AyeDubbleYoo

IMO, no brand would be acceptable, and neither would any name change.

I've got to say I agree, presumably footballers love the game and the immense wages etc... so I'm very surprised they put their careers at risk like this. Then again, nobody thinks it will happen to them.

Thanks peaspud, some really good explanations as always.

I'm guessing the stadium must be named after St James, right, not St Jame. It wouldn't be pronounced 'Jamses' otherwise.

Cheers, but I'm still not sure I get it fully. If Ashley was to sell the club 'lock, stock and barrel, no debts' for say £80m... what would happen to the debts? Ashley would take a hit on the ones owed to him I presume, and write them off. But the club would still have a sizeable overdraft, right? Or does this not exist anymore? I'm not really expecting an answer to this fro you personally peaspud, I haven't got a clue myself.

If you had read a few posts up you would have seen the same queries What is this, a fucking comprehension test? I didn't see any semblance of an answer, but maybe nobody knows. That's fine too.

Sorry if this has been answered, but does anyone have any idea how the club's existing debt and overdraft would be handled in a takeover? (I have read the whole thread now, promise) Does the club only owe money to Ashley, or what about the overdraft? Surely £80-100m is a bargain if the club will come with no debts, but could this ever happen? Bit of a ramble there, sorry.

I know what you mean, but if you're not expecting a return then it isn't an investment... it's a charity donation. And I don't think that's what NUST are asking for, is it? its a combination of both tbh, we're not expecting people to just hand over their money and say "there you go, have it" (of course if you want to then great ) but rather, "heres an investment opportunity, invest in the club you love and gain a little bit of interest while you're on". The big difference of course is you can get your original money back from an investment not from a donation. I see what you're saying, I know there will be a big emotional and/or charitable aspect to most of the investment. What I meant was more that it was a bit flippant to suggest that nobody will need or expect anything back at any time.

I know what you mean, but if you're not expecting a return then it isn't an investment... it's a charity donation. And I don't think that's what NUST are asking for, is it?

Can the club realistically guarantee any kind of return over such a short time though, when it is currently in debt and presumably making a loss every year?

Terrible news, but I've got to ask what the hell he's doing riding a motorbike around London when he's a professional footballer.

I don't know why this is even being discussed, except that the clubs in question would make a fortune from it. And Phil Gartside needs to take his wacky suggestions for a two-tier premiership elsewhere IMO, he's got far too much power for the chairman of a nothing club like Bolton.

25 years in any company is something to be proud of... lasting that long at Newcastle is nothing short of a miracle. I don't know whether he's any good, but well done to him for that.

Stu, I know you're trying to make a reasonable point, but you can't be serious! As if £50 is going to put off a charver from coming to the trials. People are finding £45 a month for their Sky Sports bill, however much for fags and booze, if they think they can play for Newcastle they will find £50. People put 10 lottery tickets on every Saturday FFS. I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that we should run a TV talent show to find players. I don't know where to start with that one.

Sure I just saw Ugo Ehiogu on the tube.

Makes sense you would know something about young players from your own club, I reckon.

Mike? Imagine if the club did that! Not only a laughing stock of the footballing world, but also accused of exploiting the thick people who think they can be footballers. It would be like the X Factor auditions! The bit in bold - how so? As pointed out further down, Chelsea did a similar thing on SKY and they're not the laughing stock. As for the rest of your post...it sounds like a guaranteed money spinner....Xfactor rakes in a fortune! Did anyone take that Chelsea thing seriously though, and what happened to the players? What sort of quality was at the trials, do they regret doing it? Is that the only example ever in the world? I can just image the grief Newcastle would get for holding open trials. I think the X Factor rakes in money from phone votes, not from charging the hapless contestants £50.

I think you've got to realise that a democratic approach doesn't mean what you vote for will happen. The fact you had your say is the objective, not the specific outcome. I mean, the Tories are going to win the next election.

Never heard of it.

Not wanting to speak for them, but I would think the investment couldn't be very liquid at all. I don't see how it would work if you could have people withdrawing their money as easily as that. It would put the club in a very precarious position if any number of investers could ask for their money back at any time, surely?

First, what the flip is Piers Morgan doing writing a football opinion piece. Fuck off mate. I don't really want us to go for Campbell though, we could get in a young, hungry player who will be ready to step up when needed. There must be some of those about, surely?

You've got my vote.

Very similar to the Ashley model, non?

How do you expect your "Proper manager" will react when you "Get rid of the big earners"? Guess that goes to the heart of what a manager does. Do you believe that a manager really can be in charge of all transfers and financial matters? If so, then I suppose you give him a budget for the first team and let him get on with it. Don't see why this can't work, as long as the manager accepts the budget (which would be made clear before he took the job).