Happy Face

Get your head out of sand, he paid off the debt and put in £20 million to pay the bills, that £20 million was money which the club wasn't/isn't generating. He's also put in £20 million since that time to carry on paying the bills. Source? Genuinely. I know there was £10M that he put in on the accounts. But then he's apparently selling players on installments (wasn't the story that we've received nothing for Given yet?) while insisting on paying up front for anyone we buy. Which paints a lob-sided picture.

No one has taken on these two questions. Strange that. I see it as the sort of question a spousal abuser asks his cowering wife after he's kicked the shit out of her. "Who's going to take care of you if I don't?" Isn't it TV, Gates and commercial that pay the bills, not Mike Ashley? Ashley paid off the debt.

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't. But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe. Not from a small growth in interest repayments. When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year. Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs? What is your point? ...and why do you need to be so rude? Have I been curt with you at some point? It's not just a case of getting in new players, the club is desperate to get it's act together on the financial side of things and it finally looks like it is being pulled around, my own opinion on the subject is that Newcastle is one of the biggest clubs in the Country which is shown by the massive turnover the club brings in however that isn't much good if you're losing £20 million a season on top of that. If they can turn it around which they look like doing then we will come out of it in a far stronger position at the end of it and I'm prepared to live with the short term shit if this is the case. The point about what other club owners put in is a valid one, once the club is on stable footing financially I'm hoping that the money Ashley has been putting in to cover costs will be switched to going into the transfer kitty, add that to the money that the club will hopefully be making rather than losing and it has the potential to be a bright future, with only a handful of club owners willing to put their hand in their own pocket it should make us much better off than the majority of the Premiership. As for being being rude, if you want to have a serious football debate then I'm happy to do it, if you're going to start calling me son and claiming you've handed my arse to me like you did over the past few days then don't expect such a warm reply. But I'm older than you kidda. I can't agree that spending within your means is the route to success. You borrow, spend big and use the rewards you reap to keep paying off the cost of getting there and staying there. It's what Villa have done and succeeded (so far). It's what Spurs have done and failed (so far). It's been repeatedly stated, but in the top 10.... Man U £453 million in debt from bank borrowings - over half of the entire Premier League's total borrowings from banks - and £152 million in debt from other loans. Liverpool had a debt of £43 million in bank borrowings, and £13 million in other loans Chelsea have the biggest debt. At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million Villa recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007. Arsenal have the third highest debt. At the end of 2006/07 their net borrowings stood at £268 million, with the second highest loans balances in the country Everton failed to raise enough revenue to cancel out their wage bill during 2006/07, and in fact were left with a deficit of £8.1 million Wigan sustained a £14 million deficit in 2007 as their revenue did not match their wages even closely. They are squarely in the "danger level" of cost management. Fulham are £182 million in debt. West Ham have £142 million of debt Man City are £103 million debt.

I wouldn't say total losses of £34 million are sustainable no, just like the £20M loss made in 2000 wasn't. But losses like that come from a club that's used to competing at the top end, with top players missing out on the big payout that comes from playing in Europe. Not from a small growth in interest repayments. When it happened in the past, suitable action was taken (new manager, new players) and we went on to qualify the following year. Why do you keep asking about other owners that lend money to their clubs? What is your point? ...and why do you need to be so rude? Have I been curt with you at some point?

All the contradictions you need on this subject are right here.... http://nufc-ashlies.blogspot.com/2009/02/whos-buying.html

Between '98 and '06 the club spent £26 million on interest. £3.25M per season. That's £0.5M per season less than the Shepherds and Halls took from the club (£30M in those 8 years). Or....about £70 per supporter in the stadium. Was that unsustainable? when the stadium was sold out the majority of that time?

I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Lets be realistic about the figures for a couple of big players and subtract the upfront payment and just look at the future installments. Say they are 20m. The value of the club will fall by more than 20m if we are relegated. End of maths lesson. Cheers, I forgot a lot of what I learned from my Maths degree. Ashley got the club for under £150M....and then paid off a lot of the previously structured debt. He got it cheap...because of the debt. He's since complained bitterly about all the debt and blamed it for their poor performance. He doesn't want to sell cheap. He wants it to be an attractive proposition. He doesn't want structured debt. He doesn't want to spend. I don't see how this is even up for debate. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,60404.msg1718385.html#msg1718385 Yes we all want him to spend more a yes he's a shit chairman. That doesnt mean he wont buy players just in case we go down. Thats a ridiculous argument. It's not the argument I made either.

I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too. Lets be realistic about the figures for a couple of big players and subtract the upfront payment and just look at the future installments. Say they are 20m. The value of the club will fall by more than 20m if we are relegated. End of maths lesson. Cheers, I forgot a lot of what I learned from my Maths degree. Ashley got the club for under £150M....and then paid off a lot of the previously structured debt. He got it cheap...because of the debt. He's since complained bitterly about all the debt and blamed it for their poor performance. He doesn't want to sell cheap. He wants it to be an attractive proposition. He doesn't want structured debt. He doesn't want to spend. I don't see how this is even up for debate.

I don't think he wants to invest up front, because it's not appealing to investors to have (say) £50M of structured debt that's nowt to do with them that they have to build their plans around. It's been Ashley's main excuse for his poor performance since arriving. I think that kind of structured debt becomes even less appealing for a championship side who's players are worth a fraction of the amount and who's revenue is a fraction too.

Which bit?

Are you suggesting his statement could have been "wibble" and we'd have to fall in line because he's actually learned to speak. Think it through sonna. Communication is a good thing. Previously we assumed they were fucking us over because they said nowt as we slid into obscurity. Now we know they're fucking us over because they've spouted complete bollocks, without any indication of what they plan to do to halt the downward spiral. It's a positive that we now have it confirmed they weren't just playing their cards close to their chest, and they actually have no idea what the fuck they're doing. My point was that they can't win either way, and I think your reaction to almost every statement so far suggests I'm right! There aren't only 2 ways. One way they could impress me? "We now recognise that Wise, Vetere and Kinnear have no calibre whatsoever when it comes to recruiting, training, or improving players at any stage in their career and will be installing a new management team with a proven track record." That would be a start. Sigh. Do you really expect any football club or football club owner to come out and say anything remotely approaching that? The idea is laughable, you're making yourself into the new NE5 man. No I don't. I don't expect George Bush to apologise for bringing the world to economic armageddon, war-mongering and mixing politics with religion either. He should though. But again, that's dreamland. Just sacking Wise withouth a word and letting Kinnear go on the sick indefinitely would be good enough.

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. "Newcastle's accounting methods ensure that they effectively own their assets in their entirety. Aside from making the club more attractive to potential buyers, the benefits are not immediately apparent." That hasn't got anything to do with what I've said. It says he's prepared to put £10 million of his own money in, how many other club owners put their own money into the club to buy players or for running costs? Also, how does paying for the players up front make the club more attractive to potential buyers? You just have to pay Ashley an extra £10 million up front for what he's spent rather than in staggered payments to the club you've bought the player from. It's got everything to do with it. Ashley is the only one funding the club from his own pocket because he's the only one that refuses to borrow against his asset. Doing so would reduce his profit when he comes to sell as he still intends to do asap. Every other club borrows against future guaranteed future earnings to try (at the very least) and retain their premier league position. You're talking rubbish. It says Ashley is prepared to put £10 million of his own money in to go with whatever the club makes, other clubs may borrow against potential future earning but how many of them are prepared to finance the clubs running costs or to sign players like Ashley has done since he's been here to go with current earnings? You didn't tell me how someone wanting to buy the club would be so much better off giving Ashley an extra £10 million to cover the cost of players he's paid for up front rather than pay £10 million less for the club and make the staggered interest free payments. They'd be better off because once you're relegated the players value is halved but the debt remains at £10M. Keep up son. You haven't got a clue have you? First of all the players value won't be halved, also if the club was relegated any debt would be reflected in the price the club was sold for whether it was owed to Ashley or to whatever football club in staggered payments. You also didn't name the other club owners who are prepared to finance their clubs for running costs and players like Ashley has here, I'll start you off by saying Abramovich, Lerner and Gibson. Anymore you can think of then feel free to add them. Sigh Luque's value dropped four fifths (a lot more than half). It boiled the mans piss to still be paying for a shit player who'd already been sold for a fraction of the value. He knows this isn't appealing to potential buyers. Are you expecting me to specify exactly how much each players value will drop? Is that how microscopic your argument has become to try and win a point? Or will you just admit a lot of players will lose a lot of their value should we go down? Mike Ashley is not willing to borrow from anywhere else to run the club (so he can retain that selling point) and he either can't afford to or is not willing to to lend the club enough money to be run properly himself so he's scrimping and saving the odd million here and there to put in to try and do it on the cheap and hope we aren't relegated. If we are relegated, he'll take a loss if he sells....but at least he has his 'no debt' selling point, and he hasn't lost "half" the value of the playing squad he was careful not to invest in.

Are you suggesting his statement could have been "wibble" and we'd have to fall in line because he's actually learned to speak. Think it through sonna. Communication is a good thing. Previously we assumed they were fucking us over because they said nowt as we slid into obscurity. Now we know they're fucking us over because they've spouted complete bollocks, without any indication of what they plan to do to halt the downward spiral. It's a positive that we now have it confirmed they weren't just playing their cards close to their chest, and they actually have no idea what the fuck they're doing. My point was that they can't win either way, and I think your reaction to almost every statement so far suggests I'm right! There aren't only 2 ways. One way they could impress me? "We now recognise that Wise, Vetere and Kinnear have no calibre whatsoever when it comes to recruiting, training, or improving players at any stage in their career and will be installing a new management team with a proven track record." That would be a start.

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. "Newcastle's accounting methods ensure that they effectively own their assets in their entirety. Aside from making the club more attractive to potential buyers, the benefits are not immediately apparent." That hasn't got anything to do with what I've said. It says he's prepared to put £10 million of his own money in, how many other club owners put their own money into the club to buy players or for running costs? Also, how does paying for the players up front make the club more attractive to potential buyers? You just have to pay Ashley an extra £10 million up front for what he's spent rather than in staggered payments to the club you've bought the player from. It's got everything to do with it. Ashley is the only one funding the club from his own pocket because he's the only one that refuses to borrow against his asset. Doing so would reduce his profit when he comes to sell as he still intends to do asap. Every other club borrows against future guaranteed future earnings to try (at the very least) and retain their premier league position. You're talking rubbish. It says Ashley is prepared to put £10 million of his own money in to go with whatever the club makes, other clubs may borrow against potential future earning but how many of them are prepared to finance the clubs running costs or to sign players like Ashley has done since he's been here to go with current earnings? You didn't tell me how someone wanting to buy the club would be so much better off giving Ashley an extra £10 million to cover the cost of players he's paid for up front rather than pay £10 million less for the club and make the staggered interest free payments. They'd be better off because once you're relegated the players value is halved but the debt remains at £10M. Keep up son.

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. "Newcastle's accounting methods ensure that they effectively own their assets in their entirety. Aside from making the club more attractive to potential buyers, the benefits are not immediately apparent." That hasn't got anything to do with what I've said. It says he's prepared to put £10 million of his own money in, how many other club owners put their own money into the club to buy players or for running costs? Also, how does paying for the players up front make the club more attractive to potential buyers? You just have to pay Ashley an extra £10 million up front for what he's spent rather than in staggered payments to the club you've bought the player from. It's got everything to do with it. Ashley is the only one funding the club from his own pocket because he's the only one that refuses to borrow against his asset. Doing so would reduce his profit when he comes to sell as he still intends to do asap. Every other club borrows against future guaranteed future earnings to try (at the very least) and retain their premier league position.

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. He is loaning newcastle the money ain't he, with zero interest? alternatively there is always the possibility that he has no other choice. "While the club made a profit of £8million during the transfer window, Ashley has insisted that all incoming signings are paid for up front. The norm in football is for clubs to make and receive staged payments for players" The clearest sign for me that he still wants to sell. He is looking for ongoing transparency in the accounts so as not to put off buyers. Something he has learnt from personal experience. The best case scenario is that he expects a buyer to be found in the summer once Premiership status has been assured hopefully. If there is still no one willing to put the money down and take over the club then Ashley' s way is the only way. As a fan you have many many options, ranging from strongly supporting him to strongly opposing him or just remaining silent in between. Completely outside of how you feel about his ownership you could join the NUSC for £10. They have a strong anti_Ashley sentiment running through the membership, but they aim to be about much more than one issue. Other organisations are available, but it's £30 to "become the 12th man" with a club membership. Of course, this has limited benefits now that there are no sell out games. FYP FYP FYP

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. He is loaning newcastle the money ain't he, with zero interest? alternatively there is always the possibility that he has no other choice. "While the club made a profit of £8million during the transfer window, Ashley has insisted that all incoming signings are paid for up front. The norm in football is for clubs to make and receive staged payments for players" The clearest sign for me that he still wants to sell. He is looking for ongoing transparency in the accounts so as not to put off buyers. Something he has learnt from personal experience. The best case scenario is that he expects a buyer to be found in the summer once Premiership status has been assured hopefully. If there is still no one willing to put the money down and take over the club then Ashley' s way is the only way like it or complain bitterly about it. FYP

Are you suggesting his statement could have been "wibble" and we'd have to fall in line because he's actually learned to speak. Think it through sonna. Communication is a good thing. Previously we assumed they were fucking us over because they said nowt as we slid into obscurity. Now we know they're fucking us over because they've spouted complete bollocks, without any indication of what they plan to do to halt the downward spiral. It's a positive that we now have it confirmed they weren't just playing their cards close to their chest, and they actually have no idea what the fuck they're doing.

That's interesting. He was being criticised not long ago for not saying anything. Aye, like we've been demanding excuses.

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. "Newcastle's accounting methods ensure that they effectively own their assets in their entirety. Aside from making the club more attractive to potential buyers, the benefits are not immediately apparent."

:lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself. Isn't the £10 million what he's prepared to put in? Not sure how many other clubs owners are prepared to stick their hand in their pocket to finance their clubs. He is loaning newcastle the money ain't he, with zero interest? alternatively there is always the possibility that he has no other choice. "While the club made a profit of £8million during the transfer window, Ashley has insisted that all incoming signings are paid for up front. The norm in football is for clubs to make and receive staged payments for players"

Mike Ashley ups his spending at Newcastle http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/newcastle/article5804457.ece :lol: £10M budget and Joe Kinnear in charge. Arsenal and Villa must be shitting thaself.

How do you work that out? We're closer to relegation than we've been since '92.

Nicos Papavasiliou. He did a mean Franz Carr impression.

Yet here we are. 28 points from 26 games means we've won 36% of points available. We're 5 points from relegation. It's exactly what we were sat on after 26 games last year, but we were 6 points clear of relegation then. Plus we had Keegan in charge improving us week by week. Not Kinnear. After 26 games in 06/07 we had 33 points. 44%.