quayside

Lucky if you think Ashley and his posse are Satanists, competent if you think they might be on to something.

Pardew in "honesty" shocker wasn't a direction I saw coming on here - but these are interesting times I suppose.

It's got to happen some time, zero points has to be the expectation from those games. The key thing is to pick up points in the games where we should as we have done so far.

As long as our football club is under M J A Holdings or whatever the f*** its called, we have every right to look at what he does with 'his' money. How exactly? I own a company, I wouldn't expect my customers to be interested in what I spent my money on if it's my personal money... and it wouldn't be right if they started questioning everything I did either. Colocho seems to think that we own the club, and so I'm guessing he also thinks that's our money that Ashley is gambling with.

Mental note to self. " don't make posts when you get back p*ssed from the pub". Apologies if some of the qoutes( fuckwits, retards) are a bit OTT. however i kind of agree with my vodka induced sentinment Don't worry mate, a lot of the opinions on here are fuelled by alcohol

I think what worried people most at that time was the squad atmosphere once Nolan's left. The performance prior to relegation was f***ing shameful if you can remember, and the team was clearly playing with no heart and no soul. We were led to believe that Nolan/Barton/Enrique were the core of the team revived by Hughton and getting rid of these players would bring us back to square one. Well now obviously this is not the case, and this makes you wonder what is the most important element for "squad atmosphere". Is it a leader? A couple of British players? A manager like Pardew? Or the performance-based bonus clause inside the new contracts? Or just luck? I fully understand your point and I'm sure those players played a huge part. But I just feel with Nolan (not the other two) that it was becoming very evident in the second half of last season that he hadn't got much to offer on the pitch. On the "squad atmosphere" point I guess it is the manager's job to create the right squad atmosphere, obviously he needs players around him who are onside with his approach. I don't know the effect or extent of the bonus scheme really, but I give Pardew a lot of credit for handling some quite big changes in the squad whilst getting us off to a decent start.

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it. Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own.... Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence? P Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them. He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal. Think it's pretty clear he wouldn't have done the deal if he's scrutinised the books and the debts etc... So, people who keep bleeting about how much he's put in need to SHUT THE f*** UP. It's only to protect AN INSANE BUSINESS DESCISION AND PROTECT HIS INVESTMENT while he tries to figure out how to make his money back. P To be honest the "protecting his investment" argument applies whatever the reasons for buying and whatever the circumstances were. As far as the money he's put in is concerned, if he'd put it into buying another sports brand or a chain of shops no one would give a toss. The fact is he's put it into the club we support, so it gets our attention. We would have really struggled without it, and yes he is culpable for the costs of the relegation. It also gets attention in the media due to the high profile of the club and the Premiership in general. I suppose it also highlights yet again that owning a Premiership football club is for those with deep pockets.

I was quite surprised at the number of people on here who were pissed off about Nolan leaving at the time. He doesn't have the engine or vision to be an influential midfielder and was a passenger in a lot of games. He's good in the box mind you and can nick a goal but he's never going to boss a Premiership midfield. I've just remembered listening to that tosser Micky Quinn on Talksport when news of the transfer broke. He was going on about Newcastle having lost the plot because Nolan was the "heartbeat" of the side and how you couldn't replace him with a foreigner etc etc.

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it. Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own.... Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence? P Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them. He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal. He might still have gone ahead, but reduced his offer. The Halls were desperate to get out and they probably couldn't believe their luck at the offer they got, which I think was about £1 per share. The Stock Market listing was about 20p if IIRC. It was indeed £1 a share for the Halls but F Shepherd screwed £1.01 (although he got no compensation for loss of office). The stock market had been riding along at 45p but had risen on "speculation" to over 60p when the deal was struck. Ashley's deal valued the club at about £132 million, add on the legal costs etc and he was in for £140m. But you are absolutely right, it was one hell of a deal for the Hall family and the Shepherd family. I've said it before on here and been shot down but imo Ashley paid way over the odds.

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it. Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own.... Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence? P Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them. He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal.

No it doesn't reflect the repayment to Barclays. It is in respect of the the club having net liabilities (hence being technically insolvent) and thus being forced to demonstrate that adequate cash was available to allow it to continue trading for the foreseeable future. Foreseeable future is generally taken as 12 months. Ashley gave the undertaking to fund it for the foreseeable future. If the status quo remained the club would have been technically insolvent and looking for someone to guarantee to fund it. Edit: just to clarify that the club was technically insolvent in June 2007 when the Barclays loans were still in place. Ashley simply replaced Barclays as the lender in August.

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it. Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

Back to where we started before your cryptic nonsense: The funding issue is relevant. When Ashley took it over in the sumer of 2007 the club would not have been a going concern without his funding. And by the way that is not just me spouting an opinion, it's there in the accounts in black and white. Whatever Ashley's many faults he has stuck his hand in his pocket. That includes funding the mistakes he has made since buying it. This is unlike the previous lot who also made mistakes, put no money in and took large sums out. The relevance of the previous regime is that I would rather have an owner who can afford to pay his way - but maybe that's just me being too practical. I like a lot of the players we have now, I also like the manager. I'm not hooked on Ashley but find another owner who will do exactly what you want and can also pay his way (.i.e. not someone like Barry Moat) and I'll be as enthusiastic as you will be when Ashley goes. You may be surprised to learn that I found the thought of Llambias with his hand up my rectum to be insulting. He stuffed £30 million in (over and above the existing debt) when he took over and by June 2010 he'd stuffed another £70 million in, so £20 million a year isn't that far out.

Ok so we are "in debt and in the PL" just like we were when Ashley took over. You might as well mention that we still wear black and white shirts and still play our home games at the same stadium. You haven’t addressed the funding issue at the time of the takeover which is not surprising because you can’t. Instead you bleat on about the catastrophic mistakes Ashley has made since. These are undisputed (by me anyway) and irrelevant. Is English your first language? I never said Souness was the manager when Jose signed. And I never said I blame the previous regime for each and every one of Ashley's massive faux pas.

So then Eric you're not into answering questions. Let's try again: The word "progressed" obviously upset you so I'll rephrase. The club needed funding by someone. How do you think the club would have moved forward (without Ashley's money) from where it was? How were we going to stop losing money? Lower mid table, an unsustainable wage bill paid out to an underperformimg squad, someone would have had to pay for that. Who? Jose did want bigger and better things than Newcastle. Liverpool have been bigger and better than us since well before Ashley arrived. Whilst they were winning the Champions League Graham Souness was (to use your metaphor) dismantling the house that Sir Bobby Robson built and took away any chance we had of being part of the top tier in the Premiership. Not a disaster though was it? Just for the record I am under no illusions about what Ashley is like. Premiership football is full of rich spivs of varying nationalities. I hate what he has done to the stadium, I think it looks terrible and is degrading. But I can see a method in the way in which the squad is being assembled that has a chance of getting us somewhere further forward than we were when he took over. Gong back to the house the Alan Smith bathroom and the Geremi kitchen were bought by the project manager you inherited when you took it over by the way. His appointment was the last in a long line of poor decisions by the previous owners. The Boumsong basement, the Butt toilet, the Michael Owen glass chandelier and the Luque water feature weren't great aspects either. All were highly expensive to maintain and rarely provided much satisfaction.

No chance, going rate is whatever anyone is prepared to pay, in our case we charge Sports Direct f*** all, or, more accurately, we actually pay for their awful name all over NUFC. Just think how much easier it would be to service Ashley's loan if Sports Direct paid for that advertising...... The interest on the loan he had to put into the club because of his own gross stupidity is zero therefore...... How about removing Derek's hand from your rectum and asking the question could we have kept Jose or bought another player if as your puppeteer promised any sponsorship would, no? Didn't think so. I don't even think my wife would defend me if I knocked down every wall in my house while changing a fuse because I'd built a couple back up on the cheap. Correct - the interest is zero. The club needed funding by someone. How do you think we would have progressed if he hadn't done it? How were we going to stop losing money? Lower mid table, an unsustainable wage bill paid out to an underperformimg squad, someone would have had to pay for that. Who? That second paragraph is a bit of a throwback. The old "hurl insults and spew venom at anyone who dares question what you believe" routine. It's even got the classic - throw out a question and answer it yourself with a "no? Didn't think so". Thought we'd seen the last of that moronic shyte I don't like Llambias by the way, I think he's a slimeball and a PR disaster. We would be better served with someone who knows about the football industry doing that job. We could not have kept Jose, he wanted out. Liverpool are a bigger club than us right now and have been for years. If someone external came along and offered the club a shed load of money to advertise in the stadium would the club take it? I don't know the answer to that and neither do you. You would need to explain to your wife that your house was in a bad state of repair and was proving uneconomical to maintain. Your first efforts at putting it right weren't at all clever but there is a chance that in the future you might be able to turn it round, improve its infrastructure and make it work financially and compare favourably with other houses in the same market. Or maybe you need a new wife.

No chance, going rate is whatever anyone is prepared to pay, in our case we charge Sports Direct f*** all, or, more accurately, we actually pay for their awful name all over NUFC. Just think how much easier it would be to service Ashley's loan if Sports Direct paid for that advertising......

How would you define an Ashley Apologist? Anyone who doesn't instantly and automatically rubbish anything and everything the club has done and is doing? Those that are prepared to give him a chance will do so out of a sense of realism about the club's financial situation, and also can see that some of the initiatives and changes in structure, personnel and strategy may actually have a chance of working. They may even lead to something better than we had when he took over, in fact they may already have led to something better than we had before he took over. But I don't think there are too many people who would try and defend some of his more catastrophic manoeuvres or are blind to some of the crap that still goes on. So yeah by that criteria I'll own up to being gay and out

I really like Jonas, he's had some stick on here but he always commits to the cause even when he's not in great form. It is great news and sends a positive message out. But let's not get carried away with what it means. The fact that a player has an extended contract serves the purpose of increasing any potential trnsfer fee (iirc both Carroll and Milner signed contracts not long before they left). Enrique didn't and went for peanuts... Edit: just seen Madras post

I agree with that.

Redknapp himself said he'd been offered the job, Keegan said Redknapp had been offered the job. Of course they could both have had casino debts owing to Llambias and agreed to take part in a conspiracy......

What a fantastic post that is

He could have charged the club interest and not drawn it until there was cash available to pay it. The Carroll money comes to mind as an obvious opportunity to recover a back payment of interest. But he hasn't done that and all loans are designated as non interest bearing.

Well that's the answer for everything then. He doesn't charge his own company interest, so anything goes and nobody can be displeased at anything. And even if they are, Shepherd was worse. Happy days. Of course it's not the answer for everything and of course anyone can be p*ssed off about the SD crap everywhere (I don't like it either). But the point is that not getting SD to pay anything for it is irrelevant. He could easily do what Randy Lerner does and charge the club 6% per annum on his loans, over the past 4 years that would have been about £30 million that would have left the club coffers. He hasn't done that and he hasn't got SD to pay for the advertising. So it's not worth getting in a state about the money side of the advertising.