Newcastle Finances in the Championship

[Toonpack 6901]

 

We were relegated under ASHLEY, NOT the Halls and Shepherd you brainwashed fool.

 

 

I know that, dimwit, it'd have happened eventually under your mate anyway, probably with the help of a -10 point deduction, because you STILL can't explain where the money would have come from that we needed.

 

Edit - I notice you pointedly gloss over (erase) the Spurs/Liverpool info.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Toonpack

[peasepud 59]

Fair point on the figures relating to previous years which I accept and apologise for.

 

I don't think I've ever tried to deny that there is a complete link between football and financial performance - in fact what I've been arguing agsinst is the attempt by some (more LM than you) to abstract that to one of pure business competence where I don't accept that Shepherd was somehow "better" then Ashley. By this I mean in day to day activities not directly related to the football like raising sponsorship and/or reducing costs.

 

What I'm also trying to argue against is a polar view where everything Shepherd did was "great" and everything Ashley has done has been "shit". My view is that there has been good and bad elements to both regimes. I think attempting to reign in wages and to rely more on non-credit revenues is a laudible aim - even if it causes me pain to say that given my overall view of him and I think the "unambitious" definition of intent is one I'd call realistic though disappointing. I also think LM's view that "all" we have to do is run the club like Shepherd did to ensure success is fucking stupid in 2011. I think comparing methods not allowing for how football and finance has changed in the last 5 years is daft and isn't as black and white as even you suggest.

 

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

We were relegated under ASHLEY, NOT the Halls and Shepherd you brainwashed fool.

 

 

I know that, dimwit, it'd have happened eventually under your mate anyway, probably with the help of a -10 point deduction, because you STILL can't explain where the money would have come from that we needed.

 

.

 

but it DIDN'T happen, did it ? You're talking speculative bollocks. You should go back to supporting the club and putting your own money in to help your man build and go forward in these exciting times

 

The club has fallen in the rich list, the money WAS generated, so where has it gone ?

 

If YOU know the answer to that, apply for the job because your man is making a right fuck up of it. Maybe Fat Fred earned his salary after all.

 

What a fucking idiot you are.

[LeazesMag 0]

Fair point on the figures relating to previous years which I accept and apologise for.

 

I don't think I've ever tried to deny that there is a complete link between football and financial performance - in fact what I've been arguing agsinst is the attempt by some (more LM than you) to abstract that to one of pure business competence where I don't accept that Shepherd was somehow "better" then Ashley. By this I mean in day to day activities not directly related to the football like raising sponsorship and/or reducing costs.

 

What I'm also trying to argue against is a polar view where everything Shepherd did was "great" and everything Ashley has done has been "shit". My view is that there has been good and bad elements to both regimes. I think attempting to reign in wages and to rely more on non-credit revenues is a laudible aim - even if it causes me pain to say that given my overall view of him and I think the "unambitious" definition of intent is one I'd call realistic though disappointing. I also think LM's view that "all" we have to do is run the club like Shepherd did to ensure success is fucking stupid in 2011. I think comparing methods not allowing for how football and finance has changed in the last 5 years is daft and isn't as black and white as even you suggest.

 

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

 

how many times does this need to be explained to these fools ?

[NJS 3986]

Fair point on the figures relating to previous years which I accept and apologise for.

 

I don't think I've ever tried to deny that there is a complete link between football and financial performance - in fact what I've been arguing agsinst is the attempt by some (more LM than you) to abstract that to one of pure business competence where I don't accept that Shepherd was somehow "better" then Ashley. By this I mean in day to day activities not directly related to the football like raising sponsorship and/or reducing costs.

 

What I'm also trying to argue against is a polar view where everything Shepherd did was "great" and everything Ashley has done has been "shit". My view is that there has been good and bad elements to both regimes. I think attempting to reign in wages and to rely more on non-credit revenues is a laudible aim - even if it causes me pain to say that given my overall view of him and I think the "unambitious" definition of intent is one I'd call realistic though disappointing. I also think LM's view that "all" we have to do is run the club like Shepherd did to ensure success is fucking stupid in 2011. I think comparing methods not allowing for how football and finance has changed in the last 5 years is daft and isn't as black and white as even you suggest.

 

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

 

how many times does this need to be explained to these fools ?

 

Coherently, without insults and with facts to back the posts as PP does would be a good start

[NJS 3986]

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" sounds sensible but there has to be another side to that - you could look at Leeds and Portsmouth as good examples of it crashing and burning badly.

[Toonpack 6901]

 

We were relegated under ASHLEY, NOT the Halls and Shepherd you brainwashed fool.

 

 

I know that, dimwit, it'd have happened eventually under your mate anyway, probably with the help of a -10 point deduction, because you STILL can't explain where the money would have come from that we needed.

 

.

 

but it DIDN'T happen, did it ? You're talking speculative bollocks. You should go back to supporting the club and putting your own money in to help your man build and go forward in these exciting times

 

The club has fallen in the rich list, the money WAS generated, so where has it gone ?

 

If YOU know the answer to that, apply for the job because your man is making a right fuck up of it. Maybe Fat Fred earned his salary after all.

 

What a fucking idiot you are.

 

No more speculative that you thinking FFS/Halls would have found the £120 mill we needed to keep going for 4 years

[peasepud 59]

No more speculative that you thinking FFS/Halls would have found the £120 mill we needed to keep going for 4 years

 

Im sorry I must have missed the post on this, where does this figure of £30m per year come from?

[Giraffidae 0]

in this annual report (or any previous) has there been any mention of a pay off to get rid of Dennis Wise,

 

or is he still on the payroll?

[LeazesMag 0]

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" sounds sensible but there has to be another side to that - you could look at Leeds and Portsmouth as good examples of it crashing and burning badly.

 

fuck me. Two clubs out of how many ?

 

Lets have it your way then. Lets try and win the title or attempt to qualify for the Champions League on a consistent basis while selling our best players to our rivals behind the managers back and replacing them with inferior replacements offered minimal wages. Can you tell us any good examples that have done this ? Or are you accepting that we are no longer contenders and have no chance in the future, as in the likes of Stoke and Bolton ?

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" is EXACTLY how it works in football. This is like banging your head against a brick wall. The teams that take the most shots at goal generally score the most goals. The teams that have the most quality footballers generally generate the most income, the teams with the best quality footballers are generally the ones who get it right on the pitch and increase their income. What is difficult about this ?

 

Whatever way you look at it, you people are letting your blind irrational hatred of an individual or individuals dominate your entire judgement. How sad can you get.

 

Seeing as Toonpack predictably doesn't answer my question about his mans "plan" he so fervently backs, where do YOU think we will be with 5 more years of Mike Ashleys "plan", bearing in mind his long term aim is to finish 10th ?

[LeazesMag 0]

No more speculative that you thinking FFS/Halls would have found the £120 mill we needed to keep going for 4 years

 

Im sorry I must have missed the post on this, where does this figure of £30m per year come from?

 

hallucinating again

 

Maybe he thinks we have to sell our best players for a combined total of 120m quid for the next 4 year to avoid going bust

Edited April 5, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 3986]

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" sounds sensible but there has to be another side to that - you could look at Leeds and Portsmouth as good examples of it crashing and burning badly.

 

fuck me. Two clubs out of how many ?

 

Lets have it your way then. Lets try and win the title or attempt to qualify for the Champions League on a consistent basis while selling our best players to our rivals behind the managers back and replacing them with inferior replacements offered minimal wages. Can you tell us any good examples that have done this ? Or are you accepting that we are no longer contenders and have no chance in the future, as in the likes of Stoke and Bolton ?

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" is EXACTLY how it works in football. This is like banging your head against a brick wall. The teams that take the most shots at goal generally score the most goals. The teams that have the most quality footballers generally generate the most income, the teams with the best quality footballers are generally the ones who get it right on the pitch and increase their income. What is difficult about this ?

 

Whatever way you look at it, you people are letting your blind irrational hatred of an individual or individuals dominate your entire judgement. How sad can you get.

 

Seeing as Toonpack predictably doesn't answer my question about his mans "plan" he so fervently backs, where do YOU think we will be with 5 more years of Mike Ashleys "plan", bearing in mind his long term aim is to finish 10th ?

 

 

YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

 

How would you pay for an assault on the top 4?

 

If you say "like we did pre-2007" then the next question is who will lend us the money?

 

In answer to your question - about the same as we are now - as we were in 2007 - in debt with our heads just above water.

 

If Shepherd was still in charge where do you think we;d be now?

[NJS 3986]

No more speculative that you thinking FFS/Halls would have found the £120 mill we needed to keep going for 4 years

 

Im sorry I must have missed the post on this, where does this figure of £30m per year come from?

 

I'd guess the 34m loss in Shepherd's last year repeated.

[Toonpack 6901]

No more speculative that you thinking FFS/Halls would have found the £120 mill we needed to keep going for 4 years

 

Im sorry I must have missed the post on this, where does this figure of £30m per year come from?

 

Post #306

 

It’s an arbitrary figure based upon the facts that our losses had been growing year on year to the point where we lost £34.2 in 2007. Despite the fact that our losses were in fact climbing every year, I took a view that £30 million loss pa was a reasonable figure to forecast as the likely loss year on year going forward and therefore the amount of additional income/finance we’d have to find, just to stand still mind.

[LeazesMag 0]

I would never attempt to argue that everything Shepherd did was good, far from it but I do have one simple overriding belief that "success on the pitch breeds increased revenue", that was Shepherds mantra and frankly should be what all football clubs strive for. Running as we do on the logic that we should break even and all will be good regardless of how we achieve that financial sweet spot is not the way to run a football club. The sales of players key to our season is a fine example. Maybe we've hit lucky with Carroll but relegation can be attributed to the sale of Given, with him in goal we would have gained that extra point. Selling Carroll was the same gamble and fortunately it appears to have paid off.

 

Will next years gamble be as fortunate?

 

What happens when the couple of players we buy a season dont include a Tiote or Ben Arfa but more Perch's?

 

Both chairmen have gambled on players, Shepherds was that purchasing proven big names would do the job, he was unlucky with the likes of Owen but none of the 20k that turned up to chant his name predicted that just as us on here didnt. One thing that did come from it though was the increase in merchandising/sponsorship etc that come from these types of signings which helped to increase the revenue.

 

Ashleys gamble is on cheap players making it big to then be sold and a portion of the proceeds invested in the next "big thing". Id be interested to see any examples of successful teams based on that model.

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" sounds sensible but there has to be another side to that - you could look at Leeds and Portsmouth as good examples of it crashing and burning badly.

 

fuck me. Two clubs out of how many ?

 

Lets have it your way then. Lets try and win the title or attempt to qualify for the Champions League on a consistent basis while selling our best players to our rivals behind the managers back and replacing them with inferior replacements offered minimal wages. Can you tell us any good examples that have done this ? Or are you accepting that we are no longer contenders and have no chance in the future, as in the likes of Stoke and Bolton ?

 

"Get the football right and all else follows" is EXACTLY how it works in football. This is like banging your head against a brick wall. The teams that take the most shots at goal generally score the most goals. The teams that have the most quality footballers generally generate the most income, the teams with the best quality footballers are generally the ones who get it right on the pitch and increase their income. What is difficult about this ?

 

Whatever way you look at it, you people are letting your blind irrational hatred of an individual or individuals dominate your entire judgement. How sad can you get.

 

Seeing as Toonpack predictably doesn't answer my question about his mans "plan" he so fervently backs, where do YOU think we will be with 5 more years of Mike Ashleys "plan", bearing in mind his long term aim is to finish 10th ?

 

 

YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

 

How would you pay for an assault on the top 4?

 

If you say "like we did pre-2007" then the next question is who will lend us the money?

 

In answer to your question - about the same as we are now - as we were in 2007 - in debt with our heads just above water.

 

If Shepherd was still in charge where do you think we;d be now?

 

Shepherd was never in charge.

 

If the Halls and Shepherd still owned the club, we would not have been relegated, thats for certain. Mike Ashley's aim is 10th in the premiership though, fantastic, which 9 clubs are bigger and better than Newcastle ?

Edited April 5, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Toonpack 6901]

Shepherd was never in charge.

 

If the Halls and Shepherd still owned the club, we would not have been relegated, thats for certain. Mike Ashley's aim is 10th in the premiership though, fantastic, which 9 clubs are bigger and better than Newcastle ?

 

Where would the money have come from to sustain the club.

[LeazesMag 0]

Shepherd was never in charge.

 

If the Halls and Shepherd still owned the club, we would not have been relegated, thats for certain. Mike Ashley's aim is 10th in the premiership though, fantastic, which 9 clubs are bigger and better than Newcastle ?

 

Where would the money have come from to sustain the club.

 

from your pocket when you decide to support your man ?

[Toonpack 6901]

Shepherd was never in charge.

 

If the Halls and Shepherd still owned the club, we would not have been relegated, thats for certain. Mike Ashley's aim is 10th in the premiership though, fantastic, which 9 clubs are bigger and better than Newcastle ?

 

Where would the money have come from to sustain the club.

 

from your pocket when you decide to support your man ?

 

He's not "my man" and I don't have multi millions, where could the multi millions needed come from ??

 

BTW the stated aim is 10th or above, if achieved year on year, it will exceed the previous regime's 9.4th year on year. Just sayin...........

[LeazesMag 0]

Shepherd was never in charge.

 

If the Halls and Shepherd still owned the club, we would not have been relegated, thats for certain. Mike Ashley's aim is 10th in the premiership though, fantastic, which 9 clubs are bigger and better than Newcastle ?

 

Where would the money have come from to sustain the club.

 

from your pocket when you decide to support your man ?

 

He's not "my man" and I don't have multi millions, where could the multi millions needed come from ??

 

BTW the stated aim is 10th or above, if achieved year on year, it will exceed the previous regime's 9.4th year on year. Just sayin...........

 

but it won't. Its their aim . They won't have the 5th highest average or qualify for the Champions League either. Do you think otherwise, if so where do you think we will be after 5 more years of his "plan", making 9 years in total ?

 

Why don't you support the man you think is moving the club towards exciting times in the future ? You are so stupid, you don't see what my point really means do you ?

 

As it is, according to you, we don't have any more potential than clubs like Stoke or Bolton. You clearly don't think we are any bigger than these sort of clubs because despite having a bigger fanbase and more commercial attraction, you are placing us at a level alongside these clubs, and you indicate you are happy with it.

 

If you missed the years 1992-2007, then its a reasonable assumption to make mind.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

[peasepud 59]

Bloomin board crashing lost my post!

 

I think that the permanent thrashing of Shpeherd based on him spending money is naive at best. Im anything but a lover of Shepherd and have no issue in battering him on any one of a dozen things hes done that I dont agree with.

 

Spending money on players to achieve the kind of football I may never again see in my lifetime is not one of them.

 

The assumption seems to be that Freddy had no other ideas, thoughts etc. How do we know that? at the end of the day if the credit lines were gone then they were gone. he would have had to do something different, either through refinancing the club, bringing in other investors or cutting costs and maximising revenues.

 

Im fairly confident though that if he'd done the latter it wouldnt have been at the expense of our best players with a hope that we'd survive. I have enough belief in the fat man to know that he'd have looked at ways to increase our revenues and cut our costs in other areas first.

 

I see nobody has answered my question on our current debt levels though.

[Toonpack 6901]

but it won't. Its their aim . They won't have the 5th highest average or qualify for the Champions League either. Do you think otherwise, if so where do you think we will be after 5 more years of his "plan", making 9 years in total ?

 

Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

Why don't you support the man you think is moving the club towards exciting times in the future ? You are so stupid, you don't see what my point really means do you ?

 

Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

 

As it is, according to you, we don't have any more potential than clubs like Stoke or Bolton. You clearly don't think we are any bigger than these sort of clubs because despite having a bigger fanbase and more commercial attraction, you are placing us at a level alongside these clubs, and you indicate you are happy with it.

 

That's all totally innaccurate and not my views at all, but anyway - Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

 

If you missed the years 1992-2007, then its a reasonable assumption to make mind.

 

Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

[LeazesMag 0]

but it won't. Its their aim . They won't have the 5th highest average or qualify for the Champions League either. Do you think otherwise, if so where do you think we will be after 5 more years of his "plan", making 9 years in total ?

 

Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

Why don't you support the man you think is moving the club towards exciting times in the future ? You are so stupid, you don't see what my point really means do you ?

 

Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

 

As it is, according to you, we don't have any more potential than clubs like Stoke or Bolton. You clearly don't think we are any bigger than these sort of clubs because despite having a bigger fanbase and more commercial attraction, you are placing us at a level alongside these clubs, and you indicate you are happy with it.

 

That's all totally innaccurate and not my views at all, but anyway - Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

 

If you missed the years 1992-2007, then its a reasonable assumption to make mind.

 

Where's the money come from to fill the chasm ???

 

You.

[Guest Your Name Here]

 

We were relegated under ASHLEY, NOT the Halls and Shepherd you brainwashed fool.

 

 

I know that, dimwit, it'd have happened eventually under your mate anyway, probably with the help of a -10 point deduction, because you STILL can't explain where the money would have come from that we needed.

 

.

 

but it DIDN'T happen, did it ? You're talking speculative bollocks. You should go back to supporting the club and putting your own money in to help your man build and go forward in these exciting times

 

The club has fallen in the rich list, the money WAS generated, so where has it gone ?

 

If YOU know the answer to that, apply for the job because your man is making a right fuck up of it. Maybe Fat Fred earned his salary after all.

 

What a fucking idiot you are.

 

No more speculative that you thinking FFS/Halls would have found the £120 mill we needed to keep going for 4 years

Under Ashley that figures is £150m. Take away the £50m Lambias said relegation cost the club and the stadium development loan which was only payable becaue the club was sold and you’re looking at a figure in the region of £60-70m to steady the ship. If push came to shove Hall and Shepherd could have sold 49% of their shares and raised something like £60m, and this would only have been necessary if the banks had refused to help which is an unprovable claim. It’s worth noting SportsDirect agreed a credit deal with the banks this year in excess of £200m.

 

Throw in the money expended on sacking three managers, a troublesome director of football and employing Chris Mort. Then add in the shortfall between what Sports Direct pay for their blue-chip advertising package and what its worth on the open market - and the whole picture becomes a lot less clear than you like to make out.

 

Football finances are complex and it’s better to deal with what did happen rather than what might have happened. Or at least that’s the case if you want to avoid years of pointless debate.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Your Name Here

[LeazesMag 0]

Bloomin board crashing lost my post!

 

I think that the permanent thrashing of Shpeherd based on him spending money is naive at best. Im anything but a lover of Shepherd and have no issue in battering him on any one of a dozen things hes done that I dont agree with.

 

Spending money on players to achieve the kind of football I may never again see in my lifetime is not one of them.

 

The assumption seems to be that Freddy had no other ideas, thoughts etc. How do we know that? at the end of the day if the credit lines were gone then they were gone. he would have had to do something different, either through refinancing the club, bringing in other investors or cutting costs and maximising revenues.

 

Im fairly confident though that if he'd done the latter it wouldnt have been at the expense of our best players with a hope that we'd survive. I have enough belief in the fat man to know that he'd have looked at ways to increase our revenues and cut our costs in other areas first.

 

I see nobody has answered my question on our current debt levels though.

 

he won't answer, its like teaching someone to suck eggs this. Success on the field breeds higher revenue. Sit back, cut costs and you go backwards. This is the reality of FOOTBALL, and it the path we have taken under Mike Ashley, who now says their aim is to finish 10th. A large group of football supporters of this football club will be happy with this, are they the same people who booed when we finished 5th ?

 

I don't personally think people who were attracted back to the club by the ex owners and have now stopped going, have any grounds for complaint. Its possibly the most hypocritical thing you could imagine. Especially when they are talking abuot revenue and they have contributed in their own way, however small, to the slide in footballs rich list.

 

At the end of the day, whatever financial situation exists, it exists for ALL clubs, it isn't exclusive to Newcastle United. So whatever makes them think it instantly drags us down to the levels of competition alongside clubs like Stoke and Bolton rather than Spurs or Liverpool ie where we were before ?

 

Where is the money coming from ? Its quite obvious that Mike Ashley has decided rather than attempt to recover lost revenue it is going to come from selling our best players to the clubs we used to compete with. So we are now a selling club, like smaller clubs. Quite where he or anyone else thinks that will get our revenues in the future going anywhere other than further downwards is a mystery, but he started the ball rolling by selling our best players and not re-investing the money in other players ie suitable replacements.

 

I'm glad I'm going out tonight ....