McFaul

Aye completely supporting my ignored main point. You should add 2011 on.

Wigan, Wolves, and Bolton without question.

How very dare you! What's up with it? It doesn't come up at all. Reload it.

We look like a bunch of parafins in these strips, yet Tottenham's look classy. Why? They're the same sponsor. PUMA are generally wank though, I remember UMBRO were going to dump us if we went in Division 3 in 1992, and we were gonna be sponsored by "matchstick" who sponsored all the shit clubs, and I feel the same about PUMA.

Had a dream about my hairline gradually receding last night, it got to the stage where it was like Jim Robinson off Neighbours. What a nightmare, if I start losing hair like, I think I'll probably bic it aal off than walk round like a monk.

Your chart doesn't work.

I bet you mean that as well. He's a globally recognised expert on football finances who works in finance. His site is fantastic and it goes to prove the very last point made to Stevie in the other thread, the rest of the world are looking at us thinking 'thats good financial management that'. Keir Radnege and Marcotti are recognised as global experts on football, and often they talk shite too. The article is so ignorant and unwilling to discuss why we are half the size we should be (a lot of it to do with Ashley) that it's not worth a minute of anybodies time.

We sold 650,000 in 1996, more than the England shirt, the same as Liverpool, only Man Utd sold more.

I used to work there 2000-2004, and I used to often wear me Newcastle wooly hat to keep me head warm, I could've wore any hat, but being a mug I wore that. I used to walk from the station to Park Lane interchange, I'd get people staring at me all the time so I'd stare back, the worst I got was a group of 6 teenage kids one of them said "fat mag coont", at 13 and a half stone I wasn't even fat then neither. Complete smallville of a place, one place I can safely say that won't host a G8 summit or an Olympics.

The Deloitte report has never included transfer dealings. All it is, is operating income, transfer dealings aren't included as part of this.

I had to go to Seaburn recently and the toon were playing Liverpool, and there's a bookies next to the social club. I went to buy a new bike off this bloke saved £300. Anyway being a mug I went in the bookies and in big letters NEWCASTLE TO WIN 11/2. The bloke behind the counter was talking to his mate, didn't even look at me "I hate puttin thease on, it mayuks mea speet! Orrible maggy coonts. Ewur area managers a mag e's a coont too I 'ate them" I'm stood there and he's completely ignored me. Apart from a "Chea-urz". Absolute smallsville that place. It is pretty mutant heavy there! Have you ever been to Murton? Been to Horden, proper Billy Elliot land. Seaburn which is only 2 mile from where CT lives to be fair, has the most mackem of mackem accents though.

I've read it was worth £12 million to Fulham. It will be including gate receipts and competition prize money, that is only TV revenue.

TV income up 10m, commercial income down 10m, Virgin deal just brought in 10m so we should be back in the mid-20s after this deal, the max seen in our accounts is 27m. The trend is there for any club not in the CL but the ramble has a great article on stagnating commercial income at Arsenal. Despite these massive increases, Liverpool's revenue has not grown overal for the last 3 accounts, its stuck at 185m. So if TV is going up, and revenue stays the same, it means other income is falling. All on the Ramble for the proof. Some clubs like sunderland have done ok, keeping a commercial income of around 10-12m, we dipped to 15m in the relegation season and with better figure this year, plus the virgin deal will be back in the 20s, near our maximum figure. Of coursre the club went backwards but a simple analysis of current activity and figures shows we will approach the highest we've ever earned. Its the direction of these figures over time from the lowest point that counts now. The fact they decreased to 54m 2 seasons ago was a disaster, how the club is positioned financially since then has been ok, not amazing but its moving in the right direction. Club revenues are increasing and will increase again this year, whether we qualify for Europe or not. Simply saying that because the club's finances were impacted because of relegation and are not where they should be does not equal mis-management of the finances. I presume you are trying to criticise the financial management because the current football management is satisfactory? Things change, new trends emerge and if you look at how things are moving, no one with an ounce of experience in finance would say things were peforming badly on that front. Neither on the football front either. Just admit you're wrong and we'll move on. I'm not wrong on any point I've made, nice of you to ignore the ones I corrected you on though.

Nar it's worth UP TO £20m over two seasons. Which suggests to me what we'll get is determined by performance. The £20m figure is probably based on us being in the Champions League I'd guess.

All Man City will do to get around any problems is receive increased money from their sponsors/owners to get round the problem. It stinks. It stinks that any rich fucka could just think right I've got £20b in the bank, I'm bored, I'll buy some horses see if they're any good but I'll get bored of them too. I know I like the name Doncaster Rovers, why not try and make them Champions of Europe. That's basically what happened with Man City. At the very best they were the 11th or 12th biggest club in England before all of this and look at them now. Fucking stinks.

I don't know one who isn't and I know loads.

Part of that is signing a smaller sponsorship deal with Northern Rock while we were in the Championship, not that it affected us in a negative way as we hadn't seen any of the old sponsorship money in years anyway as it was all spent up front, now though we've got a nice new deal with Virgin money which will boost our commercial side significantly next year. We also have to take into account that we've got a smaller gate revenue thanks to having a large family enclosure with cheap tickets, whether that was a good idea or not is up for debate but I wouldn't knock them for offering better deals to get kids in. That will cost £2m max if that, and fair enough you can't slag them for that. However our commercial activities are a drop in the ocean compared to Tottenham, drop in the ocean and no one can sit there and say they are a much bigger club than us, they're not. Tottenham are ran properly, they're well marketed, we probably haven't even got a marketing department.

Those figures are from when we were in the CCC.

We make the same money because the TV revenue went up massively because of massively increased SKY and worldwide TV deals, so the comparison is invalid. Wigan's turnover last season reached the levels of Sunderland in 2009, PURELY because of the TV contract. Everything else went down. It's not difficult. Not sure what you're saying, we've been through this and i have made that very point. Financial management is about ensuring you dont spend more than you earn or if you, you have a sustainable way of paying it back. Management in general is about the direction of the club and maximising income streams is not financial management, its commercial and marketing activity. As you have highlighted too, all clubs are suffering decreases in commercial income and i have shown you the relative decreases for us and Everton. With all clubs suffering the same, you cant point to our performance and say its Ashley's fault. Its a trend across all clubs. Ours is worse because of relegation. You are right on one thing, its not difficult. A monkey would know what I'm saying. I'm responding to your point that turnover in the relegation season is the same as it was last season. The reason for that is TV revenues for 10/11, were vastly superior to 08/09, every other aspect and facet of the club is generating less income by far. It's not a trend across all clubs neither, prove it is. Newcastle have stagnated financially more than any other club in English football in terms of income, it's not even something you can argue over.

We make the same money because the TV revenue went up massively because of massively increased SKY and worldwide TV deals, so the comparison is invalid. Wigan's turnover last season reached the levels of Sunderland in 2009, PURELY because of the TV contract. Everything else went down. It's not difficult.

People can do what they like with their money but ultimately the club will only be as big as the fans make it, if they don't want to put the cash in then fair enough but it seems daft to complain about it if you were condoning the boycoutt in the first place. His biggest mistake was putting the club on the market after the protests and basically leaving the club to get on with it which for me caused our relegation, since taking the club off the market and attempting to turn it around I don't think there's much to fault tbh. The boycoutt was the result of chronic mismanagement and poor decision making. The whole negative derives from Ashley's inability to manage the club, therefore the financial implications of this are purely the result of his incompetence. You can't have a go at the fans who have been alienated being the root cause of economic underachievement. It's our duty to invest in the club while we're being laughed at and alienated is it?

Why is it ironic that a bloke comes in and rides roughshod over the club, pissing on fans, the stadium, tradition & Premier League status so people stop buying his product? I don't get that at all. Exactly, every post you've made today has been 100% spot on. One of your better posting days. How financial mismanagement, has no link to general mismanagement in the case of a football club is anyones guess.

No and I'll pick holes in it when I have more time. Their turnover is £82m now by the way not £75m, just £6m less than ours with 15,000 fewer people coming through the gates.

When were Man Utd wank like? They had one season in the old Division 2 and got promoted with a young, exciting team. They went about 30 years without winning the title but they won numerous trophies in that time. Aye thats 30 years not winning the title whilst still maintaining Englands highest crowds. People want to see top football and an occassional FA Cup win just isnt anywhere near constituting a 'top side'. Especially as this was in an era of dump sides like Derby winning an odd league title here and there. Point being you have to give em credit where it's due. Man Utd became the biggest club in the world after Munich. Newcastle and Arsenal were much bigger clubs before then, that's a fact, and because Munich, Man Utd became the first club probably in the world to be supported by OOT's. The sympathy they got from Munich was worldwide, it made them romantic and their 1968 European Cup win cemented their place. Looking at bare bones figures never tells you the full story.

When were Man Utd wank like? They had one season in the old Division 2 and got promoted with a young, exciting team. They went about 30 years without winning the title but they won numerous trophies in that time. Younguns man, I cringe when I hear their patter or read their pish. It's a talksport world of distorted truths. Basically Newcastle are fucking fantastic support wise like ever, and anyone who denies it is a mug. That truly is my stance. I think it was you who made the point that when people are putting us down, they'll twist things unbelievably so there's never a fair comparison between us and other clubs.