Toonpack

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

Platini's rules as I believe they are: Basically over a three year rolling period clubs must "break even" and only football related income is included in the calculation. Gates/Media/Transfer profit and football related commercial earnings. Stuff like weddings (for example) in the banquet suite (as I understand it) don't go into the positive side of the equation or if a club owns a hotel etc, not sure about concerts and the like. Wages should not exceed 70% of turnover (as calculated above) Owners can subsidise clubs by a max of 45 Mill Euro's (as equity not loans) for the next three years, 30 Mill for a couple of years after that then a smaller amount to be decided, aim is to get down to zero. All football related costs are put on the debit side of the equation, although ground development, training or youth development facilities are exempt as costs from the "break even" calc. Commercial deals are subject to inspection by the "financial fair play" audit comitee to ensure they are representative of market rates. Clubs with "holding companies" must submit combined returns to UEFA to prove break even. The sanction is revocation of licence to play in UEFA competition. basicall a club "could" do what the hell it likes but would not be allowed to play in European tournaments. Platini states "will we do this, yes because if we don't the whole thing is a waste of time". The primary driver is to reduce transfer fees and wages and keep the money in the game. Blimey, so unless Im missing something, this sounds like its going to be fantastic news for us. Could be as our "size" could actually matter.

Platini's rules as I believe they are: Basically over a three year rolling period clubs must "break even" and only football related income is included in the calculation. Gates/Media/Transfer profit and football related commercial earnings. Stuff like weddings (for example) in the banquet suite (as I understand it) don't go into the positive side of the equation or if a club owns a hotel etc, not sure about concerts and the like. Wages should not exceed 70% of turnover (as calculated above) Owners can subsidise clubs by a max of 45 Mill Euro's (as equity not loans) for the next three years, 30 Mill for a couple of years after that then a smaller amount to be decided, aim is to get down to zero. All football related costs are put on the debit side of the equation, although ground development, training or youth development facilities are exempt as costs from the "break even" calc. Commercial deals are subject to inspection by the "financial fair play" audit comitee to ensure they are representative of market rates. Clubs with "holding companies" must submit combined returns to UEFA to prove break even. The sanction is revocation of licence to play in UEFA competition. basicall a club "could" do what the hell it likes but would not be allowed to play in European tournaments. Platini states "will we do this, yes because if we don't the whole thing is a waste of time". The primary driver is to reduce transfer fees and wages and keep the money in the game.

Agree, but sadly you don't know which good/shite group to drop them in until it's too late. We also later sold Ferdinand and Woodgate whilst they were still "in or near their prime performance wise". You can only buy what you can afford, we can "afford" it now, so let's wait and see eh! As for "buying shite", Enrique wasn't pricey, neither was Tiote and I'd include Simpson an all because he's more than OK (he's no Glen Johnson mind - thank gawd).

He's being sold (if he is) because he has one year left on his contract and can walk for nothing, if we hung on. That's the way the game is. Apart from Keegan, in the beginning, and SBR that "method" worked well didn't it ??? UEFA/Platini's expecting this to be the way for ALL clubs in the future BTW and it's exactly how Spurs did it. Going to be interesting to see what each teams "net" spends are this summer as the Uefa clock starts ticking on 1st June.

Unlikely, if they don't get CH/League, Arry's been told "sell to buy". Not saying he wont end up there but Bale could well be off.

C&P from NO No real gossip from the Nolan talk in, other than he really, really doesn't like Dowie. Quick summarY; Worst trainer: Ranger - Nolan has offered to stay behind with him at training and work on finishing etc. Nile always says no. Best trainer: Coloccini - Nolan adores him. Shearer: Had too many preconceived ideas, biggest mistake was brining in Dowie. Dowie: Was "just a crap manager" - did a funny as f*** impression of him. None of the squad knew what Dowie was saying most of the time. Leyton Orient meeting: Everybody knows about this now, was led by Nolan & Smith. Those who they wanted rid of, Smith/Nolan etc used their own agents to shift them out to speed things up. Who Nolan would sign if he was manager: Connor Whickham & Matt Jarvis - expects there to be 4-6 new players in the summer. 5-1: Best day of his life (except his kids being born) Allardyce: Still friends with him, feels big Sam was a little bit unlucky with the timing of coming up here (new owner, some people i nthe dressing room) Pardew or Hughton: Pardew because he is better equipped to take us forward Carroll: Carroll didn't want to go. Nolan only did piece for Liverpool TV because it was a mate of his who works there. The Chicken dance (the quack): His mate dances like that...acknowledged that chickens don't quack. Newcastle: Loves the place to bits, in the middle of negotiating a new contract to stay here longer. Asked Gary Speed's advice before joining. Speed predicted our relegation at the time. Rivals: Wants Blackpool, WBA and Wigan to go down. Blackpool & WBA to show well we've done and Wigan as obviously a rival from the Bolton days. Liverpool: Would never sign for them as he loves it here too much. Doesn't consider himself a Liverpool fan anymore. Barton: A lot of little jokes about Barton being the best midfielder in the world. "He's a nutter, but a good nutter." Nowt else of note really, probably forgot some stuff but I think that's the bulk of it.

Hoping to go later in the year (September time) my Chicago mate is a "high roller" so we'll get a king-suite,limo from airport etc. all gratis from the Casino (Sams Town) he frequents, wanted to go for years but the Mrs has never fancied it !! This years our 30th Wedding anniversary though so she's weakening, going to arrange to renew our vows with "Elvis" if the trip comes off BTW when I say high roller, he's not minted by any stretch, it's just he's gone to Vegas twice a year for donkeys years taking around a $2000 stake every time, in that time he's turned over several million dollars, usually comes home skint (although he came back with $17,000 superbowl weekend!!) but it's the turnover that counts evidently. Be interested to hear how you find the tiredness effect of the direct flight, I dunno whether to go there first then up to Chicago/Wisconsin (to visit family) or other way round and come back home from Vegas.

Player with 1 year left on his deal, be nice to cover all the bases (for a change) would be a good buy as back up to enrique. more than likely his replacement though, don't you reckon? Probably, have thought that for months tbh. Reckon he'll go abroad though.