Unbelievable

They get rid of Smith and replace him with Tevez, making a 4m profit in the process..?

Don't the club organise pre-season matches for the reserves and youth sides?

It is a pre season game, no point risking more first team players. At the risk of being whooshed, I hope you're joking?

So what you're saying is that as long as Man City fans don't mind a few thousand murders and the local papers don't mind being supressed under threat of death then everything will be fine? well no-one's complaining about Ashley's Indonesian sweat shops Touche

I would, and I don't even rate Dyer that highly..

No need for the board to explain what their plans are with the club..? I've said it before, there's millions of things that would be of interest to hear from the new owners of the club we all support: - What are his aims? - Is he here for the long haul? - What are his plans with SJP? - What kind of owner/chairman does he envision being? - Will he attend the games? - Does he think a Director of Football is the way forward in football? - Will he invest in talent or does he want finished articles? - Does he want to invest in our youth academy and what will he expect to get out of it? - Does he want to be in the expanded G14? - What are his plans with regards to future tv coverage of toon matches? - Does he want a primarily English/British squad or does he not really care? - Is it important for him that Geordies remain in key positions in the club? - Will Shearer keep his ambassador of the club role? - Is Shearer regarded as a possible manager for the future? - Does he value the importance of an elaborated scouting network? - ... for starters.. In my opinion when you take over an institution that is so important to so many people not communicating at all is not what should be happening..

Some good points, but your overall abusive opinion is over the top, especially the thread title (doom mongers?) and the first sentence. It's very simple; we've been taken over yet there's almost been complete radio silence from the new owner and the chairman, which can never be a good thing, especially as the manager you so support is expressing his worries publically..

Does anyone get tired of their patta clogging up newsnow? They'll do an article on owt. 'However we do now want to hear is a denial for Chris Mort...'. Use your b****** common sense man! You're just taking a snipe at one comment in an otherwise very sensible article. The `Mort-Ashley needs to come out more´ debate has been going on around here as well, and I would argue that it is the silence and the apparent lack of action that allows for the sort of Sunday newspaper article speculation above. So, what does your common sense tell you at the moment firetotheworks? Is everything honkey dorey at SJP, or is there reason for worry?

The People is the least reliable Sunday paper. Good.. The quotes in that article are old aren't they?

How reliable is this? If true, we can forget about qualifying for Europe next season, and I can see our best players wanting to leave this summer or next.. It's great to have a billionaire as an owner, but if he doesn't know anything about football, doesn't want to invest in the playing side and doesn't trust his manager's judgement I can't see too much progress compared to the previous owners, despite all the optimism..

So does anybody know what the man thinks about football fans from the North East of England?

I don't disagree with any of that. It's just a response to those who are gagging for news, suggesting f*** all is happening. Who suggested that? I'm not going to link to all the threads and posts where people are panicking and speculating about the lack of news, it'd take too long. That's not even to mention people worrying about the players being linked in comics like the Star. I don't recall anyone suggesting f*** all is happening, I do remember people being worried by Fat Sam's comments about the board causing him to miss out on his targets because they're moving too slow. Exactly.. I'm getting a bit tired of people putting words in other people's mouths to ridicule them.. The people who have been sceptical lately have not suggested that we as supporters have a right to know how much money will be spent, as has been suggested, nor have they claimed that Allardyce was doing nothing to bring new players in, as seems to be suggested here.. All these quotes suggests to me is Allardyce putting his head down and continuing work on bringing players in. He can't bring the players in if the new owners aren't willing to open their wallet though..

Bottom half of the table material.. Would you have defended Freddy if he wouldn't have brought in defensive reinforcements?

I'm sure what you say about West Ham was probably said 12 months ago. That settles it then.. They're going down..

Did the club make a profit in 2000? The year they paid a dividend to shareholders. I couldn't care if they compensate losses with profits from another year, they made a loss that year yet still paid a dividend. What do you mean you don't care? They would still be profits, only from a different fiscal period. You also have to remember that dividends are paid out to ALL shareholders equally. Some people make it sound like dividends were being used as a bonus payout to management. Others make it worse by suggesting this was OUR money somehow..

Check the accounts for 2000, loss and dividend payment. You can probably compensate losses with profits from previous years. Football is no different from any other business in this respect. Doesn't change the fact that any dividend needs to have been earned as profits before.. As I say, dividends are DEFINED AS paid out profits.. Can't seen how you can question this to incriminate Shepherd. It certainly doesn't make your argument more convincing.. 2000 accounts Operating profit before player trading £766,000 Player Trading £19,874,000 Operating Loss £19,108,000 Loss after interest and taxation £15,544,000 Dividends paid £3,836,000 Retained loss for year £19,380,000 And I've never understood how they did !! The only thing maybe that they split group and company results to somehow make it legal ?? Well, as a company owner in Holland I presume you have a similar system to us in the UK, where it is possible to offset one year's losses with the previous years profits paid out as dividends, for example: 2007 MyCo makes a 30k profit, I pay out 10k in divis, the remaining 2ok is retained in the company 2008 MyCo makes a 5k loss. I can still pay out the retained profit from 2007. Of course, a company can only ever pay out profits it has actually made (in the fiscal period running or previously retained). No expert on UK fiscal law, but I presume it must be something like this..

Check the accounts for 2000, loss and dividend payment. You can probably compensate losses with profits from previous years. Football is no different from any other business in this respect. Doesn't change the fact that any dividend needs to have been earned as profits before.. As I say, dividends are DEFINED AS paid out profits.. Can't seen how you can question this to incriminate Shepherd. It certainly doesn't make your argument more convincing..

It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well? Money then - ours/or rather the club's money Money now - Ashley's Are we all getting a free season ticket and free burgers and drinks at SJP? Or did Shepherd get his stake in the club on a golden plate? I think you're kidding yourself if you think the new owner will threat us any less as a way of making a buck than the old one..

I agree From what I am picking up on this board is that too many people expected an instant fix and the immediate signing of a whole new squad of 20 players and because its not happening, the doom and gloom is starting to decend again. We have to stop thinking like this and remember where we were at the end of the season. No way was this going to be fixed quickly. in the interview he mentions being patient about the long term stability etc....he also says day by day more players are slipping away,doesn't sound like he is being too patient to me. If SA wants to be honest, what would really help us is to explain why they are slipping away. If its because they are going to clubs that are simply offering them more money then it would help us fans. I think most people on this board agreed with SA when he said that we only want players who want to play for the club. If money is there perogative then we have to support SA/Board in not begging them to come. Eventually we will get the right players and will have taken the first steps towards becoming a stable club. Watch what happens to West Ham or Fulham or Wigan if they are relegated next season. Totally f*****. I would rather didnt just chuck money at anyone just for the sake of it. It bothers me that without knowing anything, all of a sudden its all Sams and Ashleys fault. How would that help us? Also, I don't understand the consensus that West Ham are relegation candidates because they are spending big.. To me it looks like they are another club that will stand in our way if we want to challenge for Europe, just like Porthsmouth has done last season by getting in better players..

I thought we also paid dividends while making a loss. Urm, you can't by definition. Dividends are paid out profit.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend

It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'.. Difference being, Mort's wages comes from Ashley's pockets now, not ours, as he owns the club lock stock. FWIW I've never cared about people making lots of money, so long as they provide value for money or earn it and I've never felt FS has done that on either front. SJH has so I have no problem with him making a mint, FS and DH though... Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Before the Halls and Shepherds effectively owned the club. The kept executive positions, paid themselves accordingly and took a part of profits from the club as divis. Do you think things will be different with a new owner..? I believe the consensus was Mr Ashley is in it for the money.. Is he a philantrophe now as well?

Well, that is what he said isn't it. I just wonder how long this "moment" will last. I can't see how the quote can be interpreted positively. Don't worry.. They'll put a spin on it and before you know it he will have meant we aim to blow the spening of other clubs out of the water, but only after the internal review is done.. </sarcasm>

It's a good job then that Mr Mort is a philantrophe who is merely here for a 'sabbatical'..

Can't say you're excited that someone who knows what he's doing has been appointed? He knows what he's doing in a law farm, not a football club. Surely you recognise there is a subtle difference? As far as the chairman is concerned, the club is a business, just like everywhere else. Sam Allardyce is in charge of the footballing side. Even if you think that, a lawyer is not by definition a good chairman of a company? Again, there is a subtle difference.. He's a man that a Billionaire has been working with all his life, got to say I trust his opinion over yours He is taking through his arse anyway. Every biotech company is headed up by Lawyers just as a simple example. To say a lawyer by defintion doesnt make a good chairman is nonsense. Company leaders can come from anywhere, finance, marketing, sales, HR or even legal. What a load of rubbish.. I said: "a lawyer is not by definition a good chairman of a company" You say I said: "To say a lawyer by defintion doesnt make a good chairman is nonsense." Who's talking through their arse?

Can't say you're excited that someone who knows what he's doing has been appointed? He knows what he's doing in a law farm, not a football club. Surely you recognise there is a subtle difference? As far as the chairman is concerned, the club is a business, just like everywhere else. Sam Allardyce is in charge of the footballing side. Even if you think that, a lawyer is not by definition a good chairman of a company? Again, there is a subtle difference..