Toonpack

We've had "some" (quite a big "some") already, how much more is reasonable ? You're right though, it is his toy (lock stock and barrel) and he'll do with it whatever he wants.

Oh aye cos qualification for Europe, staying in Premiership etc does not increase turnover does it? Not by enough. Our loss of 2008 (£20.3 Mill) was off the back of the aforementioned transfer profit (£10.8 Mill) and our biggest ever revenue generated of £99.4 Mill. Seriously, where was the money to come from to cover the losses AND spend the transfer profits. 2006 our last qualification for Europe with the games played in 2007 season (and thus the Euro riches followed) we made a net spend on transfers of £2.1 Mill and the club made a record loss of £34.2 Mill (would have been £41 Mill if we hadn't got £7Mill off the FA for EMO). That worked well. (revenue was £87.1 Mill that Euro year btw, same as 2005 but a tad more than 2006) Of course I forgot, rampant spending also 100% guarantees Europe doesn't it.

Are you sure ? 2005 £13.4 Mill profit on players sales and club made an operating profit of £600K 2006 £5.6 Mill profit on player sales and club made an operating loss of £12 Mill 2007 £2.1 Mill deficit on players sales club made a loss of £34.2 Mill 2008 £10.8 Mill profit on player sales yet club made a loss of £20.3 Mill 2009 £23.4 Mill profit on player sales yet club made a loss of 15.2 Mill I am assuming all the other figures being stated include the Carroll money, the fate of which is unknown, as yet. If it's not spent, I would suggest that only then can a claw back be declared. Of course if we just reinvested all the transfer profits we'd have had a better team but of course our losses would have gone up by a corresponding amount, but hey, that doesn't matter

Messi is one of the finest footballers I have ever seen. Unlike most of the modern players he can actually ride a tackle and not go down at the merest breath of wind. In fact he probably could have survived as an excellent player in ages past mainly becasue of that aforementioned ability. For anyone whinging about diving/cheating, its just an entrenched part of the modern game that is practiced by every professional on the planet and is sadly accepted.

Alledgedly, both will sign within the next 10 days or so.

Not that simple. Don't forget that figure is "only" £66 million with the cost cutting we've seen and is just to stand still, he'd have had to find all of it, plus more - the accounts were only signed off by the auditors because Ashley (in this case) underwrote future shortfalls, someone would have had to do likewise and we'd just lost £34mill even with the existing debt not being due as a lump. There was a significant amount of around £27mill owed on transfer fees which had to be paid sharpish, which was part of the £70 mill figure. All in all it's about £25mill a year in new money needed (minimum), of which we'd probably have needed two years worth as a lump up front, again I stress, just to stand still and with the cost cutting we've seen. Even with an all time record revenue of £99 Mill in 2008 we still lost £20 Mill (even with the help of transfer profits of £10.8 Mill) The only amount that can really be discounted is the purchase price. As I alluded to previously though, when he arrived Ashley put a stop to the cutting that Shepherd had started and went daft increasing the wage bill, so I don't buy that Freddy necessarily would have had higher costs. Nor would Freddy have had the massive protests in 2008 and the accompanying boycott of club shops or associated drop in ticket sales. So income would have been higher too. Not to mention the extra income of not being relegated. Why do you think Freddy would have had to find more than Ashley has? Don't recall the cost cutting under Fred to be honest, we'd just recorded our record loss. Salaries went up £10 mill between 2005-2007 and up another £11.1 2007/9 which is comparable. Match Day revenue dropped £4.6 million from 2007 to 2009 and Commercial by £8.2 over the same period (some was outsourced though so not sure what that deal effect was). So the revenue "drop" (due to protests, boycotts etc) equals £12.8 Mill over three years but we were/are no longer paying interest (£6+ mill/year) on existing borrowing so the revenue drop was actually less than our savings on interest payments by about £6 Mill. Revenues were: 2005 £87 Mill, 2006 £83.1Mill, 2007 £87.1Mill, 2008 £99.4Mill and 2009 £86.1Mill. I don't think he would have had to find more than Ashley, but I am certain he would have had to find circa £100 mill over the piece. My only point in all of this is, there is no doubt a significant amount of "new" money was needed, even if it was half as much as I believe (which given our annual loss history is extremely doubtfull IMO) I can't see where it would have come from other than someone with deep pockets.

Not that simple. Don't forget that figure is "only" £66 million with the cost cutting we've seen and is just to stand still, he'd have had to find all of it, plus more - the accounts were only signed off by the auditors because Ashley (in this case) underwrote future shortfalls, someone would have had to do likewise and we'd just lost £34mill even with the existing debt not being due as a lump. There was a significant amount of around £27mill owed on transfer fees which had to be paid sharpish, which was part of the £70 mill figure. All in all it's about £25mill a year in new money needed (minimum), of which we'd probably have needed two years worth as a lump up front, again I stress, just to stand still and with the cost cutting we've seen. Even with an all time record revenue of £99 Mill in 2008 we still lost £20 Mill (even with the help of transfer profits of £10.8 Mill) The only amount that can really be discounted is the purchase price.

You could also turn that statement into.... Given Ashley injected over £100m into a poorly performing but well supported football club and got it relegated you have wonder how hes upto the job of running one of the most successful businesses in the UK. Skillfully ignoring the fact that the "injection" (along with the rabid cost cutting) was simply to keep the ship standing still and afloat and not a new capital investment, which if it were , would have given some validity to your point. How much of it paid off the mortgage? As far as I know, his total "in" was circa £268 Mill, £132 mill to buy, £70 Mill debt repayments (of which some will be the mortgage, not sure specific amount) plus £66-ish mill working capital.

You could also turn that statement into.... Given Ashley injected over £100m into a poorly performing but well supported football club and got it relegated you have wonder how hes upto the job of running one of the most successful businesses in the UK. Skillfully ignoring the fact that the "injection" (along with the rabid cost cutting) was simply to keep the ship standing still and afloat and not a new capital investment, which if it were , would have given some validity to your point.

His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence. Fucking hell man it was pretty much known that all the NR money had been blown in one go on Michael Owen - everyone knew about it apart from Ashley it seems You are making my point. By not undertaking due dilligence Ashley exposed himself to the liability, the fact is, that liability was there and it had to be covered by someone, somehow. The act of due dilligence (or lack of thereof) did not create the liability, or in other words, the extent to which the investment needed protection. You're taking my point about 'protecting his investment' completely out of context. I've never said that lack of due dilligence created the liability - of course it was already there. What I'm saying is he bought the club and then because he didn't carry out due dilligence he had to put his hand in his own pocket to protect his own investment - something that clearly irks him and he feels the need to regularly convey this to us through Dekka. The other point of course is there isn't a business in the world that doesn't have liabilities. You said "His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence", sorry if I misrepresented. Bold bit - I would suspect it gets oft repeated because it's one of the few good things he's done and it bears repeating because of it's critical importance in comparison to all the other stuff for which he gets beaten with every other stick that's lying around however tenuous, which I'm sure does irk him. Of course all businesses have liabilities, it's the ability to meet them that makes the difference.

His investment needed protection purely and simply because the idiot played financial Russian Roulette and didn't carry out due dilligence. Fucking hell man it was pretty much known that all the NR money had been blown in one go on Michael Owen - everyone knew about it apart from Ashley it seems You are making my point. By not undertaking due dilligence Ashley exposed himself to the liability, the fact is, that liability was there and it had to be covered by someone, somehow. The act of due dilligence (or lack of thereof) did not create the liability, or in other words, the extent to which the investment needed protection.

Your opinion ignores the hundreds of millions of debt the club has to ashley, which spiralled following relegation.. Relegation didn't wipe the slate clean one bit. it hastened our financial decline. We're still a loss making club propped up on borrowed funds and technically insolvent. I wholeheartedly agree but, even without the increase in the total "debt" due to relegation, I fail to see where that level of borrowing would have come from without a billionaire owner though. I would add that the lendings are unsecured and interest free unlike almost all other football club owner contributions. Now I know everyone says "he's just protecting his investment" which is undoubtedly true, BUT relegation or no relegation, the investment needed protecting (even with the savage cost cutting we've endured) to the tune of around £100 Million. Without Ashley (or another thick billionaire) who could have protected the investment (club) ??? There's also the question of why the investment even needed protection, given as Craig states "Aye, 15 years of consecutive top flight football was a right state". I think I know the answer, but I keep getting told it's unsubstantiated pish

So you want the club you support to be weakened just to spite the ownership you so despise. Unbelievable

Lets say he is on £30K p/w and we were going to sell him at the end of June. Around 12 weeks still to go @ £30K p/w = £360K in wages. If the deal from QPR was say £250K for the player, we are better off just letting him go. Player would have to agree as he is under contract, hence mutual agreement. Im plucking figures from the air but you get the idea. This is just one scenario why it might be better. He won’t be on £30kpw. Perhaps we bought him on instalments and still owe QPR a sizable chunk. Are transfer fees taxable? Only in so much as if the club made a profit on all it's operations including transfer income, it pays tax on the profit

Got £10million back off the FA though didn't you Fred? £6m was worth a punt really. It was £7 million I believe, helped to keep our losses that year to a mere £34mill

he's not done anything different to Houghton either though, and it's not like he's got a lot of changes to choose from. Selection and tactics wise we could do it with that squad, team basically picks itself with the lack of viable players. ...and even then he's made some howlers. I don't think anyone thought he would be "worse" than Houghton really though, we all thought he'd be probably around the same but no better so there was no reason to bring him in, and the main problem of him being a puppet/mouthpiece for the higher ups which he is. Unless you're Fergie (and even he has waxed lyrical about the Glazers in his time), who isn't ??

“He is terrified his name will be revealed and is worried about the impact this would have on his marriage and family.” Laughable, wasn't worried while he was nailing her though.

Is the FIA the Ferrari Innocent Always body ??

He openly admitted that in his very first comunication to the fans he lied when he said Carroll wouldn't be sold. When he starts off on such a footing how can anyone be expected to believe him? I really don't get how that gets classed as a lie to be honest, if he'd been flogged for £10 million fair enough, but £35 Million I'd have changed my mind (and did) about wanting to keep him at that price (or even £10 mill less truth be told).

Why call me a scumbag when you dont even know me you Ant and Dec cock sucking twat. Whats the matter you run out of byker grove vids to watch? Scousers scumbags? When we produced the beatles and the grand national?and two foot ball disasters. Bit different to sting and Newcastle racecourse for fuck sake. Tidied BTW you forgot the railway and the turbine engine. I also echo Leazes' last sentiment.

Who would they be, not me, I can "understand" what's been going on, but having "faith" in him is s stretch. All I like about him is the depth of his pockets. What's the use in deep pockets if he doesn't put his hands in them to sign players? Erm, that'd be keeping the club a going concern.

THe Olympic stadium malarkey with West Ham, hmmmm something smells: They got a £40 million loan from Newham (I think) council to "help with the move", which Spuds are currently challenging in court. BUT from an article from Feb 2010: West Ham - The accounts also showed the club had breached covenants on a £35m bank loan. The new repayment date for that loan, from a syndicate of five banks, is August 2011. This is, no doubt, the reason why the Hammers' new owners are urgently seeking to raise £40m from new investors

Who would they be, not me, I can "understand" what's been going on, but having "faith" in him is s stretch. All I like about him is the depth of his pockets.

I can see where all the synicism is comming from tbh, but firstly it's got nowt to do with driving down "the english clubs", the richer clubs will still be the richer clubs and will have more spending/pulling power in relation to that richness. The whole point IMO of the rules is to drive down/control transfer fees and importantly player wages. i.e. keeping money in the game, which also means, if you are an owner, you might just start to be able to make some money out of football. If you think about it, becasue of the break even rule, it's like a stealth salary cap based upon club revenue. I sincerely hope it works and is enforced. (and yes I have my doubts). I would like to add that from a personal viewpoint, I absolutely do not think Ashley was "visionary" in any way in the financial positioning the club, his driver was solely 100% to save himself money. It is purely co-incidental that same "position" is in line with the new rules. BUT given we are who we are, NUFC "could" hugely benefit from the situation (Until Ashley likely fucks it up, somehow). It won't really "stop" Man U or Barca or Real or Bayern, but it will effect the likes of Man City. From peripheral articles I've read the rules aren't just Platini's, as a sort of dictator, he's had support and encouragement from ownership as well. I can't believe even a "mega-rich" ownership likes to pay the bling twats £100-200K a week (out of their own pockets), but currently they have to, to maintain their positions, because if they don't someone else will and onwards and upwards it sprials. Surely even they want it to stop.

It's quite hard to find any decent detailed summary of it all anywhere, I've found bits around and have now got hold of the UEFA regulation document itself which I'm going to try and make further sense of - it's pretty turgid stuff