TRon

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. 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, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? Deloittes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html Villa? 6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt. It's an issue across most clubs not just ours. But...but, but.... mackems.gif It's a calculated risk over-spending in an effort to buy success, from the site you are quoting from the verdict is pretty scary on a lot of the clubs who are doing that. Buying big players on big wages doesn't guarantee anything you only have to look at the state we are in with a team full of bigshot high earners who failed to beat Hull in three attempts so far this season. From those accounts it shows their borrowing increased from 65m to 85m!!! ...and later they say as to higher tv income they broke even??? I think you're missing the simple point here. Debt shouldn't hinder investment in the FIRST TEAM and doesn't with most of our competition. Do you agree? I wonder why there are no buyers for the club if it's such a desirable and simple answer?

I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? Yes really, there 2008 accounts show that £44 million was spent on wages, while the total income was £75 million. Man Utd £453m debt Chelsea £620m debt Arsenal £268m debt Liv £105m debt5. 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, despite finishing sixth in the league and being well below the Premiership wage average. The club was also below the league average for stadium utilisation last season. No they didn't, I really don't know where you're getting your info on Everton.. income in 2006-2007 for Everton was £51.4 million, wages were £38.5 million. They didn't raise enough to cover all costs not wages alone. That followed a dip in income due to catering and other facilities being outsourced (in other words they lost revenue to cut operating costs). As I said Manure ect being in debt isn't the same thing as completely out of control losses year after year. As for the other clubs you mentioned, one of them just made a £35 million profit in the transfer market, the other a £9 million profit and the other is basically owned by a country and will spend regardless of finances at the club.. So how do they relate to your opinion that we should be investing despite our losses? Aston Villa I've got no idea on, but who's betting they aren't making losses of £35 million a year? Deloittes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html Villa? 6. Aston Villa: Finished the 2006/07 season with the fifth highest assets in the country (£35 million) and increased their home match attendances to 94.8 per cent of their 40,375 capacity stadium. They were also one of the top six investors in facilities in that season, injecting £9.9 million. However, their wage expenditure exceeded the income generated from revenue, leaving them £1.2 million in deficit. The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. The PL as a whole is 3 billion in debt. It's an issue across most clubs not just ours. But...but, but.... mackems.gif It's a calculated risk over-spending in an effort to buy success, from the site you are quoting from the verdict is pretty scary on a lot of the clubs who are doing that. Buying big players on big wages doesn't guarantee anything you only have to look at the state we are in with a team full of bigshot high earners who failed to beat Hull in three attempts so far this season.

That's my optimistic assessment as well, otherwise Kinnear not signing the contract doesn't make sense. I am still nervous about the appointment they actually do make though. Hopefully we will be "pleasantly surprised".

The next managerial appointment will say a lot about our ambitions as a club. Big name managers aren't always the answer, for me a bright young manager on the way up like Martinez would show us something. is there really any hope left? I don't think Kinnear is going to be here next season otherwise he would have signed the contract by now. Let's see what actually happens with the next appointment. i take your point, but if they have actually offered him the contract, doesnt this prove beyond any doubt that they're fucking clueless? and we've seen what happens when clueless people are in charge of managerial appointments before, the club suffers drastically, until by law of averages they stumble upon a good one That's my major concern ATM with the people running the football club, they really don't appear to have any football knowledge or even any access to some. Dennis Wise might be ok at spotting a few promising youngsters, but someone at the top needs to be able to make shrewd judgement about the most important decision of all, who to appoint as manager.

Asset strip? Do you know what asset stripping it? These people you're referring to are so clever they don't even realise this club is in financial meltdown. They seem to think every penny they put into the club should be free to spend on players. "Where's the season ticket money gone".. its been used to pay Damien fucking Duff you cretin! So what's the difference between us and the other 80% of the PL in debt? Having a debt isn't a problem as long as you can afford the interest ect. The problem is a debt that's spiralling out of control year after year. £35 million down a hole last year alone for fuck sake!! 80% of PL clubs are not bleeding anywhere near that kind of money. The majority of them would be bankrupt in no time if they did. I suggest you take a look at the accounts of other clubs. I have. Which clubs? The other clubs in the league that have been run into the ground? You can easily google PL clubs and their debt. Everton for instance. Wages higher than income. Surprised? I'd be extremely surprised, especially since its not true. Really? I don't know the nuts and bolts of it but Everton have always had a pretty strict wage structure, Moyes has had to spend pretty carefully, that much is common knowledge. It might be that Europe has given them some leeway, in which case I don't see how they can be held up as a yardstick for us.

The next managerial appointment will say a lot about our ambitions as a club. Big name managers aren't always the answer, for me a bright young manager on the way up like Martinez would show us something. is there really any hope left? I don't think Kinnear is going to be here next season otherwise he would have signed the contract by now. Let's see what actually happens with the next appointment.

The next managerial appointment will say a lot about our ambitions as a club. Big name managers aren't always the answer, for me a bright young manager on the way up like Martinez would show us something.

TBF, he's only supporting his manager. It's not like he can go out and say "no, Kinnear is something of a clown and we obviously didn't know what we were doing when we hired him. We'll get rid of him sharpish". He probably sends deep-fried Mars bars to Kinnear at the hospital. All he had to do was say Joe was only ever seen as an interim appointment, and if he keeps us up we'll be grateful for that. But we feel in the summer it's time to go for someone who we feel is capable of taking the club forward in the long term. He doesn't even have to say it. I have no problem with him publicly praising Kinnear as long as in the summer (or earlier) the right appointment is made for the right reasons.

At the end of the day whoever makes us look silly is neither here nor there. Only Ashley can pay the bills or invest in the squad. NUSC can't do it and they can't provide anyone else who will either. They can't provide change, that is why the best they can hope to achieve is voluble protests which is what they are doing. No they aren't. They're promoting membership. I'll repeat... "I've approached the NUSC on a couple of issues and they've always been very useful in pushing forward my complaints. Those were grafitti, heavy handed stewarding and delayed refunds." People need to disaccossiate the NUSC from Ashley bashing i think it's NUSC who need to disassociate from Ashley bashing.

At the end of the day whoever makes us look silly is neither here nor there. Only Ashley can pay the bills or invest in the squad. NUSC can't do it and they can't provide anyone else who will either. They can't provide change, that is why the best they can hope to achieve is voluble protests which is what they are doing.

Our team is struggling due to lack of investment. Investment ? Get real. Borrowed again from the Grauniad. Accounts recently published by Newcastle, for the year to June 2008, show how much more generous Ashley's contribution has been already, with debts paid off and £100m loaned interest free to the club, compared to the millions relentlessly earned from the club by the Halls and Shepherds. When Sir John, the Gateshead shopping-centre magnate, took over Newcastle, he promised that the club would herald north-east regeneration and revive the "Geordie nation". Whatever the outcome of that, the club certainly became hugely profitable for Sir John and his family. The Halls and Freddy Shepherd, who became a director alongside them, took no salaries for the first few years, then made up for it in 1996: Sir John was paid £836,803, Douglas Hall £793,612 and Shepherd £750,000. The accounts said the payment "recognises the fact that the directors received no remuneration prior to this year". Shepherd, who staunchly defends his and the Halls' record of achievement at Newcastle, acknowledged that after the club floated on the stockmarket in 1997, they never contributed money for the club to invest. Before that, he said, they had guaranteed loans documents at the time noted that £3.5m of the club's borrowings were guaranteed by the Halls' company, Cameron Hall, and that Cameron Hall had loaned the club money, at 11% interest. The latest accounts provide a final reckoning on the Shepherds' and Halls' era because they sold all their shares to Ashley in June 2007 and have also resigned as directors. Altogether, the two families made an extraordinary £145.8m from their years of involvement the Halls made £95.7m, the Shepherds £50.1m, mostly in salaries, dividends and ultimately selling their shares. The Halls had already made £20.35m from selling portions of their shares before Ashley paid £55m for their remaining stake. Shepherd did not want to sell he had steadily bought more shares but was effectively forced to Ashley paid Freddie and Bruce £38m. Shepherd did not receive a pay-off when he resigned as a director in July 2007 but Douglas Hall, paid a £494,655 salary package in 2007 via a Newcastle United company registered in the tax haven of Gibraltar, was entitled to two years' pay in compensation and received an additional £1.17m when he resigned. The unrest and despondency on Tyneside now make it easy to forget how Ashley's arrival put a smile on local faces, a new owner who watched matches with supporters, drank on the Bigg Market and had £1bn in his pocket, too. The accounts show that having bought the club for £134m, Ashley paid off borrowings of £43m and cleared the overdraft, lending the club £100m on which he has chosen to waive interest. He has not declared a dividend nor paid himself a salary. In short, he has put a chunk of his considerable fortune on the line, and not taken a penny out.[/b] Yes. So Ashley has got in above his head. Our fault? Who would you have preferred to Ashley? You are clearly unhappy he is here so no doubt there was an alternative?

I'm pretty sure Bassong was spotted by Wise, he was brought over for a trial and then Keegan declared he was happy to sign him as he had impressed. Guthrie was more a player that Keegan actually initiated IIRC.

Sad indictment of whoever is making the appointments on the football side that it might be the medics who will prevent Joe from taking up this contract.

Parky, here's an idea which the NUSC can use: instead of protest rallies or Ashley Out agendas, why not use links with the press to ask legitemate questions about the running of the club? Such as what qualifies Joe Kinnear to earn a new two year contract at a club like Newcastle United and what does it say about our ambition?

It's a valid criticism of the club hierarchy that there doesn't appear to be much football knowledge at the top level. I'd like to know who makes the decisions such as offering Kinnear a new contract? On what basis?

Our team is struggling due to lack of investment. Why not lobby Greggs to pitch in and buy a stake in Newcastle? Or Freddie Shepherd...I hear he walked away with a few million surely local investors will rally to provide funds for squad strengthening?

If they feel the need to protest, that's up to them, it's what they are all about, all noise and no solutions. The running of the football club has to go on in the meantime and I'm happy that Ashley has returned to the ground and that Llambias is opening up communication with the local press more. There's a long way to go and there are plenty of things which need improving but no one else is going to provide the answers. No billionaire arabs, no American tycoon, no Nigerian consortiums and definitely not a rabble of protesting fans.

Ashley is an England fan so I hope he was watching tonight and appoints a manager who will take our club forward.

It's not a bad business model to be fair. Offer disgruntled supporters a promise of a voice in the future. Collect the money up front from the sizeable minority who will pay up to join the cause through sheer frustration. Bingo! you've got £60k to spend where you like. T-shirts, flags, greggs pasties, a Valentines card for the girlfriend...the list is endless.

They'd probably buy a £60,000 "Ashley Out" banner. Yes and probably spell it wrong I think they'd probably set aside half for some t-shirts to be fair.

If Venables is appointed it will be to keep us up due to his experience, coaching and management capability with a specific brief to keep us up. Wise and Shearer aren't realistic alternatives for different reasons which have been explained plenty of times before.

Venables would be a great interim choice. I said it last time and I believe it now. Ashley shouldn't dither, he should find out if he seriously wants the job and if he does get him in. He is a tremendous organiser and great at man-management.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Kinnear should never be near the dugout again, but I assume the club know this and are just keeping a diplomatic silence for Joe's sake.

It looks like Cockney wide boy Bryan Robson has stolen a march in Ashley's reckoning.