Taylor Swift

No, I'd rather we get someone young and promising (not Shearer). The most important aspect that I'd desire in any future manager atm is tactical awareness. We haven't had someone who's brilliant tactically in, well, ever.

It's rare for someone to actually have the funds to acquire the land, develop it and run a business on it. From my experience, there's always two or three main parties involved; one to acquire the land (the main financier), one to develop it (a minor entity ie. the contractor to build the hotel), and lastly, one to run a business on it (the second main entity eg. hotel owners). The only times I've seen this happen is when the second main entity ie. the person who is last in the chain, has enough funds to acquire the land and develop it. Since we seem to be the first main entity, it'd be stupid of us to pretend we know anything about running hotels. Much better off this way imo.

Parky, I know it is privately funded. I believe I was one of the first to actually explain how this kind of deal works. An explanation which you agreed with. It's not technically borrowing. The hotels and stuff won't be owned by the club, so we don't technically have to borrow any money to build all that. Someone else is doing that and they'll own it, the club will still own the land though and get a 'free' ground extension. If that is the case and it sounds like it is....It's a very good deal for us... However, none of us knows the ins and outs of this deal. And there are other possible scenarios - that's all I'm saying. PS. I didn't see you show your fantastic knowledge of the world of real-estate before other people, myself included, explained how it works.

It's really hard to figure what kind of deal the club has structured with the investors when looking from the outside perspective. The first deal that I mentioned would be a masterstroke from Freddy, the second one a much more common deal but yet, it will still benefit the club.

Just to add, from what I know about business, real-estate and how these sorts of things are done, this is a common way of doing business. However, another scenario which is also possible is that the club is funding the development of the hotels/casinos etc. but will let someone else come in and run it (and put a name on it eg. Hilton/Marriott etc.). Tbh, I've seen this type of deal happen more than the previous one that I mentioned. This kind of deal works well for both parties because even though the club is putting money into the development, they have a guaranteed 'return' ie. the investors (the hotel investors) have to pay a certain amount back to the club each month/year. I believe that this 'return' is being invested in the development of the ground. So technically, one could say that the money spent on the ground can actually be spent on the team, but even if this is the case, I'd rather we spend money on the ground than give it to Roeder to spend. It'd be similar to giving Souness £50m to spend, just not worth it.

It's not technically borrowing. The hotels and stuff won't be owned by the club, so we don't technically have to borrow any money to build all that. Someone else is doing that and they'll own it, the club will still own the land though and get a 'free' ground extension. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to get money from the investors to reinvest in the team rather than getting an extra 8k seats which, tbh, are you desperate for? If there was a queue of people waiting to buy season tickets I could understand it more, but surely the quality of the playing squad should be of paramount importance? For no particular reason I think this is more a way of boosting the value and the profile of the club to a potential buyer rather than any obvious benefit to the club's fans. The post below yours explains the reasoning very well. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's a good thing but just happening at the wrong time. Nonetheless, we're planning for the future which is a good sign.

It's not technically borrowing. The hotels and stuff won't be owned by the club, so we don't technically have to borrow any money to build all that. Someone else is doing that and they'll own it, the club will still own the land though and get a 'free' ground extension.

It's not going to be long term debt man. James said earlier in the thread, this will be backed by investors. What, imo, happens is that since the club owns the land, they 'lease' it out to these 'investors' who will develop the land into hotels, casinos etc. etc. whatever and sign a contract for something like 10 years or something similar (obviously with option to extend) with the club. Whatever gets developed isn't 'owned' by the club, only the land is. Whatever profit these hotels/casinos make isn't the club's profit. It'll be the investors' profits. The main good thing about this is that since the land around St. James' is obviously valuable and very attractive, Freddy has actually done a smart thing by 'leasing' it out and negotiating into the contract, a development of the ground which will be funded by these 'investors'. To them (Fred and the investors), it's a win-win situation.

At least we're planning for the future?

Tbh, I think this is a great idea albeit at the really wrong time. However, since the move is going to be funded independently from the revenue of the club, there's no harm in getting it done now. It'll give us a platform for the future and won't mean that we have to play catchup. The fact is that it's a good idea, and it will put as on an even or close keel with the likes of Manyoo, Liverpool and Arsenal, the type of clubs we should be aiming to compete with eventually. Obviously the football part needs working out but imo, if this isn't going to affect our transfer budget etc. then get it done now because it'll only be harder and more expensive in the future.

:lol: what a thread!

Jesus wept man!!

'report to moderator'

I'm with you Shak, all the way.

Not really the biggest of things though. nufc.com didn't spot it either. You sure he was actually banned?

Kuranyi isn't a class player. He's just excelled in a league where strikers don't need to be that good to score. His control is shite, his heading ability is average and he's not pacey. He's a bit better than Ameobi in that aspect but imo, I don't think he'd succeed in the Premiership.

Good to see we're actually returning to doing things the way SBR did. Good start Glenn.

27 point lead! Not bad not bad

Heard Berbatov is only on 22k/week!!

1-1 is my prediction We'll score first and sit back.

You have now

Umm.. shouldn't that be in here? http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php/topic,18555.0.html

:lol: class thread

No thanks. We should really look to sign Bridge btw. Although he's injured now, he wasn't getting that many games for Chelsea, and with the club having a sort of internal turmoil, we could possibly poach him. He's much better than some of our targets like Bale because he's experienced at both International, Europe and Premiership level.

Heard Spurs are willing to sell Robbie Keane. How much would you be willing to pay for him? 7m MAX for me even though he's quality, because even though he would compliment Martins quite well imo, it's just not worth investing a hefty some of cash for another striker, there are other priorities that need sorting out.