Wilky

Before people would trust to crowd fund the thing they'd have to be sure that we could feasibly do it, and that's why it would be nice to have some experienced businessman or something on board. I could say I want to set up the club send me the money but quite frankly why would anyone, I'm a fairly lowly 27 year old admin guy at a small charity. If there is first steps it should be trying to just gauge interest from a wider audience. It may be worth reaching out the the AshleyOut guys who are decent at getting the message out, though they'd probably not want to admit defeat in their campaign so soon. The commercial reality is a businessman is not just going to throw money at this imo. Partnership with Ashleyout.com and NUST to publicise is more sensible with a good social media strategy. If it fails any monies to go to the SBR foundation. But you are right i terms of experience. If there is a group who help these starter clubs then they are first port of call

As I said in the Schteve thread, simply Newcastle Football Club is sufficient, using the city coat of arms as abadge. Dreams about getting high profile legends on board is a discussion to be had at a later date, you need to walk before you run. It is unlikely any shortcuts getting up the league is sensible, the Northern League is a good place to start and there are plenty grounds you can groundshare initially. Sam Smith's Park in Walkergate I think is the only one within the city. North Tyneside has a few new options with Coach Lane (Team Northumbria), also North Shields and Whitley Bay grounds. If it takes off then hundreds of fans turn into thousands then Kingston Park is the next obvious stepping stone (Newcastle Thunder crowds have only been in the hundreds there). I doubt it is cheap though. Celtic Nation have just folded from the Northern League due to finances. It needs quick action because if you do not have it in place for season start otherwise its another year lost. You would need publicity to raise capital. Maybe the AshkeyOut boys would back a breakaway until real change at NUFC is obtained. It offers an alternative for fans to attend as well to keep people away from SJP. Is there enough of us to make this a serious prospect or are we going to spend a few pages talking stupid names before it fizzles out?

Go ahead then, it won't happen by itself. Apologies soopafan On a more serious note, I'm in favour of it, it's a good idea. I agree, wanted something like this to happen for years but how do you go about starting? Also copying FCUM I think lacks originality. Surely simply Newcastle Football Club. Losing the United is symbolic as that club is far from. One day we may be united but until fans have a controlling stake in a club we will always just be a rich mans plaything in this modern era. but.... nowt will happen

Meh. Was laughing at the end. My love for what the club is now is non existent. My last game at SJP was the derby in 2009 (Stephen Taylor's swan dive penalty game). I took the view after that transfer window when we sold Given and N'Zogbia and did not reinvest monies despite the perilous situation that why should I put my money in if it isn't going to be reinvested. I said to myself I'd go back if Ashley changed his ways. 6 years later..... What disappoints me is the fans and continually putting money in the fat mans pocket. My loyalty was questioned them but pals have now come round to my way of thinking. Yet attendances still high. Been watchin Northern League footy in last few months which is quite good actually. Just wish as a group of fans we could get a breakaway club going. I'm sure people wouldget behind it.

My money is on his ex Wimbledon buddy John Fashnu, in training players can try and get through the eliminator whilst Cheik Tiote smashes them with Pugils whilst they try and climb the travellator Whilst I jest what is frightening is that it is plausible at this circus

fucking hell, didn't realise that video was still circulating. Why the fuck did I put Sports World in the title? - oooops

So er it isn't on one of the national radio stations?

Anybody know if this is on a national radio station, can't see owt on fivelive or talksport websites but then again got crap mobile internet here (wales) - tv in holiday cottage can't pick up itv4 and pubs more interested in scousers

I did History as an undergraduate and nineteenth century social history was one of the modules. It is a serious text but James Walvin's 'the people's game' is possibly the most interesting book I have ever read.

The Mrs and all her family are Man U fans (from Manchester as well). We haven't beaten them since I started seeing her. That was 8 f***ing years ago. Started seeing her something like a fortnight before the infamous Paul Scholes hattrick game. I'm sick of getting humped by them.

I think what annoys people about the current situation is that the debt (and correct if I am wrong - and I am sure some smug get will), this debt is largely the result of Ashley's buffoonary. If he had done due dillegence when buying the club he would have realised the club was worth half what he paid, so immediately we are £100m in debt to Ashley (on top of the money he paid for the club) and he will hold on to the club till such time he can recoup the majority of that debt. The reality is that in 2007 this club had c. £100m debt but post takeover that debt was c. £230m given the price he purchased the club at on top. That debt has clearly climbed as a result of club mismangement (in part down to the previous regime) and in part down to the current regime through relegation. But am I supposed to be grateful to a man who has done nothing more than protect his bad investment from going bust? That is not to say I am blind to give credit to the model being put in place at the moment with regards to the wage bill, but I must say I am struggling to be wholly appreciative of Mike Ashley.

I haven't been to a home game for two years now, I made a concious decision not to put any money into Ashley's plaything. I fully expect to get abuse for that but I refuse to be called a 'casual fan'. I went to many away games in the Championship, although not as many as I would have liked since promotion. The only way to get the guy to move on is to cut his cashflow, obviously with TV money it is more difficult that in the early 90s but I really can't understand anyone purchasing a season ticket next year. By all means get individual tickets for games but thousands of people stumping up hundreds of pounds only sends one message to Ashley. He can do what he likes. This club has no ambition and the best we can hope for is treading water. The longer the fans rock up unquestioning the longer this will continue.

I have recently been looking into my family history so I dug out all the ordnance survey maps I have collated. My Byker & Heaton map is dated 1895, which is around the date you talk about but sadly it only extends south as far as the cross road of Raby Street and Avondale Road (well just south of this point) and I believe the area you refer to is south of here. However on my St Anthony's and Bill Quay map (which is dated 1912) there is a football ground listed immediately west of St Anthony's Church. Obviously NUFC will have been 20 years old by this point and long gone from the area, but if you click the link below I have scanned the document. http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/1404/nufceastend.jpg

the white Geremi then? Except with some sort of effort - also can't be as slow as Geremi shirley?

comments from the Brum fans are interesting, slow but good at crossing is what he appears to be which to an extent suits our style. Look what happened when Barton got suspended, or even against Spurs where he couldn't pass to save his life. Need more creative bodies in midfield and at the price talked about, can't complain too much. Still need a striker desperately like, and a competent replacement at left back for Jose.

having calmed down and had time to take stock and rationalise the situation, I am still of the opinon that starving Ashley of funds is the only way in which to force him out. The ultimate aim IMO is to rid the club of Ashley, regardless of what league we are in. Would love to see a proper campaign threatening boycott if Ashley fails to sell the club by the end of the season, almost a 'leave the club or we're not coming back' campaign which threatens a serious dent to his balance sheet from next season if he is still here. Just venting my opinion, it maybe worthless it channels my frustration.

You can still be a supporter of Newcastle United, however IMO, and it is just my opinon before the holier than thou get on their high horse, the main objective should be to get rid of Ashley. Is it really worth preserving with the crap that he throws our way? I think, and again it is just my opinion that the only way to force a sale is to hit Ashley where it hurts. Clearly abuse is not the way to go and boycotting the matches at home is the only way to go about it IMO. I would love to see a situation where more fans are stood outside SJP during a match than in it - no more money for Ashley is the only way to go. Is relegation and administration any worse than years with this idiot in charge? Its a big call, I'm not denying that but it is the best way to rid the club of Ashley, and you would like to think he would flog it before it got that bad, as it is he who stands to lose the most.

Every time the fat f**k does something a reaction like this happens, then everything dies down and still 45k plus turn up week in week out. FFS people, vote with your feet.

Mackem at our work is coincidently off today. Because he was caught speeding last month he has to attend some course to avoid fine and points on license. Didn't appreciate it when I texted him saying he should have just taken some advice off his team yesterday and surrendered the 3 points Equally more satisfying seeing as he was giving it the old man for man better in almost every department last week.

RIP Paul, six feet under, two above

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium. In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort. I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options. 1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it. 2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure. Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions. On a 99 year lease? 99 year leases/long leasehold/effective freeholds are completely different to your typical 10/15/25 year lease. When did the 99 years start as a matter of interest? The standard conditions that you get in just about every lease - .i.e the right of the owner to agree the purpose the land is used for and the right to agree what is built on it - have caused some friction between club and council over the years. But other than that none of us knows what the lease says and what restrictions are on it tbh. About 10 years ago I think. It would be unusual and incredibly naive if the club entered into such a restrictive contract for what is an effective freehold. I could understand a clause against anything other than a football ground, but a clause against borrowing? If you are leasing a property then yes, but land over this length of time? If a council grants a long leasehold to a developer for example (don't forget this is not a unique thing at SJP, there are plenty of properties in the city centre like this) then it is normal for that developer to raise capital based on the valuation of a completed development. As a Chartered Surveyor, I'd be very surprised to see such a clause in this type of lease. Even acounting for Shepherd and Hall's idiocy, it wouldn't make sense for the council to impose it.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium. In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort. I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options. 1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it. 2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure. Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions. On a 99 year lease? 99 year leases/long leasehold/effective freeholds are completely different to your typical 10/15/25 year lease.

I have no idea what the lending rates were back then, nor the reasoning behind Shepherd and Hall's business decisions. And to be honest I'm not interested. I'm also not saying what scenario is at the most risk - I don't know the value of either. Although it is interesting you mention broadcasting rights, because there may lie your answer. The broadcasting rights are incredibly lucrative and back then may have offered a safe investment by lending institutions, post relegation and Premier League security less assured, the stadium may now offer greater security. All I'm saying is that unless there is some bizarre ristriction in place in the long leasehold (and I can't see it) there is no reason why the stadium cannot be mortgaged. I guess we will see when the next accounts are published, which may well confirm the article to be correct.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge). The council can't do anything while we hold the lease to the land, and the council has IIRC made sure the land can't be used for anything over than football while NUFC exist It may well be that it can't be used for anything other than a football stadium, but that in itself has nothing to do with mortgaging the stadium. It means that the existing use value is curtailed, but it is still valuable. Realistically what are the chances of NUFC moving grounds? What are the chances of SJP not being used as a football venue in a town like ours? If the banks won't touch SJP with regards to lending (which I can't see), it is not because the land is on a long leasehold or because the land is restricted in its use. There a thousands of commercial lending loans against properties which are on leasehold land where the covenants are restricted to a certain use.

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).