quayside

Sounds like he's scared of Kinnear calling him a c*nt tbh.

We have 3 pages on this thread and counting. It just shows many don't trust his commitment I think. He's our best attacking player imo but there is a mistrust between him and us and it seems to be a question of whether we can ever believe he is committed to our cause. I've seen him play his ar5e off for us whenever he's on the pitch tbh. But I think if Shearer had pulled up with a dodgy knee during an international break (in which he hadn't played) there wouldn't be the same discussions going on.

Tynemouth. But been down south for a few years now.

Unless everyone is lying my perception of the situation is that Ashley has loaned money to the club at 0% interest to pay off debt that was due to external lenders. It says in the audited accounts that he had no option but to pay some of it off because of a change of ownership clause in the loan agreement. As I understand it the money he has stuck in as loan is not equity but is being treated as such when it comes to valuing the club. So if a deal is done for £250m - that is all Ashley gets.

I carnt be bothered going into it, but off the top of my head tevez - 30 rooney- 28 carrick - 17 berbatov - 32 nani - 17 etc etc etc we have spent 21 on torres 17 on mascerarno 12 on keane 12 on babbel 10 on kuyt 6.5 on skertal, our most ever expensive defender. i think if you google it over the last 5 years we have a massive diffrence between us and mancs on net spend. We have defintly spent more than Arsenal though, although they are in a simialr posistion to us. The fact is though, the Union, isnt just about managers and owners, there will be loads in the Union that have lost patience with the manager (but not the majority). Its about tickets, prices, travel, and things like that. It is what it says, a union that will look out for the interest of its members. And its been doing that very well. Wasn't Robby Keane nearer £20 million?

Is that right - his company has lost 90% of it's value in 8 months??? It is right but a huge amount of that loss in value happened before the recent stock market crash. It floated at £3 a share and just before the crash the market price was about 75p, since the crash it has gone down to 40p. Since it floated Sports Direct has been a disaster - profit warnings, corporate governance issues, poor PR, poor communication with investors.....you name it.

Impossible to argue with. When you use emotional language like 'it took a good man with Newcastle United in his heart to expose the sham', seriously, what can I say. You have a very sure view of Ashley, that he is clearly 'lying, conniving, manipulating and wholly untrustworthy', but for me there is very little about his intentions or the events that led to where we find ourselves that is particularly clear and straightforward. Oh, and I think most of the defending of the guy is only in reaction to some of the over the top attacks, not in any sense of loyalty to the er... fat cockney b******. It's true that it isn't clear what his intentions have been and people can put all sorts of interpretations on the various things he's done: - investing nothing in the first team squad for two consecutive transfer windows - sacking Allardyce (and paying him off with several million in the process) - the clumsy handling of the courtship of Redknapp that followed the sacking of Allardyce - appointing Keegan - appointing Wise, Jimenez. Llambias etc, - focusing on bringing young players in - the rumours about attempts to sell off first team squad members are just that, rumours. But Milner was sold for a very good price and from what KK was saying at the time it looks as though he thought that money was there for him to reinvest as he saw fit. So either KK was playing some sort of devious end game or he was duped I think. - backing Wise and praising him for his efforts in the Summer transfer window. I've not yet met a fan who wasn't seriously underwhelmed by our business in the window, maybe someone on here has got something to say on that? So is Ashley schizophrenic or what? My view is that he started out with good intentions but has found himself involved in a business in which he is way out of his depth. And by out of his depth I mean his abilties to run a sustainable business as well as his financial resources. The fact that he did no due diligence before he shelled out £130m says it all for me. He hadn't got a clue what he was buying. He is gifted at making money for himself though and will do so again when he sells on - but what a mess he has created.

I will get back to you around December So none then, as of today's date? None that I know of. None. I don't think he did buy the club for a quick profit but what he has done in his business career so far isn't concrete proof that he didn't is it? He's very good at making money for himself and doesn't always do it by buying a minority stake in something and flogging it on. He floated 43% of of his 100% in Sports Direct at £3 a share and trousered nearly a £billion in the process. Its been a disastrous flotation by the way and the share price was at about 75p pre the recent Stock Exchange meltdown and now stands at 44p, he's been busy buying back the stock at the lower prices and last I heard he is now holding about 75% of it. Criticisms of his running of Sports Direct include: poor communication, poor PR, people retained in key jobs because of his allegiance to them rather than their ability, difficulty in working with his management team. Nothing we haven't heard I think. He knows how to make money but he can't run a business to suit anyone's purposes other than his own. As I said above I don't think he was looking for a quick buck when he bought us he was looking for the kudos (and yes fun) of owning a Premiership football club. He bought it without doing any due diligence and soon found out he hadn't got the resources to take it anywhere. Add to that his basic weaknesses when it comes to running a business and you arrive at where we are now. The club in a mess and Ashley about to unload it for a profit. Didn't Hall and Shepherd do something similar when they floated the club on the stock market? Yes, but people can only do this if people sell there shares. If people are running a company they believe in & they can buy shares cheaper than what they originally sold them for of course they are going to do it. Yes Hall and Shepherd did (to a much lesser extent) with the club's shares what Ashley has done with Sports Direct. It hadn't crossed my mind that there was an old board/new board angle when I posted that

I will get back to you around December So none then, as of today's date? None that I know of. None. I don't think he did buy the club for a quick profit but what he has done in his business career so far isn't concrete proof that he didn't is it? He's very good at making money for himself and doesn't always do it by buying a minority stake in something and flogging it on. He floated 43% of of his 100% in Sports Direct at £3 a share and trousered nearly a £billion in the process. Its been a disastrous flotation by the way and the share price was at about 75p pre the recent Stock Exchange meltdown and now stands at 44p, he's been busy buying back the stock at the lower prices and last I heard he is now holding about 75% of it. Criticisms of his running of Sports Direct include: poor communication, poor PR, people retained in key jobs because of his allegiance to them rather than their ability, difficulty in working with his management team. Nothing we haven't heard I think. He knows how to make money but he can't run a business to suit anyone's purposes other than his own. As I said above I don't think he was looking for a quick buck when he bought us he was looking for the kudos (and yes fun) of owning a Premiership football club. He bought it without doing any due diligence and soon found out he hadn't got the resources to take it anywhere. Add to that his basic weaknesses when it comes to running a business and you arrive at where we are now. The club in a mess and Ashley about to unload it for a profit.

he said in public what is said in private all the time. again i'll ask which players at nufc have nufc as their first choice and would have turned down any of the top 4 for us. ? None is the answer probably, although Given (maybe), Harper and Taylor might be questionable. As a lower mid table club thats about as stable as the lovechild of Amy Winehouse and Paul Gascoigne and shows less ambition in its transfer dealings than many of its peers - we can expect little else really.

Well apart from teeing up another Sam hatefest does anyone think he's right about Ashley being in it to make a quick turnround profit? I personally think Ashley bought into the club with good intentions but having done no due diligence he found himself hitched to a business that needs investment beyond what he was able to commit. He's obviously now trying to move it on for the best possible price - but anyone who has decided to get out of a business would do the same.

I think a lot on here would disagree with you, but just about every manager in the Premiership would agree with you. which is why they were all snapping our hands off when Souness put him up for sale for £1m We didn't bring in a replacement for him in the transfer window did we? He's not the player he was but we haven't got too much to offer in the holding role right now. There are other players who have been shit as well by the way - do you need reminding? He is needed.

He had some bad moments - the tackle that led to the pen wasn't great but did no one see the pass that put Taylor in that led to our second goal? No one see him filling at right back when Taylor went forward? Class. The squad needs him this season if we are going to survive IMO.

Butt had some bad moments today, who didn't? Anyone see that pass for Taylor to run onto that led to our second goal or anyone see him filling in the right back role when Taylor went forward? Class. The team is going through some bad times and their confidence is shot to pieces, we've got a thin squad and Butt is a key player if we're going to survive. IMO.

Roeder managed to - Shola stuck in a few goals after Roeder first took over. Then his hip needed sorting and he's been a non event since. Even when he was regularly sticking the ball in the net he was still as irritating as f*ck to watch though.

May be a WUM post but anyways this is utter toss imo.

Apart from the fact that he made the mistake of making money readily available. A well timed admission aimed at getting fans to remember him fondly, after a summer transfer window in which we've made a profit on players coming in and going out.

based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I don't know who you are referring to here. But if its anything to do with me I am qualified and all I did was quote the loss from the published accounts and even provided a link to those accounts which have been audited by Ernst and Young. I made no reference to debt (whether household or otherwise). If your comment wasn't anything to do with me please ignore what I have just saiid. Seymour Pierce are trying to assist Ashley in selling the club, their presentation of the financial information will be done with that objective in mind. No, it wasnt aimed at you. They cant lie about the club as that would be fraud. Is about the only point i've got on this tbh. OK

based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. Putting two statements together to create an argument relies on logic, something missing from that post. The Telegraph article is clearly based on a copy of the Seymour Pierce report and if you'd been following the story closely you'd have noticed that the Telegraph have had the inside track on this story before the other majors. Personally, i reckon the article is correct as its based on FSA compliant documentation. If Seymour Pierce were distibuting financial documentation at odds with the accounts the'd be comitting fraud. I'm lost. Are you saying you think we made a £3.5m profit or a £33m loss? Whatever Seymour Pierce are saying about the finances of the club is more accurate than the internet musings of a non-qualified fan who thinks business debt and household debt work the same way. Not sure than answers your question but thats my position. I don't know who you are referring to here. But if its anything to do with me I am qualified and all I did was quote the loss from the published accounts and even provided a link to those accounts which have been audited by Ernst and Young. I made no reference to debt (whether household or otherwise). If your comment wasn't anything to do with me please ignore what I have just saiid. Seymour Pierce are trying to assist Ashley in selling the club, their presentation of the financial information will be done with that objective in mind.

Out of date figures! Jesus - this is like trying to get water to flow uphill. The article says and I quote: "The club are a proven source of revenue, generating close to £90 million in the year to June 2007 and returning a modest profit of £3.5 million, a figure that is said to have increased marginally in the first full year under Ashley's control." The bit about 2007 is an incorrect statement - the bit about the improvement in the year since may well be true. Surely thats not too hard to follow.

We made a loss in the year ending 30th June. You'll find the accounts at the address below so people can see for themselves. Page 15 http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/nufc2007.pdf

based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House. It is now October 2008, so your opinion is 18 months out of date, so it’s unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley. What are you talking about? What I said isn't an opinion, its just a comment that something in the article is incorrect. As for your ridiculous comment about "unsubstantiated blind faith in Mike Ashley" I don't understand why you put that interpretation on what I said so can''t even begin to answer it.

There's another thread on that article - its positive stuff and isn't sticking the boot in like so much of the press at the moment. Just as a point of detail - as I said on the other thread a profit was not made in 2007, it was a loss of £33 million.

based on what exactly? or is this some ITK bullshit, or just some blind faith in Mike Ashley? The article is incorrect in saying that the club made a profit in the year ending 30th June 2007, it was a loss of almost £33 million. The source of this is the published accounts available for £1 from Companies House.

There is plenty, Spurs signed Berba at 25(1 year younger than Colo) & after 2 seasons they are getting £30 million. Of course being a Newcaslte defender usually means you leave free or at vastly reduced reduced price from what we paid...I see your point Anyone know the last couple of defenders we have bought & then sold for a profit? I think Faye this year was one, before him? I thought we got what we paid for Faye? Although why we sold him at all is beyond me. Woodgate is the role model for money made on defenders I think you'll find.