Ashley's Eyes on the exit door

[ChezGiven 0]

This thread needs Chex Given immediately.

 

Not sure what 'options' exist after a takeover or why a debt repayment trigger is surprising when the owner of the debt changes.

 

Apart from that you've already captured my thoughts on this matter.

[Park Life 70]

This thread needs Chex Given immediately.

 

Not sure what 'options' exist after a takeover or why a debt repayment trigger is surprising when the owner of the debt changes.

 

Apart from that you've already captured my thoughts on this matter.

 

You have a way of making it sound more technical.

[Tooj 17]

This thread needs Chex Given immediately.

 

Not sure what 'options' exist after a takeover or why a debt repayment trigger is surprising when the owner of the debt changes.

 

Apart from that you've already captured my thoughts on this matter.

 

You have a way of making it sound more technical.

You mean because he actually knows what he is on about.

[Park Life 70]

This thread needs Chex Given immediately.

 

Not sure what 'options' exist after a takeover or why a debt repayment trigger is surprising when the owner of the debt changes.

 

Apart from that you've already captured my thoughts on this matter.

 

You have a way of making it sound more technical.

You mean because he actually knows what he is on about.

 

That as well.

[Isegrim 8888]

Maybe Ashley has realised that running a successful football club is more costly than he thought ?

 

It would explain the 2nd rate transfer policy adopted by the club since he came in, a huge step down from the policy of the old board.

 

It doesn't explain how he tempted Keegan here, but Keegan has said they haven't discussed the amount of money yet.

 

Time will tell. But a transfer kitty along the lines of clubs like Blackburn, Birmingham, Pompey etc is right back to the times of Mckeag, Westwood etc. Not good enough. And if this is his ambition he can fuck off.

 

Time will tell.

 

 

Maybe the 'transfer policy' he has adopted in the two transfer windows is down to the £100 million of debt he's had to pay off to stop the club from folding because of your good mate Freddy

 

 

This idea that a business like Newcastle (with a virtual monopoly and catchment area) along with massive gates regardless of performance had any chance of 'folding' I find spurious and the kind of 'spin' Mort has been putting out since he arrived.

 

The millions pouring into the PL virtually secures all PL club businesses for a considerable period. Many top flight clubs carry proportionate to income high debt ratios. It's not really about profitability either as there aren't many PL clubs that habitually make a profit.

 

That said I am of the opinion the debt did need looking at but I find the melodrama surrounding it unnecessary.

Not actually England, but Dortmund who are in many aspects very comparable to Newcastle had one foot in the grave because of their overambition. Of course it is difficult for a club or a business of the size of Newcastle with it's income to fold, but it's not impossible. I got told that KPMG had serious reservations about the balance sheets in recent years and it wasn't that easy to make them look (sort of) healthy.

 

In the end the fate is down to the creditors and their securisation. As I understand it the likes of Schechter had options to cash in after the take over which would have fundamentally affected the resources of the club, which they seemed to consider to make use of. This was avoided by Ashley paying off the debt from his personal assets. You may call Mort's comments a drama, but I don't think they were technically a lie. They certainly aren't worse than the attempts to blandish the increasingly worrying financial state of the club in the form of lalaing.

 

Out of interest what kind of TV money do top tier German clubs get?

Less, which isn't of much importance in this context. Getting more tosh doesn't mean you can't get bankrupt if your higher debts get out of your hand.

[Jimbo 133]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

I recall one interview (might have been the one in The Mag) where Allardyce commented that the sale of the club hindered him, he said something to the effect of "we had some big names lined up under Shepherd's era, but along came the sale and that changed everything".

 

Not sure if he was suggesting that funds were not there or that the sale delayed him in the transfer market and those targets were snapped up by other clubs.

[NJS 3986]

I get some of what LM is saying when he lauds Shepherd for finding the money to back his managers but I was getting concerned as to how much longer he could go on doing it without Leeds type consequences.

 

My view of clearing the debt is that that particular worry is gone but I'd now like to see spending from Ashley on top of the money set aside previously for debt (ST sales) as well as the extra TV money. I think £30-40m spending this summer would indicate zero commitment as that is what should be a given.

[LeazesMag 0]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

 

And he was happy to offer more than anyone else for Woodgate in January wasn't he?

 

I don't see where people get the idea he's not stumping up what the manager asks for.

To help their agendas perhaps?

 

moi ?

 

Give me one good reason why I should have an "agenda" johnny ?

 

Other than wanting the club to punch their weight ........ ? What the point of having the 3rd biggest stadium/crowds in the country if we act 2nd rate ?

 

BTW, Allardyce has probably signed a confidentiality clause to keep his gob shut, that is pretty common. He did make noises last summer about not being backed though, and Mort clearly said that the dealings we made [good weren't they ?] were "good business" and also said before Xmas that any players signed in January would be for the future.

 

Its the comments from Mort that cause this sort of response from me, and others. Why make out the club was going to fold, and put bad spin on what they took over ? Its bollocks, he knows it is. And its been explained in financial terms. The club will not fold. If NUFC were ever going to fold they would have done so in 1991.

 

The new owner should have done more research into the clubs accounts if he doesn't like what he finds, now. And believe me if he sells it on he won;t lose anything, he'll want 230m quid having paid off the clubs "mortgage". Good move, but dont' kid yourself he's gave it away and is writing it off, which is what some people appear to suggest. Do they believe this ? Surely not.

Edited March 27, 2008 by LeazesMag

[Dr Gloom 19855]

it's all about what happens from now on with ashley. he's got his man in now he needs to back him. i'll reserve judgement until the end of the summer window

[Happy Face 29]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

 

And he was happy to offer more than anyone else for Woodgate in January wasn't he?

 

I don't see where people get the idea he's not stumping up what the manager asks for.

To help their agendas perhaps?

 

moi ?

 

Give me one good reason why I should have an "agenda" johnny ?

 

Other than wanting the club to punch their weight ........ ? What the point of having the 3rd biggest stadium/crowds in the country if we act 2nd rate ?

 

BTW, Allardyce has probably signed a confidentiality clause to keep his gob shut, that is pretty common. He did make noises last summer about not being backed though, and Mort clearly said that the dealings we made [good weren't they ?] were "good business" and also said before Xmas that any players signed in January would be for the future.

 

Its the comments from Mort that cause this sort of response from me, and others. Why make out the club was going to fold, and put bad spin on what they took over ? Its bollocks, he knows it is. And its been explained in financial terms. The club will not fold. If NUFC were ever going to fold they would have done so in 1991.

 

The new owner should have done more research into the clubs accounts if he doesn't like what he finds, now. And believe me if he sells it on he won;t lose anything, he'll want 230m quid having paid off the clubs "mortgage". Good move, but dont' kid yourself he's gave it away and is writing it off, which is what some people appear to suggest. Do they believe this ? Surely not.

 

Has Mort said the club was going to fold?

 

Again, a genuine question, I know he said they were suprised to learn the real size of the debts after the sale had gone through, but that was because they had to rush through the coup d'etat while Shepherd was on his death bed.

[Isegrim 8888]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

 

And he was happy to offer more than anyone else for Woodgate in January wasn't he?

 

I don't see where people get the idea he's not stumping up what the manager asks for.

To help their agendas perhaps?

 

moi ?

 

Give me one good reason why I should have an "agenda" johnny ?

 

Other than wanting the club to punch their weight ........ ? What the point of having the 3rd biggest stadium/crowds in the country if we act 2nd rate ?

 

BTW, Allardyce has probably signed a confidentiality clause to keep his gob shut, that is pretty common. He did make noises last summer about not being backed though, and Mort clearly said that the dealings we made [good weren't they ?] were "good business" and also said before Xmas that any players signed in January would be for the future.

 

Its the comments from Mort that cause this sort of response from me, and others. Why make out the club was going to fold, and put bad spin on what they took over ? Its bollocks, he knows it is. And its been explained in financial terms. The club will not fold. If NUFC were ever going to fold they would have done so in 1991.

 

The new owner should have done more research into the clubs accounts if he doesn't like what he finds, now. And believe me if he sells it on he won;t lose anything, he'll want 230m quid having paid off the clubs "mortgage". Good move, but dont' kid yourself he's gave it away and is writing it off, which is what some people appear to suggest. Do they believe this ? Surely not.

 

Has Mort said the club was going to fold?

 

Again, a genuine question, I know he said they were suprised to learn the real size of the debts after the sale had gone through, but that was because they had to rush through the coup d'etat while Shepherd was on his death bed.

 

Yes he did.

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/26092007/4/t...brink-mort.html

 

Regardless of Mort's spin, to blindly deny that a club can fold is a bit deluded imho.

[LeazesMag 0]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

 

And he was happy to offer more than anyone else for Woodgate in January wasn't he?

 

I don't see where people get the idea he's not stumping up what the manager asks for.

To help their agendas perhaps?

 

moi ?

 

Give me one good reason why I should have an "agenda" johnny ?

 

Other than wanting the club to punch their weight ........ ? What the point of having the 3rd biggest stadium/crowds in the country if we act 2nd rate ?

 

BTW, Allardyce has probably signed a confidentiality clause to keep his gob shut, that is pretty common. He did make noises last summer about not being backed though, and Mort clearly said that the dealings we made [good weren't they ?] were "good business" and also said before Xmas that any players signed in January would be for the future.

 

Its the comments from Mort that cause this sort of response from me, and others. Why make out the club was going to fold, and put bad spin on what they took over ? Its bollocks, he knows it is. And its been explained in financial terms. The club will not fold. If NUFC were ever going to fold they would have done so in 1991.

 

The new owner should have done more research into the clubs accounts if he doesn't like what he finds, now. And believe me if he sells it on he won;t lose anything, he'll want 230m quid having paid off the clubs "mortgage". Good move, but dont' kid yourself he's gave it away and is writing it off, which is what some people appear to suggest. Do they believe this ? Surely not.

 

Has Mort said the club was going to fold?

 

Again, a genuine question, I know he said they were suprised to learn the real size of the debts after the sale had gone through, but that was because they had to rush through the coup d'etat while Shepherd was on his death bed.

 

no, but he's spinning comments to big up himself and Ashley to the detriment of the old board. I think they should match the european qualifications or at least look like they are on the way to getting into the top postions before he slates the old board to be honest. Because, despite what people say, they will be judged by the performance of the team on the pitch, not the "business". And they won't match the performance on the pitch without challenging the top clubs and punching our weight in the transfer market.

 

It's fans who are saying the club would fold, which is compete bollocks. And they are doing it for the simple reason that they just want to slate the old board at any opportunity they can distort anything to do it.

 

Everything Ashley does > everything the old board does, it would appear. Apart from results and league position that is.

 

Buying johnny averages and proclaiming it to be "good business" does not equal a good football team.

[LeazesMag 0]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

 

And he was happy to offer more than anyone else for Woodgate in January wasn't he?

 

I don't see where people get the idea he's not stumping up what the manager asks for.

To help their agendas perhaps?

 

moi ?

 

Give me one good reason why I should have an "agenda" johnny ?

 

Other than wanting the club to punch their weight ........ ? What the point of having the 3rd biggest stadium/crowds in the country if we act 2nd rate ?

 

BTW, Allardyce has probably signed a confidentiality clause to keep his gob shut, that is pretty common. He did make noises last summer about not being backed though, and Mort clearly said that the dealings we made [good weren't they ?] were "good business" and also said before Xmas that any players signed in January would be for the future.

 

Its the comments from Mort that cause this sort of response from me, and others. Why make out the club was going to fold, and put bad spin on what they took over ? Its bollocks, he knows it is. And its been explained in financial terms. The club will not fold. If NUFC were ever going to fold they would have done so in 1991.

 

The new owner should have done more research into the clubs accounts if he doesn't like what he finds, now. And believe me if he sells it on he won;t lose anything, he'll want 230m quid having paid off the clubs "mortgage". Good move, but dont' kid yourself he's gave it away and is writing it off, which is what some people appear to suggest. Do they believe this ? Surely not.

 

Has Mort said the club was going to fold?

 

Again, a genuine question, I know he said they were suprised to learn the real size of the debts after the sale had gone through, but that was because they had to rush through the coup d'etat while Shepherd was on his death bed.

 

Yes he did.

 

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/26092007/4/t...brink-mort.html

 

Regardless of Mort's spin, to blindly deny that a club can fold is a bit deluded imho.

 

oh well, there you go then.

[NJS 3986]

LM: Do you think Shepherd's "talent" for finding money for players was

 

1. Practical for years to come especially considering increased wages

 

2. Without the dangers that Isegrim has referred to

 

Obviously if Allardyce had been able to deliver the returns would have been better but not many people think that was likely and the man himself said he needed at least 3 years.

 

Do you think 3 europe-less seasons with yet more borrowing for players would have been okay or would you have been worried?

 

I've always been cynical when people talk about the club folding (biggest culprit being J. Hall) but Leeds/SAFC/Sheff Wed scenarios would have been possible in the future I outlined above.

[Guest BigThompers]

Has Allardyce said in any of his post sack interviews that he was dismayed with the lack of cash put up by Ashley to back him in attracting the players he wanted?

 

Genuine question.

I don't think so.

 

 

And he was happy to offer more than anyone else for Woodgate in January wasn't he?

 

I don't see where people get the idea he's not stumping up what the manager asks for.

To help their agendas perhaps?

 

moi ?

 

Give me one good reason why I should have an "agenda" johnny ?

 

Other than wanting the club to punch their weight ........ ? What the point of having the 3rd biggest stadium/crowds in the country if we act 2nd rate ?

 

BTW, Allardyce has probably signed a confidentiality clause to keep his gob shut, that is pretty common. He did make noises last summer about not being backed though, and Mort clearly said that the dealings we made [good weren't they ?] were "good business" and also said before Xmas that any players signed in January would be for the future.

 

Its the comments from Mort that cause this sort of response from me, and others. Why make out the club was going to fold, and put bad spin on what they took over ? Its bollocks, he knows it is. And its been explained in financial terms. The club will not fold. If NUFC were ever going to fold they would have done so in 1991.

 

The new owner should have done more research into the clubs accounts if he doesn't like what he finds, now. And believe me if he sells it on he won;t lose anything, he'll want 230m quid having paid off the clubs "mortgage". Good move, but dont' kid yourself he's gave it away and is writing it off, which is what some people appear to suggest. Do they believe this ? Surely not.

 

Has Mort said the club was going to fold?

 

Again, a genuine question, I know he said they were suprised to learn the real size of the debts after the sale had gone through, but that was because they had to rush through the coup d'etat while Shepherd was on his death bed.

 

no, but he's spinning comments to big up himself and Ashley to the detriment of the old board. I think they should match the european qualifications or at least look like they are on the way to getting into the top postions before he slates the old board to be honest. Because, despite what people say, they will be judged by the performance of the team on the pitch, not the "business". And they won't match the performance on the pitch without challenging the top clubs and punching our weight in the transfer market.

 

It's fans who are saying the club would fold, which is compete bollocks. And they are doing it for the simple reason that they just want to slate the old board at any opportunity they can distort anything to do it.

 

Everything Ashley does > everything the old board does, it would appear. Apart from results and league position that is.

 

Buying johnny averages and proclaiming it to be "good business" does not equal a good football team.

 

Allardyce (Shepherd's appointment) was the one renowned for signing Johnny Averages I believe.

[sammynb 2929]

I'd be worried if I was a Fulham fan like.

 

Why Craven Cottage is ripe for development!

[LeazesMag 0]

LM: Do you think Shepherd's "talent" for finding money for players was

 

1. Practical for years to come especially considering increased wages

 

2. Without the dangers that Isegrim has referred to

 

Obviously if Allardyce had been able to deliver the returns would have been better but not many people think that was likely and the man himself said he needed at least 3 years.

 

Do you think 3 europe-less seasons with yet more borrowing for players would have been okay or would you have been worried?

 

I've always been cynical when people talk about the club folding (biggest culprit being J. Hall) but Leeds/SAFC/Sheff Wed scenarios would have been possible in the future I outlined above.

 

I've not disagreed that appointing the bad manager set us on a downward slide, playing wise

 

However, the actions of a board, must still be to back their manager in the best way they can. He is their appointment, not yours or mine, theirs.

 

I am not aware the club borrowed money to buy players. I thought they spent some of the Northern Rock money in advance of receiving it. I think if you are showing ambition to get back among the elite this is a worthwhile gamble. The alternative is sitting in no mans land. How many people would have kicked off if the club did that ? The club also improved the stadium and took out loans to pay for it [well structured ones tied to income, ticket sales, revenue etc] I fail to see what the big problem is with this ? How many clubs have improved their stadiums and saved the money up to pay for it or have someone who will pay if out of his own back pocket.

 

If the new board don't show ambition to succeed on the pitch, you will see the result. Not that I think anybody will admit that things aren't quite what they thought [deluded ?] since the club changed ownership, such is the agenda against the old board that very few people actually understand how much better of we are in comparison to the club they found, not to mention the

relative success we have had in comparion to prevous regimes and the vast majority of other clubs.

 

Leeds and Sheff Wed are nowhere near the clubs that Newcastle United are, and the mackems are the ultimate example of what an unambitious board achieves for a club that should be challenging at the top. Which is how we were run for 3 decades prior to the Halls and Shepherd. Which I've said before.

 

What is the point of having one of the biggest fanbases in the country and competing at the level of the 2nd raters ? YOu know what mate, I've not said this since 1992, and I said this very thing for 30 years prior to that. Its the first time I've thought like this for 16 years.

 

I'm only calling it how I see it so far.

Edited March 28, 2008 by LeazesMag

[sammynb 2929]

Leaze, your support for the previous incumbent is admirable, although it is hard to agree with you but to be slating the new owner and board 8 months into their reign isn't really letting, as you said, time to tell.

For a man who thrives on being right, lets hope you are very wrong.

[trophyshy 6434]

this board would be pretty dull without LM tbh

[LeazesMag 0]

Leaze, your support for the previous incumbent is admirable, although it is hard to agree with you but to be slating the new owner and board 8 months into their reign isn't really letting, as you said, time to tell.

For a man who thrives on being right, lets hope you are very wrong.

 

contrary to some opinion, I am not really trying to say I'm right, and certainly hope I'm wrong.

 

But I'm alarmed by the signs I have seen so far. Because I've heard such talk before.

 

I repeat, I'm not "supporting" anyone, just calling it how I see it. The old board saved the club from bankruptcy and disaster. To say they left the club in the same situation is the laugh of the century.

 

In the meantime, we enjoyed the european trips, Cup Finals, top class players and doubling the gates.

 

Didn't we ?

[Isegrim 8888]

If the new board don't show ambition to succeed on the pitch, you will see the result. Not that I think anybody will admit that things aren't quite what they thought [deluded ?] since the club changed ownership, such is the agenda against the old board that very few people actually understand how much better of we are in comparison to the club they found, not to mention the relative success we have had in comparion to prevous regimes and the vast majority of other clubs.

Of course the results this season are disappointing. But the fact that the new board isn't getting slated for it (yet) by the majority is giving them still the benefit of the doubt. And to be honest, while they haven't probably done everything right I can't see to many things they have actually done wrong. Most notably I haven't seen any indications that actually did not back the manager. To expect them doing miracles overnight would have been too much. In the end the club was spiralling downwards for a couple of years since Bobby Robson's departure. But this doesn't mean expectations will not increase in the future, starting this summer. They took over a new club and had to get used to it. They also started to restructure it financially and organisationally to fulfil their ambitions. Running a club is more than just throwing money at the manager (which is important though). Of course the club is in a better state than 15 years ago. Nobody will deny this. Therefore Ashley's benchmark will not be 1992 but 2008 (or 2004) which will be a much bigger task. As I said only a fool would expect this to be achieved in the first season. The criticism will rightfully come if the club won't show "ambition" in the future and remain in no man's land of the table (or worse). But after the takeover the new board does deserve a bit of trust imho, just as the old board did get for quite a long time until things started to go the wrong direction.

[Park Life 70]

Really good players that change a sides profile cost real money. I haven't heard or seen anything from the new board thus far that makes me believe that players of this kind will arrive anytime soon. Hope I'm wrong clearly.

[Happy Face 29]

Really good players that change a sides profile cost real money. I haven't heard or seen anything from the new board recent managers thus far that makes me believe that players of this kind will arrive anytime soon. Hope I'm wrong clearly.

 

FYP.

[Guest alex]

Really good players that change a sides profile cost real money. I haven't heard or seen anything from the new board thus far that makes me believe that players of this kind will arrive anytime soon. Hope I'm wrong clearly.

If you had you'd probably be moaning along the lines of "Talk is cheap", "Actions speak louder than words" etc.

[Park Life 70]

Really good players that change a sides profile cost real money. I haven't heard or seen anything from the new board thus far that makes me believe that players of this kind will arrive anytime soon. Hope I'm wrong clearly.

If you had you'd probably be moaning along the lines of "Talk is cheap", "Actions speak louder than words" etc.

 

KK is already talking down the summer spend.