Zero

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. In the OP. Was the 138m included in NUFC's own balance sheet? No, 'Gross debt' but its the reductions in this debt that caused me to post this. Who is paying down this debt, from which sources and why? If its club money, then its not a LBO but not far away in principle. Same as Quayside, I dislike the presentation of the OP because it's very misleading. I trust/hope you aren't intentionally do so. So, the first question is, the 138m, what does that mean? It should be the price Ashley paid to the former owners and this is irrelevant to NUFC's own financial statement. It should be the price "paid by Ashley" rather than "owe to Ashley". So to say this is the money the club "owe to Ashley" is wrong, even though this figure does represent a bottom line for Ashley to sell the club for breakeven. And the second question is, how does the amount get decreased? I am not sure but in accounting sense, the club cannot just pay out cash to its owner unless it's through drawings or dividends. The latter is impossible since the club is keep on making a loss. So my bet would be on drawings. But why? The 138m figure is not in balance sheet so I couldn't get it. Where do you get the figure and how do you know it's 132m later? Mind to show your source again? Apologize if you've already uploaded it somewhere. The only scenario that makes your worries come true is the owner, in the name of SJH, did make a drawing of 6m and thus the 138m figure becomes 132m, which is still the bottom line for Ashley to break even. In fact nothing has changed - because by doing so the club's value gone downwards by 6m as well and this won't help him much to get a higher selling price. Whether Ashley can draw out 140m is really questionable - and I doubt whether the club has 140m net assets as well. Quayside, I am not familiar with UK accounting, but is drawings like this allowed in UK GAAP?

You got a point. He's just not having an outstanding pace/leap but he isn't that weak.

I remember there's a report that if Ashley didn't bought the club, we are heading for Administration very soon. That's the reason why Freddy Shepherd hire Sam Allardyce - to run the club at a very low cost because we were in deep deep trouble.

I really hadn''t thought that there had been any reduction in any of the sums owed to Ashley in the published info. But I'll have a look at the accounts tomorrow and get back with an answer. In the OP. Was the 138m included in NUFC's own balance sheet?

Best has the best shooting "sense" among our forwards. He knows exactly when to shoot and thus even he doesn't got great physique and technique he still manage to score a few goals, especially against weak teams.

It's too broad a question though, who knows? I'm not aware of anyone who hasn't criticised a lot of what Ashley has done. You could equally put it the other way round - what would Ashley have to do to make you think he was doing some things right? Buy one of the most exciting attacking midfielders in Europe? Sign a French league winner and one of the best defensive midfielders in the league? Get a promising young Italian international fullback from Inter Milan? Bounce back from a relegation, finish the season well and start the following season with some good results? Put our finances on a sounder footing? But I wouldn't ask it like that because I know it's not black and white. I'm not trying to speak up on Ashley's behalf, I'm trying to highlight that the situation at the club isn't as dire as some people think, and everything we do isn't bad or part of some evil plan to punish Geordies. Get a striker in as well, that'd at least shows he cares and does have a plan. We've had a decent window but we're relying on Shola,Lovercrap, Ba & Best. I like Best, I think he's seriously underrated by some on here, who knows with Ba atm. Shola is just Shola & Lovercrap shouldn't be anywhere near the team. I agree we should have got another striker, and that's a failure. As you said though, we've had a decent window. Personally i would have been worried who we would have sold in order to sign a striker so perhaps we're better off as it is. This is just purely speculation to what will happen in the coming years based on the assumption that Ashley trying to make NUFC more attractive to potensial buyers: GKs: Steve Harper - Think he will be gone next season. Either retiring or being release. Tim Krul - Think he'll stay on for 1 or 2 season. If he continues his current performance I can see him being sold (champ league football/ incredible offfer) Forster - will leave after this season. I think Krul would be sold for over 10m next summer and we'll install Forster. That's why it's a season-long loan for Forster instead of a permanent one.

Nah, just an example. I mean Ashley did expect the club to pay him back the 140m, even though the club is not "liable" to it in accounting sense.

The club doesn't owe him the "acquisition cost". Just like you buy a car, would the car owe you the price and should pay you back the money? No. However you do expect the car to give you back the value to use at least equal to the price you paid.

Has the transfer window been extended just for us? How kind of FIFA! I understand the frustration that we can't get one more striker. But that's debatable because we could be better off playing a 4-5-1 formation instead of 4-4-2. Nearly every football fans other than NUFC thought we have a marvelous transfer window by being able to dispose old players like Nolan and Barton while getting players like Cabaye and Santon on a ridiculous low price. The only downside they said is we sold Enrique for too little money. Believe it or don't.

Restart this pool one month later please.

When Ashley bought the club for 140m (which wouldn't appear inside the NUFC balance sheet), he didn't know the club is in huge debt and was immediately mature upon change of shareholders (thanks the mutha fucka Freddy Shepherd) At that time he just thought like "ok i have got spare money around 300m, i can do an abramovich and become a Geordie hero" because he did prepare another 100m for huge spending. Thought back the time when he wear the Smith and Coloccini shirt. He did want to be a big spender. But then 2 things happen and completely change his plan: 1. he has to put another 140m in order to save the club from meltdown (this appears as a loan to the club WITH NO INTEREST BEARING) 2. the financial tsunami And then together with extremely poor results and fall-out with the fans, his next plan was to sell the club. This was probably not for profit, but just a loss-cutting measure. However it didn't materialize and this caused us a relegation and a huge depreciation in club value for him. Then his next plan, the one that I personally agree (not as a NUFC fans but as an investor) with, is to "increase the club value". How? 1. Ensure the club is in EPL and try to go upstairs and nick an European Competition spot 2. Keep the spending below revenue, i.e. no more net loss Then what can Ashley get from this plan? By increasing the club's value, he can get his money back by attracting a higher bid. The point is, he cannot get all his money back solely from the loan repayment because there is no interest bearing. Milking out dividends is also impossible because it means the club has to generate 140m profit from "football business". I can bet everything I have that this is impossible. The only way is to sell the club, and the best timing is when the club is having regular European competition and is quite reputable in the world. That's the reason why we are able to get those ridiculous bargain deals (5m for Cabaye, Santon, 3m for Tiote, free for Marveaux) because everything else would be too risky to his plan. These deals are the only deals he would approve and so all our scouts are trying their best to find gems and loopholes instead of scouting an established player. I cannot disagree much with this plan because the best thing we are hoping for is a new owner and that's probably the same for him. And by doing so we have to be successful on the pitch as well and that's where I saw the goal alignment. To be honest I feel like Ashley started to manage the club like his own company after relegation and that's why except for spending big on key players, all the other major decisions he made were pretty spot on. He is a very clever and mean businessman and there is a reason why he became a billionaire.

If that's the case, I wonder how can La Liga sustain? It sounds like only Barca and RM do not have financial trouble?

No, it doesn't make sense. Athletico own Forlan 5m in wages?

Seriously, I'd rather play Sameobi or Shameobi rather than this guy. So sick of the whole saga.

Our inzaghi

Are you f*** Critical hit, that.

Aye, if they'd signed him for say £4m and you take that off what their supposed wage package is you get to around £55k... as he was on here. He's benefitted massively from us giving him away, and so has his agent. There's little difference to QPR. Wonder whether QPR would still be interested in signing him if he cost £4m? As you say the money overall is about the same, but it seems like a much bigger gamble when you're paying a fee. If Barton plays well QPR can sell him to make a great profit since the wages unpaid are saved. On the other hand, if he's s***, they could still offload him, say, for free before his contract ends. So in the end it's us who suffer most.

If he wasn't leave for free, he won 't be on 75k.

No. It's from the Ameobi clen. 350m is the minimum.

This, too. He has done his best everytime and did contribute a lot in past years. Have some respect on him please. He is not Smith.

He should train up his crossing. With such a powerful left leg, his crossing's quality is quite bad to be honest.

The main reason why we are limited to long balls is because of Gosling. We could build up nicely by short passing if it's Tiote who partner with Cabaye.

The end of Ranger.

Probably due to the "Ameobi Genes".

That's what a Captain should do.