quayside

£20.3 million and before you ask, £54.5 million. Edit That was loss before tax, operating loss for the two years was £50.7 million. 2nd edit Where was that coming from without Ashley? That's frightening really. And there won't be an answer from anyone re your second edit. Haven't got the accounts to hand but the accumulated "cash" losses up to July 2007 were only funded in one way - external debt. And Ashley paid it off when he bought the club. As I recall £44 million was effectively the "mortgage" on the stadium and the rest of the £70 million of debt had funded the trading cash losses. There were any number of loans taken out secured on a variety of things, the one that sticks in my mind is the one secured on future season ticket revenue. How any of that debt would be perceived in the banking climate of 2009 is anyone's guess.

They have got to be taking the piss. Can't believe I'm saying this but, after reading that pukey drivvel I think I preferred it when they just hurled insults and sang "sack the board" Are we going to have a "join hands for Keegan" moment ? That would certainly enhance the protest experience. Damned if they do.... How will you contribute to raising the desire to speak in a unified voice? By coming on here and arguing with the naysaying divvies. I'm afraid you've drifted a bit "off message" here. Please internalise the core message "unity is strength" and adjust your hemline accordingly. So there's nothing whatsoever they can do that you'll approve of? Why not do what the Magpie Group did to oust McKeag? Find an investor who will challenge Ashley like the Magpie Group championed John Hall? That way the NUSC would not just be carping hopelessly but actually providing an alternative solkution. Different economic climate and different monetary values involved tbh - even allowing for inflation.

Parker is lot better than Guthrie. He wasn't when he played here. Parker in his first season here was miles better, his 2nd only a lot better. Parker in his first season was very poor with the odd exception (Arsenal at home the obvious). His distribution was very poor, he didn't get forward and he couldn't form a partnership with any of the other central midfielders. He didn't look comfortable being the one to get forward more (alongside Butt) or the more defensively minded (alongside Emre). He looked clueless the majority of the time, and it was no surprise that we massively improved as a team when he was out with glandular fever in the second half of the season. He wasn't without his attributes, he could time his tackling pretty well and had a lot of energy, but his reading of the game was hopeless (2-2 with ManU at home he was twice dragged out of position trying to play the hero and ultimately leaving Scholes free to score). He also had very little creativity - the majority of his passes seemed to go to the left back after endless pirouettes - and posed little to no goal threat. From what I've seen of Guthrie he offers a similar amount on the pitch to what I saw from Parker, only he looks to have more potential. Parker may well have improved at West Ham, can't say I've watched them much this season, but I don't remember him looking up to much when we lost 3-1 at the Boleyn Ground. False. Everything you're referring to was in his second season under Roeder when he was captain surely? In his first season he was effective in linking the defence with attack and particularly good at breaking down the oppositions play. Second season he was ineffective and looked out of his depth as captain. Agree with that. It was in his second season when Roeder tried to use him as an attacking midfielder that it all went wrong. And Mowen's criticism of Parker not linking with Butt in Parker's first season is bollox as Butt was on loan at Birmingham then.

He could have got around the rule which would have meant him having to bid for the club the same way as Sir John did. He could have got his son or Brother to buy them instead. If anyone gets to own 30% of a public company they must make an offer for the whole lot. The shares held were actually owned by Shepherd Offshore Limited a company owned 50:50 by Fred and his brother. It tends to get forgotten that Bruce Shepherd in effect coined half of the proceeds of what is generally regarded as Shepherds wedge from the takeover.

I'm 99% sure that he was paid up but he had to wait a while before getting it. No he didn't get any of it. Douglas Hall's payoff was included in the 2007 accounts, Shepherd got nothing in 2007 or 2008. Article in the Guardian today confirms as much. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/feb/10/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-john-hall-freddy-shepherd

Are you sure F.Shepherd got nowt? Maybe Fred was happy at getting a extra penny per share than everyone else. Quite sure. Maybe but the employment contract and the sale of his shares were two separate discussions I think.

I've got a question for Llambias, we won't get the answer but if we did it might be quite revealing. Freddie Shepherd and Douglas Hall both had contracts that entitled them to two years salary if they got dismissed. Why did Hall get paid in full but Shepherd not receive one penny of that money and why has he not contested it?

You can add Lovenkrands to the list of who gets picked before Xisco as well.

Yeah I like the Villa fans. They've not always had it good, they had to live through "the Doug Ellis experience" when the owner had nothing to invest, appointed some no mark managers and was just trying to hang on to Premiership status until someone rich enough came along and bought him out.....

Bert Luque is a goal machine for Malaga

The cash flow shows a cash loss in the year that was mostly plugged by Ashley's £30 million, a smallish overdraft fixed the rest. There's no requirement to disclose a detailed profit and loss account in the statutory accounts. I've had a look through the accounts and the only things I can find that would form part of those operating costs are: Allardyce and co removal £4.6m, Operating lease costs £1.1m and a payment to Freshfields for the services of Chris Mort £1.4m. There are one or very small things disclosed such as audit fees but they don't amount to much in the overall scheme of things. Therefore imagination is needed to work out what is included. I can come up with the running costs of SJP, the training ground, Shearer's (any other facilities owned by the club?), the cost of all the food and drink consumed at SJP, Shearer's etc and... er thats it

Morientes is too old to count. How much was Nugent? £6 million I think.

Depends what you call recent - Morientes at Liverpool wasn't too good. More recently Nugent cost a few quid at Pompey and was hardly getting a game until Redknapp left.

I bet by the morning Terry Vegetables is being talked about. Curbishley must be in the frame shirley?

No you're not - he came across as being a bit unhinged, weird post match interviews. Southgate next....

The player sales I looked at were anyone bought and sold fron June 2007 until August 2008. Now why did I look up till August 2008 you say, well I was told by people on here that the likes of James Milners transfer was included in these accounts, despite happening in late August. Also I got the £113 million number from your post: Looking back at it I assume you didn't include the £34 million operating cost in the total out number for some reason, and I didn't catch it. Which brings me to a question, how the f*** are we spending £34 million on operating costs?! Surely that's not normal?? The £113 million you quoted is not made up the same way as the £113 million I quoted. Without going into a detailed and boring reconciliation please trust me when I say Ashley put in £30 million of new money. An analysis of the £34 million operating costs is not easy to get at. I havent got the accounts in front of me now but I'll see what I can get out tomorrow. Off the top of my head it is the running costs of SJP and the clubs other facilities. It also includes any costs such as the the catering provided, match day programmes, warehousing for merchandise etc. As I said I'll have a look tomorrow...

Surely not having to pay a further £8 million in interest payments, no further £5 million payments to ex managers and making an £8-£10 million profit in the transfer market would make things significantly better. I mean assuming Keegan isn't going to win some kind of case against Newcastle, which I don't see happening. Well purely from a cash perspective it seems that most transfer deals are funded by stage payments so the effect of any cash income on player sales will be flattened. It also means that Ashley has still been paying for Martins, Duff and maybe even Owen. No interest payments is a saving. But as Mick said the decision on Jonas hasn't been made yet and as you say there is the Keegan claim. I really can't see any significant factor that will have turned the cashflow round this year - certainly nothing that will have taken it to anywhere near a positive position.

Commercial borrowing was costing a fortune only a month ago and that's if you could get it. Also we don't know that he hasn't already personally borrowed to fund what has happened so far, and how much of his wealth he may have used as collateral. Please don't get me wrong here I don't know any more about Ashley's personal finances than anyone else on this board. But there is an assumption going round that Ashley has a choice as to what he invests in the club. That may well be true but at present there is no evidence to suggest it is. Everything that has happened so far indicates he's got limited funds.

I don't think anyone can answer that because we don't know what the finances look like as of now, the only information we have is historical. But based on what we do know the club needed £30 million of new cash coming in just to survive during the year to 30 June. There was also a further £10 million put in shortly after 30 June. How bad a situation that is depends on the extent to which Ashley is willing or is able to fund it. It is a question that should be put to him - if he'd answer it. I can't see anything that has happened since 30 June that would make the financial situation significantly better, if anything I would expect club income to be down (lower pie and pint sales, shirts, non season ticket seat sales etc). I take your point about Ashley buying when others might not although at the time the financial world wasn't experiencing the carnage we are seeing now. I would say that in my opinion the club was not as much "damaged goods" as it is now, especially in terms of the perceived stability and competence of its stewardship. Others may disagree with that. But I would have thought with a bit of patience a more appropriate buyer could have been found by SJH. This club is nowhere near going out of business. If Ashley refuses to put cash in (and won't borrow commercially) and the worst happens then it goes into administration, get docked points and get relegated. The value of Ashley's investment plummets and he gets f*** all. So Ashley pays cash in, in order to protect his investment; he's no benefactor, he's the owner and will do whatever is necessary to protect his investment. You obviously have a lot of information on Ashley's financial situation. How much of his wealth is tied up in non liquid investments and how much is in easily accessible cash that he can put into Newcastle United? He has demonstrated to Ernst and Young that he can keep us going for a little while yet, but that undertaking does not contain the word "indefinitely".

I don't think anyone can answer that because we don't know what the finances look like as of now, the only information we have is historical. But based on what we do know the club needed £30 million of new cash coming in just to survive during the year to 30 June. There was also a further £10 million put in shortly after 30 June. How bad a situation that is depends on the extent to which Ashley is willing or is able to fund it. It is a question that should be put to him - if he'd answer it. I can't see anything that has happened since 30 June that would make the financial situation significantly better, if anything I would expect club income to be down (lower pie and pint sales, shirts, non season ticket seat sales etc). I take your point about Ashley buying when others might not although at the time the financial world wasn't experiencing the carnage we are seeing now. I would say that in my opinion the club was not as much "damaged goods" as it is now, especially in terms of the perceived stability and competence of its stewardship. Others may disagree with that. But I would have thought with a bit of patience a more appropriate buyer could have been found by SJH.

Who were the players sold for £40 million in the period to 30 June 2008? Thinking back I can remember Parker and Dyer going for money. Luque also may have gone for money but not for much (the club suubstantially wrote his value down to reflect the sum received). Bramble, Moore and a few others went for nothing. Anyone else go for money? Also don't follow where you get that figure of 113 million spent by the club from: Wages 70m loan interest 8m Buying players 27m Operating costs 34m Those add up to £139 million (not £113 million) The club also spent £3 million on other assets leaving a total outward spend of £142 million Money in was £99 million income and £8 million from players sales = £107 million So the cash loss was £142m less £107m which = £35 million, And, as I said, Ashley funded £30 million of it.

Agree - makes you wonder why he was utter sh1te at Citeh.

Anyone else pick up on the throw ins as well? Not Delap but more of a threat than anyone else we've got.

People are now posting line ups with Collocini. I thought he was out injured - has there been an update on him that I've missed?

Kinnear is old school and 4-4-2 is all he knows. He hasn't got the wit to try anything different. When he subs someone it never results in a change of formation just a re shuffle of 4-4-2. The nearest I've seen to something different was away at Chelsea when we went 4-6-0.