Broadsword

Have you forgotten how pathetic he was in his first season? Also, you're saying he does not contribute to the attack? Strange post.

Its ended, it ended last week.

http://www.shiteseats.co.uk/post/981589230/more-transfer-rumours-3-in Latest rumours around Tyneside are claiming that three players are on their way. Nicky Maynard - the striker from Bristol City who did us damage last year Christian Rebeiro - a 20-year-old Welsh left-back also from Bristol City Maarten Martens - Dutch attacking midfielder from AZ Alkmaar More than likely this will turn out to be as much bollocks as all the rest, but alas, here’s your info…

Because France is a 12 hour flight away of course.

Beardsley taking over reserves job.

Wrong diarra surely.

Collison is already a Welsh international. s***, it is grim then. I was sure he was English, whats he doing playing for Wales.

A few of the West Ham lads may make it, Collision is a decent prospect for one and a few of there strikers are highly rated. Hines and Nouble maybe.

I think the fact the game is on the BBC will provide more luck. We always play crap when ITV has the game.

Idiots. Let them know how you feel. [email protected]

No capital outlay means exactly what people on here don't want it to mean. No money (or debt) will leave the club to purchase capital assets, i.e players. A player that has no capital value, i.e a loan player, academy graduate or free signing is not a capital asset. And that's it. It really could not be more clear and is one of the more transparent quotes Ashley has made.

Next you'll be telling me that we were in for him but have turned our attentions elsewhere According the The Mirror we were ... Whoosh!!!!

Don't forget that those accounts are consolidated in the NUFC accounts, which means the holding company is insolvent in itself, but NUFC Ltd is not. There is no guarantee from Ashley in the NUFC accounts and the auditors are perfectly happy to sign them off without anything to say. Ive not seen the holdings accounts so take your word that is not the case in those and that a guarantee is in place. You've lost me there - can you explain? The NUFC balance sheet shows an insolvent position of £58 million as at 30th June 2009, and Ashley's commitment is specifically referred to on page 11 (under the heading Fundamental Accounting concept). Because of that commitment the NUFC accounts were prepared on a going concern basis and the auditors signed off on that. That note on page 11 is just an explanation of how the directors have come to the conclusion that it is a going concern, it is not a guarantee. The auditors are not concerned either otherwise they would have highlighted it in the audit report.

Don't forget that those accounts are consolidated in the NUFC accounts, which means the holding company is insolvent in itself, but NUFC Ltd is not. There is no guarantee from Ashley in the NUFC accounts and the auditors are perfectly happy to sign them off without anything to say. Ive not seen the holdings accounts so take your word that is not the case in those and that a guarantee is in place.

Come on guys its obviosuly M ASHley Holdings.

What am I supposed to find funny exactly?

It isn't but it is disclosed in a note that it happened after the year end. You can look at them here http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab8031355966ec489a8e7faf83deaa87/compdetails but it costs £1 to download them. Wrong - the Keegan payment (including costs) is included as an exceptional item - see note 3 on page 14. It has to be included since it relates to something that happened during the year ended 30th June 2009. Thats what you get skim reading, yes note 24 says provided in full.

It isn't but it is disclosed in a note that it happened after the year end. You can look at them here http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ab8031355966ec489a8e7faf83deaa87/compdetails but it costs £1 to download them. There's also a note that says our net spend on players after 30 June 2009 was just £3.2m. So Simpson, Routledge, Williamson, Best and the other transfer window signings cost that much in total. And we still have contingent add on payments to other clubs based on appearances etc for signings of around £3.6m. So that's why Xisco doesn't get a game I guess. Oh and as far as I can see Mike hasn't actually given a formal guarantee just an indication that he will give ongoing support. The audit report is clean and they do not have a problem with going concern.

He has changed the £111m he has lent the club from payable after more than one year to payable within 12 months though on the basis that it was only payable on demand in the event of a change in owner. Seems like he is still wanting to sell up on that basis. Edit - reading again it looks like he has changed the terms to remove the repayable upon demand if he sells the club to just repayable upon demand.

The numbers never lie.

I did try to explain where the £60m could come from. I don't think it is that far off really.

If any money has then it will be shown in the accounts. Even if it has, its his club he can damn well take as much or as little as he likes to be honest.

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure. I took it the other way. How long was Luque at the club? The loss on him might have been less than you think. Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club. I think that there was a specific impairment provision made against Luque in the 2007 accounts. This was done to reflect the substance of his subsequent sale. I've got the figure of £7m in my head but wouldn't swear to it, definitely a loss though. And Baba would have to be a loss because the club actually gave him money to go away, which was a sort of negative transfer fee! You are right about luque actually, I do remember that. But not sure if an impairement provision would technically go into the profit/loss on player sales in the accounts and neither would a contract payoff either. The whole luque thing was really pre Ashely though, I doubt we can blame that one on him.

Parker was sold in the Ashley era so you can stick him on to the list. Emre was also sold (probably not much profit) and there may have also been small fees received for people like Edgar, Huntington, Ramage and Pattison maybe even Nobby - but there was a loss on Luque, and Babayaro was paid to leave. My reading of the opening post was that he was not referring to an accounting profit but the commonly used "money spent versus money received" measure. I took it the other way as there's no way Ashley has received £60m more on players sold than he has paid on signing them. None what so ever. Not even close. Accounting profit is the only way it could be anywhere near £60m. How long was Luque at the club? The loss on him might have been less than you think. Babayaro won't have made a loss either due to his length of time at the club.

Cashflow. The club gets its TV money and season ticket money mostly over the summer. Wages are every month. But he isn't trousering it anyway. tv money comes over season not all up front Yes it is staggered but the largest chunk will be over the summer.