UV

But he's trying to save the club money by getting rid of Barton for them. Cutting the wage bill further is great for the club isn't it? What do you think of the agents of the players we've brought in or are trying bring in who are leaving their old clubs in acrimonious circumstances and being paid unprecedented amounts by us? Well I dislike all the football agents I know anything about, but McKay especially because we have been involved with him a lot. Are people being paid "unprecedented amounts" by us? Well according to Pardew, the numbers are so big we wont be able to add them up in our tiny little heads, so best just trusting that as much money as possible is being spent.

Fair point, he has had fuck all decent service.

But he's trying to save the club money by getting rid of Barton for them. Cutting the wage bill further is great for the club isn't it? What do you think of the agents of the players we've brought in or are trying bring in who are leaving their old clubs in acrimonious circumstances and being paid unprecedented amounts by us?

http://www.justsaypictures.com/images/the-final-countdown.jpg No it isn't Magic Moments is Benny Hill theme tune [move]££ ££ [/move]

It was affordable because it was taken out to finance the expansion of the stadium to 52,000 seats and a significant increase in our corporate hospitality capabilities- this was drawing in considerably more than the cash required to service the debt. If net-net the expansion makes money, it doesn't matter what the position is for the overall business. You need to look at that in isolation as a sensible move for the business. We had not (as far as I am aware) plugged cash flow gaps with additional loans, although the club was in a very worrying position with regards to its overdraft (and only a banker's sneeze away from being in a very uncomfortable position)- which is why I still find it odd that Ashley paid so much for the club when it was headed for a very rocky 12 months cash-flow wise. I don't think anyone would dispute the financial merits of the decision to expand the stadium, it was a truly excellent move in every respect. But in order to be able to afford to service a loan you have to be generating positive cash flows from your day to day business. And at the time Ashley took over we were not doing that. Contrary to what you say we did plug cash flow leaks with other loans and this was not purely done through an overdraft it was done through a variety of loans. As I said earlier these were at increasing rates of interest. The proof is in the 2007 accounts and we had collected loans as follows: - £42.5 million at 7.65% interest secured on future season ticket and hospitality income - £13.1 million at 8.55% interest secured on future sponsorship income - E4.5 million at interest of LIBOR +2.25% secured on the first team training ground - £8 million at11.72% interest secured on future broadcasting income - £1.5 million secured as a second charge on the training ground plus an overdraft of £11 million. Whatever method Ashley used to value the club it didn't have anything whatsoever to do with his perception of it's ability to generate positive cash flows. His lack of due diligence would have left him unaware of the true state of the finances. Quayside in very sensible post non-shocker. Yet one which doesn't give the whole picture. There was also £9.3m cash (ie most of the overdraft) held in an account waiting to pay the annual capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan for the next year and a half as per the terms of that agreement. Everything that Ashley did in the immediate aftermath of the sale and in the following years suggest that he would have paid off the stadium debt whether it was immediately owing or not. He paid up the other debts which were not repayable on change of ownership, and we started to pay up front for the whole of a player's transfer fee, which I think is unique at the top level, and is something even the mega-rich clubs don't do. The idea that having to repay the stadium debt changed his plans for the club, or stopped him investing as much as he otherwise would have liked just doesn't hold water. So we were using the overdraft to pay off the loan installments? Not really, no. We had an overdraft to hold a cash amount in advance of it being due because those were the terms of the loan. The accounts are generated at a cash-low point in the season (in those days anyway, probably more performance related TV money comes in at the end of the season nowadays), a month or so later the season ticket money would be in and no doubt the overdraft paid off with some cash in the bank to be used through the season. Transfer spend and increased wages were what caused an overspend, not an inability to meet loan repayments. With the additional £18m TV revenue in 2008 there is no reason why the debt could not have been stabilised or even reduced if necessary without even the requirement for cuts.

It was affordable because it was taken out to finance the expansion of the stadium to 52,000 seats and a significant increase in our corporate hospitality capabilities- this was drawing in considerably more than the cash required to service the debt. If net-net the expansion makes money, it doesn't matter what the position is for the overall business. You need to look at that in isolation as a sensible move for the business. We had not (as far as I am aware) plugged cash flow gaps with additional loans, although the club was in a very worrying position with regards to its overdraft (and only a banker's sneeze away from being in a very uncomfortable position)- which is why I still find it odd that Ashley paid so much for the club when it was headed for a very rocky 12 months cash-flow wise. I don't think anyone would dispute the financial merits of the decision to expand the stadium, it was a truly excellent move in every respect. But in order to be able to afford to service a loan you have to be generating positive cash flows from your day to day business. And at the time Ashley took over we were not doing that. Contrary to what you say we did plug cash flow leaks with other loans and this was not purely done through an overdraft it was done through a variety of loans. As I said earlier these were at increasing rates of interest. The proof is in the 2007 accounts and we had collected loans as follows: - £42.5 million at 7.65% interest secured on future season ticket and hospitality income - £13.1 million at 8.55% interest secured on future sponsorship income - E4.5 million at interest of LIBOR +2.25% secured on the first team training ground - £8 million at11.72% interest secured on future broadcasting income - £1.5 million secured as a second charge on the training ground plus an overdraft of £11 million. Whatever method Ashley used to value the club it didn't have anything whatsoever to do with his perception of it's ability to generate positive cash flows. His lack of due diligence would have left him unaware of the true state of the finances. Quayside in very sensible post non-shocker. Yet one which doesn't give the whole picture. There was also £9.3m cash (ie most of the overdraft) held in an account waiting to pay the annual capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan for the next year and a half as per the terms of that agreement. Everything that Ashley did in the immediate aftermath of the sale and in the following years suggest that he would have paid off the stadium debt whether it was immediately owing or not. He paid up the other debts which were not repayable on change of ownership, and we started to pay up front for the whole of a player's transfer fee, which I think is unique at the top level, and is something even the mega-rich clubs don't do. The idea that having to repay the stadium debt changed his plans for the club, or stopped him investing as much as he otherwise would have liked just doesn't hold water.

If the game is to stay in the Premier League while making profits on transfers, then yes it's played 2, won 1, lost 1. If the game is to finish as high in the Premier League as you can with the resources available, then it's played 2, lost 2. A few million aside, what's the difference between finishing midtable and finishing midtable? If you're not in Europe (and not likely to compete with those that are challenging for it), so long as you're comfortably clear of relegation...it's not worth shouting about if you're 8th or 14th. However, if you use these years to reshape the squad, reshape the club (adopt a new mentality, allow a manager to fully bed in) then it can pay dividends after a couple of seasons. See "Robson, R 2000/01" as an example. I think that says a lot about you as a supporter that you don't see the difference in finishing 8th or 14th tbh. Ignoring insignificant amounts of additional revenue which are larger than our normal transfer spend, one not insignificant difference for the club would be the perception of the players in the squad or of potential signings of the likelihood of the team progressing and getting into Europe in the following season. Others are the increased ability to attract more and better paid advertising, sell corporate boxes, fill the ground, sell shirts, etc, etc. I'm looking at the list of sales & players released by Robson in those years, and with the possible exception of Domi & Goma I'm failing to see the quality of players like Milner, N'Zogbia, Given, Bassong, Martins, Carroll, Nolan, Barton & Enrique being sold for massive profits, leaving for more ambitious clubs, or being released for being "trouble makers". There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that if Ashley had owned the club in 2000/01 that we would have sold Shearer, and Robson would have been out the door for being awkward and too demanding if he didn't walk first.

If the game is to stay in the Premier League while making profits on transfers, then yes it's played 2, won 1, lost 1. If the game is to finish as high in the Premier League as you can with the resources available, then it's played 2, lost 2.

The stadium loan was only triggered by change of control, which is a pretty standard clause. With regards to the cash crunch, the club would still have found a buyer, but for significantly less than Ashley paid for it. Going back to the question earlier, that UV kindly skirted, what possible scenario do you suggest Shepherd could have had for paying off the stadium debt (and the extra £16m loan) when it became due in 2016? The change of control clause only brought the repayment date forward by 9 years. I'd be really impressed if someone could explain how Shepherd was planning to generate £50m of surplus revenue during that period (bear in mind that he constantly took out of the club during his tenure). I wasn't aware I skirted anything. Are you seriously trying to suggest that it would have been necessary to be debt free by 2016? That no-one would have been willing to lend any money at all to a club which had never defaulted on any loans in the past and was consistently in the top 20 revenue generating clubs in the world? Not being able to significantly increase the debt is one debatable point, not being able to loan any money at all is beyond even your usual level of ridiculous doom-mongering for the inevitable destruction of the club under the previous owners.

The idea that the whole debt would have had to be paid off paid by 2016 or else.... LEEDS & PORTSMOUTH!!!!!! Accountants sans agenda should be a bit more objective IMO. Matt has it about right. The debt was not a major problem and the wages were too high for the squad we had, however they were not too far in excess of what we could afford, so I'd argue with the "leaking cash at an alarming rate" comment. In spite of the oft repeated "loss of £30 million for the year" the cash flow loss (the important number) was actually less than £10m, and that was with a net transfer spend of over £10m (shockingly extravagant I know!!!) and paying interest fees. In these more enlightened times this might be seen as madness, however back then when our main striker got injured for the season before it began the owners took the decision to try and replace him! This inevitably increased the wage bill to a level which was more than desirable, however it wasn't done completely recklessly as it was done in the knowledge that Premiership TV revenues would be increasing the following year by £18m and would be affordable in the future. Simply put, if the club had been run in the same way it was in 2008 as it was in 2007, with a similar net transfer spend of around £10m, but with no increase or only a small increase in the wage bill, then the debt would not have increased, and in fact could easily have been reduced. Instead Ashley decided that all transfer fees would be paid up front when buying (but not when selling) and allowed the wage bill to go up by £10m. This, and the revenue falls of following years is what has caused the debt to sky rocket, not the policies of the previous owners. The owed transfer fees for the likes of Milner, N'Zogbia, Given, Bassong & Martins only served to stop the debt increasing in our year in the Championship, and the money from Carroll will have paid off some of the extra debt, but there will still be plenty more additional debt put onto the club by Ashley that can be paid off by selling our best players in the future. Good times ahead!

If it's for the next 10 years than let it be. At least we won't have a chance to sell our great youngsters. Aye The potential punishment would only be a ban on signing new players, we could still sell players.

Wouldn't be an issue if footballers all weren't massive c***s and actually played the game because they enjoy it. Such a f***ing waste of a career 90% of this country would kill to have. I'd struggle to find anyone who wouldn't play football for £1000 a week, yet these pricks are winging at dropping from £150k to around £60-70k. f***ing bellends Aye, a f***ing sad state of affairs. Not quite the poverty line is it. And to soften the blow of only having £70k a fucking week wages, they get to play football in front of 40,000 fans every week. Poor lambs Adebayor earns more than 28,000 times as much money as someone on the official UN poverty line. Cool. Can you work out how many incubators for premature babies the tax he pays on that 150kpw buys? You want to halve that number? You want babies to die?

http://i.imgur.com/xqHgA.png

The "the £35m will really allow us to push on as a team" mantra turned shamelessly into "it really doesn't matter how much we spend as long as the squad has improved on paper" patter for posters like Ozzie ages ago tbh. If we actually do somehow end up spending something like £10m net (which is the sort of amount we could afford to spend from operating profit alone without the sale of Carroll) he'll probably be back gloating about how brilliant Ashley is for subsidising the club.

Ian W criticises the management of the club. Bookmark it.

If the rules state that you can't discuss terms with a player until you've got permission from his club, how do you suggest we negate that hurdle? Chatty man's dad gets all the info he needs from taxi drivers and his spidey senses apparently.

Thank goodness we do our homework now and don't spend months chasing players like that.

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/03/13/toon-scout-graham-carr-scours-globe-for-talent-79310-28326328/2/ http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/graham-carr/aufeinenblick/trainer_7288.html

You not impressed with Pancrate, Best & Perch? You negative bastard, you obviously would only be happy if we bought a squad of Ronaldos and Messis!!1!!1!! To be fair none of the players you've mentioned where 'Carr signings'. He was chief scout at the time. Who's were they? Hughton's?

You not impressed with Pancrate, Best & Perch? You negative bastard, you obviously would only be happy if we bought a squad of Ronaldos and Messis!!1!!1!!

Can't see it happening tbh.

Obertan is 22.

Do you save these old posts to your hard drive then file them in alphabetical order for future reference? Do you forget every moronic thing you say as soon as you've said it? I'm starting to realise it's a really hard concept for some to grasp, but there's a thing called a "search". You should really ask someone to explain it to you. You might have heard of a company called "google" they made this kind of thing quite popular on the internet. I know that you tool, it's more a reference to your need to go digging out old posts to try and undermine someone's view. I don't know what you think it's going to prove other than your own psychological issues. Erm, it proves by your own judgement you can barely tell your arse from your elbow.

Credit to Pardew, he saw Shola & Ba up front wasn't working in the first half and earlier than you might have expected he took the least effective of them off which was one of "his" new signings and replaced him with a player who improved us as a team. That was a good move and took some bottle I didn't expect.

Do you save these old posts to your hard drive then file them in alphabetical order for future reference? Do you forget every moronic thing you say as soon as you've said it? I'm starting to realise it's a really hard concept for some to grasp, but there's a thing called a "search". You should really ask someone to explain it to you. You might have heard of a company called "google" they made this kind of thing quite popular on the internet.