Teasy

No one was demanding that he leave this time so why pretend he wants to sell?

Ask Shepherd and the Hall's, they made nearly £200m. Aye, but only by putting the club in massive debt and then flogging it to a mental. Can lightning strike twice? A mental , I like it. I didn't mean the total Ashley paid including the debt by the way, just the £134 they got for the club as well as all the money they'd taken in wages and share dividends.

Ask Shepherd and the Hall's, they made nearly £200m.

I agree we're not worth that purely in business terms I didn't claim we were. I'm talking about what we're worth in the current market based on what people pay for Football clubs (especially what people were willing to pay for us not 6 months ago). Most clubs bought these days aren't worth half what people pay for them in real business terms, most don't make money and in fact are insolvent. Its not just profit people are interested in but also the status of owning a Football club. In pure business terms we weren't worth £200m 6 months ago, but people were willing to pay more then that. £80-£90m seems reasonable in the current market, like I said £100m is on the high side but not as bonkers as some think IMO. It'll probably go for £90m or something. By the way we do have a guarentee of reducing the wage bill, we're guarenteed to chop £15m off it in July. While nothing more then that can be guarenteed there are certain players on high wages who will make sure they leave and have plenty of clubs interested. We'd only need to sell 4 or 5 of them to remove the other £15m+.

Like I said, Ashley was offered over £200m by two seperate parties last time he tried to sell.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £55m and a Premiership valuation of between £200m to £250m and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. The fact that four consortiums are interested at £100 million means in itself that the club hasn't been overvalued. As with all assets, the price depends on the level of demand and the perceived resale value down the line. All highly artificial. Yep, its all based on what people are willing to pay and the potential return. As a Premiership club even making big losses people were willing to pay over £200m, its been said many times that the people who took over Man City offered over £200m to Ashley but he wouldn't accept much under £400m Same thing was then said by the bloke who's now taking over Portsmouth. Obviously the club will lose value dropping from the Premiership, revenue will drop by at least £40m and the status of being in the Premiership itself is important to a clubs value. However wages are also planned to fall by at least £35m. £100m is no doubt at the high end of what the club is worth (£80-£90 would be more reasonable) but I don't see it as an insane price. Just getting the club back up to the Premiership can more then double that investment.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £50m and a Premiership valuation of £200m+ and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. So basically you have no basis? You want someone to pay £100m for a club that is operating at a loss, even before amortisation of players, that is expecting a fall in revenue from c£100m to £50m (optimistic as well), which with the current cost structure of the business translates into a much greater loss and for some bizarre, irrelevant premiership valuation that is again based on nothing apart from Mike Ashely's stupidity. Just because Mike Ashley was fool enough to pay silly money, doesn't mean its actually worth that. I agree with Parky, £100m is inflated and if you actually look at the numbers, a lot of that £100m value would have to be 'goodwill' as the numbers don't stack up. , you disagree with my reasoning so my opinion has no basis, well I disagree with you therefore yours has no basis I'd be interested in having a discussion but not an angst ridden internet war of words, I'm sick of those. Come back to me if you're willing to do that.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £55m and a Premiership valuation of between £200m to £250m and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for.

Yeah, just joking with the £50m. I'd take the bet at £65m vs £100m.

I assume you mean £1 for every £1m under £100m? Like I said its dependant on the loan debt, IF Ashley expects his loan back then I wouldn't expect anyone to pay more then £20m for the club at the very most. Right so I have to give you £1 for every £1m under £100m including loan debt (so if it sells for £20m and the accounts tell us Ashley is still owed £100m loan that counts as £120m sale price). You have to give me £1 for every £1m over £50m including debt

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley.

That's part of Seymour Pierce's job.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. 100m with Ashley's debt written off isn't a crazy price at all.

It won't happen, man. If the sale falls through Ashley can't (or won't) pay for him and his plans. I didn't mention a long term contract though. I know they couldn't do that as the new owners, and Shearer himself, would need to discuss their plans first. But they could put him in charge as an interim manager until the takeover is complete, which is what they said they would do if all parties agreed they wanted him anyway. That way he can take the start of training and work on future plans in an official capacity and when the new owner comes in they can look at a long term deal. Obviously as we all suspected it was yet more empty promises from Llambias.

I thought they said that if the interested parties all wanted Shearer he could be appointed as an interim manager until the full takeover so he could get started on sorting this mess out. Well the two parties that are closest to a deal both want him so get him in! Fuck the other two!!

Owen, Cacapa, Viduka, Edgar, Lovenkrands and Gonzales, 1.2m plus per month.

Yes we can (going a bit Bob on you there). End of the day who wants Barton or Smith at the club for any longer than is necessary? Getting rid of them would only boost the clubs profile to have such shite off the books and cash in the coffers. There are certain players this can be said about, others its important we hang on unless we get a very good offer which would be accepted by almost any party. Doesn't mean we don't get the ball rolling, only a big bunch of thick twats would let a sinking ship drop anchor. oh. Well I agree, and just about everyone on here would also, that certain players should go no matter what. But obviously Ashley doesn't see it as so clear cut. He may not want to risk any potential trouble caused by selling players before a sale is complete. Or he may just not give a shit anymore and want to leave it all for the new owner, or a bit of both.

Definitely, but can we do that with people looking to buy the club? Surely any new owner would have to be involved in that decision. This is why its so important for the new owner to come in as soon as possible.

In our case it's probably x10 worse. He's assumed the very worst possible outcome in every situation, so how could it be worse? The article shouldn't be called "The true price of buying Newcastle United". It should be called "Buying Newcastle United, a worst case scenario".

Was just going through the bit I thought was really inaccurate and had my post finished when I realised I'd misread what he'd written Still think its too full of supposition and written to make things seem as grim as possible. He recons all transfer fee's have to be paid in full before a player is sold. Has anyone else here ever heard of that rule? If we have a contract to pay for a player in installments then why can't we sell that player and continue to pay for him in installments? He also mentions a figure we'll have left to pay for the players we want to sell off (which is guesswork by the way as he has no idea what installment system we agreed to when signing each player). Yet he doesn't even try to figure out what we're still owed for the players we've sold in that time. Considering we've actually sold players for more money then we've spent since Ashley arrived it must be as significant number, if not more then the one we'd have to pay out. He talks about image rights saying that they can be paid in two ways, 10% of merchandise with the players face on it or 10% extra on his yearly wage. But he assumes we're paying every player extra on their wage, with no facts to back that up. Considering the size of our wage bill (£70m) vs what we make on merchandise (£10m+?) it wouldn't make financial sense to pay it that way (£7m vs less then £1m) now I know this is Newcastle were financial sense seems to have gone out of the window for a long time but that doesn't mean its ok to assume the worst in every instance. Its still an interesting and worrying article though.

Great article? Its full of supposition, inaccuracies and unconfirmed rumour all shoved together to make things sound as bad as possible.

Ooh here comes the Everton brigade I take it you lot haven't enjoyed Football since the Premier League started then? Big money coming into the game may have changed it for the worse but it didn't kill it. Numerous Football sides being run purely as play things is a far more worrying trend. But I suppose you two will tell yourself its not due to the mere sniff of an arab takeover.. Are you from 1992? Yes I was alive in 1992 so you could say I came from there, via the last 17 years, and you?

RIP English Football.

So you're seriously telling me you think we won't get more then £12m for: Coloccini Martins Jonas Enrique Nolan Barton Smith Duff Geremi Butt Bassong Xisco Common be serious FFS, we've been relegated now liquidated.

Well that's nonsense because we'd get most of that just by selling Bassong. The likes of Smith, Nolan, Martins and Collocini will all bring in a few million each. You're obviously forgetting these are now players that got relegated. There won't be any inflated fees going around, we're desperate to get rid and people will not meet our pay demands because they know we're desperate. No, they meant £12m for the two deals they mentioned specifically (Martins and Coloccini). You recon because we're relegated and we want rid of players that means we'll get £12m total for 12 players including the likes of Martins, Jonas, Coloccini and Enrique