Teasy

He paid over the odds at the time when he spent £134 million to buy the club (that was a premium on share prices). He paid off £70, er £80 million, er sorry he now claims £110 million in debt. If we were in a similar position as when he bought us logically we'd be worth about £230 million. But we're currently in a worse Footballing state, fans want him gone and we're managerless. We probably are only worth about £200 million. At best he could ask for a premium over and above our real worth, but a £180 million premium is just a little bit over the top

Exactly, and in the past I would have believed Ashley. Now after all the bollocks that's come from his mouth I don't know who to believe.

Do we still believe the "club could have folded" line though? I mean I have no doubt that had Ashley not paid that money the club would be in big trouble. But that amount was only payable immediately because he took over! Otherwise it was payable over many many years like any mortgage. Don't get me wrong, its still good that its paid, but it doesn't mean that the club was in massive financial trouble before he took other.

Indi, yes they took out loans to pay for a stadium extension and for transfers. I get what you're saying, but I don't understand how it changes my point. I think we're just misunderstanding each other here. This stems from James post asking how a fans consortium would afford to pay for the likes of wages ect. My point was and still is that Freddy Shepherd didn't "afford it", so why would a fans consortium need to? Shepherd used money generated by Newcastle United and took loans out in Newcastle United name to pay for things, he didn't do it personally. Mike Ashley came in and found that because of the contract the Halls had with the bank any new ownership meant that the stadium mortgage had to be paid off straight away. Which is not a situation a fans consortium would find themselves in. Everything to do with actually running the club is still being paid for by Newcastle United Football Club, not Ashley personally. I mean I understand that technically because the stadium mortgage is linked to revenue at the club and so in turn running the club Ashley did sort of pay for past costs. But do you see how that's really beside the point I was making?

Of course there are only a certain number of Champions League places, there are only a certain number for Liverpool and Chelsea, only those same places for Man City to go for as well, but you don't see any of them saying "why bother?, we might not make it". I'd rather be in a position of finishing 5th and actually having the chance of finishing top four or better then languish in no mans land with no chance of going anywhere, wouldn't you? It don't get how wanting to compete and at least have the chance of Champions League or even winning things is stupid just because it might not happen, nothing is ever guaranteed, the only thing that's really stupid is not trying for fear or losing.

The likes of Owen's fee may be spread out like that in the accounts, I don't know so I'm not going to argue about it. Either way if you spend big in a season it will still increase spending that season. Due to the fact you then have past transfers still being paid for plus the new ones. Each season players that were still being paid for will drop off the books and if you're not adding big fee's to the books in those seasons then you're going to start saving.

You think we managed to get all, or even many, of our transfers to be little up front and spread of many years? I don't see it as likely, most deals will be a significant portion up front with the rest spread over a few years.

How exactly does that mean I have no point? Yes we'll still be paying instalments for some players. But its inevitable that the largest single payment will be paid up front, and it also doesn't change the fact that our revenue will now be at least 20% higher then it was then because of the new TV money.

We didn't have Champions League Football for the season our last revenue data comes from, which is what I'm basing this off, our revenue was £88 million. The season before when we had no European Football at all it was £84 million so yes we can say that no Uefa cup Football loses us a few million but not anything significant. Add the extra TV money and we should still be well over £100 million at the moment. I'm not saying its easy to dramatically increase revenue, I'm saying that there's no reason to believe a fans consortium run properly should have any more trouble doing it then any of the owners we've had in the past. I'm also saying that at the end of the day everything is paid for from the club, none of the owners before have made charitable donations so I see no reason why a fans consortium should be at any disadvantage financially. Note I'm not arguing that I think this consortium would work, it'll probably never happen and if it did it would have to be organised extremely well and have the right people behind it, even then you have fans in control to a degree and that could be a disaster. Who knows, I'm only talking about financial stuff

Revenue doesn't stay static, for instance our revenue will have increased quite a lot recently with the extra TV money. Also any board, not just the likes of Shepherd or Ashley, can go out and do things to bring extra money in, which then increased revenue. We were spending more then we were bringing in because we were spending quite a lot on transfers, our revenue covered our wages, operating costs, repayments on loans with money left over.

the club was making a loss, and how do you know money wasn't available? but just not spent? also there is no reason to think it was going to be spent on transfers, and last season i think he invested a bit more than £20million. The club was making a loss when Freddy was spending massive transfer fee's on the likes of Owen. We would not be making a loss now with such a small amount of money being spend on transfers, we'll be making profit, especially with the extra TV money. I'm sure money was available, I've always been one of the people who's said that just because money isn't spent it doesn't mean its not available. But I don't believe for a second that amount of money was available. Last season we spent something like £8 million on transfers by the way. This season around £4 million.

So then you're saying that Freddy Shepherd subsidised Newcastle United, because he took out loans?.. Of course loans have to be paid off, when did I say they didn't? But the likes of Shepherd and Ashley don't pay them! They are paid off by payments that come from revenue. Just like they were under Shepherd, just like they still are under Ashley. The same revenue that a fans consortium would have available to it. What is your actual point here anyway? My point is that any fans consortium would have the same money available to it as any Newcastle owner in the past. None of them have actually put in personal money to pay players wages, or for club running costs or transfers, so why should it be a concern for a fans consortium? BTW yet again Ashley paid off the mortgage on the stadium, not past transfer fee's ect

More like misleading really. Who knows, you might be right he might have meant money from his own personal bank account, so there should have been spare revenue from the last two seasons plus £40 million from Ashley available for transfers this summer, anyone believe that?

He said he was willing to subsidise up to £20 million a year. Not that now we'll ever get to find out if he would have or not. How much would you bet against that "subsidy" being from club revenue, yeah technically its his money since he owns the club, but its money generated by the club itself.

Read your own post and you should see that if debt was used to subsidise the club's running costs and he them paid off that debt then he's subsidising the running costs. Where has it been said that the only debt he paid off was the stadium debt. In fact what difference does it make? It all goes on the same balance sheet at the end of the day. I knew what you meant, but its pedantic and not relevant to what I was talking about. James claims a fans consortium couldn't afford to subsidise operating costs, wages and transfers, I'm saying that those things are not subsidised by owners. They come from club revenue and in the case of transfers sometimes bank loans in the past. The fact that Ashley found he had to pay off the mortgage on the stadium when he took over due to the contract the bank had with the Hall's doesn't change that fact.

When did he subsidise operating costs wages or transfer fee's?, never is the answer. He invested £100 million to pay off stadium debt, completely different thing. The fact is it doesn't require subsidising as revenue covers it, the only thing that could use subsidising is transfer fee's and if a fans consortium did that it would be the first time in Newcastle history.. Not saying I think fan ownership will actually happen by the way, at least this time around..

What are you on about?, tell me which owner in the past has ever subsidised operating costs, wages or transfers at Newcastle United? Nobody has, its all paid for from club revenue (match tickets, TV money, merchandise) and bank loans ect.. How would any of that change should the club be owned by the fans? They aren't going to give away a season ticket for life to share owners you know...

Eh?

That offer is extremely low, but that's no reason not to turn up to the planned meeting, that's no way to negotiate, its scompletely unprofessional. He's probably burnt his bridges now in Dubai, what a tosser!

They look fuck all alike.. Also you could get beaten up in some bar in Chester-le-Street just for looking at someone the wrong way never mind looking like Mike Ashley, which he doesn't anyway

Aye, actually. Do measure success in how quickly he does it? How much are you willing to bet that the club is worth more than double what it is now in three years? How come the season tickets are going up for next year? He's pissing millions away, apparently. Why does he need an extra £20 off me? Naive beyond belief. If he ends up selling for £450 million then you'd have a point. I can't see him getting that though.

So when he does something good like pays off £100 million of debt he's only paying off "his debt" but when he does something bad he's making a fool of "our club". Do you ever post anything positive you miserable little person? And? The fact that he paid off those debts is still a good thing, it just doesn't prove he currently has the best interests of the club at heart that's all.

It was supposed to be Jimenez that was in Dubai yesterday, so Ashley also now being there could mean something is developing.

who scored? For the Spuds?, it was a deflected goal from Bent. Definite Bent goal? i had a bet on he would score at some point in the game Yeah, Jenas had a shot and it deflected off bent and went in so it has to be Bents.

who scored? For the Spuds?, it was a deflected goal from Bent.