madras

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ? and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option. i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ? i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas. I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years. The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over. a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely. barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions) Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap. Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ? and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option. i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ? i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas. I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years. The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over. a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely. barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions) you're determined to stick to this aren't you, madras ? You'll still be harping on about it and supporting this lack of investment, all the way down to the 3rd division/whatever its called these days. i've said plenty of times that ashley should have invested some of his money.......i've also said that the only investment the club would have got withj fred in charge was through the banks and i'm not sure they'd have given him any more. maybe enough to keep going day to day but certainly not enough for the type on investment you want.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ? and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option. i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ? i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas. I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years. The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over. a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely. barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ? and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option. i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ? i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Perhaps that’s because your question implies most clubs make the same mistakes. The most common cause of debt in UK football must be the cost of ground redevelopment. There’s hardly a club in the country that hasn’t had to borrow a huge amount of money to modernise their premise. They had to spend this money, but it was always going to be impossible for them all to be successful enough to cover the cost. i think allowing the wage bill balloon to near 70% of turnover is probably the biggest mistake since dropping out the champs league. Yeah. Over 55% is considered unsustainable. You have to remember that the 4 clubs who reach the CL usually make between £20-40M per season which is used to supplement the higher wage demands. Once you drop out you should cut your cloth to suit or end up like Leeds. so if those clubs are earning more and are paying a lower ratio to wages it would be possible to finance more debt on a sounder financial footing. Hmmmmm. you may have a point.

True, but in football the fans are always made to suffer- their fault or not. But what could be done to the twats respobsible for misrunning the club? Its a tough one. But as someone pointed out in this thread, the distribution in money through English football these days is scandalous! Each year we see more and more clubs scrape by in terms of survival. The amount of money pumped into the Premier League is disgusting, imo. I know this is a much poorer standard of league and supported but I'll use the League of Ireland as an example. Cork City, one of the biggest teams in the country are on the verge of extinction....they have 2 weeks (just under, infact) to come up with €500,000 which is highly unlikely, yet around 3 weeks of Frank Lampards or Cristiano Ronaldo's wages could almost wipe out the debt. I'm sure there are lots of smaller clubs in the lower breaches of English football in the same situation as Cork. The Premiership has f***ed up English football. On the surface there's this 'best league in the world' look and tag to it. There's big stadiums, big crowds, all the biggest players and quick, exciting football. But if you look closer and dig a little deeper, there are clubs suffocating under crippling debts and battling just to stay in existance. rubbish. they just need to borrow more.

most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses. Perhaps that’s because your question implies most clubs make the same mistakes. The most common cause of debt in UK football must be the cost of ground redevelopment. There’s hardly a club in the country that hasn’t had to borrow a huge amount of money to modernise their premise. They had to spend this money, but it was always going to be impossible for them all to be successful enough to cover the cost. i think allowing the wage bill balloon to near 70% of turnover is probably the biggest mistake since dropping out the champs league.

being solvent is better than being on solvents.............................you reckon NE5 goes to the pub each night do ya ?

Who do you support then? cos he bought a forum once.

most of them are in trouble. Never mind, we will be the only solvent club in the 3rd division in a year or two. again that is a reply, not an answer to what i asked. and do you thin k some clubs are in more trouble than others........likie those making the bigger year on year losses.

I went there. Not then obviously. answers a lot really. (we chinned them at rugby aswell)

when he's played this season he has been more mobile than nolan and often seems to get good balls in. desperate but i'd play him instead of nolan.

i wonder if ne5 could tell us how some clubs have got into financial trouble ?

claremont middle school under13's. about 1980. we beat them 13-0 at their place. the had a piece of rope as one of the cross bars and their man of the match by miles was one of our subs who helped them out as they turned out a boy short.

why didn't they just borrow more money ?

NE5 gets home again. "have a good night dear ?" "the pub" "thats nice dear,good night ?" "i'm not explaining it again"

I thought Alan had barred the players from bars? no comprende, si ?

step up in the world.

a night out with NE5. "hello mate, fancy a pint" "I don't want lager" "so what do you want ?" "i've already answered"

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? it wasn't up to them to make the judgement on the players. They backed their manager, a lot better than not. The result of that is to look at the league table. Sooooo did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? As ambitious as Chelsea appointing Grant ? Or is it just us who don't appoint the 2 or 3 winning managers ? Didn't Grant get them to the Champions League final? eerr.......didn't Roeder get us to 7th and qualify for europe ? Slight difference between us getting into Europe via the Intertoto Cup and getting beat by AZ, and getting to the Champions League final though, no? I tried to pm you, rather than go off topic. How is that off topic? Was it ambitious, a yes or no will do? so thats why you think the Halls and Shepherd are s*** ? Because they didn't get to the Champions League Final ? No, that's another bad assumption on your part. Care to answer my question, its not that hard you know. no it isn't. I think its a totally realistic and correct perspective. What do you think of a board who qualifies for europe more than any club bar 4 ? Does it mean you think only 4 clubs have good boards ? Thats a fairly simple enough question. Great, as long as its not living beyond a clubs means. i.e. Leeds got further in Europe than anyone outside the top 4 in Europe during the last 20 years, but they couldn't afford it when the inevitable happened and they failed to qualify one year. Thats off topic though. Remember the words, LOST THE PLOT. I'm not really interested in Leeds. I'd rather keep trying to emulate the likes of Liverpool and Arsenal. After all, if you don't do that, whats the point ? Settling for mediocrity ? We are heading the way of Leeds now though. been here. i've covered it many times in how other clubs manage their debts.

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? it wasn't up to them to make the judgement on the players. They backed their manager, a lot better than not. The result of that is to look at the league table. Sooooo did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? As ambitious as Chelsea appointing Grant ? Or is it just us who don't appoint the 2 or 3 winning managers ? Didn't Grant get them to the Champions League final? eerr.......didn't Roeder get us to 7th and qualify for europe ? didn't we spend most of that season worrying about relegation ?. wasn't that season preceeded and followed by finishes below half way? did everyone feel for all we finished 7th that season the overall trend was one of going backwards as witnessed by the actual displays on the pitch ?

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? Well, as you've just pm'd me again, and presumably still blocked me, then I explained what I meant but it doesn't take away your own hypocrisy. Please keep the thread on topic. its a reply to your pm as you pm'd me and stopped me replying. It did not require a reply thank you. no. If you pm me, you will get a reply if I decide to reply to you sage ne5, sage.

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? Well, as you've just pm'd me again, and presumably still blocked me, then I explained what I meant but it doesn't take away your own hypocrisy. Please keep the thread on topic. its a reply to your pm as you pm'd me and stopped me replying. It did not require a reply thank you. So how were Newcastle doing post 2003 under Fred and Sir John, financially? doesn't matter. if you do poorly you just borrow more, everyone does it, even if they can't even manage day to day apparently. beats me how any clubs can get into financial trouble when all they have to do is borrow more.

examples ? Remember, Toonlass, Blefescu made up something about me the other day ..... hot on the heels of accusing me of doing precisely the same thing when I hadn't. My last post is still correct, and how I see it Dave. None of the quotes in my sig are made up either BTW That is wrong and you know it. You have continually made insinuations about me and how long I have been going to the games. You could also attempt to spell my user name right too. For your information I have enclosed a link which explains what being a troll on the internet is. This makes no insinuation that anyone is one on here, its just to clear up any misunderstandings on what a troll may be. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling As I asked further down, please point out where I said "the last year of the Shepherd and Hall era was brilliant". Or admit that its a lie, or an untruth at best. Precisely the point I'm making. I hope nobody asks us to settle this by pm when you blocked me for attempting to do it already ........ http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60869.msg1772415.html#msg1772415 It is the assumption you give. Shepherd and Hall could do no wrong. I apologise if I misconstrued you. And you know I didn't block you for attempting to explain anything at all typical woman. You know you did. As I've said on numerous occasions they made mistakes, particularly when I was one of the minority on here who refused to give Souness time [just like Ashley in fact].....this point you make is mistaken too. I'll take it as an unintentional untruth and won't hold it against you. I know I did what? Blocked you? Of course I know I blocked you. As you were sending me pm's that were telling me to "bugger off". Did you think that Shepherd and Hall appointing Roeder and Allardyce was ambitious? I told you to bugger off because you denied you were lying, when I quoted the exact phrase above. You have stated that "no, I don't think the performance was average at all in the bigger scheme of things" when asked about the final years of Sir John Hall and Shepherd's tenure. I have already apologised for using the phrase "brilliant" but how can you not see that part of the reason we are in the situation we are in now is because SJH and Shepherd overspent buying players who were not up to the standard we required to keep qualifying for Europe? it wasn't up to them to make the judgement on the players. They backed their manager, a lot better than not. The result of that is to look at the league table. or indeed the league table when fred left

give it a rest. There is no point in explaining it again. again ? no one thinks you've came close to answering them yet.