TRon

£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

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed. Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry. Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes. With Keegan apparently liable for 2m then an out of court settlement doesnt speak volumes about anything. If Keegan is liable and the club aren't at fault why are they giving him £4 million? Are they giving him £4m? It would be useful to know that's a fact before going into whys or wherefores..

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. Clearly not what he was trying to say, but fair play for being so pig headed. Keegan will not necessarily get the full £9 million he is asking for but still win the case and still get some compo from the club, as well as having the satisfaction of having the lame excuses trotted out by those in charge on full view to all and sundry. Ashley isn't in the business of giving away cash so the fact they're trying to settle out of court speaks volumes. Have you told those sitting at the tribunal all this yet? The judge might not have access to all the facts you seem to have.

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.

He showed a great attitude and desire since day one. I remember being impressed with his "can't wait to play for Newcastle" approach even when we were looking at him with a possibility to sign him. When Beye comes back into the side the mean machine back four will be back to full strength

Dont be crazy. As if Ashley is thinking of 'hanging Keegan out to dry' after the reaction of the fans to him leaving. PR disaster. Turn of phrase which seemed appropriate as I was thinking back to their 'FACT' phase. If they're in the right, they should set about demonstrating it as clearly as possible so as to nullify that reaction you speak of. It still hangs over the club, we've lived through the PR disaster - I dare say it can't get any worse, as I think going forwards, things that are going to drive attendances down and generally upset the support are going to relate far more to their overall running of the club (appearing to seriously consider Kinnear the long-term manager of the club etc.). 'Out of court settlements' and silence are going to be for the worse, if they're serious about wanting to drive this club on with the spirit it possessed not so long ago. On a personal level, I agree with you. I dont think a lot of other fans would accept Keegan getting another fucking over from the club, nor do i think the club's hierarchy understands where some fans (the open-minded ones) are with regards to the whole debate. I might be wrong, but my judgement is most of those who would have a support-ending reaction to Keegan getting fucked already have done, though it might make some others feel temporarily sore again. Still, making a triage judgement, I also think it would make many feel less sore about the previous fucking - and for yet more, it would dispel some of the fog that has surrounded the regime's motivations since it all took place. People won't keep looking back to that period wondering what took place and whether it means the regime do or don't deserve faith over future matters. Agreed on your last point about the club not understanding. They seem to be consistently clueless as to what people want out of the club. Thinking about your ref to that FACT pr gaff. If as they maintained at the time they felt absolved, then why hesitate? Take KK to court and prove him wrong. If you prove him wrong you win back the good will of thousands at a stroke and save money. Not sure if it would pan out like that in reality tbh.

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't. But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe. Not from a small growth in interest repayments. When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year. Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs? What is your point? ...and why do you need to be so rude? Have I been curt with you at some point? It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that. If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case. The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership. As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply. But I'm older than you kidda. I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success. You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there. It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far). It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far). It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10.... Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans. Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country Everton failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management. Fulham are £182 million in debt. West Ham have £142 million of debt Man City are £103 million debt. It's not about having debt though because not all debt is bad, an example is that when we extended the ground we had the stadium debt to pay off but the extra revenue will more than cover what we had to pay back plus leave us with more left over to be used on improving the club, the problem is when you have debt but are making huge losses to go with it, the club has lost over £50 million between 2006 and 2008 without making any sort of extravagant signings in that time, so trying to compare our situation to that of Man Utd who turn over £50 million profits a season or Arsenal who turn over £30 million profits is pointless. Villa are an interesting example because any debt they do have (I'll take your word for the £63 million debt) is because of what they've spent on players since Lerner has been there, fair play to him of course but he did take over a debt free club which he bought on the cheap, according to Doug Ellis Lerner looked at buying us and Everton but was put off by the amounts of debt attached to both, perhaps he realised that any money he put in (in the form of a loan which shows as debt, like Ashley, Gibson and Abramovich have done) could go in to improving the first team rather than balancing the books which is what put him off here. I'm not going to bother going into detail about other clubs because I'm not going to pretend that I know what their situations are, what I do know is that in 18 months from now if we can be classed as being debt free (apart from what we owe Ashley that he seems happy to get back when he sells the club) make a profit of £10-£15 million every season as well as what Ashley is prepared to put in on top then we will be in a stronger position than the majority of Premiership clubs with a model that is both sustainable and make us richer than than other clubs. That's not to say that I'm happy to see us kicking around in the bottom half because I'm not and I put in a lot of time and money to watch this shite, however I do understand what he's trying to achieve and I think he can do it in the long run and for that reason I will still keep giving up my time and money to support my club. Admirable support Baggio, I just hope that at some point they will actually look to invest this money once the books are balanced. Can't say I'd blame fans for giving up their season tickets at the prospect of watching more dross like this season with Kinnear at the helm for another two years.

No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't). A settlement is an agreement between the two parts, so Keegan will of course have to agree to it. But you have no reason to assume Keegan will accept it only if his case isn't watertight. They may chose to pay him more in a settlement than he could expect from a court case, rather than risking a PR disaster, and Keegan might think money is worth more than publicly humiliating the people at the club. We don't know. But basically, a settlement means the club think they may have more to lose by letting the case go public, and that Keegan think he has no more to win, or small chance of it, by taking it further. Interesting opinion. One that just seems to pluck any possibility out of thin air with no regard to how probable it is in reality. Do you have experience of employment litigation issues? To be offering such wildly improbable scenarios i'd hazard not. "Lets give him 12m out of court so we dont have to give him 9m in court". Genius. I'm not sure it's worth even debating this issue with people who's minds are already made up. I think Llambias should also have mentioned the possibility that the transfer kitty could be boosted by £2m if the club won the case against Keegan. It seems unnecessarily defensive to be talking about the case as if Keegan is going to win it even if it isn't likely to be anything like £8m.

Exactly. A court case will also make the facts of the situation public, whereas a settlement will come with a gag order for Keegan. No one can gag Keegan unless he agrees to it, and the only way he will settle quietly is if his case isn't watertight (which it obviously isn't).

The theory is brilliant and very wise - impossible to argue with. As you rightly question though (when asking about Kinnear), are the football decisions being made as wisely because they have to balance the good business plan with making sure what happens on the pitch keeps the club in the top level as well. Neglect the first team and the rest is near enough pointless. Agree. Also an under performing first team will lead to a hole being blown in the gate/season ticket revenue. The real issue I have with all this is the fact that we seem to be expected to believe that Kinnear is the man to implement this vision onto the pitch. I find it hard to use the words "vision" and "Kinnear" in the same sentence tbh. FWIW I don't think the 2008/2009 version of Keegan was the man for this type of plan either. It looks like we will be run on tight financial restraints for the next couple of years so that's probably why Ashley is so keen to keep Joe on board, hiring a high profile manager will only lead to discontent whenhe finds his hands tied in the transfer market. I assume Ashley must have budgeted for falling attendances as fans decide they don't want to watch a transitional Newcastle which will be aiming for survival in the Premier for a couple of seasons.

I haven't read through all five pages yet so I might be missing some crucial information but Keegan is only going to get that sort of compensation if he can prove his case fairly convincingly. If he does then Ashley will need to explain how such a costly mistake was made by the club.

It als makes me wonder why won't anyone else buy the club? What is wrong with these people?

I totally agree, my post related to Baggio's comment that no other owners funded their club to £10m a year out of their own pocket. I think that's bollocks. I personally dont know how debts are structured at other clubs. Boro are over 70m in debt, wonder how much Gibson 'gave' the club? (just deleted another post, apologies if quoted, realised i was actually incorrect). I'm not about to start sifting through other clubs accounts. If someone can prove my statements incorrect, then fine. I fully admit they are speculation based on logical economics. Someone must be servicing that debt at Boro as it certainly isn't going to be covering itself and they won't be getting many more loans from the bank. It's a tit for tat argument, my basic point is that I would bet money Ashley, on an ongoing basis, is not putting in a great deal (or in fact any) more in than the majority of owners in our league. What that means can be argued all night. I wouldn't want to be in a 'boro fan's shoes right now. Chairman of the Century Steve Gibson spent shitloads on trying to keep up with the glamour clubs and at the end of it all they are heading for relegation, empty stands and a £75m debt. Not the best club to use as an argument for borrowing in the hope of future success.