ChezGiven

Its a cracker. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo - Stieg Larsson.

That's exactly what I thought. Or, in other words, mmmmmmm maltesers Malthus thought there were limits to human development as populations would outgrow the ability to feed themselves. He was quite an amusing figure as he thought we would fuck ourselves to extinction. Darwin incorporated Malthusian population theory into his theory of evolution by saying that the catalyst for evolution was the over-population of a species (given its resources) which would result in compeition amongst the species and survival of the fittest. The survival element only occurs when the species has to fight to survive i.e. when it competes for food etc. The current economic climate has led to many looking at Malthus again through different perspectives.

Malthusian over-population is the catalyst for Darwinian evolution.

Love a bit of tetris on the phone. Get hammered by Mrs P on it though....Women are strangely good at things that turn your brain to shit. They're expert. Tetris is meant to be one of the few video games that women tend to better than men at. Apparently. Wii tennis being the other one

Was he released? Why was his contract "terminated"?

On the downside, he's out of contract in the summer. Didnt the Times article imply that the Given move is dependent on Harper signing a 3 year deal?

I'm feeling sorry for him now. If only i could find some common ground with him, perhaps we could be friends.

I'm seriously worried about him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/2...esidential-oath The comments about internet conspiracists at the bottom are foptastic.

You could just say released to deflect criticism but if the criticism is not limited to poor communication and the wrong appointments but extends to 'he is pocketing all our cash and spending nowt' and gullible people without much experience in financial matters join in and this gains a critical mass of support, you could say that he is releasing the data to help fans think through the situation and allowing them to act with their heads and not their hearts at this one crucial moment in our history. And fuck punctuation whilst we're at it.

You're off your tits man.

Nae offense mate but an audited account by Enrst and Young doesnt lie and thats clearly shown as utter bollocks by these accounts. As for his profit motive, i'm fucking delighted that he is driven by making money, i'd hate us to be the only football club in the world without a chairman that is and therefore being run by someone potentially clinically insane. An audited account by Enrst and Young might not lie, but it also doesnt tell anything like the full story. As mentioned before it takes no account of the money from next two years season ticket sales, or am I expected to believe that has been put into a bank account untouched until the relevant season. At the very least it must have some effect on cash flow. I dont get how the accounts disprove my assertion anyway, bought the company, paid off the debt flog off as many players and bring in cheap replacements, if it wasnt for the credit crunch I would imagine he could have turned himself a very tidy quick profit. He hasnt sold it, plainly thinks we arent going to get relegated, and that the fans will turn up regdless and the years to come will see media money increasing as the wage bill tumbles. Flog off a couple of his mate Wisey's imports at a healthy profit every year, jobs a gudun Your last comment is frankly bizzarre, Its nice your happy about his motives though. Me, I prefer someone whose ambitions stretched to having a succesful club It could only appear bizarre if you're naive enough to think that those people occupying the powerful positions at Europes biggest clubs are not there because of the money to be made out of football. Who do you think negotiated the 2.7bn television deal? The tea ladys? People want success because of the money it entails. I dont get the season ticket thing. You got a discount, you can get your money back and Ashley can use it for the benefit of the club. If he did anything else with it, it would be embezzlement, which is why we have E&Y doing the books. Your assertion that he has sold off all the players and bought in cheap replacements is just nonsense. He's not been able to attract decent players at their market worth so the squad is light but the accounts show that Operating costs (wages being 70% of that) excluding the fancy accountancy shit is 100m and Revenue is 98m. That needs sorting out asap if we are going to be successful in the future.

20% next Friday? It's going to be much higher for higher pay grades, so Gemmilll will be paying them money? Not according to the press.

Allardyce has a lot to answer for too. Wouldn't have been involved in contract negotiations though, would he? No but no matter what we paid these players they would have been poor value. That's by the by. The current regime seem intent on trimming the wage bill but they have to carry some of the can for giving these people the large wages in the first place. That's not a defence of Allardyce's pretty ordinary record in the transfer market. I can sort of understand Viduka because he was a free so you have to balance his high wage against savings on the lack of a fee. I think that when you look at it overall, including the above, it smacks of a pretty shambolic plan from Ashley and co, which may go some way to explaining the constant contradictions that come out of the club. I understand that the 'global financial meltdown' has perhaps played its part but I think the investment in the team was inadequate prior to that in the 3 transfer windows beforehand. There may be reasons for that that are not the fault of the board. Maybe we really did try for Modric and Woodgate etc. Although I have reason to be believe at least one of those approaches were lukewarm. You have to wonder what Ashley is playing at. He sacked Allardyce and brought in KK. But he also approached Redknapp. He's brought in a chairman who never speaks to the fans and a DoF (for want of a better word) who seems to have a massive influence on 1st team affairs despite having a managerial track record that is nothing special and certainly vastly inferior to those who have had (of would have had to) work under him. The continued positions of Lambias and Wise are puzzling since they are both highly replaceable and netther seems to add much benefit to the club. The point about trimming the wage bill is important as the accounts show that we need need to trim this to turn us back into a going concern / viable business. Someone said above that you cant think of a football clubs as a normal business. This is so wrong, its hard to know where to start. Perhaps Leeds, or Hearts, or Charlton Athletic would be good places. From a 'management' perspective, Ashley has been cynical and stupid but from a financial point of view, the accounts show that the tranfer window activity has been necessary. I've got very little time for him but i do think during times of turbulence and hostility, its important to see a balanced picture of events.

Not sure but the Barton thing was delayed as he haggled over his 'loyalty' bonus. I really rate Barton anyway and he has had two unlucky injuries which were not fitness related.

Allardyce has a lot to answer for too. Wouldn't have been involved in contract negotiations though, would he? No but no matter what we paid these players they would have been poor value.

I am neither pro or anti Ashley either and sometimes I play devils advocate trying to look at what he is actually doing. Yes the way the supporters have been treated in terms of communication have been shocking and he made a major mistake with the Keegan/Wise situation, and also with Lambias (who appears to do nothing). But in terms of running the club has he actually done so bad by us? If the finances were so bad is there the possibility he is working with his hands tied behind his back trying to get the club financially back on the ground. I actually think that your Ambramovich's, the Man City lot etc have spoiled the game and supporters expectations. Many of us a saw a billionaire coming in and hoped he would spend, spend, spend but is that a reality, the club has to be financially stable for it to continue both now and when the time comes that Ashley moves on. In reality *if* Ashleys claim that he wanted the club to run itself financially and he would invest 10(?) million a year of his own money almost as play money was true I actually dont think that would have been too bad a deal. As I said before he has made quite alot of mistakes along the way and I am not his biggest fan but at the same time I think some expectations on our parts are often too high. I have been thinking for a while that maybe, just maybe, the campaign not to buy any merchandise from NUFC (programmes/pies/pints etc etc) could possibly be harming the very thing we love. If Ashley is a genuine guy in trying to clear the debts and NOT running it as a cash cow, the more money that goes into the club will help, ultimately, the team. THIS IS GUESSWORK, btw. A bit like guessing that Ashley or Shepherd for that matter are the evil incarnate (for those that don't KNOW, of course) You are behaving like battered wives refusing to leave their husbands. He bought the club to make money -no other reason, he has no interest at all in wha the supporters might want or having a succesful team. Look at his business empire, cheap tat piled high with no regard for staff or respect for customers The only unanswered question is did he buy the club to flog on straight away for a quick profit, or did he buy it to run it on the cheap for as long as possible as an ongoing cash cow. He is an asset stripping cunt who cares about nothing but making money Nae offense mate but an audited account by Enrst and Young doesnt lie and thats clearly shown as utter bollocks by these accounts. As for his profit motive, i'm fucking delighted that he is driven by making money, i'd hate us to be the only football club in the world without a chairman that is and therefore being run by someone potentially clinically insane.

Allardyce has a lot to answer for too.

We're making a loss, some of this loss is amortisation. Quayside on NO however points to the 30m injection of working capital without which the business would fold. There are some grey areas, for example the 20m he has to pump in 'each year' is about the same 'Loss' as the loss in value of intangible assets from amortisation (17.5m). When you strip that out, the loss for this financial period is 2.5m. Again, this doesnt account for the working capital that Quayside highlights. What these accounts do show us is that the only mistake ashley has made is over Keegan. A huge mistake but none of other accusations make a lot of sense now. Gemmill, does the working capital have to go into the business because the accounts show a loss (even though its just amortisation)? Also, what are the total operating costs minus debt and amortisation? Asked this on NO too and not got an answer from the calculator geeks yet.

Euro-porntastic ! I wish. Its got to be hidden from the street or i have to apply to the local mayor for permission. The square dish is a bit more expensive but what i need as it goes on the floor of the balcony.

Looks like its not included.

It probably works the other way round tbf.

Hmm, so what are the start up costs then? Nothing at all?

That does sound rather expensive to me. Also, it might be an idea to see if you can get an Irish Sky package which will give you Saturday 3pm games on Setanta and you'll get the Irish 'MoTD' earlier in the evening. When i lived out in Germany we had sky digital when it first came out. Shop around you always find a Brit who will come do the job for ya. We paid 50 marks ( 15 quid ) for this guy to install ours. Still got to buy the box and the dish though right? The big items on the quote are Square dish - 255 euros Digibox - 219 Installation fee - 184 Annual account fee - 150 Do you pay for the dish and the box in the UK when you get it installed? I dont have a UK address and sorting one out via the address would be monumental hassle.