UV

I can only imagine neither of you have read any of the Keegan threads. We "threw away a 12 point lead" due to "Keegan's cavalier tactics" because we "didn't know how to defend" don't you know.

We don't have Man U's spending power - even though that has been cut back ; we also don't have the same spending power as we did when KK was manager in the 90's. We ALL want winning/attacking football, but we haven't the means to buy it so we have to produce it locally - an that will take time and shrewd buying. While it's true we can't compete with the teams getting regular champions league football and those with rich sugar daddies, we have (or should have) a bigger advantage over the majority of other clubs in this league than we did back then, thanks to a built up fanbase and a larger stadium. Where does the idea we're suddenly paupers and should accept it come from?

Hate to break this to you...

We currently don't have any other option than to give him another chance.

This is patent nonsense - Carroll scored almost 20 goals last season and despite Shola playing in the Prem, he has NEVER looked like being a legendary Newcastle No 9, either in his general play or goals scored. Carroll is not yet in the No 9 club at SJP, but he has much more chance of making it than Ameobi ever will. The only person who thought he was a decent replacement for Shearer was himself. Carroll got 19 in 42 games (7 as sub) Ameobi got 12 in 19 (8 as sub) http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2010/01/18/shola-ameobi-wants-to-fulfil-ambitions-at-newcastle-61634-25622463/2/ Sounds fair enough to me, or maybe you prefer players to have no confidence in themselves or desire to be the best? As to what this will do to his confidence: Probably not the best of news for a self confessed confidence player who if fit will play a lot of games next season. He's not the greatest striker in the world, but it's ridiculous the amount of stick he gets, and unfortunately he's probably the best goal scorer at the club right now.

It would be a massive snub to Shola to bypass him and give the number 9 to Carroll. He's the senior player and has performed for us in the Premiership before (was a major part of us getting 7th in 05-06). Not saying Shola should have it, but he should have it ahead of Carroll.

Did we keep the ball well in 08-09? Are we likely to this season? People are talking about staying up ugly, and at the same time want to drop or get rid of our only half decent defensive midfielder?

Yes, he's the defensive midfielder who was playing last season while the defence was getting lots of praise, and the defensive midfielder who was injured most of the season we were relegated when the midfield (we mostly still have now) were getting blamed for giving the (better) defence no protection. He may sometimes give away stupid free kicks on the edge of the box, but it's preferable to just letting the opposition have a free run into it which is what would happen a lot of the time without him. By all means get in a better defensive midfielder, but don't pretend any of the other midfielders we currently have can do the job better or that we don't need someone playing in that position.

We're not talking about playing badly and winning more often than not though are we. We're talking about setting out not to take the game to the opposition but to to stifle their attacking threat nearly all the time, mostly failing in that task and losing, but getting enough 0-0 and 1-1 draws, and 8 or 9 scrappy 1-0 victories mostly against other bottom of the table sides which we "deserved to lose", with only the prospect of more of the same the following season if we do manage to stay up to look forward to. That's the reality of a "I'd be happy to finish 17th playing poorly" "consolidation" season. Are you really prepared for it?

A large number of the people who currently pay hundreds of pounds a season to watch the competitive sport wont carry on doing so year after year if they are not entertained while doing so. The less people who pay hundreds of pounds a season to watch the competitive sport, the less chance there will be of winning (in the top league). Just doing enough to survive is a very short term view of success and will get harder and harder every year.

When does this rebuilding start? How do we assure our premier league status for the next 2-3 years without starting that rebuilding now? Why does it have to be next season or the one after that? What gives you any confidence that if we don't spend anything significant this year to help keep a newly promoted team up that we will next season to improve? Say we do finish 17th this season, how will we be any better off than we are now? I think we'll actually be less attractive to players, to TV schedulers, and to supporters. We certainly wont be on TV as much at the start of next season as we're going to be on this if we scrape to safety playing poor football, so there'll be less coming in year on year and we'll eventually lose the financial advantage over a lot of other clubs that for the moment we still have. Maybe people are still hanging on to this pipe dream of a bunch of the youth team becoming good premiership players (and us subsequently being able to hang on to them) and we'll rise up the table on the back of that? It's not going to happen, it really isn't. This season we will have a significantly larger turnover than most other teams in this division, the wages are down to a manageable level, and if we don't spend much on transfers the club should make a handsome profit this year. Why should we not expect the club to spend money on a few good players now which might make this season a bit more comfortable? Because we don't have that money now. Next year, we'll have that money, and then we can be expected to invest a bit more than we are now. There's a much talked about five year plan put in place by Ashley which states just that. And as much as I hate Ashley, given the current financial climate in football, it's not the worst plan in the world compared to spunking millions we don't have on players and potentially still going down and then being in severe financial issues. (Hull is one example.) The majority (or at least the largest chunk) of the income comes in at the start of the season does it not? Why do we not have the money now? If you just don't think that we'll be making a cash flow profit this year, what makes you think that we'll make one next year? I wont ask if you will be happy if we get relegated while making a profit as that would be as idiotically leading and presumptuous of an inevitable result as the question in the title of this thread, but will you accept it and still say it was the right course of action to take if that is what happens? PS The statement is "The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a "break even" manner by the year 2015/2016." It says nothing about spending more next year or at any point in the future.

Yes I will be praising him. The team will most likely include Kevin Nolan and Alan Smith, we're hardly going to be expecting a title race are we? Good. I hope you and other's voting for "stay up ugly" hold your nerves. Personally I'm under no illusions as to what "stay up ugly" means, and I know I will hate it, but I will accept it from Hughton and the players if we go into the season with basically the squad we have now. I don't believe the vast majority of people voting for that option now actually have the bottle to accept it, and will be slagging off the players and calling for Hughton's head if that's how the season pans out. We sailed the Championship last season, and people whinged like fuck that we didn't play as pretty as West Brom even though in the end we finished 11 points better off and scored more goals than them. When we were winning and drawing ugly then people were slagging Hughton off and saying he should be more adventurous, and drop our leading scorer for someone who would theoretically make us play better. I just don't see that attitude changing if we go through this season where the highlights are picking up scrappy draws and "lucky" home wins against the likes of Blackpool, WB, Wolves, Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn, Birmingham, etc.

When does this rebuilding start? How do we assure our premier league status for the next 2-3 years without starting that rebuilding now? Why does it have to be next season or the one after that? What gives you any confidence that if we don't spend anything significant this year to help keep a newly promoted team up that we will next season to improve? Say we do finish 17th this season, how will we be any better off than we are now? I think we'll actually be less attractive to players, to TV schedulers, and to supporters. We certainly wont be on TV as much at the start of next season as we're going to be on this if we scrape to safety playing poor football, so there'll be less coming in year on year and we'll eventually lose the financial advantage over a lot of other clubs that for the moment we still have. Maybe people are still hanging on to this pipe dream of a bunch of the youth team becoming good premiership players (and us subsequently being able to hang on to them) and we'll rise up the table on the back of that? It's not going to happen, it really isn't. This season we will have a significantly larger turnover than most other teams in this division, the wages are down to a manageable level, and if we don't spend much on transfers the club should make a handsome profit this year. Why should we not expect the club to spend money on a few good players now which might make this season a bit more comfortable?

If this season we set up and play defensively without much attacking threat (also known on here as "playing shit") and get enough scrappy draws and lucky wins to be 17th at Christmas will everyone who is now saying that all that matters is just getting the results to keep us up be praising Hughton and the players for being on course for their stated aim? I wonder...

Newcastle United 2-0 Middlesbrough, 10 points clear at the top: There are many many more examples. Of course, I'm sure this coming season you and everyone else who are now saying they will be happy to finish 17th will be full of praise for the players and manager throughout the season when faced with the reality of what that means (constantly at the bottom of the table, long runs without a win, poor performances, the odd scrappy win, etc, etc) and not in fact calling for his head within 2 months. We'll see.

Wahey! Really though you should be pissed off at your admin and people behind the scenes, not Gosling. It's a clanger of epic proportions, something Newcastle-esque, and really you ought to be concentrating why your club lost you £3-5m not take it out on Gosling. Naive and unprofessional on the clubs part, lessons need to be learnt from it. However, Gosling comes out of it very badly as well. Through his injury he has been having his wages paid and the best medical treament provided but all the while him and his agent are working on exploiting a loophole to get a free transfer? That's pretty low. He's also screwed his hometown club who have just been relegated out of any future sell-on fees, appearence clauses etc Not that most footballers are any less twattish. But, still. Since when is not having a contract exploiting a loophole? If Everton wanted to keep him on they should have asked him to sign a new contract there and then, not just agree verbally to one later. Clubs are restricted with the lengths of the contracts they put young players on, but there's nothing to stop them renegotiating new 3 year contracts each year or after 2 years. If the player won't sign then they can chose to peddle him while under contract or risk losing him for nowt as happened here. Clubs obviously aren't keen to keep renegotiating contracts as the player will want a payrise each time, but that's the price you pay for being able to get a fee for selling the player. It seems Everton wanted it both ways, no renegotiation of wage until the contract was over, but getting the player to agree to sign a new one when it was up. He changed his mind and Everton lost out. Tough. If he'd had a career ending injury at the end of last season do you think Everton would have honoured this verbal agreement? I doubt it.

It did last season like. We conceded nearly twice as many goals a game without Smith in the side as we did with him in it (although part of that could be because Smith's absences coincided with Taylor's). You can argue it's better to be more attacking than defensive minded, but it worked for us (results wise) last season so I can't see Hughton throwing caution to the wind this season against significantly better opposition.

As long as people realise that "giving him a second chance" means the manager should see how he looks in training and the reserves, then put him on the bench if he thinks he looks good and could perform in the league, not giving him a dozen starts in the league regardless of form ahead of other fit strikers who have previously performed for the club just so you personally can form an opinion of his ability, then I have no problem with "giving him a second chance". IMO though if he stays he will most likely perform no better than he obviously did previously in training and the reserves to try and force himself into the first team, and will therefore probably not get much if any game time. Then people on here will once again complain about him not getting a chance because NUFC and its fans are inherently xenophobic as has been proven many times in the past by the example of a couple of players over the past few decades who could have been class, but were ruined so badly by shamefully having to play in the reserves to prove themselves they simply couldn't play decent football ever again in their career.

Can we rely on the younger two in a season probably battling to avoid relegation though? Neither have anywhere near enough experience yet to say they definitely should be starting in the Premier League regularly. The only experience Harper has of the Premier League is mainly of sitting on the bench, tbf. 06-07 name games shots conceded shots per goal goals per shot shots per game save % goals per game Harper 16.1 72 18 4 0.25 4.48 75 1.12 Given 20.9 98 27 3.63 0.28 4.69 72 1.29 07-08 name games shots conceded shots per goal goals per shot shots per game save % goals per game Harper 19.9 103 28 3.68 0.27 5.17 73 1.41 Given 18.1 91 37 2.46 0.41 5.03 59 2.05 08-09 name games shots conceded shots per goal goals per shot shots per game save % goals per game Harper 16 83 22 3.77 0.27 5.19 73 1.38 Given 22 109 37 2.95 0.34 4.95 66 1.68 3 seasons. Played half the games. Consistently better record than Given behind the same defence/midfield. If Harper's so shit, he must just be luckiest keeper in the game. I couldn't give a shit about people's subjective opinions of Harper, objectively the facts show he's at least as good as Given was, and while Given was massively overrated IMO, for now at least that's good enough for me. Selling an experienced and consistent keeper and relying on 2 youngsters would be absolute madness unless there were significant financial reasons for it. Unbelievable some of the shit people come out with on here.

http://i.imgur.com/FAEWu.jpg

Carl Cort 05/07/2000 Craig Bellamy 25/06/2001 Robbie Elliott 02/07/2001 Hugo Viana 22/06/2002 Lee Bowyer 01/07/2003 James Milner 02/07/2004 Scott Parker 15/06/2005 Craig Moore 01/07/2005 Mark Viduka 07/06/2007 Joey Barton 14/06/2007 David Rozehnal 29/06/2007 Geremi 03/07/2007 Jonas Gutierrez 02/07/2008 Sebastien Bassong 01/07/2008

tbh a fair chunk of the increased wage budget we had could be put down to fat sam viduka geremi smith barton beye was probably on a good wage and that was happening while ashley was getting to grips with owning a football club true, but he should of done due diligence as it would of shown this stuff, but he didn't so it's his own fault Surely you're not throwing this old chestnut into the conversation (2008 is calling, it wants it's argument back) - the overall view of the club's finances has to be an improvement from where we were in 2006. It's a slow process, it's a painful process, but he does seem to be getting us there, even if it's only for his own benefit. f***ing hell. I'm not sure Mike Ashley would agree with you there. Over the last three years the club have reported a £100m Ashley loan (allegedly to pay off the existing debts) a further £10m (for reasons I can’t recall) and then a further £25m last season to cover the operating loses having the best paid squad in CCC history incurs. The club owes Ashley £135m and the bank £50m, yes? If this is right the club debts have approximately doubled since Ashley took over. Brilliant. This information really puts last summer’s attempt to sell the club into context. Ashley essentially wanted £100m for a squad of players and a business with a projected operating loss of £25m for the next financial year. Everything else belonged to the bank. The total cost any prospective new owner faced for acquiring a debt free but loss making championship club was near enough £260m. In 2006 we were something akin to a reckless 20-something who has maxed out most of their credit cards and has unsecured loans all over the place, using whatever income they have plus the remainder of their credit limits, just to keep up with the monthly payments. Mike Ashley is the parent who bailed out our reckless youngster without realising the full extent of the debt. Now he's saddled with the debts, he's paying off those that need to be paid immediately, while trying to make his child financially responsible and in control of their spending. EDIT: The attempts to sell the club were obviously representative of the frustration every parent feels when they are taken for granted by their kids, particularly when they've gone to such lengths (at great personal cost) to save them from long-term damage. I wont go into how the analogy is rubbish and based on a made up proposition, and I don't want to get into the old argument about what would have happened if Ashley hadn't bought the club, but it staggers me that after everything that's happened some still buy into this crap about Ashley being some naive footy fan who came in to have a bit of fun and didn't realise what financial trouble the club was in, and has subsequently been carried away on a wave of inevitable misfortune valiantly subsidising the club for our benefit. We're ultra critical as supporters, but for the state Premier League football was in and the state the club was in when he bought it (footballing-wise, turnover-wise and global reputation-wise) we were a relative bargain. There's no doubt in my mind he bought the club first and foremost with the intention of financial gain, either in the short term by selling up quickly at a profit to one of the many new investors at the time, or long term with the lucrative new TV contracts, free advertising for his other businesses, etc while the value of the club theoretically grew too. Anything else was either an ego-boosting bonus or simply put on for our benefit. It hasn't all gone to shit because he didn't know about the stadium debt having to be paid up (in all likelihood he'd have paid it off anyway as originally did with all the other debt including paying up front for players). It hasn't all gone to shit because he didn't know about a small percentage of the annual turnover being paid up front or that players are usually paid for in installments. It's gone to shit and he's lost money because he completely underestimated (as most people do) how difficult it would be to run such a volatile business as a football club and he fucked it up by putting mates and incompetents in the positions of power and backing them over the one decent appointment he did make. The club may currently be at lower financial risk than it was in 2006 (if you're happy to rely on the fortune and good graces of one man who has shown himself to be a very poor decision maker), but don't let a lower wage bill forced on us by necessity fool you into thinking the finances are in better shape. He's set this club back massively from where it was when he bought it at a time when other teams once below us in stature in this footballing era were building their teams, their worldwide reputations, and subsequently their turnover. It will take very good leadership just to get us back to where we were as a club when he took over. Do you really think Ashley & Llambias are the men for that? I've seen absolutely nothing to convince me that they are, and for the near future at least they've even given up the pretence of trying. Unfortunately we're stuck with them, but it doesn't mean I have to like it or praise Ashley for partially subsidising his own incompetence.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium. In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort. I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options. 1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it. 2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure. Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions. I guess that's true, but the whole Guardian article (whilst it may be sensationalist bollocks parroting old news) seems very specific on details even if the exact meaning of those details are not understood by the reporter (ie the thing about the "trade secrets" in the following quote seems like something he has read from some kind of document). It seems a strange think to make up, so I'm inclined to think it's probably true, although admittedly I've no idea where he'd get that kind of information from.

tbh a fair chunk of the increased wage budget we had could be put down to fat sam viduka geremi smith barton beye was probably on a good wage and that was happening while ashley was getting to grips with owning a football club true, but he should of done due diligence as it would of shown this stuff, but he didn't so it's his own fault Surely you're not throwing this old chestnut into the conversation (2008 is calling, it wants it's argument back) - the overall view of the club's finances has to be an improvement from where we were in 2006. It's a slow process, it's a painful process, but he does seem to be getting us there, even if it's only for his own benefit. Fucking hell. I'm not sure Mike Ashley would agree with you there.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium. In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort. I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options. 1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it. 2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.