Broadsword

Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way. Oh so your talking about next years accounts now? The discussion is about the accounts that are due to be filed in 3 days, I made that perfectly clear tbh.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public. No way would that be allowed, nor would the auditors sign them off on that sort of basis. Would what be allowed? It is up to Newcastle United as to when the accounts are filed at CH, nothing to do with the auditors. No way will any firm of auditors sign off accounts going forward if the company in question are using them but not filing them with Companies House. Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way. As am I. How many sets of accounts have you signed off which then haven't been committed to public record in your career? Huh? Are you on crack? Did you read what I actually posted? Are you a mind reader or something and know before you sign them off when they will be submitted? They have to been signed off by the auditor before they can be filed so saying the auditor won't sign them of if they are not going to be filed on time means they are a clever firm of auditors. Do you also travel at 88mph on the way to work? I am certain they will be filed at some stage, just they have not yet and may not be by the dealine. The auditors have no say over when or if they are filed. That's up to the company. I very much doubt the FL have rules that state the accounts have to be filed with CH on time, more likely the rules are they must be sent to the FL on time. In either case the penalty for not filing on time would be a fine. We will find out in a few days if they file them before the deadline or not.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public. No way would that be allowed, nor would the auditors sign them off on that sort of basis. Would what be allowed? It is up to Newcastle United as to when the accounts are filed at CH, nothing to do with the auditors. No way will any firm of auditors sign off accounts going forward if the company in question are using them but not filing them with Companies House. Sorry, you are wrong. I am an auditor by the way.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public. No way would that be allowed, nor would the auditors sign them off on that sort of basis. Would what be allowed? It is up to Newcastle United as to when the accounts are filed at CH, nothing to do with the auditors. The accounts may well already be audited and signed off and filed with the FL. The club however have not yet filed them with CH, which is where they are made public. They can file them whenever they like, the only penalty for filing them late is a £150 fine which increases over time if they are more than 1 month late. The auditors have nothing to do with where the accounts go after they are signed off.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there. Is it not a requirement of the football league that they are filed in time? Filed with the Football League maybe but the Football League won't make them public.

They are due to be filed by 31 March 2010. But as the fine for not doing so is only £150 I doubt Mike is that bothered when they go in. I have been checking every day for the past few weeks as I think there may be some interesting reading in there.

Blackpool at home will be promotion day.

If they score the penalty, no sending off. If they miss, send them off. That's how it should work.

I remember it being said the later signing had a relagation clause in their contracts, it was the older palyers that did not. Probably why the new signings weren't sold, Enrique, Jonas, Colo etc.

Channel 975 on Sky is BBC 1 NE & Cumbria. My sky box is showing "Would I lie to you?" Shame.

I love how some people make out that Ashley is doing things radically different from any other club or the previous board here. When we bought players in their mid-twenties before they were over the hill / on the way down / looking for one last payday (only if they turned out to be less than brilliant of course), now when we buy or look at players in their mid-twenties they are young and hungry and can only improve (typically because they've done nothing their past careers to be on the way down from). All clubs and the previous board here would buy players on the quiet if at all possible and to say this is some radical departure by Ashley is just not true, especially considering all the fuss this window over the first choice players we were after and didn't sign. Just as an example, we signed 4 players in the Summer of 06, Duff, Martins, Sibierski & Bernard 3 out of those 4 were completely out of the blue. Duff wasn't out of the blue. It took a while for the confirmation to come through. Bernard doesn;t count as a signing and Martins took ages to come through. So 1 out of the blue signing 4 years ago. Nice. Not how I remember it. Reports were all about Duff going to Spurs. Then news leaked about us & Liverpool being interested and we signed him the next day. So it wasn't out of the blue then?

I love how some people make out that Ashley is doing things radically different from any other club or the previous board here. When we bought players in their mid-twenties before they were over the hill / on the way down / looking for one last payday (only if they turned out to be less than brilliant of course), now when we buy or look at players in their mid-twenties they are young and hungry and can only improve (typically because they've done nothing their past careers to be on the way down from). All clubs and the previous board here would buy players on the quiet if at all possible and to say this is some radical departure by Ashley is just not true, especially considering all the fuss this window over the first choice players we were after and didn't sign. Just as an example, we signed 4 players in the Summer of 06, Duff, Martins, Sibierski & Bernard 3 out of those 4 were completely out of the blue. Duff wasn't out of the blue. It took a while for the confirmation to come through. Bernard doesn;t count as a signing and Martins took ages to come through. So 1 out of the blue signing 4 years ago. Nice.

Used to play for them though! Whoosh!

No wonder this club gets a reputation of having deluded fans. Calling Fulham a nothing club. Dear me.

He most probably won't as he must have PL options closer to home. If he does then great - if not it'll be like when John Salako preferred Coventry City to us. Remember that ? what? john solako was all but signed until the deal with PSG for geourge weah went pear shaped and they sold him to ac milan and offered us ginola as a sweetener, sory but solako never turned us down, in fact i remember he was very bitter at the way we dropped him like a lead baloon in favour of ginola I thought Salako failed his medical?

He has got the football decisions really wrong. The finance side is another matter.

Yup, deserves some credit for the debt thing. No excuse for every other mistake he's made mind, but that bit he got right. He had to pay it off. It's not like he did it out of the kindness of his heart. It's amazing how some fans just don't seem to realise the position we would have been in had that debt still been around the club. It's quite fortunate really, in a sick kind of way. You do know why the money had to be repaid, don't you? Yes I do but I don't give a crap why he had to pay it off. It's gone and the repayments have gone too and the prospect of it needing to be refinanced in the future has gone aswell. The debts that remain are largely unsecured now, players fees, Ashley etc. I don't think Barclays would have been so agreeable to a £20m or £40m overdraft (whichever it ended up being) if that debt and those repayments were still on the books. We would have been in the exact same position as W Ham, Portsmouth etc etc stuck with a debt we couldn't pay off with an owner not willing to pay in any money to sort it out. There's no way Ashley would have paid that debt off if he had not have had to. Imagine that at the beginning of this season when the negotiations with Barclays were happening. It was fortunate it was just a few overpaid players we had to sell to get them to back us as it could have been a whole load worse.

Yup, deserves some credit for the debt thing. No excuse for every other mistake he's made mind, but that bit he got right. He had to pay it off. It's not like he did it out of the kindness of his heart. It's amazing how some fans just don't seem to realise the position we would have been in had that debt still been around the club. It's quite fortunate really, in a sick kind of way.

Because Ashley paid off most of our large debts that would have needed refinancing and reorganised a working capital loan with BArclays and keeps lumping in £20m or so every now and then. Without him, we most certainly would be like every other club.

Charver to sign on loan! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1246789/Newcastle-strengthen-defence-loan-capture-Tottenham-Sunderland-trialist-Osman-Chavez.html?ITO=1490

Harper S Taylor R Taylor Colo Enrique Barton Nolan Guthrie Jonas Ameobi Lovenkrands Smith Caroll bah basically everyone, I can't see us spending much to improve next year so those player swill have to make the core of the team. Sad but true. More likely will be Jonas, Enrique and Colo leaving.

We own the building and the land is under lease. I am sure the lease will be worth something too, how many years left on the lease? The land is only worth something to people who do not want to use it as a football stadium, which the council will not allow. It just means the club can never sell up and develop houses on it, a bit like York city have agreed to do. The council can revoke the lease I guess but it is virtually never ever going to happen. To someone wanting to set up a new football club in Newcastle the stadium would be worth £100m to them as the only other option would be to buy or lease the land elsewhere and rebuild a new one, probably cost twice that to do it that way.

IT IS A FACT...............................

Louise Taylor being a s***-stirring, lying bitch that knew nothing. But then the realisation that she actually had the situation spot on when Keegan did walk out.

Of course it does, I am not disputing that. Even an email telling me that it was about to expire would have been enough. That policy is designed to get people to forget so they can take your cash. It is not on really. I guess the trick is to pay and then immediately cancel. Tried to contact them using the form on the website and ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <[email protected]> (reason: 550 5.1.1 Recipient not recognized: [email protected]) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mx261.emailfiltering.com.: >>> RCPT To:<[email protected]> <<< 550 5.1.1 Recipient not recognized: [email protected] 550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown Nice one. Sent one off to premiumtv instead. I would be happy with paying £17.99 to be honest but £39.99 is too much. Plus there are no terms and conditions anywhere to be found that I can see.