Gemmill 34166 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 As I've said from day 1 - almost - despite protestations from the accountant, that Souness management was doing this to us, I can hardly say I'm surprised. Maybe it will also help those who have delusions of grandeur that a different chairman would enable the club to spend yet more money, as well as those who think that dogless and FS taking 1m a year out of the club has a severe detrimental effect on such figures. 77977[/snapback] Leazes - if the club has been financially mismanaged to the degree that you seem to think it has been, whose fault is that? Will you blame Shepherd for anything, I wonder? Mismanagement on the pitch is all down to the manager, financial mismanagement is the fault of the Chairman. So if we really are in the shit to the extent that this article claims and which you clearly believe, are you still blaming Souness for it? Incidentally, the article isn't great - for example, it immediately assumes that player additions were financed by debt. Perhaps not an unfair assumption, but not one that you would want to base an article on, given that the club had just taken in at least £18m in season ticket sales - not ALL player transfers are financed by debt. And whilst arguing (probably incorrectly) that the debt has gone up to £90m since the year end, the writer doesn't bother to add the new player values to the figure of £40m which he quotes (he just took that straight from the accounts without bothering to adjust for the likes of Owen and Luque at a value of around £27m). 78503[/snapback] £40 Million player value seems about right to me really, especially if we had to sell. I can't see us getting our money back on Owen or Luque. We might get some decent money for the likes of Parker, Given (whose approaching the end of his contract) and maybe Emre, and maybe Taylor and N'Zogbia, but the rest probably would struggle to command a 7-figure transfer value. 78508[/snapback] Whether we get our money back is irrelevant. He's talking about the capitalised value of the players in the financial statements - Owen would have been capitalised at his transfer value and then written down over the length of his contract. It's not just a question of him placing a value on what he thinks we could get for our squad. 78513[/snapback] Fair enough, but surely that original £40M figure would have included large values for players like Robert and Bellamy then? I agree the article is pretty lazy, but common sense tells me Newcastle are financially now on extremely shaky ground, especially if we can't even afford to change managers. One of my worries is that next year we will see a slump in season ticket sales - after all, this year we only just sold them after an extensive TV campaign and by buying Owen. If we lose more income, well, things are looking grim indeed. 78516[/snapback] How much value was attributed to Robert and Bellamy would have depended how much time they had remaining on their contracts, and how much had previously been written down. I doubt there was too much value on Robert, not sure on Bellamy. I reckon the biggest thing we're suffering from this season is not being in Europe. The club must have been bringing in about £0.5m for each of those UEFA Cup games when we were half filling the ground. So far this year we've had the FA Cup tie against Mansfield and that's about it outside of league matches. We definitely aren't doing as well as Shepherd would have hoped financially, which to my mind means that no dividend should be declared this year. That's not going to happen though. Him and Hall will take their usual couple of million quid each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17610 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 We definitely aren't doing as well as Shepherd would have hoped financially, which to my mind means that no dividend should be declared this year. That's not going to happen though. Him and Hall will take their usual couple of million quid each. 78520[/snapback] That is the thing that really pisses me off - they are rewarding themselves bonuses despite their obvious failures. I don't think anyone can defend that. As for Hall, is there a more obnoxious slimey cunt anywhere in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Just on this idea of Leazes' that its Souness who is to blame for the financial side. If Bellamy and Robert had been sold for £10m and £5m (what chance?) then that would make about £9m difference to these figures - hardly a crippling proportion and I believe anyway that if they had of done bigger bids would have been made for Anelka and others. The idea that as we had those two we didn't need any new players is also daft - We needed new strikers and at the very least competition for Robert. I don't think anyone is fooled when it comes to Shepherd - they know he backs the managers but takes the piss personally. The thrust of this article also suggests we aren't a good prospect for purchase - any purchaser would look at potential earnings as well as debt etc (like the Glazers did) which should put us "above" the likes of Villa etc imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The rot starts at the top and trickles down. Souness was a piss poor appointment, we all could see that, it was a lazy and short sighted move by the board and they want shot with shit for it. I used to joke on that the NUFC board meetings probably resemble a chimp's tea party. I don't say it as a joke anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 We definitely aren't doing as well as Shepherd would have hoped financially, which to my mind means that no dividend should be declared this year. That's not going to happen though. Him and Hall will take their usual couple of million quid each. 78520[/snapback] That is the thing that really pisses me off - they are rewarding themselves bonuses despite their obvious failures. I don't think anyone can defend that. As for Hall, is there a more obnoxious slimey cunt anywhere in the world? 78523[/snapback] Other than Richard Madeley (sp), no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 We definitely aren't doing as well as Shepherd would have hoped financially, which to my mind means that no dividend should be declared this year. That's not going to happen though. Him and Hall will take their usual couple of million quid each. 78520[/snapback] That is the thing that really pisses me off - they are rewarding themselves bonuses despite their obvious failures. I don't think anyone can defend that. As for Hall, is there a more obnoxious slimey cunt anywhere in the world? 78523[/snapback] Other than Richard Madeley (sp), no. 78577[/snapback] Perhaps Jodie Marsh's fanny too, just to be topical like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 We definitely aren't doing as well as Shepherd would have hoped financially, which to my mind means that no dividend should be declared this year. That's not going to happen though. Him and Hall will take their usual couple of million quid each. 78520[/snapback] That is the thing that really pisses me off - they are rewarding themselves bonuses despite their obvious failures. I don't think anyone can defend that. As for Hall, is there a more obnoxious slimey cunt anywhere in the world? 78523[/snapback] Other than Richard Madeley (sp), no. 78577[/snapback] Perhaps Jodie Marsh's fanny too, just to be topical like 78582[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 (edited) As I've said from day 1 - almost - despite protestations from the accountant, that Souness management was doing this to us, I can hardly say I'm surprised. Maybe it will also help those who have delusions of grandeur that a different chairman would enable the club to spend yet more money, as well as those who think that dogless and FS taking 1m a year out of the club has a severe detrimental effect on such figures. 77977[/snapback] Leazes - if the club has been financially mismanaged to the degree that you seem to think it has been, whose fault is that? Will you blame Shepherd for anything, I wonder? Mismanagement on the pitch is all down to the manager, financial mismanagement is the fault of the Chairman. So if we really are in the shit to the extent that this article claims and which you clearly believe, are you still blaming Souness for it? Incidentally, the article isn't great - for example, it immediately assumes that player additions were financed by debt. Perhaps not an unfair assumption, but not one that you would want to base an article on, given that the club had just taken in at least £18m in season ticket sales - not ALL player transfers are financed by debt. And whilst arguing (probably incorrectly) that the debt has gone up to £90m since the year end, the writer doesn't bother to add the new player values to the figure of £40m which he quotes (he just took that straight from the accounts without bothering to adjust for the likes of Owen and Luque at a value of around £27m). 78503[/snapback] the position we were in last august was that, he had backed his manager, so he either had to back him further or sack him. If he hadn't bought 2 forwards for extortionate prices, under pressure brought about by Souness' amateur ego motivated management, we would today be in the bottom 3. Either way, we had to find that money to attempt to stay up, or face relegation, both scenarios costing millions. I have said from day 1, I blame Shepherd/Hall for appointing Souness, but many of you have not, you said back him and give him time [to end up in this situation, as I predicted]. Correct or not ? It was not my idea to back Souness, so you are as incompetent in your judgement as Shepherd. Edited January 13, 2006 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 As I've said from day 1 - almost - despite protestations from the accountant, that Souness management was doing this to us, I can hardly say I'm surprised. Maybe it will also help those who have delusions of grandeur that a different chairman would enable the club to spend yet more money, as well as those who think that dogless and FS taking 1m a year out of the club has a severe detrimental effect on such figures. 77977[/snapback] Leazes - if the club has been financially mismanaged to the degree that you seem to think it has been, whose fault is that? Will you blame Shepherd for anything, I wonder? Mismanagement on the pitch is all down to the manager, financial mismanagement is the fault of the Chairman. So if we really are in the shit to the extent that this article claims and which you clearly believe, are you still blaming Souness for it? Incidentally, the article isn't great - for example, it immediately assumes that player additions were financed by debt. Perhaps not an unfair assumption, but not one that you would want to base an article on, given that the club had just taken in at least £18m in season ticket sales - not ALL player transfers are financed by debt. And whilst arguing (probably incorrectly) that the debt has gone up to £90m since the year end, the writer doesn't bother to add the new player values to the figure of £40m which he quotes (he just took that straight from the accounts without bothering to adjust for the likes of Owen and Luque at a value of around £27m). 78503[/snapback] £40 Million player value seems about right to me really, especially if we had to sell. I can't see us getting our money back on Owen or Luque. We might get some decent money for the likes of Parker, Given (whose approaching the end of his contract) and maybe Emre, and maybe Taylor and N'Zogbia, but the rest probably would struggle to command a 7-figure transfer value. 78508[/snapback] Whether we get our money back is irrelevant. He's talking about the capitalised value of the players in the financial statements - Owen would have been capitalised at his transfer value and then written down over the length of his contract. It's not just a question of him placing a value on what he thinks we could get for our squad. 78513[/snapback] Fair enough, but surely that original £40M figure would have included large values for players like Robert and Bellamy then? I agree the article is pretty lazy, but common sense tells me Newcastle are financially now on extremely shaky ground, especially if we can't even afford to change managers. One of my worries is that next year we will see a slump in season ticket sales - after all, this year we only just sold them after an extensive TV campaign and by buying Owen. If we lose more income, well, things are looking grim indeed. 78516[/snapback] How much value was attributed to Robert and Bellamy would have depended how much time they had remaining on their contracts, and how much had previously been written down. I doubt there was too much value on Robert, not sure on Bellamy. I reckon the biggest thing we're suffering from this season is not being in Europe. The club must have been bringing in about £0.5m for each of those UEFA Cup games when we were half filling the ground. So far this year we've had the FA Cup tie against Mansfield and that's about it outside of league matches. We definitely aren't doing as well as Shepherd would have hoped financially, which to my mind means that no dividend should be declared this year. That's not going to happen though. Him and Hall will take their usual couple of million quid each. 78520[/snapback] Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34166 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17610 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] The situation was manufactured by Souness in my opinion. We've really done this argument to death though, so let's not bring it up again, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34166 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] The situation was manufactured by Souness in my opinion. We've really done this argument to death though, so let's not bring it up again, please? 78663[/snapback] I've no intention of doing the argument again, but if the lad never wanted to leave NUFC and though that the best way of demonstrating this was by arranging the "liar" interview, he must be monumentally stupid. FACT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17610 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] The situation was manufactured by Souness in my opinion. We've really done this argument to death though, so let's not bring it up again, please? 78663[/snapback] I've no intention of doing the argument again, but if the lad never wanted to leave NUFC and though that the best way of demonstrating this was by arranging the "liar" interview, he must be monumentally stupid. FACT! 78665[/snapback] But what if Souness was lieing? We all know that Bellamy is not the brightest match in the box, and is likely to speak without thinking. Anyway, regardless, a bigger man than Souness would have sorted something out rather than huffing "he'll never play for me again". Wanker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34166 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] The situation was manufactured by Souness in my opinion. We've really done this argument to death though, so let's not bring it up again, please? 78663[/snapback] I've no intention of doing the argument again, but if the lad never wanted to leave NUFC and though that the best way of demonstrating this was by arranging the "liar" interview, he must be monumentally stupid. FACT! 78665[/snapback] But what if Souness was lieing? We all know that Bellamy is not the brightest match in the box, and is likely to speak without thinking. Anyway, regardless, a bigger man than Souness would have sorted something out rather than huffing "he'll never play for me again". Wanker. 78674[/snapback] Will you stop trying to start up the Bellamy argument again, man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 But what if Souness was lieing? We all know that Bellamy is not the brightest match in the box, and is likely to speak without thinking. Anyway, regardless, a bigger man than Souness would have sorted something out rather than huffing "he'll never play for me again". Wanker. 78674[/snapback] Souness only said that after the SSN interview. I agree Bellamy is too "emotional" to think about his actions but a cynic could eaily turn it around and say that if he wanted to leave then he couldn't have come up with a better plan. I would say he's too thick but then he has an agent.... I also rememeber his "I'd have to think about me" attitude to the Rooney pursuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17610 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] The situation was manufactured by Souness in my opinion. We've really done this argument to death though, so let's not bring it up again, please? 78663[/snapback] I've no intention of doing the argument again, but if the lad never wanted to leave NUFC and though that the best way of demonstrating this was by arranging the "liar" interview, he must be monumentally stupid. FACT! 78665[/snapback] But what if Souness was lieing? We all know that Bellamy is not the brightest match in the box, and is likely to speak without thinking. Anyway, regardless, a bigger man than Souness would have sorted something out rather than huffing "he'll never play for me again". Wanker. 78674[/snapback] Will you stop trying to start up the Bellamy argument again, man? 78684[/snapback] OK, my lips are sealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 we are not likely to be "on shaky ground" financially Our income from CATERING alone covers the cost of the interest on the long term loan AND its repayment FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 we are not likely to be "on shaky ground" financially Our income from CATERING alone covers the cost of the interest on the long term loan AND its repayment FFS 78697[/snapback] If we get relegated, will people buy as many pies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 They buy more - displacement activity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34166 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 we are not likely to be "on shaky ground" financially Our income from CATERING alone covers the cost of the interest on the long term loan AND its repayment FFS 78697[/snapback] Agreed. We aren't doing particularly well, and we're doing nowhere near well enough to warrant the sort of dividends that the directors pay themselves, but we're not in any immediate financial danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Aye - compare our numbers to Liverpools - admittedly they have no long term debt but when and if they decide to build a decent ground then they will be in trouble - we take 30% more at the gate that they do for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Golden rule of football, you NEVER, NEVER sell your best players [speculate to accumulate - unless they want to go and you have no choice] and Craig Bellamy most definitely did not want to leave NUFC. 78649[/snapback] Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] and a manager doesn't assault his employee on the training ground .. the point is Gem, football is different, footballers are the valuable commodity not the other way round, they call the tune, if you lose them you can't replace them by putting a vacancy in an agency or the job centre.......and thats why these managers are also paid a lot of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17610 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 we are not likely to be "on shaky ground" financially Our income from CATERING alone covers the cost of the interest on the long term loan AND its repayment FFS 78697[/snapback] If we get relegated, will people buy as many pies? 78702[/snapback] He's not talking about pies, he's referring mainly to corporate wining and dining. The money pies make will be fairly neglible compared to the admission price - it's practically impossible to buy one! So Rob, you are completely confident we will sell all our season tickets next year are you? Incidentally, do you think relegation is an impossibility without Owen, and Souness at the helm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Having been part of an event committee that used SJP as the venue, they must be raking it in on the corporate side, the robbing bastids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Having been part of an event committee that used SJP as the venue, they must be raking it in on the corporate side, the robbing bastids. 78735[/snapback] Me Dad reckons they waited so late to cancel the Charlton game so they could still make the money off the corporate hospitality. Seems likely enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now