quayside

Also lost to Blackpool and Stoke at St James.

It would probably get the same mix of opinions that you get now. Some would give credit for it. Some would still put it down to luck and lack of ambition, I mean not so long ago we were Champions League and now we're supposed to get excited about the Europa f*cking League. Ashley has forced us to accept second best. Give over man etc etc............

I can explain some of that if you want to go there, although there is only a limited amount of specific detail avaialble. There is potential for this to be confusing. Rather than looking at the structured debt part of the answer lies in the club's ordinary trade debtors and creditors. These sums would include any money due by the club or to the club for player transfers, although the accounts don't say exactly how much of these amounts relate to player trading. Any other sums due to or by the club for day to day stuff would also be included. At year end 2007 trade debtors were £6 million At year end 2008 trade debtors were £13 million That is a cash flow hit of £7 million At year end 2007 trade creditors were £55 million At year end 2008 trade creditors were £40 million That is a cash flow hit of £15 million Add the two together and you have accounted for £22 million, due to more creditors being paid and less debtors paying us year on year. Bear in mind most of these transactions would have set timings for payment. There was also a £10 million difference in cash flows from operating activities, this does not include anything to do with player trading but is the day to day income and expenditure. Although the income increased by the time you look at the final wage bills for the two years there was an £18 million difference, since Allardyce got paid off in 2008 and we received compensation for Owen in 2007. So you have more or less got £32 million of cash flow hit there year on year.

In the financial world black is for profits and red is for losses

Surely the safest way for him to take his loan money out would be to refinance part of the loan and gear the club to a sustainable level i.e. borrow (say) £60m from Barclays and use it to pay off his own loan. You can see him writing off the balance (given that he was at one point writing off the whole thing). This is easy enough to sell to supporters since most clubs are leveraged to a far lesser extent, and still manage to pay the interest. He could do that. But I don't think he's too bothered about what the supporters think of him so the PR aspect of a financial manoeuvre won't be high on his list of priorities. I don't think any of us can really have a clue what his attitude to that loan is tbh.

And sorry for the length of that post

I too have never been anything other than appreciative of where the previous board took us from what conservatively could be described as a low point in the club’s history. The regular Premiership football, qualifying for Europe were great achievements from where the club had been not many years before. And St James’ Park is one of great iconic stadia in the country. I totally agree with you about finances being taken for granted. Post Souness I used to berate Shepherd for not getting the cheque book out and remember my utter disbelief when we signed the likes of Sibierski and Olly Bernard (second time around). To be honest despite my financial background I was never in the slightest bit interested or bothered about the club finances until Ashley took over. The fact though is that Shepherd and Hall got amply rewarded for where they took the club and by the time they moved on it was in a mess. That really is my point and one I have total conviction in, you do not accumulate £93 million of trading losses if you are running a successful business. What Ashley has or has not done is a different matter. There were undoubtedly costs incurred and revenues lost as a result of decisions made by Ashley, I have never argued otherwise. and to a large extent When you say "the club lost £34m" I think you know very well that most people will interpret that as we spent £34m than we made which is not the case; you don't have to write out a cheque for the amortisation. Let’s be clear on a couple of points about amortisation. Firstly it derives from a cash transaction. We buy a player for £10 million on a five year contract and the profit for the year is hit by £2 million of amortisation every year of that contract. But the purchase of that player is still a cash item, and £10 million cash will leave the business, whether it is paid by instalments or as a lump sum. People mistakenly believe that amortisation isn’t a real cost and somehow doesn’t count, but it is the way that cash spend on players is recognised in the results for the year. I disagree with your comment about writing out a cheque for amortisation, in effect you pay for it when you buy a player. Of course cash is the main driver in a business but the absolute key is future cash flows and not historical ones, hence my comment above about all trading losses impacting on a business at some point. And I would say that it is equally possible that some of the cash flow effect of a trading loss can occur in earlier years as well as in later years. As far as I am aware the club did not start paying for players up front until after the June 2008 financial year. Club income did indeed increase from 2007 to 2008 and yes this was mostly on the back of increased media revenue, although the lack of European football pushed matchday and commercial revenues down a bit, giving a £12m increase year on year. And yet the club still made an accounting loss of £20 million so in very simplistic terms, even though the wage bill increased it was compensated by savings in other areas, and the only difference between 2008 and 2007 was the media revenue. I think as far as the wage bill at that time goes Ashley knew nothing about the club or the industry (some would no doubt argue nothing has changed) but importantly he hadn’t done due diligence and hadn’t got any sort of a grip on the finances. He got sucked in to investing in Allardyce’s vision before deciding he didn’t like it one bit. And he has completely rejected that philosophy, no one could accuse him of splashing big bucks on wages or transfers these days. Clearly I can only speculate on what the refinancing project was. Banks never have and never will lend money without security. My guess is that Shepherd knew his future cash flows weren’t going to allow him to make the repayments and he went to the banks for a restructuring arrangement on the repayments. The banks would have had little option but to accept it. There is an old principle in banking – if you owe the bank £78 it is your problem, if you owe the bank £78 million it is the bank’s problem. But let’s face it if everything financially was ok in the house, as you seem to think it was, why did the club even need to think about refinancing? Some of that dividend was taken as a scrip, but it is a dividend none the less. The only reason I referred to it was to emphasise that the previous owners were constantly taking out of the club. It is highly likely that at some point Ashley, assuming he doesn’t get a good offer to sell, will be looking to get some or all of his loan back. I can see any loan repayments being greeted with hoots of anger but if he does go down that path he isn’t taking money out of the club in the way his predecessors did, he’s simply getting back what he put in. There is no secret as to why the debt has increased under Ashley, it is because the club has carried on losing money. The losses were reduced in 2008 (as referred to above) and again in 2009 but they were still losses, and I’m sorry to repeat it, accounting losses need funding with cash. You cannot carry on making accounting losses and not need to put cash at some point. 2010 will obviously have generated a further loss which he will have funded. You aren’t above your station but you have to appreciate that there is a huge difference between looking for an opinion on a piece of historical information (a set of audited accounts) as compared to seeking advice on something that can be affected by future unknown events (a mortgage). The accounts are there in black and white (no pun intended) and they are factual sadly. Try and find someone with any training in the financial profession who will tell you that everything was fine in those 2007 accounts. I am not in the banking sector but I asked a mate of mine, who works in corporate banking, to have a look and his view was that Barclays would have been crapping themselves at that point, which is probably why they wasted no time in calling the loan in when an opportunity arose. Obviously I understand your point about the club declining but am not as convinced as you are that we are on a continuous downward path at present. We were not in great shape football wise in 2007 and were only 5 points from the relegation zone when the season closed. As of now I think we have 4 players in the side who are as good as anyone I can remember playing in their positions. As Brummie posted on another thread there are a number of clubs at our level, the world has been changed by the likes of Chelsea and Man City, and if you want us to compete with the top four any time soon you are destined for a bitter old age. As far as the debt is concerned you may well be right. Let’s face it there is no such thing in the commercial world as a loan that isn’t repayable. Do you honestly think the banks didn’t want their money back when we were externally financed? Other than there appears to be no interest accruing on the loan and Ashley can take a relaxed view on how he gets it back - what’s the difference? All I can say on the relegation issue is that it is not in Ashley’s interest for that to happen. And if he is looking for an exit a side performing well on the pitch is a definite plus. Can he do that with his business model? F*ck knows tbh.

Not responding to your post alone but all the posts in general. Basically people even if Hughton didn't go out there and scout the players himself, he still had the final say on getting them here and played a role in attracting them to the club. By the way some talk on here it's as if he was the anti-christ, however I still remember what he done for this club and we need to give credit where credit is due. Pardew has done a good job so far however, we must not forget the (disgraceful) circumstances in which he came in, though I must stress that although Ashley must be the one to blame for those circumstances, Pardew still had a hand in it. Now he's done well, but he hasn't signed any of his own players (except Kuqi) and as such we should recoginise that Hughton must have had a hand in the dealing bringing Tiote and unifying the team and TBH it does seem as if he could have kept all our major players here as they loved him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1336641/Newcastle-bring-big-Chris-Hughton-sacking-joke-says-Jose-Enrique.html But I do say that pardew has done a good job, so far, it's just the circumstances in which he came here make me hesitant to be declaring him the Geordie Messiah like some are saying on here. But still a good job so far. Doubt there are many takers on the Geordie Messiah but you might get a bit of action on "has done a good job, so far". I said on here (can't be arsed to look when) that it's a judgement call on whether AP is an upgrade on CH. Based on not very much I happen to think he is. What I'm saying is that on this forum being a Pardew fan seems to be the "in" thing, which is fine, but to say that he's ban upgrade on Hughton is stupid and no-one can actually give any evidence (which you admit so fairs fair) but TBH I would like to see an actual arguement why he's better than Hughton, because in my mind the fact that Hughton has won more trophies in a season than Pardew has in his entire career says a lot. I'll have a go. Pardew never managed a squad like the one we had in the Championship. Hughton never got a team he was managing to a Cup Final. But we all know that's not really relevant, as I said its a judgement call on where we are now. IIRC the year after the cup final West Ham finished seventeenth (they were in the relegation zone when he got sacked) plus he had the worst run of results for the Hammers in seventy years. So he may be alright this season, but next season it can be expected to be a shaky one. How has he improved the team? Kuqi? Of course - we all know Kuqi has been identified as Carroll's replacement. How has he improved the team then He hasn't. So what? He wasn't brought in to improve the team, he was brought in as a temporary body who might at some point cause some damage. Have you not worked this out?

Not responding to your post alone but all the posts in general. Basically people even if Hughton didn't go out there and scout the players himself, he still had the final say on getting them here and played a role in attracting them to the club. By the way some talk on here it's as if he was the anti-christ, however I still remember what he done for this club and we need to give credit where credit is due. Pardew has done a good job so far however, we must not forget the (disgraceful) circumstances in which he came in, though I must stress that although Ashley must be the one to blame for those circumstances, Pardew still had a hand in it. Now he's done well, but he hasn't signed any of his own players (except Kuqi) and as such we should recoginise that Hughton must have had a hand in the dealing bringing Tiote and unifying the team and TBH it does seem as if he could have kept all our major players here as they loved him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1336641/Newcastle-bring-big-Chris-Hughton-sacking-joke-says-Jose-Enrique.html But I do say that pardew has done a good job, so far, it's just the circumstances in which he came here make me hesitant to be declaring him the Geordie Messiah like some are saying on here. But still a good job so far. Doubt there are many takers on the Geordie Messiah but you might get a bit of action on "has done a good job, so far". I said on here (can't be arsed to look when) that it's a judgement call on whether AP is an upgrade on CH. Based on not very much I happen to think he is. What I'm saying is that on this forum being a Pardew fan seems to be the "in" thing, which is fine, but to say that he's ban upgrade on Hughton is stupid and no-one can actually give any evidence (which you admit so fairs fair) but TBH I would like to see an actual arguement why he's better than Hughton, because in my mind the fact that Hughton has won more trophies in a season than Pardew has in his entire career says a lot. I'll have a go. Pardew never managed a squad like the one we had in the Championship. Hughton never got a team he was managing to a Cup Final. But we all know that's not really relevant, as I said its a judgement call on where we are now. IIRC the year after the cup final West Ham finished seventeenth (they were in the relegation zone when he got sacked) plus he had the worst run of results for the Hammers in seventy years. So he may be alright this season, but next season it can be expected to be a shaky one. How has he improved the team? Kuqi? Of course - we all know Kuqi has been identified as Carroll's replacement.

Not responding to your post alone but all the posts in general. Basically people even if Hughton didn't go out there and scout the players himself, he still had the final say on getting them here and played a role in attracting them to the club. By the way some talk on here it's as if he was the anti-christ, however I still remember what he done for this club and we need to give credit where credit is due. Pardew has done a good job so far however, we must not forget the (disgraceful) circumstances in which he came in, though I must stress that although Ashley must be the one to blame for those circumstances, Pardew still had a hand in it. Now he's done well, but he hasn't signed any of his own players (except Kuqi) and as such we should recoginise that Hughton must have had a hand in the dealing bringing Tiote and unifying the team and TBH it does seem as if he could have kept all our major players here as they loved him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1336641/Newcastle-bring-big-Chris-Hughton-sacking-joke-says-Jose-Enrique.html But I do say that pardew has done a good job, so far, it's just the circumstances in which he came here make me hesitant to be declaring him the Geordie Messiah like some are saying on here. But still a good job so far. Doubt there are many takers on the Geordie Messiah but you might get a bit of action on "has done a good job, so far". I said on here (can't be arsed to look when) that it's a judgement call on whether AP is an upgrade on CH. Based on not very much I happen to think he is. What I'm saying is that on this forum being a Pardew fan seems to be the "in" thing, which is fine, but to say that he's ban upgrade on Hughton is stupid and no-one can actually give any evidence (which you admit so fairs fair) but TBH I would like to see an actual arguement why he's better than Hughton, because in my mind the fact that Hughton has won more trophies in a season than Pardew has in his entire career says a lot. I'll have a go. Pardew never managed a squad like the one we had in the Championship. Hughton never got a team he was managing to a Cup Final. But we all know that's not really relevant, as I said its a judgement call on where we are now.

Not responding to your post alone but all the posts in general. Basically people even if Hughton didn't go out there and scout the players himself, he still had the final say on getting them here and played a role in attracting them to the club. By the way some talk on here it's as if he was the anti-christ, however I still remember what he done for this club and we need to give credit where credit is due. Pardew has done a good job so far however, we must not forget the (disgraceful) circumstances in which he came in, though I must stress that although Ashley must be the one to blame for those circumstances, Pardew still had a hand in it. Now he's done well, but he hasn't signed any of his own players (except Kuqi) and as such we should recoginise that Hughton must have had a hand in the dealing bringing Tiote and unifying the team and TBH it does seem as if he could have kept all our major players here as they loved him. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1336641/Newcastle-bring-big-Chris-Hughton-sacking-joke-says-Jose-Enrique.html But I do say that pardew has done a good job, so far, it's just the circumstances in which he came here make me hesitant to be declaring him the Geordie Messiah like some are saying on here. But still a good job so far. Doubt there are many takers on the Geordie Messiah but you might get a bit of action on "has done a good job, so far". I said on here (can't be arsed to look when) that it's a judgement call on whether AP is an upgrade on CH. Based on not very much I happen to think he is.

Don't think many have had a go although one or two have been unkind in their replies and taken it a bit too literally. I think it's a good OP posing an interesting question and yes I think we have a lot of short termism in the form of knee jerk and bi-polar reactions to the club, team and individual players. I said earlier I find opinions at the match and in the boozer different to on here and certainly more level headed, maybe you do too ? I don't think it's the varying opinions down the boozer, more the reactions to said opinions. If we had a disagreement down the pub, we'd just continue to debate, any disagreement on here and a minority (not all!) will just try to smash people down. Again, this is not a N-O phenomenon, more a hiding behind your keyboard phenomenon. Again, not a problem, as if you're offended by what someone types on t'interweb, then maybe you shouldn't be up past your bedtime! Apart from the afore mentioned knee jerk reactions it is also one of the features of internet forums that some posters take up a particular view or position on an issue and then entrench themselves. No matter what may happen to suggest that they might reconsider their view they will not do so because their previously expressed opinions are recorded on the forum and they don't want to be seen to lose face. Pub discussions will usually be more give and take as they are face to face. I have to say though this is a very good forum and it is very informative. There are some excellent posters on here, both from "debating a point" and entertainment perspectives.

UV Your defence of the financial legacy of the previous regime is, as ever, touching. But there is a fundamental point here that you appear to be overlooking. The trend being shown in the years leading up to 2007 was truly shocking and, unless you have Hall or Shepherd dna, can only be interpreted as one of financial failure. I’ve quoted these figures before so it should not come as a surprise. 2004 2005 2006 2007 £m £m £m £m Profit / (Loss) 4 Breakeven (12) (34) Net worth 30 30 17 (16) If not spiralling out of control then relentlessly getting worse to the point of recording an insolvent position. Some other points: - Rather than relying on a brief reference to “a major refinancing project” why don’t you suggest what the club could have used as collateral to borrow further? Bear in mind that the training ground was already mortgaged, and future revenue from ticket sales, corporate hospitality, broadcasting and sponsorship had also been put up as security. What was left to put in hock that justifies your belief that any suggestion of a lack of available security is a “myth”? - Contrary to what you say a dividend was paid out of the 2005 accounts. - I know that you are aware that there are timing differences between cash flows and reported trading profits and losses. But it is important to remember that every single number in the club's profit and loss account as well as its balance sheet arises out of a cash transaction. The number could relate to cash paid, cash received, cash due to us or cash owed by us. The point here is that if a business racks up an accounting loss of £34 million then at some point that money is going to disappear in cash terms, but it may well not be in the same year as the loss is incurred. For the record the club had accumulated losses of £93 million as at 30th June 2007. Enough from me on this. Have a look at the article below. It was posted on here a few weeks back. There’s loads of detail and you seem to like a bit of that. I don’t know who the author is but he seems to do similar types of work on different football clubs. There is the odd typo and the occasional strange comment in the article but he is independent and he is objective. He also quotes the opinions of other independent experts. He discusses the club’s financial position pre and post Ashley. As far as the situation when Ashley bought the club is concerned he concludes exactly what I concluded 3 years ago when the accounts were published. There is a reason for that. It is the only conclusion a qualified financial analyst could arrive at. http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2010/12/newcastle-uniteds-finances-in-black-and.html

Great signing. He cost nothing, we hadn't exactly built our whole game plan around him, so what if he can't play for a while? Post this again in two years time and maybe we can have a sensible conversation about him. He cost nothing? Mike Ashley's regime has been fairly vocal about factoring in wages when it comes to money spent on players, so unless Gosling has been unpaid this season I'd say there's already been a significant outlay. Hopefully he'll turn out to be a player worth all this time and expense. My apologies. He cost us a wage, as have any number of players who have taken a while to prove their worth - Enrique, Nolan, Barton, Colo all had less then promising starts here, The point I was making was that they all cost us a transfer fee, and Gosling didn't. Good players tend to command transfer fees. I'm not saying Gosling isn't a good player but just because they are free doesn't necessarily make them the right player to sign. We've seen enough in recent years to know that the transfer fee is related to a combination of how long is left on the contract and. of course, the demand for the player. So Carroll signs a new contract with us for 5 (was it?) years and, thank you very much, if you want to buy him him the price is going to be a bit steep. The Gosling situation seems to be one where the contract wasn't sorted by Everton (to their annoyance) and, shits that we are, we exploited it. But yeah I haven't got a clue if he's going to make it as a player, my best mate is an Evertonian and he reckons they've cocked up big time on Gosling fwiw.

What are these delusions that you aren't under?

Great signing. He cost nothing, we hadn't exactly built our whole game plan around him, so what if he can't play for a while? Post this again in two years time and maybe we can have a sensible conversation about him. He cost nothing? Mike Ashley's regime has been fairly vocal about factoring in wages when it comes to money spent on players, so unless Gosling has been unpaid this season I'd say there's already been a significant outlay. Hopefully he'll turn out to be a player worth all this time and expense. My apologies. He cost us a wage, as have any number of players who have taken a while to prove their worth - Enrique, Nolan, Barton, Colo all had less then promising starts here, The point I was making was that they all cost us a transfer fee, and Gosling didn't.

Great signing. He cost nothing, we hadn't exactly built our whole game plan around him, so what if he can't play for a while? Post this again in two years time and maybe we can have a sensible conversation about him.

He has a nice side parting. Agreed. And it pissed off the blue scousers when we nicked him......

Without going into a counting game I agree with your sentiment. I'm wrestling with the thought that Boumsong was bought for 8 times the price of Williamson.

Well, according to United for United, Club Rep said the club is breaking even now and doesn't require any further loans (I assume it meant from Ashley). That's huge news if true. Yes that sounds quite feasible. Although the profit on Carroll will come into this year's results I would think that we should be on a break even path without it.

where to ? Clearly ITK on shit going down next summer

Kenwright has got no money behind him whatsoever. Never said he had, did I? I was simply questioning how he can show "ambition" with no money, and its also obvious their ability to borrow is limited. They've tried to sell the club but no buyer wants to know because the club isn't going to get anywhere unless they get a new stadium (about £300m I think). And your point about selling Rooney was crap btw How was it crap? It's all relative. League positions: 2000/2001 16th 2001/2002 15th 2002/2003 7th 2003/2004 17th Sell Rooney 2004/2005 4th 2005/2006 11th 2006/2007 6th 2007/2008 5th 2008/2009 5th 2009/2010 8th

Kenwright has got no money behind him whatsoever. Never said he had, did I? I was simply questioning how he can show "ambition" with no money, and its also obvious their ability to borrow is limited. They've tried to sell the club but no buyer wants to know because the club isn't going to get anywhere unless they get a new stadium (about £300m I think). And your point about selling Rooney was crap btw

Kenwright has got no money behind him whatsoever.

Very little IMO. Had we stayed up most of the big earners were still in line to leave. The main difference is we could have kept the players on lower wages like Bassong, or at least made money from them. As it is because of the relegation we lost £30m cash and all the profit from players like Bassong and Martins, so in effect we lost nearly £60m in cash and assets. Yes we've come back up with a leaner wage bill (maybe £10m less per year then if we hadn't been relegated), but our debt is now significantly bigger. Club debt has stayed the same as ashley forked out for our losses in the championship. Club's debt has risen. It's just that our debtor is our owner. It still will be paid back, and makes it harder to be sold. Er why? External lenders aren't going to even contemplate negotiating the value of their debt in a sale situation. External lenders can and do maintain previously arranged repayment structures, or negotiate new ones, though. Ashley wants it all paid back in one go. If he ends up loaning us another £20m for some reason, the sale price of the club will go up £20m. Ah - I didn't realise you'd spoken to him about this. We're chummy.