quayside

I've spent more time than I should have discussing NUFC finances on here over the years - and I expected more profit than that. I know some might be skeptical about whether Ashley has taken cash to reduce the loan and "hidden" it, but please trust me if the audited accounts show his loan as unchanged since last year then he hasn't. Some sharp increase in costs has gone through - what is it? Like others on here I await a look at the published figures.....

I don't know. I don't see why. But if he doesn't take off some of the debt, then we'll soon be paying tax on massive profits, so some sort of change in plan will be needed to avoid giving money away. Repayment of Ashley's debt wouldn't have any effect on the company's profit, or its tax bill. This is where it gets too complicated for me. Thought taking £19m from the sale of Cabaye and paying down £18m debt would leave £1m profit. Either way, think we could take the title for best Premier League profits before tax this year... I'm sure you are right and 2014 will have been very profitable. I suppose one way to look at the debt thing is when he put money into the club it wasn't treated as income - an examination of the club's reported income will confirm that. So consequently when he takes it back again it isn't treated as a cost. Taxes are paid on profits (income less costs). Mind you the club has tens of millions of tax losses accumulated from the "loss making years" and these can be used to offset any future profits, it will be a few years before NUFC has to pay over any tax on profits.

I don't know. I don't see why. But if he doesn't take off some of the debt, then we'll soon be paying tax on massive profits, so some sort of change in plan will be needed to avoid giving money away. Repayment of Ashley's debt wouldn't have any effect on the company's profit, or its tax bill.

It's sad really because it wouldn't take that much for him to win the fans round, tweaking his existing policies so that they all work properly. He started doing it in 2011/12 but he continually ruins it by doing stupid things. If we stop touting our players around as soon as they look half decent, he gets rid of some of the SD.com s**** and invests at least the TV money Id wager most people would leave him alone. Where is all the TV money going? Is it clearing the ' loan' he gave to the club? Looks that way. It may be why he's said he won't sell until at least the end of next season. By that time he will have had two years worth of the new TV deal which will have pretty much cleared the debt. The club would then be a debt free business, which of course makes it far more attractive to a buyer. Not that anyone can really have the first idea about what his intentions are.....

Spot on. He's fell out with Pardew several times so I'm certain that he isn't a fan of that charlatan's either! His leadership was the exact same when we finished 5th as in that he's not an in-your-bracket screamer so it seems harsh how he's now getting vilified for basically being as he always has been. Sad to see the abuse he's getting as he's been a great servant for us. I've been staying off here whilst the website does it's thing but I had to respond to this. f*** off. He's had it tough has colo? And did you really just trot out his leadership was the same in the 5th season? The exact same clueless argument by the nationals that we finished fifth once so pardew shouldn't be sacked. Just because he ALLEGEDLY knocked up some young hairdresser gives him no excuse to play as poorly as he has. He gets away with it because when he can be arsed he's easily our best defender and we have no-one else. Oh he's fell out with pardew has he? He tell you that himself did he? No you heard it probably from lee ryder. Colo is the most gutless captain we've had in a long while. This 'rallying call' bollox is not in one way anything he's said. Bet you believed JFK used to write his statements and programme notes? If you were at Southampton you would see exactly what I'm talking about Stick to the Jersey Shore "Paully" Fancy a shag?

Just how much of a debt has he racked up for Asley to 'have something over' him and force him to do his bidding? SanToon suggests 'several thousand pounds', but considering he's flush enough to drop £160,000 in a week just to get to nuzzle a Tiger, I suspect you might think it's more than that. How do you know that he is paying from his own pocket..? Wouldn't be at all surprised if Ashley was paying these fines by giving Pardew a 'bonus'....esp likely in the case of the 60,000. Mike 'splash the cash' Ashley dipping into his own pocket? I can't see it. How much would it cost him if he had to get rid of Pardew and hire a decent manager..? The same as it would for your boss to sack you for gross misconduct. No idea what Merlin's employment contract is worth but Pardew's has to be worth somewhere between 6 and 10 million pounds. Sack him for gross misconduct and he'd have top employment legal teams queuing up to represent him. And at that point it becomes a bit of a lottery. He head butted someone. In public. While at work. On TV. It'd be pretty much an open and shut case. You'd think. But, if you can afford them, there are specialist lawyers around who will muddy the waters and present a credible case in any given situation. The papers are full of cases where wealthy guilty people are able to win cases they shouldn't, anything from murderers to drunk drivers. There's no such thing as an open and shut case if you can afford to defend it. The other thing, of course, is that high profile employment cases result in the employer's dirty linen being washed in public and stuff comes out that they would rather hadn't. This was what happened with Keegan's case and whilst we don't know much about Ashley he does seem obsessed with privacy these days, so he'd probably settle the case out of court rather than go through all that again. Anyway it is a hypothetical discussion as he hasn't attempted to sack him......

Just how much of a debt has he racked up for Asley to 'have something over' him and force him to do his bidding? SanToon suggests 'several thousand pounds', but considering he's flush enough to drop £160,000 in a week just to get to nuzzle a Tiger, I suspect you might think it's more than that. How do you know that he is paying from his own pocket..? Wouldn't be at all surprised if Ashley was paying these fines by giving Pardew a 'bonus'....esp likely in the case of the 60,000. Mike 'splash the cash' Ashley dipping into his own pocket? I can't see it. How much would it cost him if he had to get rid of Pardew and hire a decent manager..? The same as it would for your boss to sack you for gross misconduct. No idea what Merlin's employment contract is worth but Pardew's has to be worth somewhere between 6 and 10 million pounds. Sack him for gross misconduct and he'd have top employment legal teams queuing up to represent him. And at that point it becomes a bit of a lottery.

What happens elsewhere has no bearing on our club when it comes to discipline as we have no say in how other clubs are run. Gross misconduct is clearly laid out by ACAS and ACAS are used as the benchmark on how to carry out disciplinary processes. ACAS list some forms of Gross Misconduct, but not all, violence and bringing the club (in our case) into disrepute are both listed. Indeed but if the club wanted to use this incident to sack Pardew then it would have some bridges to cross. It could be argued that there was no violence as he didn't hurt anyone (although he could have done if he wanted to) and he didn't bring the club into disrepute, any disrepute has been brought on Pardew himself. Carrying off high profile sackings of senior well paid employees without compensation are notoriously difficult once expensive and expert lawyers get stuck in - which is why they hardly ever happen. If a company needs to get rid of a senior employee it's done with a Compromise/Settlement Agreement that involves money changing hands. By the way just for the record I am not condoning Pardews's actions which were pathetic. Violence isn't recorded by how much damage you do ffs, the act in itself was a violent act regardless if any damage was done. He was also representing out club at a football match therefor anything he does reflects the club. If an employee does anything whilst wearing uniform or whilst at their place of work they are representing the company they work for therefor anything they do that would show themselves in a bad light also brings the company into disrepute. I don't disagree with you. I'm trying to demonstrate what a legal team defending Pardew might come up with, and they would be far better at it than I am.

What happens elsewhere has no bearing on our club when it comes to discipline as we have no say in how other clubs are run. Gross misconduct is clearly laid out by ACAS and ACAS are used as the benchmark on how to carry out disciplinary processes. ACAS list some forms of Gross Misconduct, but not all, violence and bringing the club (in our case) into disrepute are both listed. Indeed but if the club wanted to use this incident to sack Pardew then it would have some bridges to cross. It could be argued that there was no violence as he didn't hurt anyone (although he could have done if he wanted to) and he didn't bring the club into disrepute, any disrepute has been brought on Pardew himself. Carrying off high profile sackings of senior well paid employees without compensation are notoriously difficult once expensive and expert lawyers get stuck in - which is why they hardly ever happen. If a company needs to get rid of a senior employee it's done with a Compromise/Settlement Agreement that involves money changing hands. By the way just for the record I am not condoning Pardews's actions which were pathetic.

15 down = FILTER AUGUST 6 down = LIT 3 Down = Orlando 2 Down = Tango 18 Across = Regal

Bollocks would the club have a problem of winning a case, they would only have to produce press clippings to prove that he's brought the club into serious disrepute, what other managers have done is irrelevant as our club has no control over other managers and what other clubs do. I'm not bound to let somebody off just because another company does nothing about a certain offence. If Pardew had somebody saying he was just posturing the club would only have to show the BBC footage and the case would be over. If this went to court an expert legal defence team would question every single aspect of the case. I can assure you from personal experience that examples of what happens elsewhere in the football industry would be extremely relevant in determining a definition of gross misconduct.

Yes. I think it was Pardew trying to do a "Mourinho lite" act and failing fairly pathetically.

Who said anything about them not following procedure? They couldn't have sacked him last night but they've rushed it through as a face saving exercise and the fine is as transparent as mud. I would expect every contract to allow for a sacking for Gross Misconduct, sticking a head on anybody will fall into that category. All the club would have had to do was issue him with a letter inviting him to a disciplinary hearing and make it clear that the offence was being considered as Gross Misconduct. They would have had to tell him what he was being interviewed about and state what evidence they had and give him enough time to put his defence together and allow him to be accompanied by a witness. A fact finding investigation wouldn't be necessary as the evidence was broadcast across the globe although the club could have held an unnecessary investigation first. A fact finding investigation isn't necessary when the evidence is plastered all over your TV. I know exactly was has to be done as I've had to do it plenty of times and I'm yet to have anybody win a case against me. Ok so the club does as you say. If (as we are led to believe) Pardew has a contract which still has several years left to run there would be millions of pounds at stake and Pardew would appoint a top legal team. The club says it was gross misconduct, the legal team will say it wasn't. They would look at the footage and say Pardew had the opportunity to cause physical harm to the Hull player if he had wanted to, but he didn't. They would say it was just posturing. They would probably question the definition of gross misconduct in a sport where the boundaries are, to say the least, unclear and not defined. They would site other examples of aggression within the game that have not resulted in sackings for gross misconduct - both by players and managers. The club would have a problem winning the case imo.

Not sure what Pardew's game is tbh. Whether he is trying to get the boot or thinks he is playing up to the crowd I suspect the second of those two.

Not necessarily fully behind him, a formal warning is a first step on the ladder if you want a watertight and no compensation dismissal. Of course he's fully behind him, he was gifted a sacking without compensation and he's passed on it and I doubt he'll ever get that opportunity again. Ashley wasn't gifted a sacking without compensation. If he sacked Pardew for what happened on Saturday the club would end up in a tribunal and losing mainly because they hadn't followed the correct procedure. Employment law is a bitch if you want to sack someone and not pay up. When I said "not necessarily" I was raising the possibility that Ashley isn't totally committed to Pardew. It is a possible explanation for Kinnear's appointment. I agree. Even if Ashley wanted to sack Pardew, it would have looked bad if he'd done it following that incident. If we'd lost at home last week against Villa it would have been a lot easier. If we had a loss against Villa Ashley would still have to pay off his contract to get rid of him though.

Not necessarily fully behind him, a formal warning is a first step on the ladder if you want a watertight and no compensation dismissal. Of course he's fully behind him, he was gifted a sacking without compensation and he's passed on it and I doubt he'll ever get that opportunity again. Ashley wasn't gifted a sacking without compensation. If he sacked Pardew for what happened on Saturday the club would end up in a tribunal and losing mainly because they hadn't followed the correct procedure. Employment law is a bitch if you want to sack someone and not pay up. When I said "not necessarily" I was raising the possibility that Ashley isn't totally committed to Pardew. It is a possible explanation for Kinnear's appointment.

Not necessarily fully behind him, a formal warning is a first step on the ladder if you want a watertight and no compensation dismissal.

Not sure about that, I always thought Allardyce got the sack because of the dross he bought in the previous transfer window. Very little residual value and all that. I genuinely doubt Ashley could tell the difference between the football styles of Guardiola and Pulis.

Cracking post and a very interesting analysis, a lot of that rings true. There are those that think a lot of what he does is a deliberate piss take but I don't buy that. IMO the reason he continues to act in a totally opposite way to that of anyone with an understanding of the game or what a football club means to the fan base is that he just doesn't get it.

As of now - has to be?

We do have a board, it consists of John Irving, Lee Charnley and David Williamson. I'm sure they were instructed by Ashley to get rid of Kinnear and came to a Compromise Agreement whereby he resigned in return for a payoff. I've seen people sacked like that many times. As for the "good work" it sounds like standard Pardew crap

He's certain to have signed a confidentiality/gagging agreement in return for a payoff. It will be interesting to see if he keeps to it or does a Di Canio. He's probably still mates with Ashley so I wouldn't be surprised if he remains loyal to him.

Reading the reports of what's been going on it almost sounds like he's actively been trying to get sacked.

Yes you'd just have to pray we'd get lucky with whoever bought it. Ashley would not give a shit who he sells to as long as they pay what he wants. There have been some decent owners move in. John Henry at Liverpool so far seems to have gone about it the right way, without having Man City type money to throw around.