UV

The numbers and dates seem pretty specific and it's largely delivered as information without significant editorial comment. Care to expand on why it's sensationalist or more importantly on how it's bollocks?

Never gonna happen

Yep, it's as if that line's been completely ignored. I think everybody knew this would be the case anyway. When Birmingham came up they spent £8.5m on Johnson & Dann (an area we don't have to spend imo), and the only other cash signing was Barry Ferguson for £1m. Hasn't done them any harm has it? Will the 2 or 3 not simply be promoted from within from the footballing academy brimming with talent, skill and dedication? All you pseudo-accountants are well wide of the mark with your interpretations of "capital outlay" btw. It quite obviously means that there will be no money spent on players from London or London based teams because Mike and Des know how much all the Geordie nation hate cockneys. Additionally all shirt lettering will be done in lower case to save money on transfers.

Seriously? I'm shocked at that. Wise was on £1m/year was he not? Wise was never a director. There were rumours about what he was earning but no one knows for sure. He was called one. Was Executive Director (Football) just a vanity title? Are we sure Llambias is a director of Newcastle United Limited then, I can't believe he's only on £155k a year.

Seriously? I'm shocked at that. Wise was on £1m/year was he not? I'm surprised Llambias is on a tenth of what we paid out for Mort which was a lot more than Shepherd & Hall combined were paid. Maybe it was heavily performance related.

It's not in there at all But you shouldn't believe what Ernst and Young say like, they're part of the great deception together with Ashley and all that..... Well they did manage to hide all that extra debt for Shepherd that Mike only found after he bought the club. Have we always included manager's pay in the wage bill or is that new? Is the directors pay included in the £73m? That's a pretty big drop in revenue, a lot lower than Llambias was saying only 4 months before the end of that accounting period when he was saying turnover was £100m. I guess some of it could be put down to the boycott, but pretty worrying nonetheless. Ashley's probably lost us more in revenue than he's "put in".

Milner's attitude over getting a new contract was a disgrace, most clubs would of sold him over the way he conducted himself. You can't ask for a new contract just one year after you signed a new 4 year one. Especially when you haven't even played well since signing the original deal. What a load of bollocks. We were receiving large bids for him and he'd obviously get a pay rise if he moved, so he would be stupid not to ask for a pay rise for staying. It's not like he refused to play or anything either, he was MotM in his last game for us after which Keegan said He signed a 4 year contract the year before and played no more then average for that year. Obviously he saw an opportunity to up his wage when Villa came in. But just because he can get away with it doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it. Do you really think a player should get a pay rise whenever another club comes in for them?, no matter how they've played or when they've signed there last contract? It's about keeping the player happy (within reason of course). No point having a disgruntled player who knows he could be earning lots more elsewhere, especially when there's no footballing reason to stay either (ie chance of winning something), even with players like Milner who is one of the few more professional youngsters around. If you want to sell off any players who develop and know they can get better wages elsewhere so ask for a payrise or a move then you'll never progress as a club, it will just be back to square one every season. Even if you use the transfer fee to buy someone else instead, chances are you'll have to pay them more than the player you sold was on anyway. It's very usual with young players to renegotiate their contracts every year or two. The club wants to protect it's interest by getting the player on a long contract, but you can't go giving the player wages commensurate with what their potential ability might be at the end of the contract, so if they develop they are obviously going to want an improvement in their contract before it is up. In Milner's case, it was a year old contract but on terms he'd agreed 2 years previously, I beleive he has said he signed it on the proviso that his contract would be reviewed during the year but that no-one at the club would even talk to him about it. As for whether he had developed or not, I think I'll stick with O'Neill, Benitez, Moyes, Keegan and my own opinion over yours and Ronaldo's

Milner's attitude over getting a new contract was a disgrace, most clubs would of sold him over the way he conducted himself. You can't ask for a new contract just one year after you signed a new 4 year one. Especially when you haven't even played well since signing the original deal. What a load of bollocks. We were receiving large bids for him and he'd obviously get a pay rise if he moved, so he would be stupid not to ask for a pay rise for staying. It's not like he refused to play or anything either, he was MotM in his last game for us after which Keegan said and from the PFA who act as his agent (what a money grabbing bastard eh): Obviously desperate to get away. Let's hope Vuckic never wants a payrise, or expresses the slightest interest in another club otherwise he'll be welcome to fuck off too.

"He's rated very highly here and he is a big part of the future," explained the manager. Good man. "He is the last player that Newcastle United want to sell, and I'm talking about the owner and myself," insisted the United chief. "James Milner won't be leaving here, I'm sure of that."

My crystal ball says around £100m turnover, 76% wage bill, and an accounting loss of £5-10m.

I don't see why it should result in an argument (although you’re possibly right), the accounts will not be subjective. I know we'll not all agree on everything but that happens in most threads as people form an opinion on everything. If nothing else, at least you know where to avoid. Aye, exactly. Wasn't saying it wasn't worth a thread or owt - because it clearly is - but you know. I'll be reading the thread when the accounts get published but I doubt I'll last more than a few pages. Anyway: Ashley Out. The formula for these threads is usually: WILD STATEMENT MADE IN OP AND LINK TO ACCOUNTS - Immediate response made by general forumites based upon the comments in the OP and not the accounts - Wildfire. - Quayside/LLO/CS&C/etc come along and explain what the accounts mean, refuting all of the outlandish comments - General forumites agree and say thanks - FAT COCKNEY BASSA ASHLEYLIES for 2/3 pages - WILD STATEMENT MADE (having not read any of the previous 18 pages) - Quayside/LLO/CS&C/etc come along and explain what the accounts mean, refuting all of the outlandish comments - FAT COCKNEY BASSA RESPONDS ad infinitum You forgot to say that every post relevant to the thread will be interspersed with 5 posts from people posting just to complain about how they hate these kinds of threads or how it would have been even worse if [insert disaster scenario/example of smaller club in administration]... I'm relieved the accounts have been filed now though, it should stop the customer base, debtors, creditors and football in general being all over us chasing money & reducing trading terms given to the club which will have been happening since they were late at the start of the month.

So backroom turmoil means players picking up massive wages are excused for s*** performances? Someone should have told the Portsmouth squad, they could have not bothered to turn up instead of getting to the FA cup final. How many managers have Pompy had this season? That was the point was it not. You can’t have four managers in one season and expect the players to have a clue what it is they’re supposed to be doing. If Ashley had appointed a proper manager until the end of the season we’d have stayed up. TV wanted the gig but Ashley wouldn’t stump up a contract of sufficient length or remuneration. No, he had to go for the cheapest option available and brought in a clapped old banger with a dicky ticker. Owen and Viduka didn’t give a shit but they missed most the season. It was the team that went down, a demoralised and disorganised rabble. There’s a big difference between cause and effect. A lot of that is true and I've said as much myself at the time last season but the central point of this debate was about team spirit. I don't believe successful teams are built around players who have had their best days at other clubs like Owen and Viduka. Did they provide good value for their exorbitant pay? Maybe you think they did. Me I prefer to buy players who will have their best years ahead of them and who are eager to make their mark at Newcastle, not yearning forLiverpool or Australia. Owen was 26 and England's best striker when we signed him man. You're using massive amounts of hindsight of 2 major injuries when judging Owen as a signing. Ignoring fees and wages (it's a debate about hunger) and say we were somehow competing for Europe again would you turn your nose up at Rooney in a couple of years because his best years were obviously behind him at Man U?

You don't get to play at the levels they have without being hungry. You don't have to kiss the badge or run around chasing the ball like a 6 year old every game to be hungry either. Wether they were hungry or not in the past really means nothing to us though does it? Neither of them were hungry to play for us last season and they certainly wouldn't be this season or next season. That is true. Your not going to be hungry when you have already made it, and are on 100k or 60k a week. I disagree. I don't think it's something you just switch on or off, and I don't think it has anything to do with money once your on over £10k/week, although some young players will lose some hunger as they mature or get distracted by the lifestyle, but they're typically the ones who show promise but don't make it. Does this logic not also apply to Harper, Coloccini, Nolan, Smith, Barton, Butt and Gutierrez who are part of (if not the instigators of) this great team spirit? If Owen was not still hungry would he not have used his name to get a cushy number in the States or some other footballing backwater rather than try to compete for a place at Man U?

Villa's the blueprint we're working to according to Derek.

You're right about Beye & Viduka being past it for top flight football now of course, but when you said "I wouldn't swap the current team for the previous one. " I assumed you were talking about the players they were 1.5 years ago. Beye would probably have been in the team this year ahead of Simpson. As for your put down of the others, well do you thing Man U will be knocking on our door for our best striker Ameobi to sit on their bench or that Carroll will be getting assists in the Champions League anytime soon? More to the point though, do you think we'd have stayed up last season if Ameobi, Carroll, Routledge, Simpson, and Williamson had been in the place of Owen, Martins, Duff, Beye and Bassong? Even if we didn't we could have got relegated for a far cheaper price. Yup, that's the benchmark we're aiming for these days.

You don't get to play at the levels they have without being hungry. You don't have to kiss the badge or run around chasing the ball like a 6 year old every game to be hungry either.

You're right about Beye & Viduka being past it for top flight football now of course, but when you said "I wouldn't swap the current team for the previous one. " I assumed you were talking about the players they were 1.5 years ago. Beye would probably have been in the team this year ahead of Simpson. As for your put down of the others, well do you thing Man U will be knocking on our door for our best striker Ameobi to sit on their bench or that Carroll will be getting assists in the Champions League anytime soon? More to the point though, do you think we'd have stayed up last season if Ameobi, Carroll, Routledge, Simpson, and Williamson had been in the place of Owen, Martins, Duff, Beye and Bassong?

There's an awful lot of guff in this thread about the teamwork, hunger, passion, attitude, etc of the current squad compared to last year's. I'm pretty sure though without a decent bit of squad improvement in quality in the Summer the same people throwing those words around now will be reassessing those qualities a couple of months into next season (and no doubt Hughton or anyone critical of Ashley will be to blame for destroying it). It's easy to look like "a team" when the quality of the players alongside you are better than the opposition week in week out, and it's easy to show hunger and passion when you're top of the league and full of confidence. If Owen, Martins, Viduka, Duff, Beye or Bassong had still been in the team now they'd have been just as much part of this great team spirit, and just as hungry with just as much to prove. Certainly the uncertainty around the club and the 4 different managers would have negatively affected the team last season, and simply without that hindrance an inferior squad may do a bit better next season and stay up, but don't be delusional about how the apparent team spirit of a team currently winning week after week is going to make up for the lack of quality in the squad when it's losing more often than not. The lack of depth in the squad will also be more relevant next season when it will not be so easy to get emergency loans to cover for injuries.

You mean the Gaydamak way to administration (and near winding up) is better than the Ridsdale way? Personally as a supporter with no control of how the owner runs the club I would feel more secure with an owner who was stuck within the financial restraints of what the banks would lend them than one who could rack up the club's wage bill to well over what it could support in future years without their input and then run into financial problems themselves or just fuck off when they get bored or daddy pulls the plug. Owners putting in external money is also what's fucked the game up so much financially as clubs without that artificial aid risk more just to try to keep up. Everyone is just waiting for Abramovich to get bored and leave Chelsea in the shit. If Lerner ran into external financial trouble now Villa would be in the shit as they are running at a big loss year on year. Neither of these clubs could sustain where they are now without their owners. Liverpool and Man U have a different problem in that they can sustain where they are now without their owners (who are taking out rather than putting in) they just can't sustain it if they drop down the league. There are risks either way, one is dependant on football results, the other is dependant on external forces. Personally I'd rather the club's fortunes were dictated by the football than live with the chance that no matter how well you might be doing on the pitch the rug could suddenly be pulled from beneath your feet. That's not to say I'd turn my nose up at a rich benefactor, just that I'd feel it was a more solid foundation if it were self-sustaining as long as the footballing side of things didn't go tits up. Obviously having an owner with their own money has the advantage that they can put money into the club that a bank just would not risk. This is however promoting a far higher risk strategy to running the club than the one the old board were able to take, so I'm not sure why some who are post-fact dismayed with the risk level set by the last owners are happy with being completely dependant on the whims and finances of one man, especially when that man has shown nothing so far but an abject inability to run the club successfully or hire competent people to do so and a desire to offload any responsibility and sell at any opportunity when the club is in the shit. Having a rich incompetent owner of the club is of course better than having a poor incompetent owner of the club, however some seem to have extended that to meaning having a rich incompetent owner of the club is better than having a poor competent owner. It's not. People exaggerate how bad things had got footballing wise here prior to Ashley, we'd had a bad season due to having more injuries than I can ever remember having before, but we still pretty comfortably avoided relegation in the end and certainly had a massively better squad when Ashley took over to the "relegation enhanced" one we have now. If people judged the squad then with the expectations we have for the squad next year they'd be over the moon with it. Without all the injuries we'd have been competing for Europe again, if we were to have the same injury problems next year I think there'd be absolutely no question of us going back down again. People also exaggerate how bad things had got financially with regard to the debt. To put this in context for us prior to Ashley, the majority of the debt was the stadium expansion loan (around £45m) which couldn't just be called in on a whim. The last set of accounts before the stadium debt was shifted to be a current liability (due to the sale of the club) in 2006 had current liabilities from debts of £5.5m overdraft + £10.9m loans. This was with £9.3m cash in the bank as security against capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan. There would have been around an extra £5m overdraft and £5m in loans in 2007, ie a total of around £25m. I'd suggest this is a lower current debt liability than most premiership clubs other than those recently promoted or owned by a sugar daddy, and certainly within the means of a club with our turnover as was. Contrast this with the £40m overdraft facility Ashley was running the club with on top of his £150m loan. Is Ashley steering the club in the right direction or is he overcompensating after causing a skid?

Think it would have made a difference to have Given in goal instead of Harper. At least in his first games as number 1 Harper looked slow in reacting. Given probably would have saved us a point in all those games which would have kept us up. Not borne out by the stats. 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 If he'd left 6 months earlier Harper may have saved us a point in all those games which would have kept us up. I notice this season the team lucky enough to have one of the best keepers in the world has the worst defensive record in the top 10 except for Everton. Given has been so unlucky in his career constantly being stuck behind poor defenders and midfielders making him look bad

FYP. I know, I know, rabid Ashley hater has a go again, but anyway... It's another pointer towards the character of the man that some still think is just a benevolent footy loving benefactor who bought the club for a bit of fun on a whim and has just made a few silly mistakes whilst battling against an inevitable financial crisis. The implication in this article is that Cuddly Mike is willing to sabotage the recovery attempt of a company he owns a 30% share in, in the hope of forcing a complete takeover by him at a currently distressed valuation of the company. Nice.

Fair enough, I'll be glad if my fears are proved wrong on that. Hope it wasn't just that boro wouldn't meet QPR's fee. I admit I was very happy with the signing of Routledge as I thought once we'd signed Pancrate that would be it for the RW. Bit worried about his constant niggles, but I think he's a decent signing. Williamson too.

Perhaps we had a fee agreed with the club for Moses, wages were agreed then his agent doubled what he wanted from the deal. It could easily be either of these but I have a funny feeling that Wigan can offer him better wages at this point as they are in the Prem and we aren't. NUFC in the Championship on 5-10k/wk or Wigan in the Prem on 10-20? It's not either, it's the reason that I mentioned. It's not just Best though is it. I can't think of a single player since Ashley bought the club where we've been in competition with another club for a player and ended up signing that player, the only player in that time I can think of who we've signed where the selling club didn't want rid is Coloccini (also Gutierrez, but that situation is just bizarre, he shouldn't have been their player anymore), and we have been unable/unwilling to stop any player leaving who wants to move to another club. Maybe I've missed someone, or maybe its just a coincidence, but it's a worrying trend IMO. Of course operating like that and avoiding a bidding war has obvious financial advantages and puts the club in the driving seat when negotiating contracts, and I'm sure some will be over the moon about it and happy that anyone who expresses any discontent is shipped out the door, but it does mean you have to pick up and make do with the left overs, and if any player develops while at the club he's inevitably going to leave for a club that will offer him more. At Championship level this policy is fine as there are a plethora of players out there who are good enough to play at this level, and we can afford to miss out on some as any player we miss out on will not be significantly better than some other player we can go for. The Premiership is another kettle of fish though, it's one of the best leagues in the world, and to compete in it you have to have some of the best players in the world - there's a much smaller pool of players that are good enough to be good in the Premiership. Fishing around for the scraps in that pool is highly unlikely to lead to anything better than survival. For fredbob - I'd sincerely like to thank the man who got my club relegated for not fucking it up any further once he realised the players he wasn't able to get rid of and the coach Keegan brought in might be able to get the team promoted, and for replacing the recalled loan players and long term injuries with cheap permanent signings & other loans. Cheers Mike, great job, appreciated. Happy?

LLLO, could you also post up Hitzfeld's record please, I guess the point was to somehow show how them continentals would have loved to have worked under ex Championship and then League 1 manager Dennis Wise, but I'm not quite sure how yet.

he had a chance to rectify his mistakes when he appointed KK again but didn't support him. I imagine quite a lot of people have supported Newcastle for many years, watch them every game home and away, and aren't about to stop So what mistakes had he made before appointing Keegan? what planet do you come from ? So you can't think of any, then? malandro listed some. Paying big wages and moaning about it later too. What do you think of him losing KK and what do you think of the quality of our recent signings, on long contracts Ashley's first big mistake was appointing Keegan manager. Recent signings weren't bad at all, given the circs, and none of them are on particularly long contracts. Allows them a chance in the PL, with a two years left on the contract if we want to sell them on at that point. No, Ashleys mistake was not in appointing Keegan, but in the shameful, deceitful way he treated him. How can anyone trust him or believe a word he says after that? I'd say Keegan was the one who it's difficult to trust. It's interesting that there doesn't seem to have been a stampede for his managerial services, since he left. Legendary player and great manager but I agree just a bit too "sugary sweet nice" to fully trust. Always loved wooing the masses with his emotional England/Scouser/Geordie thing but ultimately proved that like the rest of them he was only in it for himself and the money. You big cynic. What happened? Were you let down and hurt in the past? :'(