quayside

i thought quaysides posts would have driven this out of town by now Apparently not....

True enough, I'm ok with that up until the AND bit. It is a shyte brand, looks horrendous and is degrading. But you know that to borrow £140 million (knock off £40m if you like for the culpable relegation) and not pay interest has a monetary gain. And we have that gain because of Ashley, so bringing the "lost income" aspect into it is irrelevant imo.

Jesus - 5 matches in? But it is not a wind up. It's got too much stuff about Ashley's mistakes and the things he has done to piss people off to be a wind up. It's just a journo looking for a feelgood story and misjudging the current mood.

The numbers quoted are correct, they are taken from the 2010 accounts. Can't say much about this bit. It is either made up or has come from a "club source" : "Last month Barclays loaned Newcastle their season's Premier League monies in advance, having apparently also extended their overdraft in March."

I said the same thing when we sold Carroll, all seemed rather coincidental to me but we are unlikely to ever find out. I just can't see Hughton making a fuss about anything tbh. It's not conclusive but fwiw here's a transcript from an interview Hughton gave to Keys and Gray in April. Richard Keys: “Do you think he was always going to leave in January?” Chris Hughton: “No I don’t. I think the club wanted to keep him, I think the supporters certainly wanted to keep him, and of course, the management and the management staff certainly wanted to keep him because of the quality that he is. I think that he left Newcastle for one reason, and that was the huge fee that he left there for.” Richard Keys: “So that was just too much to resist?” Chris Hughton: “I think everybody was astounded at the time at the value. I think, and hope, for the lad’s sake, and of course for Liverpool’s sake as well, that everyone will look back on it and say ‘That’s been very, very good business.”

We are all pretty much in the dark when it comes to how different managers operate and what their relationship with the players and owners is. So the only thing we can do is interpret events and what information we are given as we see it. The case for Hughton consists of getting one of the strongest sides ever in the Championship promoted, and then keeping what was an average Premiership side in mid table for half a season. These are not just the only things I have seen him achieve they are also the sum of his management experience. He is also a very decent human being. FWIW I think the worrying things about us in the Premiership under Hughton were our poor home record and our poor results when key players were missing. I don't think that Hughton not being here has anything whatsoever to do with whether he was a puppet or not. He was sacked because Ashley/Llambias thought he wasn't up to the job and Pardew would get more out of the squad. I think they got it right. As far as whether Pardew is a puppet or not he has, at least, openly expressed his disappointment with the board for letting him down in the transfer window. I don't think Hughton would have said a word. I have already said that I am under no illusions about where we are, the fixture list gave us a good opportunity to get points on the board and we have done so. Pardew is not a five star rated manager or anything like it but, looking around at other managers in the Premiership, I prefer him to plenty that I see. And, based on what I see of him in interview and getting performances out of what he has got, I think he has more about him than Hughton. Rather like those who think Pardew got the job because he was a mate of someone there is no real evidence for it - it is just an opinion.

I liked and respected Hughton, he did a really good job in what, to start with, must have been an incredibly difficult situation. His achievement was to got us promoted with the best and most expensive squad the Championship has ever seen. A manager and a side that comes first in its division is easy to fall in love with. Had much more to do with his demeanour, dignity and respect he engendered amongst the place IMO. He had a good squad, but plenty of Premiership squads have sunk without a trace. A pejorative take on things^ Ashley is a business man and I defy you to produce any evidence that he's not running this club as a business. No s*** I don't know why you say that with such pride, tbh. I made a lengthy post somewhere on why that's not something to be proud of, so I won't go into it again. Your take on the Hughton sacking is that Pardew would "kowtow" to Ashley and Llambias and let them sell who they like. Utter crap imo - this means that you think Hughton was some sort of iron character who would stand up to Ashley and stop him selling Carroll and Enrique? Or maybe you think that Hughton's sheer charisma would have persuaded them to stay? Hughton is a far less outspoken character than Pardew, when did Hughton ever say anything of any consequence in an interview? I thought everyone knew that managers don't have the final say on decisions like the Carroll and Enrique sales anyway. You seem to be conflating the issues of a manager having decision-making powers (which I didn't mention in my post) and a manager accepting a regime he did not agree with. Hughton would obviously not have been able to stop the sales of any of our players, and I suspect the real reason he isn't here - and the reason Pardew is - is because Hughton wasn't willing to participate fully with Ashley's cost-cutting pissing-in-the-faces-of-fans regime. Ashley appointed Pardew because he thought he would do a better job of protecting his asset, that's why businessmen make decisions like that. Again no arguments from me, but again - not sure why you're proud of this. As long as we're both in agreement it wasn't for footballing reasons in the conventional sense of the phrase. Love the point about our success to date being mainly down to Hughton's signing of Leon Best Apart from the complete dismissal of other players who have played a part (and let's not forget Kinnear's signing Ryan Taylor btw) this the same Leon Best who couldn't hit a barn from the inside until Pardew took over. Fair point, you've got me there (although I would stress my point was somewhat tongue in cheek). A lot of players contributed very well to the second half of our season, but with the exception of Jonas and Colo, none was more invaluable than Best after Carroll's sale (even though Carroll was injured for the rest of it) Hey it's early days, the fixture list so far has helped us get a start and I'm not carried away with what's happened so far But Pardew is one of the things I like about our set up right now. I certainly would rather he was here than plenty of the other managers in the Premiership (as well as the high profile, big ego managers in the Championship). I'll not say much about the stuff you agree with other than to say I'm certainly not proud of any of my observations and don't know why you think I would be. Picking up on your comments: "Had much more to do with his demeanour, dignity and respect he engendered amongst the place IMO. He had a good squad, but plenty of Premiership squads have sunk without a trace. A pejorative take on things" He had more than a good squad, it was light years better than anything else in that division. And whilst I agree with you about his demeanour, dignity and respect my take on it is that the players themselves were largely running the show and Hughton (wisely) gave them the empowerment to do so. "You seem to be conflating the issues of a manager having decision-making powers (which I didn't mention in my post) and a manager accepting a regime he did not agree with. Hughton would obviously not have been able to stop the sales of any of our players, and I suspect the real reason he isn't here - and the reason Pardew is - is because Hughton wasn't willing to participate fully with Ashley's cost-cutting pissing-in-the-faces-of-fans regime." No conflation here. I happen to think Hughton wouldn't have stood in the way of anything Ashley tried to do, he was even more of a puppet than some suggest Pardew is. And you did refer to the transfer window and the selling of Enrique - and you did link them with Pardew btw. "As long as we're both in agreement it wasn't for footballing reasons in the conventional sense of the phrase." Any manager we have isn't going to control the money side of it. I think Ashley thought Pardew would get more out of the squad than Hughton and would therefore get a better return for his asset.

I liked and respected Hughton, he did a really good job in what, to start with, must have been an incredibly difficult situation. His achievement was to got us promoted with the best and most expensive squad the Championship has ever seen. A manager and a side that comes first in its division is easy to fall in love with. Ashley is a business man and I defy you to produce any evidence that he's not running this club as a business. Your take on the Hughton sacking is that Pardew would "kowtow" to Ashley and Llambias and let them sell who they like. Utter crap imo - this means that you think Hughton was some sort of iron character who would stand up to Ashley and stop him selling Carroll and Enrique? Or maybe you think that Hughton's sheer charisma would have persuaded them to stay? Hughton is a far less outspoken character than Pardew, when did Hughton ever say anything of any consequence in an interview? I thought everyone knew that managers don't have the final say on decisions like the Carroll and Enrique sales anyway. Ashley appointed Pardew because he thought he would do a better job of protecting his asset, that's why businessmen make decisions like that. Love the point about our success to date being mainly down to Hughton's signing of Leon Best Apart from the complete dismissal of other players who have played a part (and let's not forget Kinnear's signing Ryan Taylor btw) this is the same Leon Best who couldn't hit a barn from the inside until Pardew took over. Hey it's early days, the fixture list so far has helped us get a start and I'm not carried away with what's happened so far But Pardew is one of the things I like about our set up right now. I certainly would rather he was here than plenty of the other managers in the Premiership (as well as the high profile, big ego managers in the Championship).

As others have said that is a good post. And there are people (some post on here) who say they will never forgive him for being part of the conspiracy to sack Hughton. There is also the "casino buddy" theory for which no one has produced an ounce of evidence. He didn't make the decision to sack Hughton , he was offered a job and took it. And btw look at the consequences we have witnessed when this club has sacked a manager without having a replacement sorted out.

I agree with a lot of that post. Obviously whether you like him as a person or not is up to you. The only thing I can't work out is why you can say all that positive stuff about him, and in the same post say you don't rate him. Surely the points you make about him define a manager who plays to win, gets the most out of the resources he has at his disposal, picks up points and thus does his job pretty well. He's no Ferguson or Guardiola of course but few managers are comparable to them in any of the top leagues around the world, and those that are wouldn't give us a look.

At the risk of this thread going down the "we wouldn't have made those losses if Shepherd was still in charge" route I can't see that further funding would have been available once the 2007 accounts hit the mat. Despite earning high interest (between 6 and 11 per cent) on its loans Barclays clearly did not like the look of it and ran for the hills at the first opportunity. Just as a further thought - if we were fully funded externally the buyer would have had to borrow the funds to pay for the club in the first place, so you could add another £140 million to the debt that would have to be serviced. This is the model that Liverpool were on and ManU still are. Obviously in that situation the club has to make good profits just to pay the interest payments. It would totally kill us imo.

Why should Newcastle United and Sports Direct be associated? Because they are owned by the same person? Do all sports clubs owners associate the clubs they own with other organisations in their portfolio? The only thing that links NUFC and SD is Mike Ashley. Sports Direct isn't a local company, it has no historical ties to the club - why should we have to accept providing them with free advertising that stains our stadium? I wasn't trying to suggest that SD should be a side interest to Ashley, but why should the fans of this club be forced to support his brand? "to promote his side interest" So that's exactly what you were trying to suggest. That is the only reason for the association... Which is wrong. He is using NUFC to promote his own company, that is what I disagree with. The 2008 and 2009 accounts suggest NUFC paid SD £47,000 for the privilege of branding in SD! The concept that we are in fact 'supporting' SD is strengthened, when you consider the opportunity cost of not having a stadium sponsor that actually pays for advertising... It looks truly horrible and, personally, I see it as having degraded a great stadium. But as far as the money side is concerned it's part of the deal with having Ashley own us. Just reading this forum it's obvious that plenty of people want him gone. As ever it's up to the individual as how much good they think he has done and is doing. But if we were funded by externally borrowed money we would be paying huge chunks of interest. In fact I shudder to think what rate we would be paying. If there is anyone around who would lend £140 million (or even half that) to a technically insolvent business they would want a substantial margin for doing so. Ashley is a package deal - like it or not.

I think when it comes to sniffing out bargains, free transfers and release clauses we are as good as anyone in the league right now. Sometimes though a player is needed out of necessity to fill an important gap in the squad and you might have to pay a full price. We seem to be lacking in the flexibility and skill in our negotiating to do this side of the job effectively.

It's really sh1t.

Maybe we've got Nolan's goal scoring replacement. If all Best does is score goals (and tbh I think he does give us a little bit more than that) I'd rather have that role being taken by a striker than a midfielder. Midfielders need to offer a bit more imo....

I personally feel fairly confident that it'll happen one day. Aye, I used to think he wouldn't because of the money generated by selling the advertising. But he clearly prefers advertising his own s*** for free We'll undoubtedly be fed some bullshit about it being for the season, as we have no worthy prospective sponsorship offers when the NR deal ceases. Correct. Wouldn't be as bad if they actually had a half decent logo, or you know, put some f***ing money into the club. Hmm, turns out I'm furious about this. Who knew you being serious ? Meant Sports Direct from all of the Advertising, not Mike Ashley I can't see that there's much difference since Ashley owns about 75% of Sports Direct. I just can't get wound up about the money aspect of it. As I said earlier he could get Sports Direct to pay something for this and he could also charge interest on his loan, he chooses to do neither and that's up to him. I'm more concerned about the degradation of a great stadium.

That letter from Lerner and Faulkner in brummie's post is staggering Even the utterances from Del Llambias make some attempt to talk about the squad and the hopes for the club on the pitch.

Arghhhhh, no! The club (NUFC) do not get paid anything directly relating to the advertisements, they have cos around 42k to put in place. NUFC covered this cost £42k was paid in 2008 and 2009. Are you sure these are signage costs? The same figure, two years running... Not that it matters much, but I thought someone said that the £42K was just an actual cost in the 2008 accounts, and the 2009 accounts just referred back to it? That's correct.

It is taking the proverbial now. It's like everytime he sees any photo with the team in it, he cocks his leg and sprays SD all ower them (it's the only reason for the blasted training ground signs). Apropos of nowt. http://files.sharenator.com/condescending_I_have_found_a_new_way_to_be_condescending-s720x254-37397-580.png The real trouble is that he hasn't done this to piss the fanbase off, he just doesn't get what the club is about and what it means to people. None of this surprises me sadly. It's utterly hideous, in your face and lacking any sort of class, and that pretty much reflects our owner. It's also a comment on what is widely found in Premiership football, it's stuffed full of spivs and morally bankrupt.

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show? Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies? The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company. Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct? The club has provided the advertising and promotional services and made no charge for it. So there is no money. It's Ashley's call, he owns the club. In much the same way it's his call on whether he charges the club interest on the money he has loaned. That remains to be seen (the interest on the 'loan'). Squad photo: http://twitpic.com/6l524k I don't think it does. The 2010 accounts clearly disclose that the loans of £140 million from Ashley are non interest bearing.

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show? Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies? The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company. Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct? The club has provided the advertising and promotional services and made no charge for it. So there is no money. It's Ashley's call, he owns the club. In much the same way it's his call on whether he charges the club interest on the money he has loaned.

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show? Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies? The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

The 3-0 loss at Man City under Souness The 1-0 loss at Derby under Fat Sam The 0-2 loss at home to Blackburn under Roeder The 0-0 at home with Boro under Roeder The 2-1 loss at Reading under Fat Sam and particularly... The 0-1 loss at home to Sheff Utd under Roeder were all worse imo. There's probably more if I sat and gave it a minute's thought. The 0-0 at home to Charlton under Roeder. They were awful at the time. The 1-4 at home to Portsmouth under Fat Sam deserves a mention imo.

Tbh I'm pretty sure Roeder has always maintained that Duff was not his signing and that the deal was done by "those above".

Because, sadly, he owns the club and therefore leaves us powerless onlookers as he tarnishes and vandalises our club, our stadium and our history and identity. He makes the rules- and they f***ing suck! We aren't powerless. Tell me more... This is the people's club, it isn't Mike Ashley's. It's in our hearts and that should be what matters. Make Mike a decent offer and all your dreams may come true,