José Enrique

[Toonpack 6892]

So under the current regime what we really want is kinda decent players to come here and have a moderate level of success.

 

That's all we've ever had since 1969 tbh and with the way the game is, at the summit, that's all there's likely to be for some time yet, unless Platini's stuff works.

[OTF 6191]

So under the current regime what we really want is kinda decent players to come here and have a moderate level of success.

 

That's all we've ever had since 1969 tbh and with the way the game is, at the summit, that's all there's likely to be for some time yet, unless Platini's stuff works.

 

I'm talking about the success of the players, and not the success of the club. It is of course possible to have a player excel whilst the team flounders - Habib Beye and Sebastian Bassong being two examples of those that consequently were bought.

 

My point is that we can't even hope that a player does excessively well here because they'll just become another red light flashing in the for sale window of Newcastle United Football Club.

[Kitman 2188]

He wouldnt have needed to put as much as £250 mill into the club if it wasnt for the mistakes he made though

 

I agree, it'd have only been about £200-220 Mill ish

 

I don't view the money he paid to purchase the club as "putting it into the club". I'm not going to thank him for buying it in the first place, that was his own decision.

 

Anything he's paid over to fund the club's losses, that's what he's "put in" imo. Which I imagine is quite a lot of money, so well done him. However I don't know what he expected - I'd have thought most clubs lose money in an accounting sense. Which would have been obvious if he'd done his research or due diligence instead of buying the toon on a whim, as seems to be the case.

 

I suppose it depends whether you view football clubs as business investments. I don't really, I think they're more like public institutions. The economics of football clubs seem to be completely fucked anyway. I don't give a shit about the balance sheet, I just want to see the team progress on the pitch and I don't understand why fans act like financial controllers at times. As long as we're not going into liquidation, I find debating what we can and can't afford to spend quite tedious actually.

 

I can fully understand why Ashley won't put his hand in his pocket to fund losses and buy players, but then I wonder why he owns the club at all. If I bought a stately home, and let it fall into disrepair because I couldn't fund repairs from visitors receipts, would anyone be sympathetic to me? If Ashley doesn't like it, he should sell up for a realistic price and accept he made a bad investment. imo.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

So under the current regime what we really want is kinda decent players to come here and have a moderate level of success.

 

That's all we've ever had since 1969 tbh and with the way the game is, at the summit, that's all there's likely to be for some time yet, unless Platini's stuff works.

 

I'm talking about the success of the players, and not the success of the club. It is of course possible to have a player excel whilst the team flounders - Habib Beye and Sebastian Bassong being two examples of those that consequently were bought.

 

My point is that we can't even hope that a player does excessively well here because they'll just become another red light flashing in the for sale window of Newcastle United Football Club.

 

Teves and Ronaldo! It happens at all clubs. Why do you think we are any different.

[Toonpack 6892]

He wouldnt have needed to put as much as £250 mill into the club if it wasnt for the mistakes he made though

 

I agree, it'd have only been about £200-220 Mill ish

 

I don't view the money he paid to purchase the club as "putting it into the club". I'm not going to thank him for buying it in the first place, that was his own decision.

 

Anything he's paid over to fund the club's losses, that's what he's "put in" imo. Which I imagine is quite a lot of money, so well done him. However I don't know what he expected - I'd have thought most clubs lose money in an accounting sense. Which would have been obvious if he'd done his research or due diligence instead of buying the toon on a whim, as seems to be the case.

 

I suppose it depends whether you view football clubs as business investments. I don't really, I think they're more like public institutions. The economics of football clubs seem to be completely fucked anyway. I don't give a shit about the balance sheet, I just want to see the team progress on the pitch and I don't understand why fans act like financial controllers at times. As long as we're not going into liquidation, I find debating what we can and can't afford to spend quite tedious actually.

 

I can fully understand why Ashley won't put his hand in his pocket to fund losses and buy players, but then I wonder why he owns the club at all. If I bought a stately home, and let it fall into disrepair because I couldn't fund repairs from visitors receipts, would anyone be sympathetic to me? If Ashley doesn't like it, he should sell up for a realistic price and accept he made a bad investment. imo.

 

Quite like the stately home analogy, I would expand it thus:

 

You’ve bought your stately home, and being an idiot, and in a hurry, you didn’t have a survey done as you had the ready cash to get it for an apparently, good price, it being on of the biggest stately homes in the country, it got lots of visitors and seemed like a great way to massage your ego and possibly make some money, besides you love visiting stately homes and always secretly wanted one for yourself to play with.

 

Once you became owner and started to look around you found it had dry rot and woodworm and you had no choice but to get that fixed if you didn’t want it to fall down and you’d lose all the money you’d put into it. So you embarked on the costly work needed to sort that out.

 

The main attraction at the home was the art collection that came with it, to help fund the restoration work you traded some of the artwork, that hacked off the head art director and he left, sadly a good proportion of your regular visitors and art critics loved the old bloke and from that moment on you were despised by a good portion of your “customers”. You compounded that by appointing a succession of new art directors who basically just weren’t up to the job and your popularity continued to plummet, as did the popularity of your home, to the point where it dropped from the “A” list of Stately Homes to the “B” list.

 

Despite that you ploughed on with the restoration (which has cost you more than necessary because of your mistakes). But you’ve managed to get the home back onto the “A” list. On top of that the restoration is finished and the home is looking like turning a profit year on year so you can close your wallet. As an added bonus one of the artworks in the collection became very sought after and you sold it for a huge sum, there’s another one that people are after as well.

 

You are now at the point where you have a decision to make, the house is self sufficient and you have a surplus of cash, what do you do?? There’s two possible routes to take, firstly you could just leave the house ticking over and try and recoup some of the money you’ve put in to a point where the house is saleable again. Secondly you could spend all the surplus cash on new artwork (and its maintenance) to try and improve the house’s status.

 

Sadly the since you entered the Stately Home game, the Royal Family have opened the doors of their castles to the public and it’s unlikely you can compete with them, so the best you can hope for in reality is a steady growth and maybe you may get more visitors than Balmoral (like that Jewish stately home just did). Unfortunately overtaking Buck Palace or Windsor Castle is not on. Although, there are some new EEC rules on stately homes which may help.

 

At the end of this visitor season you will show, without doubt, which way you are going to go.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Toonpack

[trophyshy 6434]

Do I get a National Trust discount?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Very good toonpack

Edited April 13, 2011 by Christmas Tree

[Toonpack 6892]

Do I get a National Trust discount?

 

If you sign up for ten years

[Kitman 2188]

Wow that's some analogy Toonpack

 

I don't think Ashley is as calculating as you infer. In fact I don't think he's known what he's doing half the time. He's more the sort of home owner who would torch the place if only he'd remembered to insure it

 

More seriously I agree this summer is pivotal. But so was the January transfer window in the relegation season and he sat scatching his arse while the roof fell in. We'll see.

[Toonpack 6892]

Wow that's some analogy Toonpack

 

I don't think Ashley is as calculating as you infer. In fact I don't think he's known what he's doing half the time. He's more the sort of home owner who would torch the place if only he'd remembered to insure it

 

More seriously I agree this summer is pivotal. But so was the January transfer window in the relegation season and he sat scatching his arse while the roof fell in. We'll see.

 

 

Agreed, not sure the roofs fallen in yet mind, it did shake abit though.

 

BTW I left out the bit about the piece of prize artwork you had, you know that French painting, that some twat scribbled on with a crayon, it's been away getting restored all year and you don't know if it will be quite the same when it comes back. It could have made a difference as well.

[McFaul 35]

He wouldnt have needed to put as much as £250 mill into the club if it wasnt for the mistakes he made though

 

I agree, it'd have only been about £200-220 Mill ish

 

I don't view the money he paid to purchase the club as "putting it into the club". I'm not going to thank him for buying it in the first place, that was his own decision.

 

Anything he's paid over to fund the club's losses, that's what he's "put in" imo. Which I imagine is quite a lot of money, so well done him. However I don't know what he expected - I'd have thought most clubs lose money in an accounting sense. Which would have been obvious if he'd done his research or due diligence instead of buying the toon on a whim, as seems to be the case.

 

I suppose it depends whether you view football clubs as business investments. I don't really, I think they're more like public institutions. The economics of football clubs seem to be completely fucked anyway. I don't give a shit about the balance sheet, I just want to see the team progress on the pitch and I don't understand why fans act like financial controllers at times. As long as we're not going into liquidation, I find debating what we can and can't afford to spend quite tedious actually.

 

I can fully understand why Ashley won't put his hand in his pocket to fund losses and buy players, but then I wonder why he owns the club at all. If I bought a stately home, and let it fall into disrepair because I couldn't fund repairs from visitors receipts, would anyone be sympathetic to me? If Ashley doesn't like it, he should sell up for a realistic price and accept he made a bad investment. imo.

 

Quite like the stately home analogy, I would expand it thus:

 

You’ve bought your stately home, and being an idiot, and in a hurry, you didn’t have a survey done as you had the ready cash to get it for an apparently, good price, it being on of the biggest stately homes in the country, it got lots of visitors and seemed like a great way to massage your ego and possibly make some money, besides you love visiting stately homes and always secretly wanted one for yourself to play with.

 

Once you became owner and started to look around you found it had dry rot and woodworm and you had no choice but to get that fixed if you didn’t want it to fall down and you’d lose all the money you’d put into it. So you embarked on the costly work needed to sort that out.

 

The main attraction at the home was the art collection that came with it, to help fund the restoration work you traded some of the artwork, that hacked off the head art director and he left, sadly a good proportion of your regular visitors and art critics loved the old bloke and from that moment on you were despised by a good portion of your “customers”. You compounded that by appointing a succession of new art directors who basically just weren’t up to the job and your popularity continued to plummet, as did the popularity of your home, to the point where it dropped from the “A” list of Stately Homes to the “B” list.

 

Despite that you ploughed on with the restoration (which has cost you more than necessary because of your mistakes). But you’ve managed to get the home back onto the “A” list. On top of that the restoration is finished and the home is looking like turning a profit year on year so you can close your wallet. As an added bonus one of the artworks in the collection became very sought after and you sold it for a huge sum, there’s another one that people are after as well.

 

You are now at the point where you have a decision to make, the house is self sufficient and you have a surplus of cash, what do you do?? There’s two possible routes to take, firstly you could just leave the house ticking over and try and recoup some of the money you’ve put in to a point where the house is saleable again. Secondly you could spend all the surplus cash on new artwork (and its maintenance) to try and improve the house’s status.

 

Sadly the since you entered the Stately Home game, the Royal Family have opened the doors of their castles to the public and it’s unlikely you can compete with them, so the best you can hope for in reality is a steady growth and maybe you may get more visitors than Balmoral (like that Jewish stately home just did). Unfortunately overtaking Buck Palace or Windsor Castle is not on. Although, there are some new EEC rules on stately homes which may help.

 

At the end of this visitor season you will show, without doubt, which way you are going to go.

What if Raoul Moat's hiding in the barn?

[Craig 6308]

In response to CT (CBA to quote his inane twaddle).

 

For all his faults, I can only recall one occassion when Shepherd allowed a player to move on to further his career. Jonathan Woodgate and after the dust settled, we got the much better deal.

 

How you can claim the foundations of us becoming a selling club, stripping the club of it's playing assets for financial gain began under Shepherd is ludicrous.

[LeazesMag 0]

So under the current regime what we really want is kinda decent players to come here and have a moderate level of success.

 

That's all we've ever had since 1969 tbh and with the way the game is, at the summit, that's all there's likely to be for some time yet, unless Platini's stuff works.

 

it may be the last time we won a trophy TP, but you can't say that at all. Are you saying the likes of Wimbledon, smoggies, Oxford, Luton etc have been more successful than us because they have won a trophy since we did ?

 

Would you honestly swap their recent history ie the past generation for ours ?

[JawD 31]

In response to CT (CBA to quote his inane twaddle).

 

For all his faults, I can only recall one occassion when Shepherd allowed a player to move on to further his career. Jonathan Woodgate and after the dust settled, we got the much better deal.

 

How you can claim the foundations of us becoming a selling club, stripping the club of it's playing assets for financial gain began under Shepherd is ludicrous.

 

Could you maybe add Hamann into that? I cant recall the exact way it happened but he wanted to leave to play in Europe, then joined Liverpool who at the time were not hence we were pissed off. Liverpool though then did go on to do well in Europe. Save him though, I cant think of any. Other than these two, I think any player who was with us doing well, went on and struggled after leaving us.

 

Now thats changed.

[Guest alex]

I'd also point out that Man Utd held onto Ronaldo for about 3 seasons despite repeated overtures from Real Madrid (which represented both his dream move and are probably the biggest club in the world). Tevez meanwhile (who seems to move every two seasons anyway) was never actually a Man Utd player, he was only there on a two-year loan deal and Man Utd agreed to the fee and offered him a massive wage at the end of that period but he went to Man City for even more money. So I'm not sure how relevant either example is.

[LeazesMag 0]

In response to CT (CBA to quote his inane twaddle).

 

For all his faults, I can only recall one occassion when Shepherd allowed a player to move on to further his career. Jonathan Woodgate and after the dust settled, we got the much better deal.

 

How you can claim the foundations of us becoming a selling club, stripping the club of it's playing assets for financial gain began under Shepherd is ludicrous.

 

Could you maybe add Hamann into that? I cant recall the exact way it happened but he wanted to leave to play in Europe, then joined Liverpool who at the time were not hence we were pissed off. Liverpool though then did go on to do well in Europe. Save him though, I cant think of any. Other than these two, I think any player who was with us doing well, went on and struggled after leaving us.

 

Now thats changed.

 

Hamman left because he fell out with Gullit, and if Gullit had stayed, Rob Lee and Shearer would have done exactly the same for the same reason. When Gullit left, they both stayed because they still thought at the time that playing for Newcastle was playing for a club with aspirations of success, europe etc.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd also point out that Man Utd held onto Ronaldo for about 3 seasons despite repeated overtures from Real Madrid (which represented both his dream move and are probably the biggest club in the world). Tevez meanwhile (who seems to move every two seasons anyway) was never actually a Man Utd player, he was only there on a two-year loan deal and Man Utd agreed to the fee and offered him a massive wage at the end of that period but he went to Man City for even more money. So I'm not sure how relevant either example is.

 

attempting to label ManU a selling club is mind boggling

[McFaul 35]

In response to CT (CBA to quote his inane twaddle).

 

For all his faults, I can only recall one occassion when Shepherd allowed a player to move on to further his career. Jonathan Woodgate and after the dust settled, we got the much better deal.

 

How you can claim the foundations of us becoming a selling club, stripping the club of it's playing assets for financial gain began under Shepherd is ludicrous.

pmsl exactly. The same Shepherd who knocked back £15m bids for KIERON DYER. If anything FFS gave his managers too much support, stripping assets is the last single phrase you could associate with FFS. Some people just look for something to say imo.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

In response to CT (CBA to quote his inane twaddle).

 

For all his faults, I can only recall one occassion when Shepherd allowed a player to move on to further his career. Jonathan Woodgate and after the dust settled, we got the much better deal.

 

How you can claim the foundations of us becoming a selling club, stripping the club of it's playing assets for financial gain began under Shepherd is ludicrous.

 

Your post has little if anything to do with what I said.

 

1. Players move on from all clubs "these days" as with the Teves / Robaldo / Berbatov and numerous other examples.

 

2. I said the "decline" started under Shepherd and snowballed under Ashley. If you dont agree we were in decline under Shepherd you need to give your head a shake.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I'd also point out that Man Utd held onto Ronaldo for about 3 seasons despite repeated overtures from Real Madrid (which represented both his dream move and are probably the biggest club in the world). Tevez meanwhile (who seems to move every two seasons anyway) was never actually a Man Utd player, he was only there on a two-year loan deal and Man Utd agreed to the fee and offered him a massive wage at the end of that period but he went to Man City for even more money. So I'm not sure how relevant either example is.

 

Berbatov??? Torres..... I think the points pretty simple.

[LeazesMag 0]

This not rocket science fellas

 

We are not a top four club nor are we aspiring to be a top four club any time soon.

 

Therefore

 

Ambitious players will want to move up the ladder if they get an opportunity.

 

Thats just the way things are in 2011 at NUFC.

 

We are a steady as it goes club that is hoping to find some stability in the top flight and gradually improve the squad over the coming years. I think the club have even stated this.

 

I dont believe there is one poster who doesn't wish things were different and we would all like a geordie trillionaire who would be willing to bank roll a top four push.

 

Our current demise started under Shepherd and snowballed under Ashley.

 

Surely everyone on here just about agrees with the bits in bold?

 

I would much rather discuss where we are and what is happening without having to revisit the bold bits every time.

 

For all the past wrongs, the club appear to be trying to create some stability with tying down players and staff. They are also getting the finances of the club in order which will help over the coming years. While we are not going to compete in the short term with the top six, the actions being taken should give us an advantage over the other "also rans" in this league.

 

Our best players will be cherry picked and we will cherry pick of those below us.

 

This is the way of the world for the immediate future. Liking or not liking it is immaterial. Its what it is.

 

who mentioned Shepherd there then ?

 

Taking your first line..........what isn't rocket science, is understanding the potential and size of your football club, allowing your manager to choose the players he wants and doesn't want, and backing him as much as possible, within sensible financial restraints applicable to your competitors of equal standing ie the ones you aspire to beat or the ones you should be aspiring to beat ?

 

Now, that isn't rocket science.

 

If our level of competition in your eyes aspires to be bolton, Stoke etc then you have a serious problem, but it really ought to be clubs such as Liverpool and Spurs at the present time.

[Guest alex]

I'd also point out that Man Utd held onto Ronaldo for about 3 seasons despite repeated overtures from Real Madrid (which represented both his dream move and are probably the biggest club in the world). Tevez meanwhile (who seems to move every two seasons anyway) was never actually a Man Utd player, he was only there on a two-year loan deal and Man Utd agreed to the fee and offered him a massive wage at the end of that period but he went to Man City for even more money. So I'm not sure how relevant either example is.

 

Berbatov??? Torres..... I think the points pretty simple.

I think each individual case is pretty different though. And whilst you could argue all clubs are selling clubs or whatever because all players have a theoretical selling price I think it's pretty obvious that all the clubs you've quoted there (Man Utd, Spurs and Liverpool) are ambitious and are focused on taking the club forward and this is evidenced by the fact that all of them are prepared to spend big and have reinvested heavily when they have sold their players. Again, I'd question how that is relevant to the situation here.

Edited April 13, 2011 by alex

[JawD 31]

from .com

 

Much debate has been prompted by the supposedly accidental outburst from Anfield apologist Phil Thompson, regarding an agreement to sell Magpie defender Jose Enrique to Liverpool this coming summer.

 

While there's no shortage of folks claiming to have insider knowledge of what the red side of Merseyside are up to, our attempts to shed light on the story from a Tyneside perspective have failed to find anything worth reporting.

 

That's not to say there's no smoke without fire, but the people who are often first to know when deals are struck involving SJP are noticeably quiet at present.

 

Sorry for putting thread back on the rails

[LeazesMag 0]

from .com

 

Much debate has been prompted by the supposedly accidental outburst from Anfield apologist Phil Thompson, regarding an agreement to sell Magpie defender Jose Enrique to Liverpool this coming summer.

 

While there's no shortage of folks claiming to have insider knowledge of what the red side of Merseyside are up to, our attempts to shed light on the story from a Tyneside perspective have failed to find anything worth reporting.

 

That's not to say there's no smoke without fire, but the people who are often first to know when deals are struck involving SJP are noticeably quiet at present.

 

Sorry for putting thread back on the rails

 

it was CT, he mentioned Shepherd

[LeazesMag 0]

He wouldnt have needed to put as much as £250 mill into the club if it wasnt for the mistakes he made though

 

I agree, it'd have only been about £200-220 Mill ish

 

I don't view the money he paid to purchase the club as "putting it into the club". I'm not going to thank him for buying it in the first place, that was his own decision.

 

Anything he's paid over to fund the club's losses, that's what he's "put in" imo. Which I imagine is quite a lot of money, so well done him. However I don't know what he expected - I'd have thought most clubs lose money in an accounting sense. Which would have been obvious if he'd done his research or due diligence instead of buying the toon on a whim, as seems to be the case.

 

I suppose it depends whether you view football clubs as business investments. I don't really, I think they're more like public institutions. The economics of football clubs seem to be completely fucked anyway. I don't give a shit about the balance sheet, I just want to see the team progress on the pitch and I don't understand why fans act like financial controllers at times. As long as we're not going into liquidation, I find debating what we can and can't afford to spend quite tedious actually.

 

I can fully understand why Ashley won't put his hand in his pocket to fund losses and buy players, but then I wonder why he owns the club at all. If I bought a stately home, and let it fall into disrepair because I couldn't fund repairs from visitors receipts, would anyone be sympathetic to me? If Ashley doesn't like it, he should sell up for a realistic price and accept he made a bad investment. imo.

 

Quite like the stately home analogy, I would expand it thus:

 

You’ve bought your stately home, and being an idiot, and in a hurry, you didn’t have a survey done as you had the ready cash to get it for an apparently, good price, it being on of the biggest stately homes in the country, it got lots of visitors and seemed like a great way to massage your ego and possibly make some money, besides you love visiting stately homes and always secretly wanted one for yourself to play with.

 

Once you became owner and started to look around you found it had dry rot and woodworm and you had no choice but to get that fixed if you didn’t want it to fall down and you’d lose all the money you’d put into it. So you embarked on the costly work needed to sort that out.

 

The main attraction at the home was the art collection that came with it, to help fund the restoration work you traded some of the artwork, that hacked off the head art director and he left, sadly a good proportion of your regular visitors and art critics loved the old bloke and from that moment on you were despised by a good portion of your “customers”. You compounded that by appointing a succession of new art directors who basically just weren’t up to the job and your popularity continued to plummet, as did the popularity of your home, to the point where it dropped from the “A” list of Stately Homes to the “B” list.

 

Despite that you ploughed on with the restoration (which has cost you more than necessary because of your mistakes). But you’ve managed to get the home back onto the “A” list. On top of that the restoration is finished and the home is looking like turning a profit year on year so you can close your wallet. As an added bonus one of the artworks in the collection became very sought after and you sold it for a huge sum, there’s another one that people are after as well.

 

You are now at the point where you have a decision to make, the house is self sufficient and you have a surplus of cash, what do you do?? There’s two possible routes to take, firstly you could just leave the house ticking over and try and recoup some of the money you’ve put in to a point where the house is saleable again. Secondly you could spend all the surplus cash on new artwork (and its maintenance) to try and improve the house’s status.

 

Sadly the since you entered the Stately Home game, the Royal Family have opened the doors of their castles to the public and it’s unlikely you can compete with them, so the best you can hope for in reality is a steady growth and maybe you may get more visitors than Balmoral (like that Jewish stately home just did). Unfortunately overtaking Buck Palace or Windsor Castle is not on. Although, there are some new EEC rules on stately homes which may help.

 

At the end of this visitor season you will show, without doubt, which way you are going to go.

 

and whatever happened to those who built up the "stately home" when its foundations were crumbling, nobody came to visit anymore, local business didn't want to invest in it, and the bulldozers were ready to move in ? They were despised for wasting money on the reconstruction of the building, and all those valuable art paintings that they filled it with which attracted massive increases in the clicking of the turnstiles and commercial exposure every time it opened ?

Edited April 13, 2011 by LeazesMag