Parky

Once again.... nice worldwide PR by NUFC If you're an international fan, you cannot support Newcastle if you're not prepared to get labelled 'weirdo'. i am already labeled "weirdo" before i am support NUFC ... so this mean i get higher rank of weirdo

He misses far too many chances to be called an instinctive finisher for me, Parky. .....alright 'the ball is there I'm going to kick it really hard at goal' type of finisher. But I hear you yes. He will get better though...But needs a good coach..etc...

We're bidding for him in the summer so you don't have long to wait Gemms. I personally don't rate his overall game, no pace, not much movement etc - but yes his fiinishing has improved. He also has something about his character, a certain fighting spirit in which I can see he has already learnt to overcome adversity (Noclueque anyone). For me they are different players infact two who could play well together. The 'problems' with Martins is for me his intelligence and positioning, he is an instictive finisher and will never lose that. We just don't seem to buy clever players - Emre and Owen aside. Would I personally have him here - No. Could he be successful here I'd say yes.

How does anyone know Roeder is a nice bloke ? He might slap his missus about and have an unhealthy interest in farmyard animals for what most peope know. And what if he is a canny bloke ? so is my next dooe neighbour and I don't want him managing Newcastle either. Good point. How many times do people qualify their misgivings with the old nice bloke opener on here? I personally think he is a normal bloke, not sure why people say he's 'nice'...Tbh he talked himself into the job althogh he likes to create the impression he wasn't interested in the long term, we now see that he was.

he has to run where others can walk Be nice of he did something worthwhile though. Waste of money. Worth keeping as a £20k a week squad player, but not as he is now. He's no first team regular. Tbf we've only seen glimpses of the real Emre under Glenda. If he played a bit further up and we didn't hoof it....There would be more chance for his end product tricks.

he has to run where others can walk ....he has dispensed with trotting,,

I did that Parks, doesn't work when his ugly mug pops up on the tele screen in the pub I swore rather loudly at the telly involuntarily didn't go down well Feel a bit better now. Took it out on some "philosophy students". proper fucked them up I hope I publicly humiliated a mathematics student cunts Aye.

I don't think Glenda has the balls to taste...Shirley more of a nibbler a head tickler?

I did that Parks, doesn't work when his ugly mug pops up on the tele screen in the pub I swore rather loudly at the telly involuntarily didn't go down well Feel a bit better now. Took it out on some "philosophy students".

Have you not seen the number of people on here saying that while they're furious and think Roeder is a sh*te excuse for a manager, and unless he's booted out we'll go down next year ? But despite this, they say they WILL renew their season ticket ? With so many with that mentality, that fat fool Shepherd isnt likely to listen to us. We need to smash windows (and heads ?) to get the fat b*stard OUT and take Roeder with him. jacked mine in after 30 years last summer so ive done my bit From the Guardian: "This is also the start of a crucial spell for a club where a sizeable number of fans are debating whether to renew season tickets that were once so difficult to obtain. There is no longer a waiting list and, with vacant seats an unpalatable prospect for a club with debts of about £80million, an uplifting climax to the season is vital."

I'm going out for a few beers and I'm going to pretend to myself that Glenda has been sacked....No other way of getting through the night.

Maybe you might like to turn that same critical logic on yourself after having read your defence of his team selection in the match thread. Bipolar-tastic tbh. Blind optimism. I was actually trying to convince myself that we would be alright. It's not working anymore though. I am infuriated!!! I did like the original defensive lineup though. Why the hell he took off Moore I will never know. Apparently, even with Dyer, Solano, Martins and Duff, Parker and Butt are so ineffective they still have a negative effect on us! To be fair though if I was bipolar it would be down to watching this tripe week in and week out... ......just imagine for a second that the top 4 sides would employ Roeder....We'd laugh till the brown stuff leaked... blueyes.gif

Yeah it's City's fault. mackems.gif

What is going to happen if Sheff Utd beat us again and they get 9 points form this lot: Sheff Utd have a run in involving West Ham h Charlton a Wigan h Watford h

Egil Olsen was terrible but it's worrying when you mention their position. Sheff Utd have a run in involving West Ham h Charlton a Wigan h Watford h

You see if we lose to Sheff Utd the gap between us and them is 3 points....That is the best motivation they could have. blueyes.gif

We have to get at least 44 points by my calculations to be sure.

CM HAS to be Emre and Butt.

Both the makems and Boro went down with 42 points if I remember rightly. Both thought they were "safe" with games to play. With this useless tw*t at the helm, can anyone be certain of getting 6 extra points ?And that stinking fat b*stard who has got us in this mess with his lunatic choices of manager (I was one of the few to campaign that it was madness to give the job to a man who has had his only two clubs relegated) it is YES possible this fool will make it a hat trick with Shepherd sitting with his head up his own ars*, or fiddling while Newcastle burns, if you like. I don't think we will be relegated, BUT if we lose another two on the trot we will be amongst it...And then what if Martins gets injured? You see....

You keep saying that and we're luckt that is so....But it in no way should detract from the figures in front of us.

I honestly believe a vast part of the problem is that half the team are on CL wages withouth CL football.

Agree.

One area where Spurs have identifyied making money is buying young players and selling them a bit later for profit. I think over the last 5 years no-one can tough them on this. But they invested in scouting and bought in top blokes to achieve this. For a football business identifying cheap assets (young players) with a view to selling a portion of these 'finds' later is a nailed on revenue stream. blueyes.gif

Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are s***. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has f*** all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a s*** football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? I think we're getting somewhere here. It's up to the shareholders as to what their investment strategy is. If the Halls or the Shepherds sell their shares, it doesn't necessarily impact the share price adversely. You can see that even the prospect of them selling out in recent times has pushed the price up. The Board is supposed to evaluate the long term financing needs of the business before it pays dividends. Our Board isn't sufficiently independent and has been heavily criticised for its lack of corporate governance. It's good that you're concerned for the shareholders but it's not like a FTSE 100 company - the majority of shares are in private hands and they are not going to dump their stock on the market, the club does NOT need to pay them dividends to preserve its share price. I expect any analysts would heavily criticise the company for doing so. As to your last comment, I think you may have misunderstood my point. If you pay the money out by dividend, it's gone. The point is the Board is supposed to review whether it needs the money BEFORE it pays it out. If you think it's better that the Board pays out any surplus money before they get the chance to spend it, well, they should be sacked in that case and a competent Board put in its place. Good post Kitty. This is what I mean about monopoly even the majority of our shareholders have emotional attachement to the club and are largely in private hands...That is why as you say correctly the prixe isn't as vulernable as other companies. I did sell my shares though when my percentage gain was achieved. But that's just me.

Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Me too Or turn it the other way around... What happens to our ability to borrow/pay off loans when all the cash in the company has been given away? I am seriously interested in what happens when shareholders sell up. My site is there to try and explain the clu's finances. I totally accept I'm no more than a keen amateur in these things, and I need to know more. If you have a good concise explanation of what difference it would make if the share price went down, or up, then I will happily include it. (It has to have no jargon in it ) As far as not paying dividends having a negative effect on share-price, surely it doesn't make any difference ? Pay dividends and business has less assets and is worth less, so share price drops, investors see some short term gain so buy. So share price nets out as unchanged. Don't pay dividends and business is worth more so share price rises, but has less short term enticement to an investor so the price nets out as unchanged. Roughly you really don't get this shares lark do you? shreholders make money in two ways, price increases and divis. If the share price is falling and there are no divis, there is no point in owning shares share price is purely refelcted by share buyer confidence, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the company has money in the bank or as you put it 'the company's worth' (unless you honestly believe that someone would buy shares in a s*** football club just because they have some cash). The company's worth is the share price. Share price dictates a companies market capitalisation (hope that's not too jargony for you, but it's a standard term). MC is a key measure for plc's and dictates credit limits and repayment rates. Interesting. Are you suggesting that a company's financial results has no bearing whatsoever on its market price? Where do you think this 'share buyer confidence' comes from? If a company has no cash and is performing badly, do you think confidence is retained by paying dividends? Are you aware that companies forecast their results to the stock market. What do you think analysts do? How are markets made in shares? Exactly, our financial results are s***. So combined with no dividends why would anynone keep their shares? It has f*** all to do with keeping money in the bank I ask you do you think a shareholder invests in a s*** football club with a falling share price and a zero dividend, just because they have cash in the bank? You class keeping money in the bank the same as a predicting a good financial year? That money has to go somewhere, you think potential investors have any illusion that NUFC plc has a history of using cash wisely? Luque anyone? I think we're getting somewhere here. It's up to the shareholders as to what their investment strategy is. If the Halls or the Shepherds sell their shares, it doesn't necessarily impact the share price adversely. You can see that even the prospect of them selling out in recent times has pushed the price up. The Board is supposed to evaluate the long term financing needs of the business before it pays dividends. Our Board isn't sufficiently independent and has been heavily criticised for its lack of corporate governance. It's good that you're concerned for the shareholders but it's not like a FTSE 100 company - the majority of shares are in private hands and they are not going to dump their stock on the market I think the bottom line is that football clubs don't make good PLC's as they are not blue sky operations.. I mean a football club will never have the potential to grow the business indefinately as the market for revenues has a ceiling. Even with ManU oft quoted as one of the most tasty investment snacks current turnover is £177m (double ours), even in 10 years they don't have the ability to double that, which over a decade is the basic goal of most small/medium operations. Infact if it hadn't been for the SKY deals, I'm not sure that more than 4/5 PL clubs the businesses would have grown at all. There are market/diminishing returns risk to increasing ticket prices, there is a limit to sponsorship and prixe money.