madras

WTF Id rather have 2 derby games to really add some excitement into our season than have 2 meaningless games against Derby. The massive rush for tickets this morning suggests I'm not alone. Aye but surely you would be disappointed rather than "really hating it".... If they go down its party time! I wouldn't give a f*** if they got relegated for the next 5 seasons and went bust and not longer existed. c***s. I would genuinely hate it. Football is about these games and local rivalries etc and losing our only rival (probably forever as they're not coming back up) would leave a massive gap in our footballing lives. I admit I don't take the rivalry as seriously as most btw, only when it matters. i think you are in a minority jack, a very small minority. Probably, for now at least. If they go down and stay down you'll realise I'm right i'm old enough to have spent a few seasons with them in a division below us. I liked it.

WTF Id rather have 2 derby games to really add some excitement into our season than have 2 meaningless games against Derby. The massive rush for tickets this morning suggests I'm not alone. Aye but surely you would be disappointed rather than "really hating it".... If they go down its party time! I wouldn't give a f*** if they got relegated for the next 5 seasons and went bust and not longer existed. c***s. I would genuinely hate it. Football is about these games and local rivalries etc and losing our only rival (probably forever as they're not coming back up) would leave a massive gap in our footballing lives. I admit I don't take the rivalry as seriously as most btw, only when it matters. i think you are in a minority jack, a very small minority.

I think if they get relegated they'll be setting records again. joint most relegated team from the premiership along with palace.

could happen to anyo of us. edit, shit sorry , misread it, thought it said "bloke convicted of killing his parents for being pictured in sunderland tops for money"

HTT doing a good job in thinking a big turnover equals profits, wealth etc. and I'm still trying to work out the relevance of "4m in debt one year to turning over 40m 3 years later." a bit like saying one year i was 15 stone the next i was 5ft 8. he was behind us becoming as good a team as i've seen in my lifetime, he wouldn't have done it if he didn't think he'd make money from it (no problem with that) but they left us in the shit. if you want to believe that we were close to the wall before he came then you'd also have to believe the same for when ashley took over, in fact, if anything i'd say the positioin ashley inherited was worse as future incomes had been hocked.

the trains from faro should be fun, i know loads going that way.

HTT, check how much the hall and shepherd families took out of the club overall. yes the club done well on the pitch out of them but they done very well out of the club even before the sale and the financial state the club was in was probably worse than that when they arrived. (in both cases i doubt we'd have gone out of business but leeds type scenarios could've been likely). FWIW I dion't believe for one second that he put money in to save the club as much as putting money in as he saw it as a very good financial opportunity.

i'd put simpson in for anita but ok with the rest.

as i've said time and again, hate derbies, we always have more to lose than them, never played one expecting to get beat like they regularly do and if we were up alongside barcelona and they were alongside jarrow roofing, i'd still hate the derby just in case.

4 since 1980.

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash. It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale. they have to be don't they, legally speaking ? Legally yes, but in terms of the consequences of that in terms of actions that he takes, it's negligible. He has a value for the club. That value will be x. If the club has debt that must be paid off, then he'll ask for x - debt. So if the club owes him 100m and he values the club at 200m, he'll sell the club for 100m cash. If he pays the debt back to himself, the new buyer will pay 200m cash but either way, he will be getting 200m and the new buyer will be paying 200m in both cases. If he starts paying a dividend, it has the same effect. The club's cashflow is worse off, therefore its net present value (the sum of future cashflows) is reduced, so the total value of the club has been reduced by the the money that he's taken out. Either way, there is a certain amount that he'll sell for and this amount doesn't change regardless of whether he's paying down debt, taking out dividends or making sports direct pay for advertising. doesn't that mean that with him not taking a dividend and keeping any debt owed to him for payment at a later date that the club is in a better position than him constantly dripping monies back out by way of debt repayments or dividends ?

not even close yet. Just re toughness. hard to say, gravesons assault on bernard looked similar and bernard seemed to take it better.

Hope it's serious. In fact, I hope his career's over. Check my class. travesty of a footballer, him. shame as he started out very good when he broke through at boro. wouldn't care if he never kicked a ball again. one of the few players I've seen go out on the pitch with the intent to injjure.

I cannot understand this mindset that somehow the accounts of Ashley the man and his 100% owned business are somehow on a seperate footing. They are all part of the same empire. If fans think we have some kind or 'moral minority stake' in NUFC then Ashley will be delighted, it means supporters will be more willing to part with their cash and give him a much better chance of making a few quid in the long run. If he's loaned the club £100m on a totally arms-length basis (which it isnt here) and it gets paid back then the club's equity is worth another £100m so when he comes to sell, that's when he makes his cash. It means exactly the same to the club's financial position as well, because the owner and the creditor are the same party. What is he going to do? Write a letter to himself demanding repayment? If you were analysing this as a takeover target, you would simply ignore the shareholder loan altogether when valuing it, on the basis it would be extinguished on sale. they have to be don't they, legally speaking ?

not even close yet.

if it was sammy's leg mcmanaman would be awarded a marksman of the year award for hitting so narrow a target.

yip, even simpson at RB seems obvious for this.

can't remember the last time i saw an england line up, when we are putting out the best we can muster, that had so many players who were squad players for their clubs.

As I remember, Sir John Hall bought his shares for £8 million. He put no other money into the club until Keegan was manager & threatened to quit unless we bought a player. Sir John Hall then borrowed £1 million from his wife to fund the transfer. So £9 million into the club, only £1 million of which went towards the actual running of the club in any way. In the meantime, he floated the club to offload a few shares and repay debts and fund the rebuilding of the stadium (rebuilt by Cameron Hall Developments, so we paid him there too) and after paying dividends for a few years even whilst making huge losses, they lastly sold their shares to Ashley and cashed in yet again. The Halls helped the club immensely but they also made out like bandits from their tenure. £250,000 for Brian Kilcline. I always thought the signings of Darren Mcdonagh and Peter Garland were just Keegan testing The Hall's to see if they'd do what he said.

of course it matters, WHU are gettting a massive financial advantage paid for by you and me.

it was 1978, march 11th (McGhee, Burns). I'm asure the benches went in in response to the west ham fire bomb thing and that was 1980, could be wrong though. found a single pic of the incident but it doesn't seem conclusive as to the benches being there or not. http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7749/64711340228849822213001.jpg

never knew that bit and that is the next bit that needs looked at. 3 games for violent conduct is not enough (providing you distinguish between the mcmanaman sort of tackle and a player putting his hand in someones face).

time to e-mail MP's and such to ask why the government are spending 60mill on it ? shouldn't west ham put in what they get for the boleyn ground and at best the government/newham council/boris's fund take up the balance. even that is being very generous.

sure the benches were there then ? strange how time plays tricks, my memories of andy griffins tackle in di viao (spelling ?) and his goal are from the viewpoint of the a-wing paddock.............but i was sat in the gallowgate.