UV

Newcastle United Football Company Limited

No comments on the fact that the new chairman gets twice as much as the old chairman got criticised for taking despite presiding over the club's worst season in the premiership, sacking a manager mid season without a replacement lined up, and failing to land any of the new manager's transfer targets (all things the old chairman would surely have been crucified for)? Not actually sure that Mort had a lot of say in the sacking of BSA. I'm pretty sure we've finished lower than 12th too. Not defending Mort btw, cause i'm don't really know what he did to deserve any praise or criticism tbh. Pts 43, GD -20 So he got £1m for doing nowt? Nice work if you can get it.

No comments on the fact that the new chairman gets twice as much as the old chairman got criticised for taking despite presiding over the club's worst season in the premiership, sacking a manager mid season without a replacement lined up, and failing to land any of the new manager's transfer targets (all things the old chairman would surely have been crucified for)?

:clap: :clap: i did'nt see any sun campaigns to rid the game of kung fu cantana either You weren't looking very hard then. The widespread media opinion was that he should be banned for life. It's the standard morally outraged, self-righteous option for this kind of thing. I can't believe his cousin got 6 months suspended for throwing food at someone.

Yes, that's what it said on the radio this morning.

IMO it's nowhere near as hard as the media (and our manager apparently) would have you believe. I'll actually be surprised if at least one of Everton, Villa, Spurs, Pompey, Blackburn or Man City don't get in next year ahead of one or more of Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool. All dependent on Summer activities and luck next year of course.

I think they are spending on the basis they'll be champions league side next year. Could go horribly wrong......... or right if you hate them like I do. I think Spurs are perfectly safe to be honest - they spend what they make, dbt free so they can balance out tranfsers against revenue pretty effectively, no interest on debts etc...they're also being backed by Joe Lewis of ENIC so they've got a benefactory owner as well. You sure about that? http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Tottenham-Hotspur_340013.html Looks to be around £30m to me. This Spurs fan's site has them with £10m in the bank in 2006: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/debt2.htm Slippery slope IYAM. Im not sure i understand either site to be honest- Forbes has us down as having a 43% debt to value ratio. I thought we were debt free, also it says Spurs are £10m in the black on the other site, no suggestin of debt there? Am i being really stupid here.... 2006: +£10m 2007: -£30m = Spurs running at a loss of £40m / year.

I think they are spending on the basis they'll be champions league side next year. Could go horribly wrong......... or right if you hate them like I do. I think Spurs are perfectly safe to be honest - they spend what they make, dbt free so they can balance out tranfsers against revenue pretty effectively, no interest on debts etc...they're also being backed by Joe Lewis of ENIC so they've got a benefactory owner as well. You sure about that? http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/34/biz_soccer08_Tottenham-Hotspur_340013.html Looks to be around £30m to me. This Spurs fan's site has them with £10m in the bank in 2006: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/spurs/debt2.htm Slippery slope IYAM.

If this list does anything it does somewhat dent the argument that the Premier League would be massively reduced in quality if teams were limited to only 5 foreigners. You could still fit ALL of these players - the best who have EVER played in our leagues - into it at the same time, yet would we have a significantly lesser league if we lost half of them?

No Robert I notice, then again who can argue with the likes of Lombardo and Kassey Keller being in there . Think Schmiechel should be in the top 3.

Sauls? Winker? Yous are 5h1t at leetspeak.

$300 * 43/100 * 0.49910 = £64.4m debt at the end of 06-07 season. Maybe he needs a new accountant?

I'm not sure he wiped it all out, I think he put somewhere between £75 million and £80 million in to get rid of the big debts that were costing a fortune to finance and one which he had no choice but to pay off due to the terms of the original loan.

I heard that around Christmas time I think. Overheard a Blackburn supporter telling his mate he better watch out, he better not cry, he better not pout, then he told him why.

People do realise he's not JUST talking about the Premier League don't they? Because it doesn't seem so from a lot of the posts so far. A lot of people have a persecution complex IYAM. If it means a more competitive Europe as a whole, rather than every half decent player moving to one of the bigger leagues, then it can only be a good thing for football in general even if it "weakens" our league slightly.

A player can only sign for a team in a different country if they buy out their contract. Where did you get this from? If the whole buying out your contract rule is from restriction of trade laws, I don't see how they could limit it like that. I'm sure last year there was a load of talk about Heinze buying out his contract to move to Liverpool.

The less obvious bonus in this for us is that if Owen was looking to leave, Sven & City were the most likely destination for next season. Sven going would make that far less likely to happen & his agent can't use it as a threat in contract talks.

Gobsmacked. I can't believe the impatient and unrealistic Man City fans have forced out yet another manager.

This. Also: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=923

Strangest apostrophisation ever.

Newcastle chairman, Chris Mort.

Between £40 million and £60 million if Keegan wants to spend it. I wouldn't be surprised to see our current record transfer beaten 2 or 3 times in the summer if we can tempt good enough players to the club. You see, I really really hope you're both right, I just don't see why he would make statements like he did if we were about to spend that kind of money. If we spent that I wouldn't be appeased, I'd be over the moon.

So the signings he was criticising the old board for were players on the way down who were cheap, but the players we wont be signing in the future are players on the way down who cost a lot? Have I got it right now? Blimey, it's not me trying to twist things.

I can't see any hypocrisy at all when you compare like for like. I would have thought Beardsley or Nobby coming back or Keegan himself the first time he managed the club, none of those were criticised by our fans, or at least very few, if any. Erm, aren't those players the very definition of what the people defending Mort are saying he means as the type of player we wont be signing in the future, ie players at the end of their career, on the way down? I thought people said players on the way down that would cost big money like Henry? It seems you're trying to twist things. That's the last one I could come up with that fitted the criteria you all seem to be assuming he means. He only cost £100,000 like. Again, nobody has mentioned money except when it concerns Henry who would cost a large sum. You've lost me. You picked Kluivert, Butt and Duff as 3 players you thought were the type of players Mort was talking about. None of those were big money signings.

I can't see any hypocrisy at all when you compare like for like. I would have thought Beardsley or Nobby coming back or Keegan himself the first time he managed the club, none of those were criticised by our fans, or at least very few, if any. Erm, aren't those players the very definition of what the people defending Mort are saying he means as the type of player we wont be signing in the future, ie players at the end of their career, on the way down?