Colos Short and Curlies

This is one area where Ashley's 'Triaxis of Evil' have donw bloody well. Dyer, Parker, Emre, Milner all out at a combined total of more than we paid for them. You can argue that prices have generally gone up, but we've never been able to command good fees for our unwanteds in the past.

He didn't seem up to the fight last season in KKs early days (Villa springs immediately to mind). With hindsight this has been a good while coming

Alan Smith will score 3 goals this season.

He's a good coach

Hes no Ranger

You love it.

Have to say Swansea play some cracking stuff, and he hasn't had much dough to spend even relative to the level he is batting at. Its fair to say that the likes of Zog may scoff at being trained by a 'journeyman fizzy pop player/manager', but respect can very quickly be built up on actions by the person in the job. I've no doubt he would represent a worthwhile risk

I'm pretty sure that Man U blew a similar lead a couple of seasons later to Arsenal but nothing is made of it. We were only 12 points clear for 24 hours btw.

He has been my no 1 choice from the day KK left

You're probably right. I'm backing Tony Adams to get the best out of him. :lol: i meant its testament to your coach's the form of the like sof milner and knight. I know, I was just having a cheap dig at Tony Adams. I preferred him when he was on the sauce. he would probably be a better coach on it as well tbh. I reckon we may find out by the end of the season

Don't forget Boro and the sinking ship that is Hull City

Is it not just when he has started?

I doubt the 'point' of the 3 year scheme from the clubs point of view isn't to build a warchest for this summer and leave no cash for next etc. Its purely a way of guaranteeing an income stream for a longer period than the current one year season ticket

Taylor to break him

Manchester Evening News has us linked with Fernandez today, possibly as part ex with Shay

Looking forward to watching Villa. Only time I've watched them for 90 mins was against us when they were awful

Another way of looking at it is that everyone starts knowing nothing. Sure HE didnt have the "DOF" experience, but what expereince do you need in spotting good young players, Jiminez had the ocntacts, Vetere and Fucillo had the eye and Wise had the title to bring it all together. Also is worth mentioning that Wise was a memeber of the board. Does it matter if he signed Delph or not? He worked with a crop of young players and therefore has some degree of experience in spotting what attributes make promise into reality. So he made some bad buys. Fergie bought Taibi, Wenger bought Jeffers, Bobby bought Fumaca

No. unlike Souness I don't think JK will be here next season regardless of where we finish

Nah, Stoke to turn Spurs over. I'd love to see them go down.

The last bit is all news to me. Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half? Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like. The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such. £70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008. So in your opinion is macbeth's intimation correct that the net debt in the 2007 accounts is wrong and should be £124m rather than £71m, and that the net debt grew from £61m in june 2006 to £149m in june 2008? Well I certainly don't think the accounts were wrong. Also I would disagree with him if he is classifying normal trade creditors as debt. They are not classified as fixed debt simply because they fluctuate and are not generally subject to a loan agreement. The piece you quote "This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in." seems to be saying that there was some hidden debt that wasn't disclosed. And that is not the case. The amount of the debt was disclosed but what was not disclosed is that it was repayable immediately if the club changed ownership. But there again I could easily be misinterpreting what he is saying tbh. You copying my posts? Made the exact same point earlier :colo: One thing about the creditors not being fixed debt.... Normally I would agree with that, but considering that a lot of the Toons creditors are transfer fee payments there is a strong case for including them as 'debt' despite the payments etc not being fixed. Sorry dude, haven't followed recent posts on here so had no idea I was copying your post, just got back and saw UV asked me a question. Thought it only polite to try and answer it Take your point about some of the debt being transfer money - although to lump it in as and refer to it without also referring to the fact that some of the clubs debtors are also transfer funds is perhaps a bit misleading.... Just found it funny that we picked up exactly the same point, right down to saying its the way it reads!. Anyway, transfer fees...... see your point, agree, but you know that NUFC wil have less coming in then going out from past transfers!

I don't cloud anything with crap. I'm telling you what it takes to be successful. If you think otherwise, fair enough (for you) I'm quite certain when I say that if Mike Ashley stays at the club long term and continues as he is, you and some of the others will not see this club competing near the top again and unless you actually prefer making small profits [which you won't when the reality of true mediocrity dawns on you] then those years of when we did qualify regularly will be a fond memory that you will realise you didn't appreciate. I am not asking you that though. I am asking you if you accept that Freddy Sheperd (at least partially) is to blame for the mess we are in? Stop avoiding a simple and direct question. we were in a damn sight of a mess when he and the Halls took over the club. I'm not blaming anybody for giving me the best 15 years supporting the club, since 1964, by far. It may not have ended as well as it started and continued for most of their time, but thats the truth. By the way, I've seen this club relegated twice, and the particular bricks which caused that to happen, have only been put into place again since Ashley bought the club. So you won't blame Freddy Shepherd for getting us into the financial mess we are currently in? Is that right? Even partially? I've told you my reply. Do you blame Alan Shearer for missing a penalty against Partizan Belgrade, a defeat which proved a big turning point ? I can see how similar the situations are. mackems.gif You kinda have to blame Shearer a bit though, infact a bit of blame should be attached to any player who misses a penalty, especially one like Shearer who should consider it a fundamental core of his job. Of course there are variables, but he did fail in his job at that time.

If only we still had Pinas

The last bit is all news to me. Who is the other £49m owed to and how has Ashley managed to double the debt in a year and a half? Comforting to know that we're not expected to pay off the £100m before July like. The £49 million is owed to normal club creditors and is not fixed debt as such. £70 million debt was due to Ashley at 30th June 2007 after he paid off the clubs fixed debt and put some extra working capital in. The club then had another bad year incurring heavy losses, so he had to stick in a further £30 million to keep it going and resulting a total debt due to him of £100 million at 30th June 2008. So in your opinion is macbeth's intimation correct that the net debt in the 2007 accounts is wrong and should be £124m rather than £71m, and that the net debt grew from £61m in june 2006 to £149m in june 2008? Well I certainly don't think the accounts were wrong. Also I would disagree with him if he is classifying normal trade creditors as debt. They are not classified as fixed debt simply because they fluctuate and are not generally subject to a loan agreement. The piece you quote "This meant that in 2007 it looked as the the debt was £71m. When they realised that they had to pay off the mortgage they needed to add that extra amount in." seems to be saying that there was some hidden debt that wasn't disclosed. And that is not the case. The amount of the debt was disclosed but what was not disclosed is that it was repayable immediately if the club changed ownership. But there again I could easily be misinterpreting what he is saying tbh. You copying my posts? Made the exact same point earlier :colo: One thing about the creditors not being fixed debt.... Normally I would agree with that, but considering that a lot of the Toons creditors are transfer fee payments there is a strong case for including them as 'debt' despite the payments etc not being fixed.

And watch match day revenues fall buy the same amount as demand dries up? That's the problem. We cannot afford those high-earners and at the same time we cannot raise the ticket price. The cost needs to be cut, the revenue has reached the upper limit, and at the same time we, at least, has to stay in EPL. A tough task imo. Probably that means we has become kinda selling club now. Sell the established stars like Given and N'Zogbia and bring in some young talents like Bassong and Guthrie. Someone said yesterday that you claim to be an accountant. If you are then I'm 100% certain that you will be familiar with price elasticity? There is no way on earth that any club could raise ticket prices by 20% and maintain demand. With the way the economy is at the minute and the way casual fans are falling out of love with football a raise of 20% would easily see a fall in numbers sold by 20-30% minimum. Now I know you say in the quoted post that we can't raise prices, but in the first quote you claim that they should rise. Which is it?

And watch match day revenues fall buy the same amount as demand dries up?