nowt, which for some reason makes them feel better. Strangely when there is a REAL drama they just shrug their shoulders and don't seem bothered (oh and it's always someone else's fault).

He's also significantly less likely to go to prison

Steve Harper tribute kit ??

It's not a million miles away from the best NUFC strip ever, the bukta one. I actually quite like it, it's a wee bit retro.

It'll be interesting to see how many on your shortlist actually join us, and how much the net spend actually is. Of course all fees will be undisclosed but we can have a go. Won't matter, one part of the financial disclosure for the new UEFA rules is a transfer payable table: The transfer payables table must contain the following information as a minimum (in respect of each player transfer, including loans): a) Player (identification by name or number); b.) Date of the transfer/loan agreement; c) The name of the football club that formerly held the registration; d) Transfer (or loan) fee paid and/or payable (including training compensation and solidarity contributions); e) Other direct costs of acquiring the registration paid and/or payable; f) Amount settled and payment date; g) Balance payable at 30 June in respect of each player transfer; h) Due date(s) for each unpaid element of the transfer payables; and i) Conditional amounts (contingent liabilities) not yet recognised in the balance sheet as of 30 June. Of course that may remain confidential to clubs and UEFA