Colos Short and Curlies

Agreed, he likes the stability at Swansea and would have serious reservations over the turnover of managers at the Toon. Given assurances I reckon he could be tempted into being part of a five year plan, but the contract would have to have some serious assurances in there over his stability. And if the Swans get promoted, forget it.

qualifying for the Champions League ? Do you honestly think Shepherd was going to get us back into the Champions League? with your usual hindsight, do you think Mike Ashley will match the Halls and Shepherd ? Why don't you email Mike and tell him your criteria for appointing managers, as you agreed with at least 4 of the ones made by the Halls and Shepherd Ok Mr 5. I do not beleive that Ashley will match Hall and Shepherds first 10 years. I do however believe that should we survive this season we will see an improvement in the squad, manager and performances. We will start to see players who want to play for the club and see it as a place to develop. European qualification within the next 3 years would be achievable. Now...... Do you believe that had the Halls and Shepherd remained in control that they would match their previous 10 years?

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 I see. So where's this £8M for summer spending come from? Considering the loss last year was supposed to be £36M. Is he pumping £44M in? Why double the investment in the summer if you want to decrease losses and tighten your belt? Nothing they say adds up. Might god your complaining because he's spent MORE money !! He said he would cover at least £20m a season. During his interview when he said he would sell he said he would still cover this but nothing else. Yet he is paying out more money and your complaining. Do you even know what your complaint is ? He never said "at least". He said "up to". See the link above. I'm complaining that they're liars. They might be liars but no one else has shown any real interest in putting their money where their mouth is and buying the club, so we are what we are, all we can hope is that they'll genuinely try and do right by the club. Who knows what kind of interest was shown. Anyone that wanted to see the books had to sign a non-disclosure contract didn't they? I don't know if a credible offer (£250M say) was received, but we only have the owners word that there wasn't. His word means shit to me, because I think he plans to see a good profit from this investment. Which current chairman/owner wouldn't like a profit?

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 I see. So where's this £8M for summer spending come from? Considering the loss last year was supposed to be £36M. Is he pumping £44M in? Why double the investment in the summer if you want to decrease losses and tighten your belt? Nothing they say adds up. Might god your complaining because he's spent MORE money !! He said he would cover at least £20m a season. During his interview when he said he would sell he said he would still cover this but nothing else. Yet he is paying out more money and your complaining. Do you even know what your complaint is ? He never said "at least". He said "up to". See the link above. I'm complaining that they're liars. They lied by spending more though have I got that bit right ? What has Ashley spent? £100 million as a loan, £70 million of that was used to clear the old debt £30 million has been put in to keep the club going. Since the 30th June he has put in a further £10 million of cash as working capital. £138 million to buy the club total investment is £248 million so far. Who knows if they will spend more, but the accounts we've seen only mention an ongoing investment of £10m, so it's half the maximum amount he harked on about in the first place. It's yet to be seen if he coughs up the money needed to buy in the Summer and keep our losses down to £20M. Again, I'll not hold my breath. So in 6 months he has paid £10m for ongoing investment. In the 12 months to June 08 he paid £30m for ongoing costs. So even if he doesn't put another penny in he has put in £20m a year on average. Of course that is assuming that the club has no more bills to pay between now and June and therefore would not require any further cash injection

They've also been citing 6,000 people who've expressed an interest in joining. This is entirely disingenuous, as it includes people like me who clicked a button to find out what the deal was, and then decided they wanted nothing to do with it. Naturally, the fact that they're using me in statistics angled to ramp up their supposed legitimacy as a representative organisation does little to alleviate my feeling that they're a bunch of wankers. Lies, damn lies and statistics!

of all the things you can accuse them I've accused them of worse in the past, I'm in a good mood today.

I'm curious to the 'fastest growing NUFC supporters club' line. How would this be calculated? in % terms or absolute numbers. 800 official members is it? (correct me if I'm wrong but that number is in my head) so 800 additional members or 1000000000000000000000000000%+ growth depending on how you look at it. I hope its absolute numbers, or they are as guilty as Llambarse at using true but ambiguous numbers/statements

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 I see. So where's this £8M for summer spending come from? Considering the loss last year was supposed to be £36M. Is he pumping £44M in? Why double the investment in the summer if you want to decrease losses and tighten your belt? Nothing they say adds up. Without going into a HTT style post on accounting treatment of player trading and the difference in profit and cashflow I can't answer this. However, in a nut shell they can reinvest the £8m net income from Jan without impacting on the profit/loss of the company. On the face of it things may not appear to stack up, but in reality they do if you can dig into what numbers they are using

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