madras

Never ever see any of that money. the rest of the players will

it means nowt...as does the validity of the rest of the article. if that source produced a pro ashley slant you'd be scathing. remind yourself of what the source was.

how many are rated higher by the bookies to go up ? Only West Brom. Mental isn't it. i've £70 on us to win the league. i thought nearly 6/1 was a good price with a possible takeover in the offing. if theres no better signs in the next week or so i'll be laying out.

how many are rated higher by the bookies to go up ?

and normally youd pour scorn on "a source in the city"

didn't catch it clearly enough but it could be that in all the deals he has worked on he was worked for buyesr aswell as sellers. don't know if it meant he was working for buyers and sellers in our particular,singular,case. Surely there would be a conflict of interests if he was dealing for both sides. Didn't agents get told off for doing that a couple of years ago? thats why i wouldn't thin k he is working for both in our case.

didn't catch it clearly enough but it could be that in all the deals he has worked on he was worked for buyesr aswell as sellers. don't know if it meant he was working for buyers and sellers in our particular,singular,case.

it wasn't just 65,000p/w but also 9mill in transfer fee. i'd reckon they'd jump at the chance of getting shot of colo,duff,geremi,butt,nolan,xisco but here aren't any takers that wouldn't involve us subsidising the wages.

normally "the stiffs"

I hope you are right mate. You seem to stand by your itk. sometimes it's hard to be a poster giving all you've got to just one source you'll have bad time he'll have good times doing things that you dont understand but if you trust him,you'll forgive him even though he's hard to understand

even then is that 60mill and thats all (ashley may get more through administration) or what about the overdraft and possibility of paying off the loan. all very vague.

martins was a big fee and big wages, bassong would be a big fee. both to pay off the big burden of an unaffordable level of debt. Yeah, and? Both have obvious talent and in Martins' case European pedigree. It's hardly a struggle to get rid of them. We could have sold both of them weeks ago, hell we'd have even saved money on wages. it may have been a struggle to get rid of martiuns due to his wages. as for bassong it's a matter of time. i'd guess they'd rather have a new owner decide but if not they probably feel the need to take the cash whilst at the same time knowing they'd rather get rid of coloccini but knowing theres no way unless we subsidise his wages.

martins was a big fee and big wages, bassong would be a big fee. both to pay off the big burden of an unaffordable level of debt.

nuff said about it. can we get back to celebrating Sir Bob please.

So you think our wage bill is sustainable? Or you think the new owner(s) should be in charge of reducing the wage bill? He's right about what he said, especially about the income. It takes a massive hit and we need to find a way to ease the blow. Selling players, which brings in a transfer fee and also gets them off the wage bill, is one way of doing that. IF Ashley sells players to lower the wage bill he then has to sign players so he can sell the club with a full squad, I am sure any buyer would rather choose who is sold and who is bought themselves. Most clubs have a massive wage bill and yes relegation cost us a fortune but Ashley still owning us is also costing the club as fans are staying away from the club shops as well as not renewing season tickets. I just think the wage bill thing for the sale being held up is s**** and its ore to do with the £100mill asking price + other debts. some buyers may think "you do the spade work in getting rid of X,Y and Z then we'll see" that means they don't run the risk of carrying them should no decent deals be agreed. also the way i see it is that "other debts" covers the wages. Exactly. It means the new owner(s) don't have that burden, making the takeover for them a lot easier. not even easier....more "less risky"

So you think our wage bill is sustainable? Or you think the new owner(s) should be in charge of reducing the wage bill? He's right about what he said, especially about the income. It takes a massive hit and we need to find a way to ease the blow. Selling players, which brings in a transfer fee and also gets them off the wage bill, is one way of doing that. IF Ashley sells players to lower the wage bill he then has to sign players so he can sell the club with a full squad, I am sure any buyer would rather choose who is sold and who is bought themselves. Most clubs have a massive wage bill and yes relegation cost us a fortune but Ashley still owning us is also costing the club as fans are staying away from the club shops as well as not renewing season tickets. I just think the wage bill thing for the sale being held up is s**** and its ore to do with the £100mill asking price + other debts. some buyers may think "you do the spade work in getting rid of X,Y and Z then we'll see" that means they don't run the risk of carrying them should no decent deals be agreed. Then if thats how they will do things they can fk off, thats an Ashley style and we have had enough of that. it may be they are the choices.

So you think our wage bill is sustainable? Or you think the new owner(s) should be in charge of reducing the wage bill? He's right about what he said, especially about the income. It takes a massive hit and we need to find a way to ease the blow. Selling players, which brings in a transfer fee and also gets them off the wage bill, is one way of doing that. IF Ashley sells players to lower the wage bill he then has to sign players so he can sell the club with a full squad, I am sure any buyer would rather choose who is sold and who is bought themselves. Most clubs have a massive wage bill and yes relegation cost us a fortune but Ashley still owning us is also costing the club as fans are staying away from the club shops as well as not renewing season tickets. I just think the wage bill thing for the sale being held up is s**** and its ore to do with the £100mill asking price + other debts. some buyers may think "you do the spade work in getting rid of X,Y and Z then we'll see" that means they don't run the risk of carrying them should no decent deals be agreed. also the way i see it is that "other debts" covers the wages.

Ooooooh freudian........Freddy SHeppard is OUT.

I'm going to put 1p on Madras at 1000/1 how would you tell ? You'll only be able to say Wormy. shite man....that just means i'm dreaming.

So you think our wage bill is sustainable? Or you think the new owner(s) should be in charge of reducing the wage bill? He's right about what he said, especially about the income. It takes a massive hit and we need to find a way to ease the blow. Selling players, which brings in a transfer fee and also gets them off the wage bill, is one way of doing that. And they've only just figured all this out, right? no. they were hoping someone else would make that decision.

I'm going to put 1p on Madras at 1000/1 how would you tell ?

"one flew over the newcastle online nest" someone is gonna crack soon.... skirge 2/5 cp40 evens big Tron/indi 3/1 dave 5/1

skirge "half empty ?, the glass has smashed and ashley is standing on my head with my left cheek in the chards"

The club been sold by the end of the month is hardly a positive is it? better than what we have now.

optimists----we'll be sold bu the end of the month pessimists------there is no buyer madras------theres one or two there but still a lot of work to be done.