Teasy

Like I mentioned earlier Mort is here on sabbatical, which by its nature isn't perminant (its usually a year). Also he's a lawyer, not a Football person so I really see little reason to choose him as a long term Chairman. More likely he's there to be Ashley's eyes at the club during the initial takeover and to complete the internal review. Why do I think Ashley wouldn't try to run the club himself? Firstly he's a very good business man and so surely realises he doesn't have the knowledge to run a Football club day to day. Secondly he's a very private person who definitely wouldn't want to be the clubs figure head. Of course, but the positive thing from my point of view is that the buck now stops at the person who isn't running the club day to day. At the end of the day all I care about are the Football decisions, not the business ones. Everyone making the Footballing decisions at Newcastle United are now sackable. Which is a breath of fresh air to someone who had long ago decided it was almost futile to complain. Due to the fact that no matter what manager was in charge the real problem behind the scene's (the man picking the managers and mismanaging them in turn) was untouchable. I understand what you're saying in your post and agree with it long term. My point of view though is that its now a totally clean slate. In a year or so I'll have a better handle on what I think of the new regime and then I may have my complaints. But for now the new owner is getting the benefit of the doubt from me for quite a while yet (as will Sam Allardyce).

With our backroom staff pre Allardyce I wouldn't be suprised..

Just shows the amount of money's gone mad in the game, he's worth 6 mill tops 6 million dollars as well, apparently we're going to pay the equivalent of $14 million for him?.. crazy!

Please don't even think that never mind say it!

I thought this was decided ages ago. Haven't we already paid money to Le Havre??

Mort isn't here as the Chairman. As far as I remember he isn't even here for the long term. When he was appointed I seem to remember it being mentioned that he was merely taking a sabbatical from his normal job. No doubt he has significant power, probably second only to Ashley. But I definitely don't think its planned for him to take over the day to day running of the club long term. But rather to oversee the likes of Shepherd and be Ashley's eyes in the club in the early days of the take over. He'll also be here to speerhead the internal review.

Skepticism is fine, but I have to say I don't see anything mentioned here as a negative point. As a PLC we were already Shepherds play thing anyway. At least now we will not actually be run day to day by the man who owns the club. Its pretty clear that Ashley isn't the kind of person who will try to run a Football club (nor is he in to play things). He will have a chairman, manager ect running the club and they will all be held accountable for there actions. In the past the Chairman was untouchable, now he's just an employee who can even be sacked if he makes the wrong decisions for long enough. Sounds like another step forward to me..

I have to disagree completely, Bellamy was an excellent player for us. Not just his pace and ability to worry defenders and open up space for others. But the fact that everytime you saw his name on the team sheet you knew you'd have at least one player giving everything to win. He was flawed obviously, with his injuries and his disciplinary problems. But I'll always remember his time here with a lot of fondness, even if he is a bit of a w****** So you disagree on some things, but presumably agree that he wasn't a good finisher. Quite a big flaw for a striker though... He wasn't a brilliant finisher, but his scoring record for us was one in every 2.8 games, which is a decent record. Certainly good enough for a player who did a lot more for the team then just score goals.

No offence but why should you know at all? Personally I doubt there has been a direct bid. But there were continued rumours about Arsenal's interest right up until recently and there is very rarely this much smoke without fire. So while he may not have rejected a direct bid from Arsenal he has at least put a stop to Arsenal's interest in him. Something I don't think Owen would have done.

I have to disagree completely, Bellamy was an excellent player for us. Not just his pace and ability to worry defenders and open up space for others. But the fact that everytime you saw his name on the team sheet you knew you'd have at least one player giving everything to win. He was flawed obviously, with his injuries and his disciplinary problems. But I'll always remember his time here with a lot of fondness, even if he is a bit of a w******

There's no chance at all of just over 19 points keeping you up, you'll have to beat 30 to have any hope. The lowest ever is 34 points, but survival is usually around 40. we have a ridzuan moment here. I thought I'd made my point pretty clearly like. Looks like Teasy has just taken Kieran's title. no offence mate My comments aren't in the same league as your latest victim mate... Ones a misunderstanding, the other is MASSIVELY delusional.

Well that's only about 50+ minutes a day It'll also include the times I leave the PC without closing the page. Where do you get those stats anyway?

Honestly, its true!

Oh he meant the team may even be enough to get 17th, rather then just over 19 points possibly being enough. Yeah I can see that now that I re-read it. I thought it was a bit of an insane comment.

There's no chance at all of just over 19 points keeping you up, you'll have to beat 30 to have any hope. The lowest ever is 34 points, but survival is usually around 40. we have a ridzuan moment here. Which in English means? You have to remember that some people don't spend 24 hours on this forum..

There's no chance at all of just over 19 points keeping you up, you'll have to beat 30 to have any hope. The lowest ever is 34 points, but survival is usually around 40.

's a fair point. Plus, Vic was never going to let such an obvious example of hypocrisy fly by. There was no hypocrisy there.

Oh right, imagine the S in that case I'll try to remember in future.

That makes sense yeah, I thought all transfer costs wouldn't be included in one lump sum but I was sure some of it had to be included. Anyway you look at it our spending has certainly had an effect and our profits over the years. As I said earlier I think we would have made a large profit the year after Souness bought the likes of Owen and Luque (around £50 million spent) had he not done so (well it was Shepherd who did it, but you know what I mean). But to be honest I think my whole argument is sort of over anyway if I'm right on my misunderstanding of Baggio's original post so..

Ah right, well the transfer fee's were included in the financial reports, so I don't know how that could be the case. That's not how I read his post, though only Gemmil can tell us exactly what he meant I suppose. I'd be interested to read what he thinks actually if he's got the time to write it all up

He wasn't very specific on what he meant to be honest. Looked to me like he was just saying that people shouldn't mistake a clubs normal income with the occasional player sale. What did you think he meant and why do you think it applys specifically to my posts?

So what is that then? I think outside of transfer fee's our incomings vs outgoings will still be better then Spurs. Anyone have the facts on this? Yes and we could have linked our spending directly to our turnover and still spent significantly more then Spurs.. Am I misunderstanding the point here or something? Was Baggio's point supposed to be: "If we want to continue to spend relatively the same amount of money we have done over the last 10 years then we need to increase our income so we'll be spending within our own turnover like Spurs".. If so yes I agree.

Ok, but what is the difference in wage bills now? After we released lots of deadwood and they took on quite a bit. Also the fact is if we'd been spending the small sums of money Spurs had been on transfer fee's (up until recently) we'd have been making very good profits, larger then that of Spurs. We spent £50 million one season and made a loss that was a small fraction of that amount.

Most of it will come from season ticket sales and the increased TV money. I've not worked it out, but that's probably at least £25m without increasing the debt. He may even put an initial extra amount in himself. However I don't for a second believe that in the long run he will continue to put his own money into the club. In the future we will have no visibility of how much he is putting into or taking out of the club though so who knows. Let me ask you this - Ashley has built his money with a "pile it high, sell it cheap" philosophy, and a permanent "closing down sale, everything must go" marketing strategy. What makes everyone so confident that with NUFC he will adopt a risky strategy of spending big on high quality players in the hope of large rewards (ie top end of the market) rather than spending just enough on decent players to maintain premiership status and occasionally getting into Europe (ie trying to be the best of the mid range market)? What makes you think he's going to be straight up and honest with us supporters when he treats his current customers as mugs? thats what he done with soccer world etc but not his strategy at lillywhites and slazenger,karrimor etc. he has shops which are aimed at a lower market and he knows how to sell in that market but you shouldn't try and make out this is his whole strategy as it isn't. Exactly, to presume he treats every business this way is ridiculous. As for how he's going to run the club, nobody knows how he's going to do it at this point in time, I think it's unrealistic to expect him to continuously pile his own money into the club so I think he'll initially invest money on players with the aim of raising the profile of the club, the raised profile will hopefully lead to a larger income for the club which will eventually lead to it being self sufficient like Spurs have. Our Turnover is greater than that of "Spurs" - always has been in modern times, most of the time FAR greater!! I know that, but Spurs make more profit than us because they have less going out. Us having a greater turnover means nothing when we're still losing money. They certainly don't have less outgoings then us this summer. So where does that leave your argument?..

I thought he was an agent, which surely should entail more then simply being a player salesman.. Parasite..