Colos Short and Curlies

Why do you keep saying this despite people telling you that we were "told" no such thing? http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/index.php/mike-ashley-statement "I was always prepared to bankroll Newcastle up to the tune of £20m per year." OK it's not on the first team. But does this not contradict Lambarse's stated intention of having the club run at an overall loss of just £7M in 2 years? Has Ashley channged his mind on what he's willing to spend since taking us off the market and wanting to make a go of it? Currently: Loss of £20m = Ashley puts in £20m to cover 2 Years Time: Loss of £7m = Ashley puts in £7m to cover and £13m for squad building

Again, depends on how you read into things. Have they spent net £38m on new players? No Could they have physically paid £38m cash net to fund new players and to cover installments on old buys? Possibly/Probably

I'm sorry but that bit does not stack up to everything which NUSC has publically stood for since day one. They want Ashley out, pure and simply there has been no 'we want to establish how he intends to take the club forward. The rest of the response seems prety measured though, and is an improvement on past statements.

From Lambarse.. WE’RE in dialogue with them. We have a monthly meeting and we need to get the record straight – we are in dialogue with NUSC. We have a monthly supporter meeting where a reasonably representative group of people who represent our fans tell us what for. They have been invited to be part of that forum so there are four or five of them coming along. Its all about how you take the interview isn't it? 'We have a monthly meeting' - The supporters panel or whatever 'We have a monthly meeting' - We meet with NUSC on a monthly basis So NUSC have had a meeting with NUFC and will be represented at this meeting going forward. That is what he says, that is what Peaspud says. Any thing else is pure spin (on Lambarse's part to appear more 'down with the kids').

Sting was spotted talking about the Rise and Fall of the Toon over the past 15 years with David Craig

hmmmmm Brazil v Italy or.... Ireland v Germany under 21s

nowt to say then ? Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him. When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ? It's a lottery getting a good manager? No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill. is it now ? We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson. Or Everton replace Moyes .......... Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory. Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual. Man U will appoint a good successor to Fergie because I bet right now Fergie is invovled in identifying him and monitoring them over a decent time span. not necessarily. But it depends what you mean by "decent". Didn't Chelsea think they appointed a worthy successor to Mourinho ? Two appointments later, and this is an owner who knows about football. I assume you mean Scolari and not Grant! Imo Abramovich is a names man, he wanted to build a team full of superstars, or at list a large number of star names. Hence his eternal pursuit of Sheva. In an ideal world Roman would have got Hiddink in last summer but couldn't for reasons to do with his relationship with the Russian FA, Scolari was the biggest name that he could get, iirc as many people had reservations on how well he would adapt as thought it was a great move. Man U on the other hand will have had a time span for Fergies departure for a couple of years (as soon as he breaks Liverpools record imo) and will have been planning for it accordingly. There will be dossiers on the likes of Hughes, Bruce, Moyes, Quierroz (sp) etc etc detailing every aspect they beleve to be necessary to carry on the success of the past decade. Scolari is also a World Cup Winner. You don't get anything better than that. it just proves that even the best looking CV makes it a lottery in respect that the best CV's will not succeed. Do you think the Glaziers will go looking for an up and coming tracksuit manager or a big world name ? It took them over almost 30 years to replace Matt Busby. I don't disagree one bit, would never argue that a good paper appointment = a good reality appointment. Also worth bearing in mind that had Mourinho turned Chelsea down Souness could well have been in charge of Chelsea! I think Man U wil go foreigh fwiw, if Fergie was to leave tomorrow then maybe they would play safe. Quierroz or Mourinho I could see there, Kinnear at a push

nowt to say then ? Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him. When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ? It's a lottery getting a good manager? No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill. is it now ? We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson. Or Everton replace Moyes .......... Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory. Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual. Man U will appoint a good successor to Fergie because I bet right now Fergie is invovled in identifying him and monitoring them over a decent time span. not necessarily. But it depends what you mean by "decent". Didn't Chelsea think they appointed a worthy successor to Mourinho ? Two appointments later, and this is an owner who knows about football. I assume you mean Scolari and not Grant! Imo Abramovich is a names man, he wanted to build a team full of superstars, or at list a large number of star names. Hence his eternal pursuit of Sheva. In an ideal world Roman would have got Hiddink in last summer but couldn't for reasons to do with his relationship with the Russian FA, Scolari was the biggest name that he could get, iirc as many people had reservations on how well he would adapt as thought it was a great move. Man U on the other hand will have had a time span for Fergies departure for a couple of years (as soon as he breaks Liverpools record imo) and will have been planning for it accordingly. There will be dossiers on the likes of Hughes, Bruce, Moyes, Quierroz (sp) etc etc detailing every aspect they beleve to be necessary to carry on the success of the past decade.

nowt to say then ? Just joking man, I'm pretty bored, we all know spending money improves your chances of doing well, but it's not a given, you need the right manager, the right scouts and the right amount of money but you can do well without spending massive amount if you have the right manager e.g. Moyes and Everton. on the other hand, if you are lucky enough to get a decent manager, and it IS a lottery, and don't back him, he'll be off. Like Moyes, unless Everton are taken over or it all suddenly goes tits up for him. When you say "do well", how well do YOU want to do ? It's a lottery getting a good manager? No it's a skill, not an easy one but it is definately a skill. is it now ? We'll see how easily Arsenal replace Wenger and ManU replace Ferguson. Or Everton replace Moyes .......... Even a "good manager" isn't necessarily the "right manager", which I suppose adds credence to NE5's "lottery" theory. Bit simplistic on the whole though, as usual. Man U will appoint a good successor to Fergie because I bet right now Fergie is invovled in identifying him and monitoring them over a decent time span.

Are they allowed to modify the original plan? Is Kinnear in the new plan? Wise up mate! He isn't exactly going to come out and say they're ditching JFK in the summer! Absolutely love this smiley though....so i'm going to use it for the f*** of it They aren't ditching JFK though in plain to see mate. Everything that has came out of the club in regards to the future has indicated that Joe is going to be there, this offer of a long term contract - that he won't sign yet but it's in his desk - a pretty big clue. This ain't been rubbished by Newcastle. He is here to stay, and in my view they have planned for him to be here in the next 5 years and 'challenging' like Villa ..because he works well with Wisey and himself. when some people have an agenda, they can't see through the smog they produce when talking shit. tell me exactly why they would come out in public and rubbish the contract offer story? why exactly would they start handbags with the manager of their club, and quite possibly the only man lunatic enough to stay in this job at the moment? Especially when there now appears to be a perfect situation for Joe to move on in the summer and nobody lose face over it

They don't get hammered for speaking or not speaking. They get hammered for incosnsistency, for example.....

Was winding up a couple of Swansea fans saying he would be our manager in the summer. They all laughed. The one (massive) thing against us is a lack of stability. They (and I) can't see Martinez leaving a post where he has virtually carte blanche to do what he wants and build something for one where he will be under pressure from the crowd if we aren't 3-0 up after 10 mins of his first game.

Ignore that bit - profit is stated before sales/purchases of players

If you think about who NUFC receive money from. The Premier League Sky/Setanta Fans That income is extremely lumpy in nature. Now who do we pay out to Players Catering Stewards Other staff Its relatively regular payments. It makes sense to match the cashflows in (which the factoring may help with depending on how its structured) and I'm surprised more clubs don't do it. (Just another perspective on WHY it may have been brought in)

As I highlighted in bold though, as long as Ashley signs a statement confirming that the loan is not to be called in within 1 year it makes no difference if its a long or share capital in making the club solvent

OK then, So you are on about a paper change of moving the debt to equity so as to improve the net assets of the club? You'll know then that the club would only be classed as insolvent if it had net current liabiliites? As Ashley has guaranteed that the loans will not be called in within 1 year they form no part of net liabilities and therefore hold the same weight as equity. Again no benefit to the club, Ashley just doesn't have to sign the same statement year in year out Correct, so the club would be solvent, we got there in the end.

OK then, So you are on about a paper change of moving the debt to equity so as to improve the net assets of the club? You'll know then that the club would only be classed as insolvent if it had net current liabiliites? As Ashley has guaranteed that the loans will not be called in within 1 year they form no part of net liabilities and therefore hold the same weight as equity. Again no benefit to the club, Ashley just doesn't have to sign the same statement year in year out

Apology accepted, you dont understand the mechanics of the double entry or what ; ) Right, I must be missing something obvious here (apologies for the boring post everyone). Ashley puts in £100m as a loan Cr Loan Account £100m Dr Bank £100m i.e The clubs bank account increase by £100m and the club owes Ashley £100m Now Ashley has put £100m into the club as debt and now wants to convert it to shares Cr Share Capital £100m Dr Loan Account £100m i.e. no new money is put into the club. So neither Ashley or the club are better off cash wise The only way converting debt to shares can raise money for the club is by selling the shares outside of existing ownership

The fact that he didn't do due dilligence is something he's had to pay for, not us. He's done that while keeping the club paying bills when due, in other words, he's ensured that the club is solvent. He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? And who is going to buy the shares? If it was that easy the club would have been sold between September and now I suggest you just be quiet now son, you havent got a fuckin clue what you're talking about. Good point. Colo is clueless when it comes to financial matters. Aye, he's only the number 1 accountant at accountants are us in the accountancy capital of the world. You wouldn't know it like He's number 2 tbf Number 4 actually Number 3 is that Zero chap who posts on here. 2 is Gemmil (semi retired) Number one is obviusly Bob Murray You cunt If you open the door then I'm going to use it!

SSF1M - Sorry not too good at posting quotes! If I've misread the meaing of 'transfer his loan into shares' then I apologise. And haven't got a fucking clue what you mean!

He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? Where did I say anyone was going to buy the shares? I was replying to Mick's post regarding making the club solvent.

Is that the best idea that came out of the meeting? I'm not exactly NUSC's biggest fan, but I actually think its not a bad idea. At least its a symbol that people who want to get behind can do without intruding on those who dont. I bit like those wrist bands from afew years back

The fact that he didn't do due dilligence is something he's had to pay for, not us. He's done that while keeping the club paying bills when due, in other words, he's ensured that the club is solvent. He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? And who is going to buy the shares? If it was that easy the club would have been sold between September and now I suggest you just be quiet now son, you havent got a fuckin clue what you're talking about. Good point. Colo is clueless when it comes to financial matters. Aye, he's only the number 1 accountant at accountants are us in the accountancy capital of the world. You wouldn't know it like He's number 2 tbf Number 4 actually Number 3 is that Zero chap who posts on here. 2 is Gemmil (semi retired) Number one is obviusly Bob Murray

The fact that he didn't do due dilligence is something he's had to pay for, not us. He's done that while keeping the club paying bills when due, in other words, he's ensured that the club is solvent. He paying bills earlier and if he wants to make the club solvent he should transfer his loan into shares like I have. Why all the Ashley apologists? And who is going to buy the shares? If it was that easy the club would have been sold between September and now I suggest you just be quiet now son, you havent got a fuckin clue what you're talking about. Good point. Colo is clueless when it comes to financial matters. A bit like the other Accountant who avoid my posts eh. Go on then, enlighten me. If Ashley wanted to swap his loans into shares who is going to buy the shares? Ashley? Surely not as he is in a nil loss nil gain scenario there. The Fans? Aye, I'm sure between us we could muster £100m to buy 49% of the club. Other business men? Ashley has also said he is looking for outside investment, obviously they were all queing up to buy into the club. An Arab? They'd just buy the fucking club rather than be minority shareholders. So who have I obviously missed if its as simple as you say. All the recent share issues have gone well haven't they. Of course thats it. The UK Government are buying into everything. They already own NOrthern Rock, its a logical step for them to buy the football club they sponsor! Stupid me.

For me it would be the lack of investment come January but also the inital protest which lead the club to be put up for sale. If you're using that kind of logic, i.e. every action has a reaction, then surely Mike Ashley buying the club would be to blame. He started the chain of reactions with that action after all. Scratch that, Ashley's mother and father are to blame for conceiving the bastard in the first place. If only they got themselves a dog instead... Someone had to