NJS

The majority of club debt was the amortising secured loan which built L7- yes the loan cost interest payments but increased attendances generated wnough revenue to cover that. Ashley's shareholder loans are a combination of all sorts but now predominantly represent funding cashflow rather than capital investment. I get the secured loan part but 45m out of 110m isn't the majority though. I also don't think an avoided small loss in crowd size would have covered that cash flow. The outstanding transfer fees would have been a worry.

Basically the club has been losing money and had too high a wages/turnover ratio for years. The marketplace loans of Shepherd have been replaced by the free loans of Ashley. From a timing point on that facet alone things have improved on a purely financial pov. Both regimes used/use the "club would have disappeared" line which is absolute bullshit though Shepherd + credit crunch would have been dodgier.

Of course - but I'm sure the twat has lickspittels who like to point out how England doing well in a tournament makes a big difference to SD sales so feel good can = desirable.

I agree with this whilst disagreeing with it a bit as well. Had we had a tad better luck with injuries, a half decent transfer window and the avoidance of a few notable last minute equalisers, then by now we would be comfortably in the top 6. I also add into this equation our performances against some of the top 5 clubs. I appreciate its still a big leap from 6th to 4th, but with a bit more enthusiasm from the owner it need not be as far away as it currently seems. I think you go a bit too far on this but at the same time have a point - I think the most frustrating this is that most people can see that a modicum of investment would make a difference so why can't he? In the context of his overall wealth, I don't understand why he is supposedly happy to only spend ticking over money for a small return when a few quid would either return more in a pure business sense or increase the chance of him selling at at any kind of a profit. I think the worst think about his regime is we still have no fucking idea what the bloke wants - and more to point I don't think he does either. Problem is that is doesnt. If your not in the top 4 so there is very little financial / business sense in being 6th or 12th. Everyone agrees that from a financial sense and a premiership survival sense, the Europa cup is a waste of space. What is probably needed is some real incentive for owners to finish higher. Im not sure how you achieve that though. My only stab (which wont happen) would be to make the champions league be just that, for champions and therefore increasing the standing of the Europa. Maybe even leaving a european spot available for some sort of play off reward for teams finishing 6th - 9th????? The current set up is fucked though, that I do know. I think Fulham did quite well out of Europa though - I can't see how 5 or 6 more home games even at 25k or less would be something to turn your nose up at. Plus more exposure and a sense of being "back on track" must help sponsorship. I think for Liverpool/Spurs/Man City at the moment its an extremely unpalatable proposition but I think for us it would be "okay" from a feel good factor at the very least.

The Final Destination - some enjoyable deaths but generally shite - plus no Ali Larter which is a pisser. Did fill a particularly brain dead 80 minutes I had earlier though.

I agree with this whilst disagreeing with it a bit as well. Had we had a tad better luck with injuries, a half decent transfer window and the avoidance of a few notable last minute equalisers, then by now we would be comfortably in the top 6. I also add into this equation our performances against some of the top 5 clubs. I appreciate its still a big leap from 6th to 4th, but with a bit more enthusiasm from the owner it need not be as far away as it currently seems. I think you go a bit too far on this but at the same time have a point - I think the most frustrating this is that most people can see that a modicum of investment would make a difference so why can't he? In the context of his overall wealth, I don't understand why he is supposedly happy to only spend ticking over money for a small return when a few quid would either return more in a pure business sense or increase the chance of him selling at at any kind of a profit. I think the worst think about his regime is we still have no fucking idea what the bloke wants - and more to point I don't think he does either.

My 8850 lasts 3 or 4 days no problem Stevie so that sounds iffy - though maybe you should check your wireless settings to ensure it switches off wi-fi if nothing is in range.

Look at the damage it did to the Titanic. Bad shit. Not forgetting the Triffids.

From what ?? I still wouldn't want FFS in charge ever again. The rest is deleted because it's the usual diatribe you mean the Halls and Shepherd ? Whyever not, Because as they never put more than pennies of their own money into the club, and with absolutely no credit being available, the transfer budget would be even less than it is under Ashley. you compete with what you have against the competitors at the time. They would not have watched the club go down and do nothing either. We were one of the biggest clubs in the country, 14th in footballs rich list and qualified for europe finishing 7th in the league only a year before they sold it to him. Nobody has asked Mike Ashley to destroy the revenues they set up. The club is in decline. It would have been anyway - or do you still deny that? The world has changed - they were lucky at the time the way football went but after 2004 the club was going massively downhill and he simply wouldn't have been able to borrow to sustain it. Plucking a lucky 7th place finish out of the air doesn't help your argument either - that was a blip and you know it. Just for once forget about Ashley and any comparisons - nothing since he took over changes the fact that we were fucked in 2007 and would have been destroyed by the crunch in 2008.

From what ?? I still wouldn't want FFS in charge ever again. The rest is deleted because it's the usual diatribe you mean the Halls and Shepherd ? Whyever not, Because as they never put more than pennies of their own money into the club, and with absolutely no credit being available, the transfer budget would be even less than it is under Ashley.

I know its a push but Burnham where he comes from is actually on the Thames.

didn't you jump in and pre-judge my position when Fish asked about the LRA ? No - believe it or not I do sometimes enjoy arguing with you but the thing that annoys me most is when someone does make a good post, maybe with some points that could be answered and you just answer with "idiot" or "you don't know me" - I was trying to say that whether Fish was right about you wasn't the point - it would have been better if you at least tried to respond to the bit about nutters being universal. That response didn't depend on whether you'd heard of the LRA or not.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave? don't be stupid. If you had your way, you would give people like Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe asylum, protection in accordance with their "human rights", it doesn't make anybody a "parochial little Englander" for wanting cunts in the world like that to get what is coming to them even if it means the death penalty or torture until they die. They deserve it, because they are scum. I literally have no idea how this conclusion has been reached. see the phrase "parochial little Englander" ? It's quoted for a reason ... The lad is pointing out that I clearly stated one thing and that was ignored and my position was stated by you as the opposite - simply because you've pre-judged my position based on your leftie/hippy etc etc idiocy.

Bright red = piles = not serious - but there shouldn't be within a million miles of a litre or more.

of course, and I didn't walk down the main street in Scarborough shouting death to the infidels and burning Scarborough AFC scarves. Is that your [somewhat vague] point ? No - the point was you had a go at immigrants just for calling somewhere else "home" - a perfectly natural attitude which you've just said you did as well.

I thought you thought education was a waste of time? Schizo.

And BTW - when you lived away from Tyneside did you ever refer to Newcastle as home?

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave? don't be stupid. If you had your way, you would give people like Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe asylum, protection in accordance with their "human rights", it doesn't make anybody a "parochial little Englander" for wanting cunts in the world like that to get what is coming to them even if it means the death penalty or torture until they die. They deserve it, because they are scum. There is nothing wrong with expecting people accepted into this country to conform to the way of life and respect it if they want it to be their homeland. These fuckers who talk about their "home" being somewhere else, nowt stops them from going "home". Whats the matter with you ? So if I say I'd sort them out I'm lying. One post up you basically say what happens in Africa doesn't matter to you at all, then you mention giving Mugabe and Gaddafii what's coming to them. You're fucking Schizo man.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave?

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't think you'll find anywhere where Leazes has said that they do have a monopoly on extremism. Rightly or wrongly when the subject is muslim extremism, then he may not feel it's relevant? HF mentioned christian nutters and was told he was deluded/blind/loony/hippy.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism?

I'll tell you now if Al Quaeda bought Newcastle and made us successful I would be thrillied to bits. same here. I honestly don't give a toss who owns the football club, so long as they attempt to fulfill its potential. Racist ? Nah, not me and you Stevie. So you're tryiing to take the high moral ground by saying you have no problem with terrorists owning a football club actually makes eveything else you say okay? Fucking hell. no moral ground at all. Just acknowledging I recognise they are not all terrorists ? You can't have it both ways, I fully understand that if they start bombing shopping centres or behaving like cowardly cunts ie hiding behind women and kids, or heckling troops but don't have the balls to fight them like men, it changes the picture somewhat. Someone that rich could easily be bankrolling these "freedom fighters" too, that you appear to think have a case.....which also obviously changes the picture. It's YOU that is pigeon-holing NJS, because you are so narrow minded you instantly smear people as "racist" as left wingers tend to do in their idealistic little world. I go by how they behave, but will also tell you that their is a silent majority who sympathise with the more active element that you don't consider, and that is a fact, because their religion comes first, second and third to them. Stevie mentioned Al-Quiada not generic Muslims - I think the former have already gone beyond shouting abuse. I don't support them or think they have a case - though I do think in Afghanistan itself they have the right to oppose an occupying force. Anything they do outside of that context is utterly wrong. I don't instantly label people as Racists - I've come to that conclusion after your many, many racist comments - how else would I judge you? Your prejudice comes first, second and third to you so what's the difference?

Like Hall did.

I'll tell you now if Al Quaeda bought Newcastle and made us successful I would be thrillied to bits. same here. I honestly don't give a toss who owns the football club, so long as they attempt to fulfill its potential. Racist ? Nah, not me and you Stevie. So you're tryiing to take the high moral ground by saying you have no problem with terrorists owning a football club actually makes eveything else you say okay? Fucking hell.

I love the image of you with a roasting pig wafting the smell over your back garden fence muttering "Freedom of speech? I'll bloody show them". A tad mental even if said in jest?