Colos Short and Curlies

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?

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. 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 Rubbish, the debt value stayed the same, it was just the payment profile which changed. It may just be the way MB has written it, but it reads like 'I thought it was £71m but it was actually more', when actually it should be 'I thought I had 3 years to pay £71m but I had half an hour'

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 july bit i'd assume is so the auditors will sign it off. basically he is guarnteeing the debts through the financial trading year. (i think) Correct

Well I agree of course, but to be fair despite Ashley not spending any of his own money on transfers we haven't been in profit on transfers since he's been here. When has transfer money ever gone in his pocket? Been saying this for the past couple of days. Past history suggests that 100% of all sale proceeds will be reinvested in players

Thats what everyone said before the game at SJP. They are still weak as piss at the back and midfield is only so so. Colo and Bassong have a good game and a point or three isn't out of the question

The lack of smiley suggests you are not being ironic! Beardsley Pav Bernard Elliott

But hes a whiz at pro evo so its all ok

Because both of them will bring the club to hell--- just like the difference between final stage cancer and certified death. Either one of them is enough to evaluate Fred's reign imo. You rarely see a club that can recover very soon after administration rite? How many clubs have gone into liquidation? Oh and your comment re 'either one of them is enough to evaluate Freds regin' is completely wrong. Liquidation - The club ceases to be, all assets sold of to pay those who we owe money to. Administration - The club is run by an outside body for a period of time to bring its debts under control, pay of its creditors and get it to a level where it can be sold to a new owner and continue to operate. Only if administration failed would liquidation be an option for a business like NUFC which has a number of sellable assets and strong cash inflows. It would sting like hell in the short run, but in the long run companies can come out of administration in a better position then when they went in. (on a side note I doubt that relegation would tip us into administration wtraight away now. We have a number of high earners leving the club in the summer and a number of players who would generate decent enough fees to put the club on a stable footing for a short period in the fizzy pop league)

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand? Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response Hence it being asked! He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process I think he's claimed to be an accountant as well. But why would you claim to be an accountant if you're not? I'm a bloody good one (if I do say so myself!), and proud of it. But I wouldn't exactly say its a sexy or impressive thing to claim to be

Colo wins

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand? Kecks off and arse bared in Fenwicks if that one gets a properly argued response Hence it being asked! He's used the terms interchangably over the past couple of pages and I doubt he knows the difference between the two or the different approaches taken during each process

Who? Villa? No West Ham who;ve just found £7.5m for 19 year old Brescia striker Savio Nsereko. Surely West Ham are in worse financial straits than NUFC, and if £7.5m is the going rate for promising young talent Dennis must be shopping at Netto? Bellamy's replacement making the club about £6m in the process I imagine. And were about to sell Given for £10m and havent reinvested the Milner money. West Ham have broken their transfer record to land this kid. It us like us spending £20m. Yep, it's exactly the same... I wouldnt say exactly but its more meaningful than a pound for pound comparison. So has Ashley stuck £12m in to the blub for transfers in the summer or was the Milner money reinvested to bring Net (urghhh!) spend to nil? Like it or not Ashley has stuck every penny raised from sales back into transfers

Who? Villa? No West Ham who;ve just found £7.5m for 19 year old Brescia striker Savio Nsereko. Surely West Ham are in worse financial straits than NUFC, and if £7.5m is the going rate for promising young talent Dennis must be shopping at Netto? Bellamy's replacement making the club about £6m in the process I imagine. Not to mention a couple of mill a year on wages

The answer is because Fred is s***. Understand? The others are able to do it with reasonable debt. Fred cannot do it despite have huge debt. That's why I said your question is silly. The answer contradicts with your stands. You might say you're an accountant, but like Mike Ashley, you understand zilch about football. Well...I think it's unarguable that administration is an intolerable sin for an owner/chairman. That's the basic for any football club. End of discussion because I know you couldn't have any new points to add on. Give it up man. It is meaningless. So is it administration or liquidation that we headed towards under Freds last stand?

Probably to have a zero-spending summer and use the season-ticket sales to pay off a portion of the debt so as to lower the debt ratio and the interest cost. They can afford a season without CL, but not two. If that's the case, we could see Torres going to Inter/RM/Barca whatever for 25-35m for paying off the debt. Unlikely to happen though. To kick Liverpool out of CL spot, Villa and the Gunners have to do even better next season. I fucking hope so tbh. They only need to finish third (which btw I think they will at best). They almost got knocked out in the prelims this season

It's actually quite secure. Consistent Champions League Last 8/4 results did give them very good revenue figure. They may have kinda short term liquidity problem but if the debts are asked to paid back immediately they do have the ability to pay off the debt. I agree though that their financial position aren't good and is already overspending. Couldn't afford another big-spending summer---and Benitiez may leave because of lack of funds. So what do you think will happen if they dont qualfiy for the CL? They borrowed 100% of the Torres fee and the repayments have started to kick in. They couldn't raise the finance for a new stadium. If they failed to qualify for the CL then Torres and maybe even Gerrard would be sold. Yes if required Gillett and Hicks could use their provate finance to repay any debt, but they would struggle to raise the same level of debt finance on their current model. Its a bit like saying Ashley has £800m in the bank so NUFC are safe and cash rich. The owners and the club are two seperate entities.

1. Don't give me example like Chelsea. Debt towards owner is just like our current debt towards Ashley. Isn't really a kind of debt. 2. Man Utd/Liverpool and most debt-carrying clubs are generating enough revenue or has very good liquidity to give the creditors confidence that they can pay the debt. As a result they don't need to repay the debt in short-term. This is not the case for Newcastle, which the huge loan is just down to "personal credit" by Fred. Mind you personal credit counts nothing actually. There's a lot of clauses inside these kinda loan contract, so called loan covenant, that the debt needs to be paid immediately under several circumstances. Change of ownership is not the only one but just one of those terms. So don't try to say "if Ashley don't buy the club, we don't need to repay the debt soon and we won't face administration". Never. 3. Well I start to doubt whether you are really a Newcastle fans. So you are willing to take a gamble for "getting back into Europe" by "risking the club into administration". Are you ok? Don't say something like "No Europe, No Newcastle". You will be classified as glory seekers. You are wrong about Liverpool btw, their debts are a long way from being secure

He's kept his head down and brought in a number of seemingly promising young players. We as fans have berated the club for neglating this area since time began. So yes he seems to be doing his job. If we get one established first teamer, a couple of squad players and sell a few for a £500k plus then its a job well done imo. Don't know what went on re Xisco/Keegan/Wise so not commenting