TRon

If he is cheaper than an adequate replacement for Owen (i.e. a 10 to 15 million pound striker) then get him in! [/Ashley] That's something I hadn't really considered. Ashley might see him as a striker for NEXT season when Owen and Viduka take off. Never underestimate Ashley's eye for a cheap option.

Would that be regardless of salaries/contracts involved Mick ? This is starting to sound like an expensive divorce case between a rich husband and a gold-digging wife.

The board have entrusted these two with our Premiership survival rather than appoint a firefighter like Venables or make a move for a permanent appointment with Kinnear laid up. Are they up to the job? In their favour two games, four points. Against? We'll find out next few games I think.

How do you know? All strikers miss chances even the best. This story is clearly bollocks because most of our first choice forwards are nearing full fitness again. We just don't need him at this point.

Turd of a story

Nothing wrong with the football but without strikers who can score and defenders who can defend it's not a lot of use other than to look easy on the eye.

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had? And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did? Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly? Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them. FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball. If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest. We're not discussing why they want to leave FWIW, we're discussing how they set the fee & received the money as you know. I hope you're not using the Chronicle translation as a fact tool. From your article... Desperate to join us? Given "got injured" shortly before the teams were announced for Man City, despite not having reported a problem all week. You make your own mind up. I'll give you a chance & ask the questions again. Did any of those listed by you hand in a transfer request? Would you have made Given or Milner stay once they said openly they wanted to leave? Touché on the Ebondo article, didn't spot that. No, they didn't hand in transfer requests. I'd have at least tried to convince them to stay, which according to Given at least we barely bothered with. 'We don't want to sell our best players' they say. It just sticks in the throat that our one remaining player of genuine class, one who's given us years and years for wonderful service was sold to the world's richest club for so little, and without us seeing any of that money until the summer when we might be in the Championship. Feels like we've been stitched up tbh. I have to say again: just because we rate Given at £10m or £15m, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone else does. It was common knowledge all through the window he was determined to leave, if £6m was such a low fee, why didn't other clubs come in? I'm sure we'd have preferred to have got more if there was anyone out there willing to pay it.

Because they want to manage Newcastle United? Joe Kinnear might be a hopeless joke of a manager but at least he wants it. I think Shearer would like the job as well if all the conditions were right, but that might never happen. Why the fuck would he come to this shite club atm? Well the fans do, it might be shite but it's our shite.

If you're honest, he really wasn't, for the last few seasons at least. 39 goals in 77 games in his last three season, but Shola should've should've been in his place if we're honest. What's your thoughts on Michael Owen, his goals to game ratio is pretty good too. Shearer did score plenty of goals, who's denying that? He was undeniably magnificent for most of his career, but I wouldn't describe his last few seasons as magnificent, just because we didn't have anyone magnificent to replace him with, doesn't make him magnificent by default. Especially as he's partly responsible for that situation, having played something of a role in the decisions to remove those who might have replaced him or tried to replace him from the club. Shearer is too much of a sacred cow for many people, you can think that he wasn't perfect and criticise him when he does something you consider wrong and still think he was a great player, you know? Sacrilege!! Shearer was great and a geordie, any other details are unnecessary and wicked shit-stirring of the vilest order. Incidentally, while I think he has the qualities to be a good manager, it does piss me off that the only circumstances he'll agree to boss Newcastle is with (probably) lots of money to spend and under the right owner. If he put himself forward for the job now and just got on with it like Kinnear I'm sure no one would slag him if we weren't challenging for the title in 12 months. Like any self-respecting, sane Premier League manager, then? Most self-respecting Prem managers have earned their dues at lesser clubs. Newcastle United isn't a bad first step, even under tight financial controls.

Ashley does gain an advantage, interest on savings is almost nil while interest on loans has gone through the roof, it's as basic as that. I know that, I was just trying to get HF to explain why he thought Ashley was somehow trying to make financial gain at the expense of the club by doing it that way.

If you're honest, he really wasn't, for the last few seasons at least. 39 goals in 77 games in his last three season, but Shola should've should've been in his place if we're honest. What's your thoughts on Michael Owen, his goals to game ratio is pretty good too. Shearer did score plenty of goals, who's denying that? He was undeniably magnificent for most of his career, but I wouldn't describe his last few seasons as magnificent, just because we didn't have anyone magnificent to replace him with, doesn't make him magnificent by default. Especially as he's partly responsible for that situation, having played something of a role in the decisions to remove those who might have replaced him or tried to replace him from the club. Shearer is too much of a sacred cow for many people, you can think that he wasn't perfect and criticise him when he does something you consider wrong and still think he was a great player, you know? Sacrilege!! Shearer was great and a geordie, any other details are unnecessary and wicked shit-stirring of the vilest order. Incidentally, while I think he has the qualities to be a good manager, it does piss me off that the only circumstances he'll agree to boss Newcastle is with (probably) lots of money to spend and under the right owner. If he put himself forward for the job now and just got on with it like Kinnear I'm sure no one would slag him if we weren't challenging for the title in 12 months.

The atmosphere in our camp seems much better now the moany-faced get has buggered off. Hope he enjoyed losing to Stoke last week.

£6m wasn't a huge sum for Given but if Man City didn't buy him, no one else was going to give us any more for a 33 yr old keeper. I just don't think we wanted to keep him that much, Dennis Wise putting the blocks on Krul's move to Feyenoord in the summer might be a clue.

We'll do well to get more than a point IMO. They aren't injury ravaged like Everton and WBA were, and they will be difficult opponents.

Glass half full? What's it half full of...methylated spirits?

If Liverpool hadn't got all those jammy last minute goals early on this season they'd be mid-table. I hope they don't win another game and miss out on CL football. It would be great to see them go under with their shit yank owners and banks calling the tune.

He's put £40 million in to cover our payments, £30 million is covered in the last set of accounts and £10 million has been reported this week yet you have decided that you'll make a judgement based on nothing. Regardless of him potentially getting the loans back, we needed the money and Shepherd wasn't in a position to pay that sort of money. As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given. A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners. Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under: Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments. but does that mean we'd have had more to spend if he staggered the payments ? to me it means that this time next year we'll not have payments to make on the players bought this year...ultimatly in the long run this should be a better way to run any business and you aren't still paying for something 3 or 4 years down the line when your circumstances may have changed dramatically and should make it wasier to react to the current situation. Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return if he sold would depend for the most part on the value of the club. (The reported £20M loss for 2008 turns into a £6M profit if you use UV's figures) Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back. So the £20M he's supposed to have put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount. I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings myself rather than within the club and be guaranteed the return as a money lender irrespective of the success of the player". If he's loaning money, he'd be entitled to getting his money back same way as the banks would. I'm not really sure what advantage he's getting personally out paying the money up front you haven't really made that very clear.

We changed a winning system because Keith Gillespie got injured iirc. It amazes me that people who watched us implode near the end put it down to us buying Tino. It was BECAUSE we were stalling that Keegan bought the likes of Asprilla and Batty to give us the final boost to see us over the finishing line. I could understand outsiders thinking that way but if you were here and watched the likes of Lee and Ferdinand go into their shells second half of the season you would know why KK beefed up the artillery. In the end it wasn't enough but we went for it. Man U also won something like 13 of their last 14 games as well...maybe that was Asprilla's fault as well!

End of story. Tino was the last person to blame, but he became a convenient scapegoat. I think Tino's goal which put us 2-1 up at the epic 4-3 game at Anfield is one of my favourite memories. No one else could even have imagined a a more crazily crafted finish. Pure genius. It was the third goal to put us 3-2 up that Tino scored - Ferdinand and Ginola had scored Nos 1 & 2, but yes, it WAS a great finish, bent around Grobbelaar after Rob Lee put Asprilla in on their right after we caught them on a break.. I stand corrected, it was indeed the third goal. It was just the manner of the finish, taking it in his stride on the run and bending it with the outside of his foot past a keeper who didn't register what had happened till it was curving past him into the net. I'd never seen anything like it before and I still haven't. Pure instinct.

Or Owen in an attacking midfield role. He should fight it out with Butt and Smith for the holding role in midfield IMO. Who the fuck would win the role is beyond me, which really means they are all shite.

I think quite a few here noticed he had a turn of speed a while back in fairness, not to mention other qualities which tend to get over-looked. Even NE5 has belatedly joined the fan club but it's got nowt to do with hindsight I'm sure.

When we've got our full squad available again I'd go back to the 4-3-3 with Owen playing the same role as last year, with Nolan making way. Owen is quicker across the pitch and posesses far more skill.

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m. In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money. Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances. When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it. Don't we save over £6m a year in interest charges paid to the banks as a result of Ashley taking over the debt? That's not a small amount tbh. I still love that phrase, including the cost of transfers shouldn't count? While the financial restrictions are hard to live with for everyone, I don't really see what the point is of talking up the previous owners to hold up as an example. SJH himself has said that the big spending couldn't go on and new money was required. Mike Ashley couldn't have bought the club if Hall and Shepherd didn't want to sell.

The £32m was for the most part an accounting loss due to the reduction in the book value of the players due to amortisation, impairment & disposal. If you look at the net debt of the club it went from £61m in 2006 to £70m in 2007, that gives a clearer indication of the money the club lost in real terms in that year, ie about £10m. In Ashley's first year the debt went from £70m to £100m+, this is in spite of getting the £18m TV bonus over the previous year. I couldn't understand at the time how the club could have suddenly started making such "real" losses, but this is obviously due in no small part to Ashley's decision to pay for players up front. The massive losses last year are therefore less to do with the position the previous owner's left the club in and more to do with how Ashley has chosen to restructure player purchases. As I see it there are advantages and disadvantages to either way of doing it, but to change from structuring transfer payments over a number of years to paying up front for any new purchases is obviously going to incur a large financial hit for several years. This is crippling the club in the short term, and is the main reason Ashley is having to loan the club more money. Each year we carry on purchasing players up front the club's losses for the same transfer outlay will inevitably fall compared to the first few years under Ashley as the payments for players from previous years are paid up. So the losses under Ashley will reduce merely as a consequence of that, not necessarily because of any improved management of the club's finances. When finance is hard to come by it seems a strange time to consciously decide to turn down credit, and I'm honestly not sure what Ashley thinks he's gaining by doing this, unless he thinks that he's going to look like the hero in the short term pouring money into the club to save it from financial ruin, and then the business genius in the medium term when the losses are turned into profits. You're already arguing in his favour from the projections, so he may be right in how people will view it. Don't we save over £6m a year in interest charges paid to the banks as a result of Ashley taking over the debt? That's not a small amount tbh.

he seems to know far more about this case than the rest of us. i say we believe him. He is the Son of God, he's entitled to know a bit more in all fairness