Happy Face

Looks good. Will Routledge and Lovenkrands be fit?

Hughton stays then.

If that's the case, then perhaps adopting a different approach to the finance-related threads would stop people (like myself) getting the impression that you are questioning "the finance Ashley has put in the club" I thought this was a 'club source says' thread. Nowt to do with reality.

For the record, I've never slagged off the finance Ashley has put in the club. Just his "public relations".

4 to 6 is your best bet.

No more Hull scenes.

I think that's exactly what Elizabeth Fritzl told herself about her dad. "I can't fight him off me, He might put me out on the streets"

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do. On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true. Really? Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop. "This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared" "I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees." "Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned" Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m. Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing. The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage. And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008." I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m". The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt. The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt. Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along. The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts... http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/ So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out. And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months. I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh. I appreciate that and I'm grateful to people like you who point out mistakes of a lay person like me. But wouldn't you agree the claim that we were debt free in May 2008 was a season ticket pushing distortion of the facts at best, just on the basis of the outstanding transfer liabilities they knew existed and later used as evidence of crushing debt? Again it's a case of derfinitions. Generally when you talk about a company's debt you are referring to its major external long term funding. The day to day liabilities that are incurred on running the business aren't included. Everyone knew Ashley paid off the external debt, it was in the 2007 accounts and widely reported in the press. He had to pay most of it off because there was a change of ownership clause in the loan agreements and not having done any due diligence he was unaware of this when he bought the club. The statement you refer to is clearly aimed at making the point that the club was not in the hands of external lenders who could foreclose. And if it's true (as is widely rumoured) that he was prepared to sell the club and write that debt off then the statement has even wider implications. Well I don't buy that either. The way I see it he's talking to papers sold to non-accountants like me. When he says... "The debt has now been cleared" it translates to "Go and buy season tickets, it'll all get spent on players" and then 4 months later when he says he didn't really..... "pay off the debt, just reduced it." it translates to "I can't afford to buy any players, I've saved the club" The cycle of promises and execuses repeats consistently around transfer window time. In December he was all about putting in a bit of money having stabilised the club, supporting Hughton and ensuring promotion, but now he's losing £2m every month and we're the next Portsmouth.

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do. On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true. Really? Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop. "This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared" "I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees." "Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned" Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m. Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing. The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage. And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008." I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m". The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt. The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt. Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along. The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts... http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/ So it hasn't occurred to you that a business making losses needs funding as it goes along. The £100 million did clear the external debt at that time but as the club lost more money further funds were needed to bale it out. And the article quite clearly states that the figure of £22.6m is the net current liabilities. Ashley's loan does not form part of that figure because he was not going to call it in within a period of 12 months. I fully understand that not everyone understands this stuff but drawing sweeping conclusions based on minimal knowledge is a shyte idea tbh. I appreciate that and I'm grateful to people like you who point out mistakes of a lay person like me. It had occured to me that more than £10m of further debt could have accrued in the 4 months between the statements, but even if it had, I thought the point stood. Wouldn't you agree the claim that we were debt free in May 2008 was a season ticket pushing distortion of the facts at best, just on the basis of the outstanding transfer liabilities they knew existed and later used as evidence of crushing debt?

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do. On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true. Really? Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop. "This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared" "I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees." "Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned" Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m. Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing. The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage. And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008." I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m". The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt. The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt. Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along. The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts... http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/ Overdraft, Payroll taxes, amounts due on transfer fees, amounts owed to other creidtors for eg food offset by amounts owed to the club - money due from transfers, television money etc. The £22.6 million does not mean that the club had any further loans other than that to Ashley I don't get your point. I'm not arguing about the costs of anything or what the debt position was or might be. People are saying Ashley plays with a straight bat on finances and I'm pointing out he's as inconsistent on finances as he is on any other subjectc. In May 2008 he claimed we had no debt whatsoever and by September we'd only partially reduced it and had millions outstanding on transfers. Clearly Keegan's departure had an impact on how he wanted to portray the situation. EDIT: Not to mention we were all FAR more likely to buy 3 year season tickets if we thought it was going to be spent on new players rather than old ones.

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do. On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true. Really? Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop. "This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared" "I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees." "Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned" Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m. Selective choice of quotes there, to make it sound like Ashley claimed he had loaned £210m when he never said any such thing. The facts were that he did stick in £100 million and Llambias said that a further £10 million had been stuck in post June 2008, which should show up in the 2009 accounts, making £110 in total. And the club didn't owe a bean to anyone external at that stage. And the accounts did not show a debt of £22.6m, where did you get that from Note 14 in the 2008 accounts says the " loan of £100 million from Mr MJW Ashley is unsecured. The loan agreement is that interest can be charged at a rate of LIBOR + 0.5%, however no interest has been charged in the year to 30 June 2008." I never intended that to come across as " he said £210m". The first quote said £100m had cleared all the debt. The second unrelated quote said £110m hadn't been enough to clear the debt. Two contradicting stories that show, on finances, like everything else, they make it up as they go along. The £22.6m figure came from this report on the accounts... http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/01/23/newcastle-united-club-accounts-reveal-state-of-play-61634-22758691/

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping c***'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do. You still think an NUST takeover is a viable and preferable option to the present regime ? Or have they been misleading the fans and media too ? I've never thought an NUST takeover was viable.

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping cunt'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do. On the other hand, as quayside has already pointed out upthread, whenever they have made a statement about the finances, it has proved, on later examination of the accounts, to be true. Really? Back in 2008 they were contradicting themselves all over the shop. "This club had £100million-worth of debt which has now been cleared" "I then poured another £110 million into the club not to pay off the debt but just to reduce it. The club is still in debt. Even worse than that, the club still owes millions of pounds in transfer fees." "Financially we're very sound. We don't owe a bean as far as the club are concerned" Then the accounts showed United’s debt was £22.6m.

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault. Would be interesting to find out how he would have been treated if he'd shipped out four or five more of our best players to reduce the losses to £10m a season. I suspect the headlines would be 'NUFC losing £250k a week!!!' and also 'Mike Ashley asset stripping cunt'. Something along those lines. The headlines should just be "Ashley spouts more bollocks". The papers should report our profit and loss when the accounts are released and only then. Thecertainly shouldn't run a headline about us losing half a million every week as a statement of fact, when the source is the same people to have admitted in court that misleading fans and the media is what they do.

Newcastle United couldnt survive at the moment without Mikes money, its as simple as that." This is remarkably similar to a statement made in December when 'a source' said Without Mike's input, the club would be broke. Simple as that." which I wrote about here and commented was like saying Josef Fritzl deserved credit for supporting Elizabeth Fritzl all her life. "If Mike and the banks weren't willing to cover the cost of relegation Newcastle may well be in a Portsmouth situation" He's given no impression whatsoever that he's "willing" to do any such thing. Like a rat on a sinking ship (the rat that gnawed through the hull) he's had the club on the market during almost every transfer window he's been at the club (or has claimed to have it on the market). He's often referred to his desire to cut his losses and sell up. He's been forced to cover the cost of his own mistake and nothing more. This is no act of altruism we're seeing. It's pure business. He knows this club is worth more than the current value he's dragged us down to....and a great deal more than Portsmouth who are a far smaller club with an average gate less than half the size of ours even in the league above.

Mike Ashley signed the contracts of EVERY player at the club so it's totally his fault.

Haven't watched it yet, but thought from the synopsis it would be a big bag of shite. There isn't a chairman in the football league that doesn't contribute to sweatshop conditions by contracting the likes of Nike and Adidas to produce their kits.

Are you really serious? Do you know the rules of the game? See law 12... http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf Fans aren't governed by the rules of play. We don't get ruled offside and we're free to call the refree a t***. Sorry, I have never took the time to read the rules in full. "See law 12" Glad to see it's not just me. Anyone who thinks fans are governed by the same laws as the players on the pitch REALLY should go and read the rules mate. Need to go back to basics and get a clue. There's only 17 rules. It's not that difficult. Now you're not even making sense HF, please, please, please stop this crazy-man vendetta. You're a good poster usually - I'm not on the windup here. Vendetta?

Are you really serious? Do you know the rules of the game? See law 12... http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf Fans aren't governed by the rules of play. We don't get ruled offside and we're free to call the refree a t***. Sorry, I have never took the time to read the rules in full. "See law 12" Glad to see it's not just me. Anyone who thinks fans are governed by the same laws as the players on the pitch REALLY should go and read the rules mate. Need to go back to basics and get a clue. There's only 17 rules. It's not that difficult.

"Calmer than you are dude" It sounds like you're saying players should be allowed to gesture and the FA shouldn't get involved because fans do it. Was the main point of your post to make a joke? Why would a player be punished for a gesture that hundreds of fans do every weekend, which is then shown on live TV. If you're going to punish the player, you have to punish the fans. Slow day for Ashley quotes? Are you really serious? Do you know the rules of the game? See law 12... http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/laws_of_the_game_0708_10565.pdf Fans aren't governed by the rules of play. We don't get ruled offside and we're free to call the refree a twat.

Deluded Blackburn fans.

Aye. A bit like how people are tortured to death at Guantanamo Bay in that respect.

"Calmer than you are dude" It sounds like you're saying players should be allowed to gesture and the FA shouldn't get involved because fans do it. Was the main point of your post to make a joke?

Why do people keeping saying that on here? Clearly there is something to it, because the FA are investigating.