quayside

Are you NE5? If you aren't how do the two of you manage to fit up his arse at the same time? Well you made yourself look a bit of a dumbass.. I said there was logic behind his decisions, not that i supported them. If your unclear of the difference just ask and I will clearly define them for ya. Of course you aren't supporting his decisions. Bobby - "With so much riding on that season needed a shake up" - well take a look at where we are now why don't you? Hire Souness - "Squad discipline problems, some one who would sort that" - yeah he was the right man for the job wasn't he? Hire Roeder - "An amazing run-in post Souness, deserved his chance" - Amazing? - hardly the words of a neutral Hire Fat Sam - "Without a lot of money to back him, rely on him his wheeling and dealing whilst pushing the club upwards. Something he had experience of" - because no one else in football has the experience of Fat Sam You can only put the first two down to logic if you swallow the line that Bobby had lost the dressing room. The last two are blatant excuses no doubt about it. Jesus wept, i said there was some logic not that i supported them, you cant tell the difference?? I made the comparison between him and Ashley, that FFS actually put a 'little' thought into his appointments and not approach any name he remembered in the 90's... Again.. to go over the points i have made.. hopefully this time you will 'get it'. I think the chairman of a club would know if there are problems in the dressing room, certainly more than a fan would tbh. Lets not forget half of our players were accused of rape and assault. Dyer and Bellamy all showing coaching staff ill-discipline and when a team stops performing, needs to be a change. logic here - needed someone who wouldnt stand for it How can you get rid of Glen Roeder when the guy is winning and showing top 4 sort of form and finishing in Europe, when we were languishing in 15th(?) before he came. the logic here - he earn't that contract by his result Fat Sam - no money available logic here - he got someone who didnt rely on money and can work on a tight budget So what exactly do you not understand from all that is so unacceptable and that i MUST have my head up FFS arse? Please enlighten me EDIT: I have just realised you responded to my post, about FFS decision making by judging it all on complete hindsight My post wasn't looking upon the Souness era as a success, it was more the reasons behind WHY he chose him! There would be more credibility here if Souness was the first choice and therefore part of a "masterplan". Don't think he was either of those tbh. He was in all probabilty second or third choice and about to be sacked by Blackburn. What followed him was a short spell when a journeyman manager (generous decription) was aided by a player who commanded huge respect from the dressing room and that combination got above average performances from some ordinary players. The board members paid themselves well and as such needed to get management decisions right but they went with the soft and easy option of putting the journeyman in sole charge - wrong decision. Allardyce followed and was also wrong for the club. Defenders of these decisions always cry "hindsight" but when you are lifting £500k+ a year you have every right to be judged on hindsight or any other criteria.

I've never heard or read about Shepherd admitting that he's ever even made a mistake - let alone learn from the experience. If we get him back so be it. But whilst he does know something about the club and the football business it would be naive to think he will have somehow morphed into a different being. I'm interested in whose money he'd be using tbh.

No one knows the answer to this question whether in relation to the possible bid from Shepherd or anyone else. There is no conclusive evidence either way. Despite this many people are assuming that Ashley has already agreed to write off 100% of the debt.

It was certainly a joke if Ashley was also expecting to get full value for the debt he's lent the club. Many people have assumed that the asking price was £100 million with the debt written off. The only indication that was the case has come from George Caulkin in the Times. If there is any truth in any of this Shepherd stuff and the offer is £60 million with the new owner taking over the full debt then that is an astonishingly good deal for Ashley and values the club far higher than anyone on here thought it was worth. More info needed on all this for me - especially who is in the consortium. Shepherd doesn't have anything like the money so if its going to fly he needs other backers with very deep pockets alongside him.

It's not based on what he says though. We know for a fact that Souness wanted Anelka and Boa Morte, Souness practically baited Anelka as best as he could through the media. It was also clear that Souness favoured the 4-3-3 system, and wanted Anelka/Morte for that system. As for the Owen bid, that was clearly entirely Shepherd, and I can't see it being any other way. He wanted a big name, big money, long term replacement for Shearer, he wanted the best England had to offer, so he went for Rooney first and foremost, and when that failed, he used the same funds a year later to sign Owen. Souness by that time had been told Anelka was a no-go as Fenerbahce had rejected our no-doubt derisory bid. It was compeltely obvious at the time what happened here without any need for Souness' eventual confirmation of the undermining that occurred. It's also worth reading Luque's account of how his move from Deportivo to us was "engineered". http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2007/09/21/luque-i-came-to-united-for-money-61634-19822811/

But if you are buying the club you would only do so in the expectation that you can deliver success on the pitch - hard as it is to believe I think even Ashley assumed that he would get there eventually. To have the infrastructure already in place for a successful club is a big plus. I didn't say it did. Read my post - I said if you buy the club you would do so expecting to deliver success on the pitch. And to have the stadium already in place when that success occurs is a big plus. A lot of football clubs have stadiums in place. Who knew?! Really can't be arsed

But if you are buying the club you would only do so in the expectation that you can deliver success on the pitch - hard as it is to believe I think even Ashley assumed that he would get there eventually. To have the infrastructure already in place for a successful club is a big plus. I didn't say it did. Read my post - I said if you buy the club you would do so expecting to deliver success on the pitch. And to have the stadium already in place when that success occurs is a big plus.

But if you are buying the club you would only do so in the expectation that you can deliver success on the pitch - hard as it is to believe I think even Ashley assumed that he would get there eventually. To have the infrastructure already in place for a successful club is a big plus.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £55m and a Premiership valuation of between £200m to £250m and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. The fact that four consortiums are interested at £100 million means in itself that the club hasn't been overvalued. As with all assets, the price depends on the level of demand and the perceived resale value down the line. All highly artificial. That doesn't mean they will pay £100m, they have only said they are interested and any offer will be subject to due diligence. I agree that the level of demand or competitve tension will impact on value and the perceived resale value but I'd like to hear how people are coming up with their valuations which have no actual basis at present other than Mike Ashley paid £x for it and Mike Ashley wants £x for it - that doesn't mean it's worth that. The thing is that there is no real valuation model for a football club. A lot of them are loss making, have negative net worth and would be insolvent if not for the owner propping them up. So you can't apply things like PE ratios or balance sheet valuations, they just don't work. A lot depends on the buyer's motives. If the buyer is looking at it in some sort of business context then all he can do is look at what's there and make a judgement call on it. A buyer has to assume that he is going to find a way to get it back into the Premiership, he has to factor in that the club will need quite a bit of further funding to get there. He also has to look at the assets the club has - stadium, training ground etc are all fit for purpose for a very high level of football indeed, so no further investment is needed there. And then you would have to form a view of what it might be worth if you succeed. On the other hand if the buyer is a billionaire looking for some fun (been there before I think) then the valuation becomes even more random. I agree with a lot of that, but disagree that you form a valuation based on what you could do - that is a classic situation where you are giving the Vendor value for something you are intending to do, which I would strongly advise against. But then again, if the buyer really wants it, if the Vendor is in a strong position and there is a competitive situation, that value may be given. I do appreciate that certain valuation models don't fit a football club and probably was being a bit pedentic to get my point across, what will be more important as you say is the buyer motives and how also they are funding the transaction because if they require bank funding, valuation models will apply as to the ability of the business to service a level of debt, which granted while we were in the premiership was better but is now much more limited. Billionnaire buyers do tend to screw these things up of course and it does become totally random, but if I'm looking at it as an acquisition with my head, I wouldn't be valuing the business at £100m - others who have the cash may do and good luck to them, then again not many people make money out of football clubs. Understand your thinking on the valuation although I wasn't so much saying that you would give value for what you intend to do - more that you look at your percentage gain on the buying price assuming you succeed in reinstating the club into a high performing Premiership outfit again. Just on the point of the stadium, what is already in place at SJP is a substantial plus point. It is worth bearing in mind that if, for example, someone wanted to buy Everton and move it forward you obviously get a highly placed Premiership club but their stadium is from another era. You would have to include a substantial investment in your evaluation. I'm told that it would cost £40 million to turn Goodison into a 50,000 seater (and I don't know if that would include modernisation costs) and £150 million to build a completely new stadium.

For most Championship clubs that would be true. Most of them don't have a massive stadium, massive fan base and state of the art facilities. Fancy a side bet on the eventual selling price? Only if we include the debt in the price Like I said 100m with Ashley's loan removed is an acceptable price IMO. But obviously nobody's going to pay 100m and 100m+ loan to Ashley. I'd love to hear the actual basis for your valuation? Walk me through the numbers? Based on a decreased revenue from £100m to £55m and a Premiership valuation of between £200m to £250m and the fact he's not going to accept much less then £100m for a club he's effectively paid nearly £250m for. The fact that four consortiums are interested at £100 million means in itself that the club hasn't been overvalued. As with all assets, the price depends on the level of demand and the perceived resale value down the line. All highly artificial. That doesn't mean they will pay £100m, they have only said they are interested and any offer will be subject to due diligence. I agree that the level of demand or competitve tension will impact on value and the perceived resale value but I'd like to hear how people are coming up with their valuations which have no actual basis at present other than Mike Ashley paid £x for it and Mike Ashley wants £x for it - that doesn't mean it's worth that. The thing is that there is no real valuation model for a football club. A lot of them are loss making, have negative net worth and would be insolvent if not for the owner propping them up. So you can't apply things like PE ratios or balance sheet valuations, they just don't work. A lot depends on the buyer's motives. If the buyer is looking at it in some sort of business context then all he can do is look at what's there and make a judgement call on it. A buyer has to assume that he is going to find a way to get it back into the Premiership, he has to factor in that the club will need quite a bit of further funding to get there. He also has to look at the assets the club has - stadium, training ground etc are all fit for purpose for a very high level of football indeed, so no further investment is needed there. And then you would have to form a view of what it might be worth if you succeed. On the other hand if the buyer is a billionaire looking for some fun (been there before I think) then the valuation becomes even more random.

I may have missed something but from the quotes I've read I can't see anything where Torres says Liverpool should sign him. Headlinetastic journalism?

As a matter of interest anyone know what has happened to Keegan's court case? Llambias talked about it being settled when he had that meeting with the fans some months ago.

agree totally.but at least shearer wasn't a lying fuckwit Don't think Kinnear was either. He merely spouted the crap he was told by those above him. ashley told him to say we're in for lucas neill? ashley told him to say charles insomnia? Firstly how do you know we didn't enquire about Lucas Neill. Secondly how would Kinnear know who Wise spoke to or not. You must remember that Keegan thought we were in for Modric and Woodgate - were we? And calling N'zogbia "insomnia" - fuckwit maybe but not lying. Made me laugh at the time tbh.

The club may have been balance sheet insolvent (as are half the premiership) but it was not cash flow insolvent. "Many large companies operate permanently in this state." - Wiki. The net debt repayments were around £7m per year. This is not an unsustainable amount. The majority of the debt was the £45m remaining on the stadium loan which was a long term contract that couldn't be foreclosed on unless the ownership changed, so your doomsday scenario of all the debtors wanting their money NOW could not in fact have happened under the old board with the financial arrangements they had in place. In 06-07, the operational loss before player trading & amortisation was £0.3m. The actual cash flow loss was < £10m more out than in. Not great, however this was in the knowledge that we were going to get a £18m boost in turnover the following year from TV revenue alone. Running the club in the same way (that includes having a £10m transfer budget), with anything less than a 14% increase in expenditure (due to wages say) would have seen us break even or make a profit. Are you telling me that would have been impossible to do under the old board? That they were inevitably going to let costs run away even more? It's possible they would have increased the debt slightly if they could get the finance, but it was certainly not a necessary inevitability as some are making out. I know I keep mentioning it, but I think it's an important point when the old board is being accused of financial mismanagement based on the amount of the debt, but the majority of the debt was due to the stadium expansion which was paying for itself over time and bringing in extra revenue. I don't know about you, but I don't call this financial mismanagement, I call it a shrewd investment. Only the remainder of the debt, around £25m, was due to "wasting money on trophy players", to get us into Europe on average 1 year in 2. This level of operational debt is less than most clubs in the premiership (all but Blackburn and the the 3 promoted teams in 07-08). Again, I fail to see how anyone can call this level of debt financial mismanagement,. Finally, in response to you're implication that we were in debt up to our absolute limit in another thread, I apologise for the lack of credibility and the location of the link, but I couldn't find a better source. I have no reason to think the Man U fan made it up : http://www.joinmust.org/forum/showthread.php?t=24381 I guess a lot must have changed in a year. The idea that we were days away from administration before Ashley came along and saved us (Ashley himself being the biggest proponent of this myth) is about as ridiculous as the idea of Ashley putting the club into administration now. Afternoon UV – back for some more then The problem with an insolvent balance sheet is that the auditors will only sign the company off as a going concern if there is proof that the company can meet its debts as they fall due for the next 12 months. In the case of most football clubs that are insolvent this is provided by the owner with a written undertaking of financial support. At 30th June 2007 Ashley, who bought the club in the following month, was able to give that undertaking – but who would have done it if he hadn’t bought the club? Do not underestimate this because if the auditors were not satisfied on this point they would put a going concern qualification in the audit report. And if they did that then all secured creditors would have the right to foreclose. Let us look at a simple financial history for the 4 years leading up to the time of the takeover: 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 Profit/Loss Profit £4.4 million Breakeven Loss £12 million Loss £33 million Net Worth £29 million £29 million £17 million Negative £16 million Wages/Turnover 50% 58% 62% 71% There is a clear pattern of decline here and begs the question as to what was going to change to stop it. Why would the management team that started this trend be able to reverse it? And if additional funding were required what bank would offer it given the clear downward financial trend plus the fact that all assets and sources of revenue were already tied up as collateral on existing loan agreements? The operating loss figure you quote for 2006/2007 is pretty irrelevant because ignoring player trading and amortisation is like a builder ignoring cost of materials. The operating loss also excludes interest costs which adds to its irrelevance given that the club was funded entirely by debt. Turning to your assumption on the cash flow I haven’t looked at it recently so I’ll take your word for it that the club shipped £10 million in 2006/2007. You conclude that in the following year this would be made up by the increase in TV revenue – in fact overall revenue increased by £12 million so prima facie your assumption is supported by the figures. However this would only give a breakeven cash situation if costs were held at about the same level and nothing was invested in the squad. As we now know Allardyce set about reshaping the squad and we ended up with the likes of Geremi, Smith, Cacapa, Viduka and Barton all earning huge wedge and contributing not very much, plus Allardyce’s army of backroom staff – result = wages increase by £12 million year on year. He also invested money in the squad iirc. Did we not have a net spend of around £5-10 million that summer? You seem to believe that none of this would have happened if the previous board and not Ashley had been in charge of Allardyce. As Shepherd and co recruited Allardyce and gave him carte blanche to restructure the club I don’t believe that. The issue of the stadium is not in doubt. This was an excellent decision and left the club with an outstanding facility and without doubt it created extra revenue. But you have a warped view of debt. There is nothing wrong with debt, most businesses need it and football clubs especially so. But there has to someone around who is going to provide it. I have said earlier on here our problem was that we were in the hands of external creditors who charged large interest rates and to whom the transaction was nothing other than a commercial arrangement with foreclosure clauses. When Ashley took over the debt it was at least owed to the man who owned the club who had (hopefully) a vested interest in the club remaining in business and would not foreclose. You mention Blackburn Rovers. As far as I know their debt is owed to the trust of Jack Walker, which owns the club. They are therefore in the situation I have just described. The only limit on the amount clubs like this can borrow is what the owners are prepared to make available - and that was not the case with us pre Ashley I have no reason to doubt your reference to the ICC’s credit Premier League but it was dated March 2006 when the latest available results would have been 2004/2005 and the club was looking ok. Your comment that “a lot must have changed in a year” is pretty much on the money. In fact it happened over the next two years and the club lost £45 million in that period. I have put forward the suggestion on here before that Shepherd may have been deluded about the club's finances. I read a recent interview with him where he said that every year he was in charge "we made a profit". So how does he explain departing from the club with £92 million of losses sitting in the balance sheet? Maybe the "we" he is referring to is himself, his family and the Halls....I do think he may have had an inflated view of the status and financial clout of the club and thought he could wagon his way through any situation. But in the world of finance chickens invariably come home to roost, as we've seen in many business sectors during the last 12 months or so. I don’t know if anyone has said the club was days away from Administration pre Ashley, I seem to remember Mort saying something about it being like a house of cards. All I have ever done is express my view on the clubs finances pre Ashley, and provide evidence from published and audited information to explain why I think that. If you really want to carry on trying to convince people that there was no financial problem pre Ashley then please do so. But you won't alter my opinion.

agree totally.but at least shearer wasn't a lying fuckwit Don't think Kinnear was either. He merely spouted the crap he was told by those above him.

It is history and Ashley has screwed up badly. The rest of your post is crap.

FFS what role had Barton got left to play at the club last season after the sending off - cheer leader? lucky mascot? He had succeeded in embarassing the club in the eyes of the whole world (again), letting down yet another manager who gave him a chance, letting down his team mates (again) and do you know what his team mates think of him anyway? word habibbeye btw.

I'm not assessing anything relatively. In absolute terms pre Ashley the club was a basket case with a very large question mark over its viability, post Ashley its a basket case with a question mark over its viability. The difference being the size of the question mark. The thing about this debate is that it will have a determinable conclusion - I think Ashley wants to sell and if he wants to sell he will find a way. You on the other hand think he wants somehow to bleed the club dry and then close it down. If I'm wrong I will willingly put my hands up and admit I was wrong.

Quel temps fait-il en Paris mon beau ami? Je crois qu'il fait f*cking chaud actuellement

You don't agree? It's there in black and white as is Ashley's assurance to the auditors that he'd fund it despite its insolvent position. Tired and largely irrelevant debate maybe.....although your comment that the club needed to get its "house in order" and wasn't a "basket case" is bollox tbh. Im not debating the figures, only that the club wasnt the basket case it is now. Suggesting our current plight is comparable to where we were two years ago, now thats bollocks. Obviously I can see why you say that - relegation. Although there is an argument that we were already on a path leading there I won't go there because it's pure speculation. In terms of the clubs survival you are wrong. Being insolvent isn't a problem if the man who is owed the money isn't going to pull the plug and commits to support it. Abramovitch, Lerner, Al Fayed even Gibson all own their clubs and have commtted their support but if, for any reason, they found themselves unable or unwilling to continue their support then those clubs go bust. Under our previous regime, none of the shareholders ever really committed anything much by way of funding and we were in the hands of external lenders. There was no commitment from our lenders other than a commercial loan agreement. Why do you think Liverpool are crapping themselves?

I remember thinking at the time of Barton's sending off that any chance we had of staying up had just halved. The only central midfielder we had in the squad who had an ounce of creativity in open play was not going to play in the last 3 key games of the season. Barton was just back from Christ knows how long off and our midfield stank without him. I am reliably informed that Shearer had spent a lot of time with Barton before his comeback, encouraging him and trying to get him in the right frame of mind to help the side stay up. What does Barton do? Some f*cking pointless, idiotic tackle near the corner flag in a game we had already lost when he was only on the pitch to get some match time in preparation for the games that mattered. At least Bassong did what he did trying to save a dangerous situation in a match that had some (but not much) life in it. Barton let Shearer down just like he's let down every manager he's ever played for - Allardyce especially. I'm not surprised Shearer lost it with him and, in effect, told him to f*ck off.

You don't agree? It's there in black and white as is Ashley's assurance to the auditors that he'd fund it despite its insolvent position. Tired and largely irrelevant debate maybe.....although your comment that the club needed to get its "house in order" and wasn't a "basket case" is bollox tbh.

Of course it's a basket case and has been for some years, although some will tell you everything was fine and dandy until Ashley took over....If £100k is the price and the new owner is expected to service £115k of debt due to Ashley then yes it's a joke. If the price is £100m with Ashley's debt written off let's see. Just consider what, for example, a club like Everton would have to spend to get a stadium like ours.The club needed to get it house in order, but it wasn’t a basket case. It’s a tired argument of no real value.. unless Shepherd returns. The confusion over what £100m buys is typical of this regime. Personally I don’t think he’ll write off the £100m, more likely he’ll want some kind of repayment package - £5m a year while were in the fizzy pop, ten million if we go up - something like that. At 30th June 2007 the club was insolvent ffs - who was going to put up a guarantee to fund it for the next 12 months if Ashley didn't? Shepherd? Douglas Hall?

Of course it's a basket case and has been for some years, although some will tell you everything was fine and dandy until Ashley took over.... If £100k is the price and the new owner is expected to service £115k of debt due to Ashley then yes it's a joke. If the price is £100m with Ashley's debt written off let's see. Just consider what, for example, a club like Everton would have to spend to get a stadium like ours. I know which scenario is more likely,as does,I expect,99.9% of this forum. I think there are quite a few who see the £100million "closing down sale" price on the club's website as being an all inclusive deal. The only person who said the debt is written off is George Caulkin in the Times. But unless Ashley gets lucky (again) he won't get £100 million plus his debt repaid in full.

Of course it's a basket case and has been for some years, although some will tell you everything was fine and dandy until Ashley took over.... If £100m is the price and the new owner is expected to service £115k of debt due to Ashley then yes it's a joke. If the price is £100m with Ashley's debt written off let's see. Just consider what, for example, a club like Everton would have to spend to get a stadium like ours.