Parky

But if you are buying the club you would only do so in the expectation that you can deliver success on the pitch - hard as it is to believe I think even Ashley assumed that he would get there eventually. To have the infrastructure already in place for a successful club is a big plus. I didn't say it did. Read my post - I said if you buy the club you would do so expecting to deliver success on the pitch. And to have the stadium already in place when that success occurs is a big plus. A lot of football clubs have stadiums in place. Who knew?!

The club is worth jack shit, the quicker you realise that the quicker I can get on with my work.

Redundant if the club ain't been sold by then I guess. But I'm sure you'll drivel on about stadiums and loans and whatever.

Completely nowt to do with what quayside said that like. Yeah cause I'm not allowed to take it sideways. I'll be right about everything ftr. The price. The lack of buyers. and all the other shit that will inevitably follow... Wasn't sideways, just completely irrelivant really. Good luck with being right about everything though Well at least I wont have to endure you banging on about assets and whatnot in mid-Sept.

Completely nowt to do with what quayside said that like. Yeah cause I'm not allowed to take it sideways. I'll be right about everything ftr. The price. The lack of buyers. and all the other shit that will inevitably follow...

The infrastructure didn't stop us getting relegated.

The stadium is only worth what revenue it generates and that is dependent on what is happening on the pitch.

I sometimes wonder if the 100m tag is a ploy not to sell the club.

I personally wouldn't want a consortium dumb enough to pay 100m. If one actually exists that is and isn't pure fiction.

What in gods name are you babbling about?

Over 70m would be fair.

You give me a £1 for every one under a 100m.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price?

This Oh and possibly a load of debt as well, with a load of overpaid players and liabilities attached to those players. Yup.

Nobody in their right mind buys a CCC club for 100m.

I don't really believe it either. But the way they keep going on about it, it'll have to be a massive bit of front by the current lot or if indeed Seymour is making stuff up again. Not sure why anyone would want to pay the 100m now all they have to do is wait for more chaos and pay half that.

You're the least of our worries bro.

End of the world.

Was just going through the bit I thought was really inaccurate and had my post finished when I realised I'd misread what he'd written Still think its too full of supposition and written to make things seem as grim as possible. He recons all transfer fee's have to be paid in full before a player is sold. Has anyone else here ever heard of that rule? If we have a contract to pay for a player in installments then why can't we sell that player and continue to pay for him in installments? He also mentions a figure we'll have left to pay for the players we want to sell off (which is guesswork by the way as he has no idea what installment system we agreed to when signing each player). Yet he doesn't even try to figure out what we're still owed for the players we've sold in that time. Considering we've actually sold players for more money then we've spent since Ashley arrived it must be as significant number, if not more then the one we'd have to pay out. He talks about image rights saying that they can be paid in two ways, 10% of merchandise with the players face on it or 10% extra on his yearly wage. But he assumes we're paying every player extra on their wage, with no facts to back that up. Considering the size of our wage bill (£70m) vs what we make on merchandise (£10m+?) it wouldn't make financial sense to pay it that way (£7m vs less then £1m) now I know this is Newcastle were financial sense seems to have gone out of the window for a long time but that doesn't mean its ok to assume the worst in every instance. Its still an interesting and worrying article though. Are you officially worried now? FFS!

In our case it's probably x10 worse.

The cost of just keeping the club going on an even keel are very high for a CCC club. Good article the big one, I estimated the costs at 20m every three months and it doesn't seem to be far off that. Reg the sale I still believe 100m is fantasy land.

That is way, way over the top, verging on the absolute bollocks to be honest. Im not his biggest fan, and dont think he offers a lot to the team overall, but in terms of predatory instincts he is world class. There arent any better than him in the game at timing his runs, and he does finish a lot of his chances. You only have to look at the past few games where he's been incorrectly ruled offside against Arsenal and Man Utd. IMO he has been getting sharper with each game since his return, and will improve (as long as he stays fit). He's never going to be the type of player to take on men and run around all day, he's about waiting and timing, but that doesnt make him lazy. Wasn't though was it? There was only one was Owen was going to go. Didn't he go onto be the third most prolific striker in the PL under Keegan? Under Keegan he got 7 goals from open play in 17 games hardly earth-shattering tbh, but it's decent I guess Yeah cause he had a team of gifted giants behind him.

What's overall goals per game and his goals per strike? Better than Martins or not?

He's trying to save his career basically and in that sense he is trying to put a positive spin on things. However the failure of Owen at Newcastle is predominantly due to how s*** our club has been the past 2 years, notwithstanding signing him in the first place. i'd say it was an even split. I wouldn't not by a mile.