stevietoon

article from www.twohundredpercent.net football blog With Setanta now collapsing, this close season is getting more and more difficult for Premier League clubs. Some of it, though is done to their own ill-thought out decisions. Rob Freeman has been looking at Newcastle United’s relegation from the top flight and concludes that the sums just don’t add up. It’s been a week since it was revealed that prospective buyers for Newcastle United had to provide proof that they had the finances to meet owner and chairman Mike Ashley’s asking price of £100m. Those that did meet the Tuesday evening deadline have been given access to an online “data room” containing the club’s books. Considering the mistakes that Mike Ashley has admitted to so far, it’s almost a surprise that the contents haven’t been all over the internet, which suggests that any offers received have been genuine, and the password isn’t either “newcastle” or “shearer9”. The concerns so far are the rumoured bidders. Former owner Freddie Shepherd is believed to be interested in taking advantage of regaining ownership of the club he sold for considerably more than the current asking price. While Shepherd was far from being the most popular owner in football, his tenure is now seen as halcyon days compared to the shambolic mess that Mike Ashley has presided over. However, Shepherd sold 28% of a Premier League club for £37.6m, and the difference in turnover in the Championship, plus all the additional outgoings that Newcastle will have to spend to reduce the wage bill, maybe Shepherd will only be interested if the asking price lowers. After all, while people consider that Ashley is making a huge loss on the club, he only paid £131m for the club in 2007. The £100m that Ashley loaned the club to clear the debts he inherited is in the form of an interest-free loan which only becomes payable once Ashley sells the club. Whether that is the £100m that Ashley is selling the club for is unclear. That will be the real test of just how desperate Ashley is to sell the club. And the more desperate Ashley is to sell, the more wary buyers will be. The biggest reason Ashley is desperate to sell is that the cost of relegation from the Premiership at the moment is the most financially expensive it has ever been. Newcastle received £37.2m from the Premier League last season - £2.3m in prize money, £22.9m from televised games and £12m in overseas licensing. Next season, they will receive just the £12m parachute payment that all clubs relegated within the last two seasons will receive. This is the very large tip of the iceberg where the drop in income is concerned. Season ticket prices have been reduced by an average of 9%, even with the longer Championship season. This means that the club will make less per game, as expenditure will be the same for most games, and it will have to be spent an extra four matches. In terms of attendance, the only teams over the last six seasons who have not seen a reduction in their home attendances of between 8% (Wolves in 2003-04) and 31% (Sunderland in 2002-2003) have been those who have been promoted back as champions. Last season, Derby’s attendances dropped 9%, Reading’s 16%, and Birmingham’s dropped 27% despite finishing second. The number of away fans per game will also reduce as, unlike a lot of Premiership clubs, most Championship teams don’t sell their allocations. Crystal Palace only took 534 fans to the relatively short trip to Ipswich last season and they’re unlikely to sell out their allocation at St. James’ Park, especially as the price for tickets will be around £30, although the club is believed to be moving away fans away from the Leazes Corner. In many respects that’s the good news because in football there are a lot of hidden outgoings - ones that any prospective buyer will need to find out, either during the due diligence that Ashley famously failed to undertake, or through other research. Hidden outgoings that will increase the amount of money any prospective buyer will need to take into account, because a lot of these will come into play over the next season, as Newcastle look to reduce their wage bill, and this is almost certainly where Ashley’s desperation to sell will come into play. Newcastle’s wage bill is rumoured to be in the region of £1.2m per week. And that is just for the players, before employer’s tax and national insurance is taken into account. This will be reduced at the end of June, as the contracts for five players expire (Caçapa, David Edgar, Peter Løvenkrands, Michael Owen and Mark Viduka). On the plus side, that is approximately £305k a week less that Newcastle will already need to pay next season. The bad news is that those players will have been paid over £1.5m for the six weeks between relegation at the end of the contract, and then comes a sting in the tail. Or at least the first sting in the tail, as players have loyalty bonuses written into their contracts – often referred to as signing on fees. These are (usually) a year’s salary spread across the length of the contract, paid at the end of each season and these have to be paid to a player in full before they leave, unless they submit a written transfer request. For the five players out of contract, these are likely to be in the region of £3.2m. In other words, when relegation was confirmed, Newcastle realised they would have to pay those five players around £4.8m in the full knowledge that they would never play for the club again because they could not afford to renew their contracts. The contracts can’t afford to be renewed because even with those five players leaving the club, the wage bill is only reduced to £860k per week (£44.7m per year). Newcastle were already paying out 75% of their turnover at wages (£74.6m) according to their last annual accounts. The recommended wages to turnover ratio is in the region of 60-66%, and the wages being paid at the moment are well beyond the reach of a Championship club. On the last day of last season, “Match of the Day” claimed that fifteen Newcastle players were on more than £50k per week in the Premier League, and that is a figure that would dwarf the wage bill of certain Championship club’s playing staff as a whole. Certainly without a sugar daddy, a club in the second tier cannot really afford to pay more than a handful of players more than £10k per week, even with a parachute payment. Newcastle have 19 players alleged to be on at least £20k per week, even after the expiry of the contracts of Owen et al. Newcastle also famously did not include relegation clauses in the contracts during the Shepherd era. It has, however, been claimed that Jonás Gutiérrez has a relegation release clause, so this may be true for other players signed under Ashley’s watch. That said, releasing players comes at a cost - this is the second sting in the tail. Before a player leaves a club, the club must ensure two payments have been paid in full - the player’s signing on fees/loyalty bonuses and any outstanding transfer fees. This is what appears to have caught Ashley out when he bought the club. A player’s signing on fee is guaranteed. So, even if a player leaves a club at the end of the first year of a five year contract, he receives all of the payments due to him, unless he asks for a transfer in writing, and with agents working behind the scenes, how many players do that these days? So, for example, if Fabricio Coloccini (signed in 2008) leaves this summer, he would receive the entire signing on fee for his five year contract, which would be about £3.1m. Alan Smith (signed in 2007 on a five year deal) would receive four of his five payments were he to leave this summer, a mere £2.5m. To get rid of all 19 players that are reputed to earn (well, get paid) more than £20k per week could cost as much as £31.3m in owed signing on fees. And then come the transfer fees. Transfer fees are rarely paid in full up front. For a player transferring from outside an English league, a transfer fee has to be paid in up to four instalments over three years (at least 25% up front, then another quarter each year). Between English clubs, that can be spread across the length of the initial contract (so a player bought on a five year contract is paid in up to six instalments). Ashley has stated that the players signed in January (Kevin Nolan and Ryan Taylor) were paid for up front. This still leaves ten players with an approximately outstanding bill of £29.2m waiting to be paid out, which is likely to be a lot less than the club will receive from transfer fees. Every club in the country (and most of the main players across Europe) will be aware of the club’s financial position, which will reduce the values of these players. The fact that Newcastle have to pay out as players leave will mean that they will have to negotiate to receive the transfer fee up front – which will reduce the value of players even further, and this impacts on the income for future seasons if they don’t get promoted straight away. And that’s if they can find buyers for players prepared to meet the high wages Newcastle had been paying – Newcastle had the fifth highest wage bill in the country in 2007-2008, £20m (36%) more than the Premiership’s sixth highest payers Portsmouth, with a smaller squad. Failing that, Newcastle could loan out some of their players, but even if clubs were prepared to meet the wages, Newcastle would still have to pay the loyalty bonus and transfer fee for next season. One other type of payment needs to be taken into account as well. Image rights – essentially merchandise sold by the club with the player’s face included. Players can either be paid their image rights based on exactly what is sold, or they can receive a lump sum – usually 10% of their yearly wage. There is one exception to this at St. James’ Park – Joey Barton reputedly has the largest image rights at the club, 20%, instead of 10%. There are few worse ways of spending £675k per year than paying for Joey Barton’s image rights. Overall, the image rights come to £122k per week (£6.2m per year) for the whole playing staff. All of this means that any new owner has a choice. Do they risk keeping the players and pay out £74.9m next season in wages (£44.7m), transfer instalments (£15.4m), image rights (£6.2m) and next season’s loyalty payments (£8.6m)? Or the £60.5m in outstanding loyalty bonuses and transfer fees to get rid of the players? Not to mention any associated tax that needs paying out at the same time. And as a side note, this summer Football League chairmen have voted to introduce a transfer embargo if a club falls behind on its payments to the Inland Revenue (which if nothing else, will give fans an earlier warning that there are financial problems at their club, regardless of the club involved). This may explain why so few people have been linked publicly with buying the club. Of those that have been linked, one appears to be an outright hoax. A Rick Parkinson was linked with a £150m buyout, but appears to be a creation of some Sunderland fans who wanted to take advantage of the club being for sale via email. Apparently the name Parkinson was chosen, because someone with the name R. Park or R. Parker (as in Roker) may have been identified as a hoax too easily. The other named consortium is the Singapore-based Profitable Group. The Guardian recently claimed that the Profitable Group are being behind the purchase of a protected plot of land in Colchester with the view to selling it on at a large profit, with the suggestion that the land can be developed. Whether they would try a similar deal with Newcastle United remains to be seen. Part of the reason for that is that Newcastle United own very little land. The ground is owned by the club, but the land upon which the ground is built is owned by the council. The club part-owns the car park at the back of the Gallowgate end (with the council and Nexus – the owners of the city’s Metro system), which was proposed as one of the sites for the City’s casino, but later rejected. Freddy Shepherd proposed a redevelopment weeks before the club was sold, but an planning application was not submitted, and Ashley shelved the plans upon buying the club. The only other land the club owns is the training ground at Darsley Park, and the youth academy at Little Benton. Right now, those are the only assets the club have, and £100m is a lot to pay for a small amount of land and a lot of potential. At least in that respect, they should be safe from predators and asset strippers, as the assets are worth a lot less than Ashley’s asking price. Newcastle are looking to avoid following in the footsteps of other clubs who overspent in the Premiership: Leeds, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Ipswich, Leicester, Derby, Southampton, Bradford, Charlton and Norwich. All found themselves broke and unable to compete with clubs at the top of the Championship. For Newcastle to avoid joining that list of clubs, their best hope is for a benefactor or a businessman looking for a plaything, but with the economy as is, Newcastle could find themselves going the same way as their sponsors – only without the chance of the government bailing them out.

i think jenson just wants to carry on editing the mag and running the back page; great shop by the way

are you a piece of that memorabilia PP. seriously; had good reports about the Last Orders; hope plenty can turn out cos Ando and Lowesy do a canny talk in. Gibbo at Holystone should be a good one for the locals who can make it there. he is a passionate speaker on all things Newcastle and with the fairs cup anniversary coming up it might be a good chance for some of the "younger" fans to hear some tales about the fairs cup squad while us older lads can look back on those great european nights, joe harvey, Big wyn, benny, foggo and the like.

the patch on the back panel was due to a uefa stipulation that the number on the back of striped shirts must be visible for tv; hence the numbers on the plain background. I only know this becasuse i was given the task of printing plain black panels onto the teams black and white tops and celtics green and black shirts a couple of seasons back. i have never been aware of that stipulation being adopted for premier league. in my opinion the white "space" is there solely to ensure that we all lash out more money on numbering and lettering othersise the shirt looks half finished. maybe someone could come up with an iron on patch of black stripes to just fill the space, instead of numbers and letters. or alternatively adidas could -- but wont.

Hillsborough: how stories of disaster police were altered - Twenty years on, the families of the 96 fans who died in the semi-final crush are still fighting to force police to acknowledge that changing officers' statements amounted to a cover-up David Conn The Guardian In a dusty library at the far end of the Houses of Parliament, among 10 boxes of documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster which were made available by the South Yorkshire police following a government order some years ago, is a statement from a police constable on duty that day. On the front page is a handwritten instruction from a more senior officer. "Last two pages require amending," it notes. "These are his own feelings. He also states that PCs were sat down crying when the fans were carrying the dead and injured. This shows they were organised and we were not. Have [the PC] rewrite the last two pages excluding points mentioned." As they prepare to mark Wednesday's 20th anniversary of the 1989 FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, the families of the 96 people who died at Hillsborough retain, with their enduring grief, a burning sense of injustice. The discovery that the police vetted junior officers' statements, and amended many to remove criticisms of the police's own operation, seemed to confirm the families' suspicions after Hillsborough: that the police tried to cover up their own culpability for the disaster. The families are still outraged that after Lord Justice Taylor's official inquiry, a lengthy inquest, high court appeals and a judicial "scrutiny", no one has ever been held accountable, and unanswered questions remain. In his report, Taylor concluded firmly that police mismanagement of the crowd had caused the disaster. Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, commanding his first big football match, had agreed to relieve a crush outside the ground by opening an exit gate to allow a crowd of supporters to enter together, rather than singly through the turnstiles. The central pens of the Leppings Lane terrace were full, but no officers were ordered to block the tunnel leading to those pens and direct supporters to the sides, where there was still room. "Failure to give that order," Taylor wrote, "was a blunder of the first magnitude." Taylor criticised South Yorkshire police for refusing to accept that truth. Duckenfield even said originally that supporters forced open the gate; that was condemned as a "disgraceful lie" by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in his 1998 judicial scrutiny of new Hillsborough evidence. "It is a matter of regret," Taylor wrote, "that ... the South Yorkshire police were not prepared to concede that they were in any respect at fault. The police case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk ... It would have been more seemly and encouraging ... if responsibility had been faced." Yet at the inquest that followed, prominence was given again to police accounts of supporters being drunk and without tickets. The families were appalled by the eventual verdict of accidental death rather than unlawful killing, and felt that the police force principally responsible for so many deaths had behaved, from the day of the disaster, without humanity. It emerged that two police CCTV videos went missing from the locked control room on the night of the disaster - one showing the police opening the gate survived - and that deepened suspicion. It was amid that legacy of betrayal that evidence emerged, nine years later, that senior South Yorkshire police officers had vetted and amended their junior officers' statements, in consultation with the force's solicitors, before presenting them to Taylor and the inquest. Criticisms that senior officers failed to provide leadership on the day, and radio communication was poor, were removed from several statements. Accounts of drunken or misbehaving fans, on the other hand, were almost all left in. The junior justice minister, Maria Eagle, MP for Liverpool Garston, said questions still remained about who was involved with that process and how far it went, and she urged the force to "come clean" and make a genuine apology. "The institutional behaviour of South Yorkshire police was appalling," she said. "I stand by the comments I made in the House of Commons at the time. This was a black propaganda unit, engaged in a conspiracy to cover up." Police documents Eagle complains the documents were "dumped" in the parliamentary library after South Yorkshire police were ordered to disclose them, and she doubts if it is a comprehensive collection. The 10 boxes are in no discernible order; there is no index or explanatory letter, and it is difficult to believe it can be complete: there are no memos between senior officers, or between the police and their solicitors. Many statements have apparently not been amended, or the originals are not there. On the ones which have, there are handwritten notes on the front, setting out sections to be changed. There is a list headed Amended Reports, with 163 officers' names on it, and another, with 248 names on it, with a column noting when the statements were vetted. The police argue they were trying only to cut emotion and opinion out of the officers' raw statements. Stuart-Smith concluded there was no cover-up, because the changes mostly involved removing comment and hearsay, although he did criticise some deletions of fact. Yet the handwritten note on the front of that PC's statement - "This shows they were organised and we were not" - appears to show there was a more sinister agenda, to undermine the fans and exonerate the police. Meredydd Hughes, the current South Yorkshire police chief constable, said the force fully accepted Taylor's findings, including the criticism that the police failed to take responsibility and sought to blame the disaster on supporters. He did not, however, accept that the amending of statements was part of that campaign. "It was not a systematic attempt to hide the truth," he said. Hughes said he would find out whether there were further documents which have not been publicly disclosed, make available any not covered by legal privilege, and issue an apology if appropriate. "We are not about trying to hide things," he said. "We are not the same force that was here in 1989. We exist to protect the public, learn lessons from Hillsborough and put them into practice." Prof Phil Scraton, author of Hillsborough: The Truth, was the first to discover the changing of statements, and he maintains it was a cover-up. "The statements were transformed after a team of officers, from the force under investigation, reviewed and altered them. If cover-up means anything, this was it." The emergence of the changed statements is not the worst lingering injustice the families feel. Many are still profoundly scarred by the inquest process, and crucial decisions made by the coroner, Dr Stefan Popper. He held "mini-inquests" while the director of public prosecutions was considering criminal charges against the police officers in command - no charges were ultimately brought. At the mini-inquests, West Midlands police officers read out summaries of evidence about where and when victims died. Witnesses were not called, let alone cross-examined. Popper then limited the main inquest, which began in Sheffield on 19 November 1990, to events up to 3.15pm on the day of the disaster. He ruled that by then, all the victims had received injuries in the Leppings Lane crush which rapidly caused irreversible brain damage. That line of reasoning was upheld when the families challenged it by judicial review in the high court in 1993. Yet the "mini-inquests," followed by the 3.15 cut-off, meant two huge areas have been closed from full investigation: the response to the disaster by the police, ambulances, fire service and local hospitals, and the individual circumstances of how each victim died. A number of witnesses, never called to the inquest, have since bitterly criticised the emergency response. Anthony Edwards, a paramedic in one of only three ambulances that made it on to the pitch out of 42 called to the ground, described the operation as "chaotic". He said that paramedics could not reach the crush, and the "basic technique" of inserting airways into casualties' mouths was barely administered. Another leading ambulanceman, John Flack, said it was "bedlam". Hillsborough was a scene of horror. Supporters were mostly laid on their backs, rather than in the recovery position, some with clothes covering their faces, even though no qualified person had determined they were dead. There were literally piles of bodies at the Leppings Lane end, and bodies left lying around elsewhere. Only 14 of those who died were taken to hospital, a fact Ann Adlington, solicitor for the Hillsborough Family Support Group, describes as "shocking". In August 2006, Anne Williams, whose 15-year-old son Kevin was killed at Hillsborough, applied to the European court of human rights, arguing that the inquest into her son's death was "insufficient" due to the 3.15 cut-off. Over years of tireless campaigning, Williams tracked down people who had helped Kevin, including Derek Bruder, an off-duty police officer, and a woman special police constable. They had testified that Kevin had signs of life up to 4pm; Bruder felt a pulse, and the SPC said Kevin had opened his eyes and said "Mum". Their statements were changed after visits from the West Midlands police, to suggest there were no signs of life. Both have since emphatically stood by their original statements. Bruder has since complained that his evidence "was not presented in its entirety or in a professional manner" at the mini-inquest, to which he was not called to give evidence in person, and he has emphatically maintained he did feel a pulse. The SPC has also stood by her original statement. Williams sought the opinions of three eminent pathologists, who all disagreed with the diagnosis by the consultant, Dr David Slater, who examined Kevin. Dr Iain West, consultant forensic pathologist at London's Guy's hospital, contested Slater's finding, which had been upheld in the high court, that Kevin had died from traumatic asphyxia. That and crush asphyxia were the causes of death ascribed to all who died at Hillsborough. West said he believed Kevin died from severe neck injuries, and could have been saved had he been treated early enough. There may have been other victims who were recoverable, he said, after 3.15. Applications to the European court have to be made within six months of exhausting the last possible domestic legal means of redress. The judges took that to be Stuart-Smith's "scrutiny", which upheld the coroner's findings in the case of Kevin Williams and rejected all requests to reopen the inquests. On 17 February this year, the ECHR dismissed Williams's case as out of time. Sitting in her home in Chester, surrounded by files and documents, Williams said: "I won't give up, not until the record is put straight. You can't grieve properly, you can't lay your children to rest, until you have established what really happened." Meredydd Hughes acknowledged that the police response to the unfolding disaster was "a picture of terrible confusion, a lack of leadership at critical times". Asked whether he could understand the families' frustration with the 3.15 cut-off, he said: "I understand it, but it is not for the police service to comment on." Margaret Aspinall, vice-chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, whose 18-year-old son James died at Hillsborough, said the 3.15 cut-off was "the biggest issue" for the families. "There are huge, unanswered questions. How many could have survived if they had had proper care, and oxygen? Even now, we want reopened inquests beyond 3.15." The families want answers, too, about the role of a West Midlands police officer, Detective Superintendent Stanley Beechey, whom Popper described as "the second most senior officer at the time of the main inquest". In June and July 1990, Beechey had been in a monitoring room when Duckenfield and other senior officers were interviewed about their roles at Hillsborough. Beechey was given the sealed audio tapes of the interviews and was responsible for presenting them to the inquest. The coroner said publicly that Beechey had "an awful lot to do" with preparing the evidence summaries for the mini-inquests. Beechey was a former head of West Midlands serious crime squad, which was disbanded in August 1989 after a string of collapsed cases, and amid allegations of police malpractice. A complaint about Beechey was made to the then Police Complaints Authority by George Tomkins, who alleged he had been "fitted up" by West Midlands police for an armed robbery he did not commit. Tomkins spent 17 months on remand in Birmingham's Winson Green prison before he was acquitted. The West Midlands chief constable, Geoffrey Dear, moved named West Midlands SCS officers to "non-operational duties". Beechey's transfer was to "studying technical aspects of Hillsborough". Dear said he believed this involved working on fuzzy video footage to enhance its quality. When told Beechey became involved at a senior level, Dear said: "It definitely was not what I had in mind when I transferred him. If I had been told, I would have taken him off the investigation. I wouldn't have had Beechey working on that or any other inquiry. Not because he might necessarily be doing anything wrong, but because it was not appropriate." On 20 June 1990, Beechey was formally interviewed, under caution, about Tomkins's allegations. So, at the same time Beechey had been present at the interviews of senior officers responsible at Hillsborough, he was himself under formal investigation. Detective's involvement Beechey was not disciplined following the PCA inquiry, and returned to operational duties on 30 November 1990. His period on "non-operational duties" had taken in the Hillsborough mini-inquests, the criminal inquiry for the DPP, and the first 11 days of the main inquest. In April 1993, Tomkins took out a private prosecution against Beechey, three other police officers and a DPP lawyer, accusing them of perverting the course of justice. The police officers' cases were committed to the crown court. In 1995 the DPP discontinued the prosecutions. Tomkins took out a civil claim, suing the West Midlands police for malicious prosecution. On 18 March 1996, the force agreed, without admitting any wrongdoing by any officer, to pay Tomkins £40,000 compensation, and £70,000 for his legal costs. Although there is no evidence that Beechey did anything improper in the Hillsborough investigation, Aspinall feels Beechey's involvement is another area of unease. "We want it cleared up," she argues. "What was this police officer doing on the Hillsborough investigation, what position did he occupy, and why, if he was on 'non-operational duties?'" A spokesman for West Midlands police provided a statement: "Det Supt Beechey was a later addition to the team of officers who liaised with the Hillsborough coroner, and his role was of a limited, overseeing nature. There has never been any suggestion that he carried out the support work into Hillsborough in anything other than a rigorous, thorough and professional manner. An unconnected civil action brought against DS Beechey was settled in a separate legal process, the basis of which means we cannot comment further." Hillsborough seems an age away now, a disaster caused by police mismanagement at an unsafe football ground, where the Football Association commissioned a semi-final despite the ground's safety certificate being a decade out of date. In the 20 years since, football grounds have been rebuilt, helped initially by public grants, and the top clubs have made fortunes. Yet for the families of the mostly young people who died, there has been unending grief, and a traumatic legal ordeal leaving them with questions still unanswered. "I don't like to use the word justice," says Aspinall. "I prefer to say that we want the full truth, and accountability. Even now, it would make a difference, alleviate some of the hurt and betrayal we have suffered for 20 years." Unanswered questions The cause of the Hillsborough disaster - police mismanagement of the crowd - was established by Lord Justice Taylor in his report published just four months afterwards, in August 1989. Yet 20 years on, key questions remain unanswered about the disaster's aftermath. 1 What, in detail, happened after 3:15pm on the day of the disaster? 2 Could more people have been saved if the response to the disaster had been better co-ordinated? 3 Who removed two CCTV video tapes from the locked control room at Hillsborough on the night of the disaster? 4 Why was nobody identified to have removed them, and what investigation was mounted? 5 Which South Yorkshire police officers worked in the unit that vetted police statements before they went to Taylor and the inquest? 6 Who gave the orders for them to do so and what was the stated intention of those orders? 7 Are the documents lodged by order of the government in the House of Lords library a complete archive of South Yorkshire police's Hillsborough documents? 8 What was Det Supt Stanley Beechey, a former head of the West Midlands serious crime squad, doing on the Hillsborough investigation

It was KK that brought him in... Same as all those youngsters were more than likely spotted by scouts and recommended to the club with Wise having the job to convince them to sign (which he failed with a couple of promising youngsters, like Vokes). I think Volkes is a different case, he's played 30 times for Wolves this season, he'd have been lucky to make the bench at the toon. He'd been unlucky not to make the bench this season tbh... As much as I agree with the policy of acquiriny young talents from all over the world. How successfull this approach is going to be we will only see in a couple of years time as normally only few players actually turn good... dont want to spoil the party but i saw Dennis Wise at Ncle airport at 11.45am this morning and he seemed to be waiting to be collected rather than being dropped off. i may be wrong and i did should a few expletives out of the van window at him, but he certainly didnt seem to be heading out; more like coming in........ sorry; hope i'm wrong

he's sticking the boot into Ashley because fat mike has tried to scupper the deal that Whelen set up to buy the Leisure Club side of JJB. anything regarding NUFC id merely us getting caught in the crossfire in a bitter war of words and business that hes been going on between the two since 2000 when Whelen misstuck Ashley for the gardener when they were called to a meeting to discuss business matters at the home of another sports emporium owner. these two hate each other; full stop.

agreed and accepted; just 100% behind his words not; himself as an employee of SJH and his actions at the club in the 1990's

Have to agree fella. I could list numerous things thats boiling my piss about the club at the mo. But he's right, what good will it do? It's the usual arguement I have that there's no point getting on a players back during a game, it serves no purpose but to make their head drop further. If anything at all, this is a time for pushing on together, lets kick each other in the bollocks after the final whistle of the season. agreed 100%. at the end of the season we can hold the post mortem and point the finger and the direction of those fingers will be firmly pointed towards the directors box at SJP. we pull together in the next four games because thats what supporters of the team do. this doesnt mean we support Ashley et al; just who ever wears the balck and white shirt on the pitch.

there is always this: words from the clubs new commercial guy taken from an interview in last weeks business section fo the Journal. talking about relegation and the commercial impact Webber says: “What is this word relegation? I think if it ever happened, which personally I don’t foresee, it will just be a case of rebuilding. “Newcastle will still have a huge fan base and the black and white will still be very much a strong brand that people recognise, but maybe the types of brands we target will change. “If you do remove the Premier League, then the global appeal we have is reduced, so maybe we bring the focus back to national brands and national, rather than global partnerships. With all the audacity of a great salesman, he even argues the commercial positives that could be taken if the club did find itself in football’s second tier: “A lot of brands could see it as an opportunity . “I imagine there are a lot of companies that, because of the loyal and passionate fan-base, would look at Newcastle and think they could make a long-term investment.” So; perhaps the plan IS to take us down ! So they are employing a guy that doesn't realise that being relegated is an unmitigated fucking disaster - I see our level of recruitment is still par for the course then. and just to add to our woes, he's from Cambridge and has a background in professional ............wait for it ..............THE SPORT THAT BRITAIN EXCELS IN Fuckin Tennis

there is always this: words from the clubs new commercial guy taken from an interview in last weeks business section fo the Journal. talking about relegation and the commercial impact Webber says: “What is this word relegation? I think if it ever happened, which personally I don’t foresee, it will just be a case of rebuilding. “Newcastle will still have a huge fan base and the black and white will still be very much a strong brand that people recognise, but maybe the types of brands we target will change. “If you do remove the Premier League, then the global appeal we have is reduced, so maybe we bring the focus back to national brands and national, rather than global partnerships. With all the audacity of a great salesman, he even argues the commercial positives that could be taken if the club did find itself in football’s second tier: “A lot of brands could see it as an opportunity . “I imagine there are a lot of companies that, because of the loyal and passionate fan-base, would look at Newcastle and think they could make a long-term investment.” So; perhaps the plan IS to take us down !

if you knew your newcastle history you would know who malcolm was. research it and find out; sound bloke; been involved all things NUFC and NE sport for decades. a true supporter.

Preferred them ? and now they are ? lets face it; we are going down; Ashleys tenure has been a disaster and the sooner we wake up to it the better. he gambled; he has failed. he will take us down, walk away and leave a huge mess. will we come straight back up; probably not. NUSC has tried to open peoples eyes to what is happening. The sooner the majority wake up and realise the impending disaster that is awaited thE better. I fear however that it might be too late for this season.

Aye tribunals are always fair as well aren't they? As Sonataine said the bullying was real, it was more than just one kid, and having seen the Under 19s loads of times when he had them, he used to absolutely slaughter the players in front of crowds in excess of 300, Alan O'Brien and Richard Offiong reduced to shambling wrecks on one occasion when I was up there. Fairer than hearsay imo. I've seen it. wasnt terry mac's son one of the youngsters involved in the tribunal too. might account for the Shearer / beardsley animosity that was implied in earlierpost; terry mac being best buddies with big Al. after the tribunal i think Beardsley was sideways moved to a more PR role anyway; visiting schools etc, doing presentations to kids. remember him coming one monday morning to my daughters school to talk about keeping fit and eating properly as part of a city council / ncle utd education initiative.

Judas! You're right like. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/columnists/s...15875-21190070/

No why should I? I asked the question it is up to your lot to answer it. if memory serves me, they were the same as at the gallowgate end pre redevelopment. holes in the brickwork where a scruffy bloke took your money off you. the bogs were against the outside wall with a roof on. absolutely stunk. there was a cop shop tucked in the corner again against the outside wall and some people used to vault the wall and scramble in over the roof of the bog. in the late sixties early seventies there was a constrant steam of people being led arm up the back into the copshop. there was also a little hut selling bovril and the counter always seemed about three foot too high - or was i just little ! once inside you climbed up the steps to then come down again. the leazes turnstiles were mainly in the leazes west corner apart from one in the leazes east. you came in along the top and walked along a fairly narrow entrance until the terraces opened out. thus ends the memory for now !

would be interested to hear from people exactly what they think the role of an independent supporters club should be and would like to refer those unsure of what other supporters clubs are about to check out a few, like: http://www.imusa.org http://www.chairboys.ndirect.co.uk http://www.dorchestertownsupportersclub.co.uk see whether NUSC differs in any way from the fundamentals the clubs quoted above cover a wide range- top of the premiership; top three division 2 and conference south. they seem to have the same passion, the same aims and charge a membership fee; they are prepared to speak out when the football club need brought to book on something, yet deep down their intentions are all wrapped in supporting their football club on the pitch, week in week out; with support NUSC has every possibility of matching and emulating clubs like these. we just need to get over this problem we all have of mistrust on all levels, disharmony with each other, the football club and its owner and executives, NUSC and its perception as a force for bad / good. I am sure we are all fearful of our current position and the prospect of being dislodged from our place in the premiership. if we talk, give positive feedback to NUSC and work together i am certain NUSC can be a success. it is caught in the firestorm of disharmony eminating from all quarters at present concerning NUFC. Newcastle supporters, United can and will play an active part in the direction our football club takes. If we stick together and behind the banner of a supporters club this is entirely possible.

You know what? you're right. We'll stop pointing out the things they do wrong and let them just get on with fucking the club up. Meanwhile we'll do the other stuff, plan relegation parties, make sure we have member nights setup for the end of January and September so that people can just get bladdered rather than worry about who we've sold and not bought. No matter how many times you say it on here, I will reitterate.... all the facts point towards this being anything but a derailment for the NUSC. The members and the general fans are more interested in the stuff said than how it was said. Again though, out of interest, why havent you replied to your email to tell us you disagree? I would be interested to hear from people exactly what they think the role of an independent supporters club should be and would;like to refer those unsure of what other supporters clubs are about check out a few, like: http://www.imusa.org http://www.chairboys.ndirect.co.uk http://www.dorchestertownsupportersclub.co.uk see whether NUSC differs in any way from the fundamentals the clubs quoted above cover a wide range- top of the premiership; top three division 2 and conference south. they seem to have the same passion, the same aims and charge a membership fee; they are prepared to speak out when the football club need brought to book on something, yet deep down their intentions are all wrapped in supporting their football club on the pitch, week in week out; with support NUSC has every possibility of matching and emulating clubs like these. we just need to get over this problem we all have of mistrust on all levels, disharmony with each other, the football club and its owner and executives, NUSC and its perception as a force for bad / good. I am sure we are all fearful of our current position and the prospect of being dislodged from our place in the premiership. if we talk, give positive feedback to NUSC and work together i am certain NUSC can be a success. it is caught in the firestorm of disharmony eminating from all quarters at present concerning NUFC. Newcastle supporters United can and will play an active part in the direction our football club takes, if we stick together; and behind the banner of a supporters club this is entirely possible

Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. I still think this redevelopment plan thing was Shepherd's cunning plan to finance the club - and I can't understand why it seems to have been dropped so readily by Ashley. Obviously in 2007 it would have been a lot easier to finance. i think the casino plan got dumped when newcastle as a city didnt win the super casino and mini super casino bid. the big one went to manchester - when everyone thought blackpool were nailed on - and boro got one of the smaller one's. this speculative land deal business is very interesting and something worthy of keeping an eye on; transferring club assets to other companies for accounting purposes and which allows you to sell them at a later date, pocket the money yourself and that money never hitting the clubs books. means that you can legitimately say you havent taken anything out of the club when in reality youve pocketed the sale of the land; all hypothetical obviously and nobody is suggesting that anything like that has or will ever take place at NE1. Most major businesses these days are littered with such activity; its become the accepted norm for companies to operate in this way. it keeps the corporate lawyers and accountants in employment.

and come next season, provided we are still in the premier league, what will be different kinnear is now here for the long term; players who come in will be enticed by what exactly; joe kinnear, chris hughton, wise and calderwood ? the playing staff will be weaker with the loss of Owen and his goal every two games being replaced by ameobi as our NEW no 10 signings will amount in total to £10m plus whatever we get in transfers and if the Given deal is anything to go by it will be very little and the money wont come through anyway until at least the next transfer window. we aspire for the return of the entertainers tag but wil be labelled as the comedians; everybody's comedy club, the way things are going the £5m invested in youth will be the BANK, selling them on for profit i honestly believe we are being spun a yarn by Llambias; its all too in your face, grinning and blowing bubbles for me; like its a new beginning we are being asked to herald with no idea of what the new bit really is.

fuckin disgrace man I honestly do think these fucktards dont realize that anything they say in the press can just be brought back up when they completely contradict it later on I'm actually astounded this man is rich. your right Stevie and every penny he is putting in he is adding to the pile of previous deposits and expects every penny back when he sells. we buy for cash and we sell to our competitors on tick; milner, given and zoggie. even mancity with their billions arent paying for given until July and then its only £5.9m. (we asked for fifteen they offered five and it looks like a bad deal for the club wjhen they can only negotaite another 900k from city). this business model seems very strange to me; any business that runs that way will be out of ready cash pretty quickly and need topups constantly why do it, unless your keeping the club debt books clear but asset high; a stroke you would pull in business if you wanted the company to appear to have a better book than it really has.

more press response; well rounded and thought out http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/col...St_James__Park/

course they aren't maybe you just caught me at a bad time; club going down the pan, managerless, rudderless, leaderless and heading for fizzy pop league unless three other clubs are worse than us following the aston villa vision but in a continental framework - more like the west brom style of go down and hope you come back up quick. only trouble being that its been tried and failed by charlton, leeds, southampton, coventry, sheff wed, sheff utd, ipswich, norwich, leicester. turning into a cup half empty man

if only you had been put back in the loft on 6th Jan with the rest of the decorations. then we wouldnt have to put up with your tripe

what a surprise !!!!!!!!