quayside

Always rated Jonas - he has been committed from day 1, he's had the usual form and fatigue issues that all players go through, but he's never let us down. Respect to Pardew for having the imagination to play him in a holding role and respect to the player for having the team ethic to play in a position that he wasn't hired to play in.

Sorry it's not dormant (my bad) - but company number 2529667 is the holding company for the football club and is the one that controls all the club's activities.

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk Search for company number 00031014. Dave - I think that company is dormant, the one you want is company 2529667.

"As at June 2011 we had positive cash balances of £9.5m"- page 2, Financing Balance sheet- cash = nil Note 14, Bank overdraft £2.07m Unless they are being obtuse with their words and they are not in fact referring to a positive net cash balance. Not sure you are looking at the group accounts. I can see the page 2 financing comment, but the balance sheet on page 8 clearly shows £9.5 million cash as stated in the Directors Report. And note 14 relates to provisions. This is in the accounts of company number 2529667 - Newcastle United Limited.

Need more info on your question. Can you quote from both directors report and balance sheet/notes sources and explain the discrepancy between the two?

Here is a brief summary of the published accounts, it is pretty much as reported in the press £millions Income Matchday 24 Media 49 Commercial 16 Total 89 Costs Wages 54 Amortisation17 Other costs 22 Total (93) Operating loss (4) Profit on transfers 37 Profit for the year 33 We are still technically insolvent. Ashley hasn't reduced his loan - however instead of having the £10 million overdraft we had last year, we now have £10 million cash in the bank.

So, in your world, we have a strong side that is in sixth place and should be doing far better. I am just thinking about the car crash Ashley bought (his fault but thank god he did) which was an unviable mess sitting in lower mid table. From reading stuff you have posted on other threads our owner is doing nothing other than the bare minimum than is expected. So who gets the credit for putting together this amazing squad that is underperforming in sixth place? Surely someone somewhere is doing a decent job? Who?

You sound like Roberto Martinez....

Yup

Haven't seen the full financials yet but it sounds pretty much as expected. A close to break-even trading result, wages under control and a very good profit on player trading resulting in an overall profit. The one bit that maybe wasn't foreseen is that it sounds like Ashley hasn't reduced his loan, although perhaps he has killed off the Barclays overdraft rather than reduce his loan - or maybe he had to do that under the overdraft agreement. I am sceptical about some of the stuff on here earlier about amortisation being "used" to distort a message, not that I am rejecting any idea of the club taking a cynical stance when it fits, but I'd like to see the full picture before saying any more.

I'm sure they'd have flipped it pretty quickly if Paragon actually took control of the club. The club had an enterprise value of about £200m when Ashley bought it. Absolutely mental amount. Disagree. Ashley offered £1 a share (Shepherd screwed an additional 1p a share for his holding for some reason) which gave the club a market capitalisation of about £140 million which is what Ashley paid for it. At the time of Ashley's offer the share price was well short of £1 and had been for years and consequently the market cap had not been anywhere near £140 million. Anyway its old history now, doesn't matter much and is a bit off topic.

You'd have had to be mad to pay the price that was indicated by our share price at the time. Had a year passed and the cash position deteriorated further, then you would have seen that share price plunge pretty rapidly, making the club much cheaper to buy. The Shephalls did extremely well out of the deal with Ashley. We'd have been much more attractive at a more realistic price, but at the time we were taken over it was all the rage to buy yourself a football club for top dollar. When the hedge funds were looking at the club our share price was about half what Ashley ended up paying. I should know, I bought a few shares at the time and made a decent profit when Ashley waded in

Sir John Hall saved this football club from oblivion, but he also made a ridiculous amount as well which went well over what I would call being fair. This subject always divides opinion and has been debated at length on here. I have never really had any gripe whatsoever with Sir John Hall. He initiated the whole recovery process that put the club back on the map. When he saw it was screwed, he sold out making a lot of money in the process, and imo the club is (now) in a far better state as a result of that. I am less convinced about the contribution made by his son, and I find it hard to see the Shepherd clan as anything other than spongers.

A trading profit was made in 2004 - although it was then wiped out by a dividend payment to the shareholders. Who and how much ? And I am being serious, have a general idea but not the specifics. It was a £4 million profit and a £4 million dividend. The dividend would have been spread amongst all the shareholders in proportion to their shareholding. From memory the Halls and Shepherds had about 70% of the clubs shares at that time.

A trading profit was made in 2004 - although it was then wiped out by a dividend payment to the shareholders.

That's some Mensa-level maths from the Telegraph there, there's no fooling them is there? Tbf I have been fully expecting that money to go towards reducing the club's debt to Ashley which still stands at £150m. if it did, which wouldn't surprise me i doubt it would be so straightforward. Why? just think it he would more hidden, deeper in the accounts than me or you would realise. hence why i'd like quayside or LLLO to make a re appearance. I'm here and will do my best to help when the accounts are published.

We owe him many millions of pounds and the club could not repay his loan and survive. - so yes he does fund us. If you mean that in the recent past the club hasn't required any further funding from him (and in fact his overall loan may have even reduced) then that is another issue.

I've always had my doubts about Llambias and his running of the day to day (especially his occasional forays into the PR side of things) but there are quite a few Premiership owners out there worse than Ashley. I don't particularly trust him not to not screw things up again (how can we?) but, there again, this is a f*cked up industry and some of the stuff that has happened at other clubs is beyond belief. He clearly doesn't govern an oil rich Middle Eastern country but he can afford to fund us to a better level than most clubs. We seem to have a financial viability plan and a scouting system in place that other clubs envy (and that is based on talking to their supporters not just my opinion). I'm also ok with Pardew. We aren't in bad hands right now. Happy.

So to answer the thread title - No we aren't.

I'd love to be able to agree with you - but imo he really does belong in the sport, more's the pity.

The club accounts don't have to be filed until the end of March, although as Dave says they have sometimes put them out early for PR reasons. I have been keeping an eye out for the accounts of Ashley's holding company, Mash Holdings Limited. They were due in by the end of January so are late. These accounts include everything Ashley owns (his shares in SD and NUFC) so will give some idea of what the club finances look like. I would expect an operating result of close to break even, maybe a small loss - but a massive profit from player trading. I fully expect Ashley's loan to have been reduced.

That's spot on. I do wonder if times have changed a lot. Would there have been the patience and would he have been given the time to achieve what he did 10 years later? I genuinely don't have a clue on the answer to that.

That shouldn't stop us playing better football than we do, Keegan came up and played good football as soon as we were up. I'm not trying to bring Keegan in for any other reason than to point out recent history doesn't mean we should play the way that we do far too often. The game has changed beyond any comparison since KK brought us up, And I mean that purely in terms of where we can sit in the "money available" hierarchy. Sir John Hall saw the opportunity to really kick the club on and took it. He took us to the point where we were able to spend money others weren't at that time but Christ has that changed. And please I mean no disrespect to the 20th century Kevin Keegan. The world has changed and in terms of getting value for money for what we buy I think recently we've done better than any other club in the the league. As I said we got absolutely tonked today by a far better team and I'm not trying to say otherwise. Playing better football might or might not have resulted in a slightly different result on the day.

What recent history? Go back to 2005 and work your way forwards. Spurs have been run well financially, they weren't relegated, they have a good record in the transfer market and, Ramos apart, they have moved the club forwards. Without getting tedious can I just say that between 2005 and now we haven't done all of those things? Edit: Sorry please change 2005 to 2004, I was thinking post SBR. My bad.

Nothing wrong with that, but it wouldn't do any harm to look at the Spurs style of play and use it as a blueprint in how to build a side playing attractive and effective football. Would Ryan Taylor be a key missing player for them? No he wouldn't. But then Spurs haven't had our recent history (and yes blame can be and has been allocated for all of that).