quayside

you aren't going to hold him wanting his money back at some point against him are you when he's been effectivly keeping the club going for the last year or two are you ? That depends on how much of the extra debt we’ve accrued since he bought the club can be attributed to his mistakes. Taking money out of the club to pay for his mistakes would certainly be of dubious morality. using the same criteria i wonder what you think of shepherd ? Unless you count the stadium extension as a mistake (£45m of the debt), then the remaining debt left at the end of 15 years of Hall & Shepherd was around £25m. In the year prior to Ashley's takeover we were without the advertising revenue that Ashley complains about, we were paying the instalments for players like Owen and Luque that Ashley also complained about, we spent net £10m on new players, and we were also paying interest of £7.5m. In that year the debt increased by £9m. That is the context for the loses in cash terms when Ashley took over. In the first year of Ashley's ownership due to a new deal for prem clubs, TV revenues went up by £18m. If things had continued to be run as they had the previous year then even with another £10m net spend and a slightly increased wage bill the club should have easily broken even or made a cash flow profit and paid back some of the debt. Going from the figures in this post: http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,69123.msg2330046.html#msg2330046 As of May this year the debt stands at something like £134m (268-134 cost of club) + £36m overdraft = £170m That's an increase of £100m in 3 years, or £33m per year, and that's before you even start to look at the quality and depth of the squad when he took over to what it is now. So Ashley has put more debt per year on the club than the old owners racked up through 15 years of mistakes taking us from a club on the brink of the 3rd division to being one of the richest clubs in the world. Please don't try and tell me these losses are due to the mistakes of the previous owners, because the stadium debt had to be paid off, because of some missing advertising revenue, or even because of Michael bloody Owen. They are purely down to how Ashley has run the club and "turned around" the finances (he sure has!). Now, at the risk of having an opinion madras, to answer the thread, do you forgive "Mike and Dell Boy" because Hughton fortunately turned out to be a decent manager and got us promoted, and we have brought in a crocked youth prospect, a semi-retired defender, a dutch league sub and an exciting but temperamental prospect on loan to keep us in the premiership? Will you be happy if he uses the extra money the club brings in this year to pay off some of those debts? If we do start paying off those debts this year, will you be happy for the club to continue to do so for the next 5 years until we "achieve a 'break even' financial situation"? I've really got to hand it to you - you don't give up on this "old board were blameless" stuff. Anyway I'm not going to debate the numbers yet again. I am however interested in your comments about the squad. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be implying that the squad was much stronger in quality and depth when Ashley took over, by this I assume you mean the squad that had just come 14th in the league? I can't see that it was that much stronger than what we now have although it contained a few underperforming/non performing "big names" and the wage bill was almost certainly higher. Your description of our latest batch of signings is also interesting. Applying the same criteria how would you describe the likes of Duff, Martins, Sibierski, Olly Bernard, Gooch and Rossi? IIRC these were our incoming players in the season after we had just come 7th in the league.

Almost predictable isn't it? I agree Ozzie & Cronky are. There have been some interesting responses here. Gimp asked a 'genuine question' about how Keegan's critics compare him to Robson's situation. I gave an entirely factual response - no opinion offered at all - and I seem to be causing some annoyance. The fact is that when the basic details of Keegan's behaviour are presented, it doesn't look good. Well I think Keegan's appointment was Ashley's biggest mistake, which he compounded by trying to put him under Dennis Wise etc etc..... BUT I suspect Keegan probably had a bit more than a dubious Latin American loan signing to contend with. I suspect Keegan's lawyers hung a good chunk of his case on the Nacho Gonzalez loan because the evidence of "intervention" was easy to prove and probably undeniable. Their job was to win and they went with the area where they knew they could make their case. However I think there was probably a lot more that happened in that transfer window and I would bet that Milner's transfer and the use of the funds was the most significant factor behind Keegan's walkout.

especially the bit about other possible owners. As I said in my earlier post they have shown signs in the last 9 months or so that they are getting the idea of what it is all about. All we can do is hope that it continues, but at this stage it still is hope rather than expectation I think.

all else aside this is my fear with Ashley, i have the nagging suspicion that he's currently 'succeeding' (used very loosely) by good luck rather than good strategic management and the wheels will come spinning off again before too long a good season from Carroll / Enrique for example, they'll be sold to the first good bid that comes in imo, might be wrong and i'm aware my opinion is skewed by hating the guy so much I have to say I haven't met anyone I could describe as a member of a "HAPPY CLAPPY ASHLEYITE BRIGADE" and there aren't too many unconditional Ashley supporters on this board imo. For the most part I sense that the majority think he bought the club without doing proper research, then made a series of catastrophic mistakes which, fortunately, he has the money to fund. But he has done a bit better in the last 9 months or so. I doubt that many feel totally confident that he couldn't screw up again tbh. oh well that wasn't specifically the bit i was agreeing with I realse that - I was just making the point that imo very few people would be absolutely confident that we are on a one way trip to glory and so won't be selling key players for tempting fees.

all else aside this is my fear with Ashley, i have the nagging suspicion that he's currently 'succeeding' (used very loosely) by good luck rather than good strategic management and the wheels will come spinning off again before too long a good season from Carroll / Enrique for example, they'll be sold to the first good bid that comes in imo, might be wrong and i'm aware my opinion is skewed by hating the guy so much I have to say I haven't met anyone I could describe as a member of a "HAPPY CLAPPY ASHLEYITE BRIGADE" and there aren't too many unconditional Ashley supporters on this board imo. For the most part I sense that the majority think he bought the club without doing proper research, then made a series of catastrophic mistakes which, fortunately, he has the money to fund. But he has done a bit better in the last 9 months or so. I doubt that many feel totally confident that he couldn't screw up again tbh.

good or riddance ? Or Shephred?

Been out of front line management too long and too old to have the stamina for a come back - the mojo will be missing imo.

Me neither, but be it in a lump sum or in instalments it’ll be in the club’s accounts by the end of the relevant accounting period won’t it? It would interesting for those who are insisting we will be operating at loss season to have a stab at telling us how much that loss will be and how they arrived at this figure. Well I won't insist on anything because there are far too many unknowns (not least of which is what our match day revenue will be this season) but as I said in an earlier post the last time we were in the Premiership our costs were £124 million. So you might assume we have cut say £20 million out of the costs since then, that would leave costs of £104 million for the year. After that it really depends on what you think our income will be.....Last time we were in the Premiership it was only £86 million but there are some improved deals in place in media revenues so, based on this very sketchy model, the question would be whether our income will be more or less than £104 million..... They're unknowns of course, but they are not things which are completely inestimable, and there really aren't too many of them are there? Income = TV + matchday + commercial + transfer fees Costs = wages + running costs + transfer fees + interest + tax Have I missed anything out? (we're talking cash flow here so player amortisation, etc is not relevant right?) The costs you mention from 08-09 will include around £30m from upfront player fees will they not? Any fees out this time will be covered and then some by the instalments coming in from the players we sold that year and last. Plus wages will be down by say £20m. Costs should be down by £40m at least. I would be shocked if the club did not make a substantial cash flow profit this year (barring major purchases in January). If not, then you have to be majorly worried about what has happened to the revenue streams into the club do you not? Or are people happy to just accept year on year declines in revenue, putting it down to the economy while congratulating Mike for how well he's running the club? I wasn't talking about cash flow I was talking about the accounting result and had assumed, rightly or wrongly, that Llambias had been talking about the same thing. If you are right with your forecast about the cash flow for this season then it sounds like we might have some surplus cash. The last time this happened the shareholders paid themselves a dividend (although of course it wasn't their money that was funding the club). Perhaps if it happens this time we might to be able to use the surplus to reduce the debt for the first time in about 10 years. Happy days indeed.

Me neither, but be it in a lump sum or in instalments itll be in the clubs accounts by the end of the relevant accounting period wont it? It would interesting for those who are insisting we will be operating at loss season to have a stab at telling us how much that loss will be and how they arrived at this figure. Well I won't insist on anything because there are far too many unknowns (not least of which is what our match day revenue will be this season) but as I said in an earlier post the last time we were in the Premiership our costs were £124 million. So you might assume we have cut say £20 million out of the costs since then, that would leave costs of £104 million for the year. After that it really depends on what you think our income will be.....Last time we were in the Premiership it was only £86 million but there are some improved deals in place in media revenues so, based on this very sketchy model, the question would be whether our income will be more or less than £104 million.....

That's fair enough in some ways although allowing Hughton and the players the space to make it work deserves some credit imo. And yes the KK case was a shocking indictment of the way things had been done. The fact is that it took Keegan to walk out (constructively) to blow the lid on the way business was being done - but how confident are you that no other clubs are doing any of that sort of stuff with or without the manager's consent?

Theres been a few five years plans, but the last one was mentioned in the no capital outlay statement The Board have therefore structured a five year plan in which the ultimate goal will be to ensure that the club is run at a break even manner by the year 2015/2016 This official club statement also talks about an estimated loss for 2009/2010 of £32.5 million. Given that Lambias claimed relegation cost the club £50m, it seems reasonable to assume our return to the PL should be worth a similar amount - giving the club a projected profit of nearly £18m this season. Plus theres also the extra money from the new shirt sponsor and kit deals, not to mention the money from selling off the naming rights to the ground . With a current outlay of about £5m on transfers fees and probably a slight increase in wages - if were not breaking even this season Id like to know where the money is going. http://www.nufc.com/2009-10html/2010-05-09nufc-statement.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article6904319.ece I think the £50 million Llambias was talking about was the drop in income as a result of not being in the Premiership. Based on known and published financial information for recent years a loss of £32.5 million sounds about right for 2009/2010. There were some on here who thought we'd make a profit last season but that's totally impossible. This year revenue will probably be back up to around £90 to £100 million and its simply a matter of where our costs will land. During our last Premiership season our costs were £124 million (excluding profits on selling players) but we will have trimmed the wage bill down from £71 million since then.

Not that I want to delve head first into finances I dont particularly understand but as a PLC isnt the price of the club relative to the share prices? Would I be right in saying that the share prices were reflective of the finacial situation we were in? As far as i'm aware £134m for one of the top 20 richest clubs in the world was a decent price for all involved, only for the actual fianacial situation of the club to be even worse than imagined. Probably bollocks mind. You are right to a point, but the share price was not putting out a value of £130 million until the word got out that there was a potential buyer in the market. Up until that point the market value was way less (as in about half) the eventual selling price.

We weren't flying high when he took over tbf. Plus looking at the accounts then w'd have had to either have a massive firesale at somepoint in the next couple of seasons or be in administration. Very likely. Although there are still some who think everything would have been alright if the previous regime had stayed in charge I cannot see how. When you consider that in the summer of 2007 the credit crunch was about a year away, the club had just racked up a loss of £30 million and all our debt was owed to external lenders a takeover was a godsend. Ashley bought a club that was technically insolvent with a team that had limped to 14th place in the league. That he subsequently grossly mismanaged his asset can't really be disputed - but then so had the previous regime. Most football club owners/boards of directors are unpopular. Their mistakes are never forgotten and they don't do what the fans want most of the time. Ashley probably won't ever be truly liked or trusted by the majority. Shepherd was regarded with contempt by most fans even during the good years of SBR, its the way of the world. He paid £135m for a club you tell us was technically insolvent. An idiotic move for which we’ve been paying the price ever since. Sort of - but some of what the club has been paying for has been a direct result of poor decisions by Ashley and/or his posse since the takeover. The initial sale was a very bad deal for Ashley and a fantastic deal for the previous owners - other possible buyers had been in and had a good look at it (one of them even completed due diligence) but no one bit presumably because they did not like what they saw. There was no one else around who seemed to want to buy it until Ashley did so without having much of an idea of what he was buying. But the question remains as to how the club could have financed itself out of the mess it was in without a new owner who could pay for past errors (as well as those of his own making).

We weren't flying high when he took over tbf. Plus looking at the accounts then w'd have had to either have a massive firesale at somepoint in the next couple of seasons or be in administration. Very likely. Although there are still some who think everything would have been alright if the previous regime had stayed in charge I cannot see how. When you consider that in the summer of 2007 the credit crunch was about a year away, the club had just racked up a loss of £30 million and all our debt was owed to external lenders a takeover was a godsend. Ashley bought a club that was technically insolvent with a team that had limped to 14th place in the league. That he subsequently grossly mismanaged his asset can't really be disputed - but then so had the previous regime. Most football club owners/boards of directors are unpopular. Their mistakes are never forgotten and they don't do what the fans want most of the time. Ashley probably won't ever be truly liked or trusted by the majority. Shepherd was regarded with contempt by most fans even during the good years of SBR, its the way of the world.

I'd expect him to be aware of the issue but have no comment tbh.

Hated Kinnear even more after the transfer window tbh. He was talking about offers for "internationals", I guess he didn't even know who he was talking about. He did. International = any c*nt from Bolton or Wigan.

Probably not but we've spent money on Perch and Triote, selling Taylor will pay for those two. And we've got Campbell in on a free to fill the centre back slot. This is all about trying to give the squad more cover but balancing the books at the same time.

We've shelled out money this window on players so someone has to be sold to pay for that - and Taylor is a sellable asset and the unconfirmed rumour is that he doesn't fit in too well with the current squad so yeah it stacks up. I could believe his agent might think he can screw some extra wages out of another club by playing the young english card.

Some people still seem shocked that it doesn't look like Ashley is investing much money in the squad. He said that was what he was going to do in his "no capital outlay" statement, it was more of a surprise that we shelled out some money for Perch tbh. Ashley clearly thinks that with a few cheap/no capital cost additions we have a squad that can stay up - and if we can get a player of genuine quality for "no capital outlay"so much the better but if not, so be it. As it happens I also think the current squad can stay up, but there's clearly a risk (especially if there is an injury epidemic), and I doubt it would be in much better than about 15th place...And it looks like that's a gamble Ashley is prepared to take. I can't see any true fan supporting this strategy but that's what we are stuck with.

how can people want to buy Blackburn and not us? Because with one of those options £300 million not only buys you a football club it also allows you to invest at least £100 million in the squad. Whereas with the other option £300 million only buys you a football club and pays off the debt owed to the owner.

Pretty much a certainty. If this goes through I'll even put a bet on Allardyce being out by the end of the year. Well he'll have trousered another big payoff if it does happen, there's easy money to be made being a manager and not delivering what the owner wants......He's a very lucky man however it works out. If he did get the sack he'd get another job pretty quickly, somewhere like Wigan probably.

Next step = much media discussion about fans hounding Hughton out and how its yet another example of being deluded, followed by Rod Liddle weighing in with an article about how the fans have been responsible for all the instability at Newcastle, and what a decent guy Hughton is etc etc

Solano and Robert were quite good.

Pretty decent actually Nolan not in the starting line up There will be rebellion in the dressing room.....

on the other hand he took a punt on hodgson when it seemed no one else in england would Fair point, but I still don't get how he can hold a grudge. Did I miss when he told Liverpool to back off from Hodgson? I just fail to see where this bitterness is coming from for a manager who got them the closest they've been to success, when he didn't appear to put up a fight to keep him at Fulham when Liverpool came in. Al Fayed has a track record of reinventing history in non football matters, so this shouldn't come as any surprise.....