gekkotime

I don't want to sound like I'm against this, but I just can't see how this could work in the current financial state of the club. Let's assume NUST succeeds in raising 80-90m, and buys the club. But the club is losing money aorn, is not in a position to take out a loan, and the squad needs strenghtening. How is NUST planning on financing the club after they bought it? Who's going to run the club? How much control will the shareholders get? Will there be (x-)yearly elections like in Spain? If so, who's planning to "run for president"? I don't see a lot of sense in coming forward with this announcement without publishing a detailed account of their future plans. I also have reservations about this whole election thing, politics and business require a different skillset and motivation, i'm not very fond of mixing the two.

http://transfermarkt.de/de/verein/762/newcastle-united/uebersicht/startseite.html

lol that's less believable than star wars

Interesting idea, but it raises a lot of questions. If it'd be a forced sale, who and how would assess the price of the 25% of the club? If it'd had to be given to the fans for free, wouldn't it be against free market laws? What if the supporters trust couldn't come up with the cash? Would a supporters trust be able to represent the fans view? Are the fans competent and educated enough in business matters to be given a voice?

other clubs have clauses written into the contracts for pay c uts in the event of relegation. I'd be very surprised if anyone in the PL had a 50% relegation wage cut in his contract. There are also a lot of costs which stay the same, like stadium maintance, match day expenses, etc. I'm not saying that there's no need for stricter financial regulations, but the proposed restrictions would kill of a lot of clubs. I'd be also interested in how exactly the Glazers or the Pool owners or Real Madrid are planning to pay back their entire loan in 3 years, and since they won't, and it would be insane to ban them because of their huge following and the economic power thereof, I'm pretty sceptical about the enforcement of this whole mess. there was a story to the effect that only nufc out of all the clubs in the bottom half of the prem last season didn't have these type of clauses and i never mentioned 50%, thats you putting words where i didn't. yes other costs remain the same ,if not rise, but the wages are the biggest outgoing from the club and any substantial reduction in that is what practically every relegated club does. platinis plans would improve the game but i'm not sure if the opposition to it from the bigger clubs wouldn't be too strong. I was referring to the fact that our revenues have fallen 50% so without loans allowed we would've had to cut back the wage bill by at least 50%, or, as a lot of other costs remained the same, even more. Also another thing: stadium developement. How on earth would a club be able to raise money for a new stadium without loans? Will the club owners be allowed to set up another company, take out a shitload of loans, build a stadium, then rent it out to a club? If yes, what's the point? Another scenario: a club sells it's stadium to a company/bank, then rents it for like 7-8% of the sum/yr for 20 years. It wouldn't go against the rules afaik, yet it's basically a loan. I'm not entirely sure this thing would help football a whole lot, the big clubs have significantly higher revenues than the rest, so they'd remain the big clubs after all. It wouldn't ban rich people from buying clubs and splashing the cash, as long as it's not a loan but an investment. Clubs and chairmen would find the loopholes to take out loans, Real Madrid would sell a training center for 2bn to the government, and they'd continue to buy players for mad money. I support a wage cap though, but only if it's Europe-wide, and is a net amount bc of the the differences in taxes.

other clubs have clauses written into the contracts for pay c uts in the event of relegation. I'd be very surprised if anyone in the PL had a 50% relegation wage cut in his contract. There are also a lot of costs which stay the same, like stadium maintance, match day expenses, etc. I'm not saying that there's no need for stricter financial regulations, but the proposed restrictions would kill of a lot of clubs. I'd be also interested in how exactly the Glazers or the Pool owners or Real Madrid are planning to pay back their entire loan in 3 years, and since they won't, and it would be insane to ban them because of their huge following and the economic power thereof, I'm pretty sceptical about the enforcement of this whole mess.

It's not that simple as Platini makes it out to be regarding the debt issue. Just look at us, according to our beloved chairman our revenues halved this season, what would we do if, let's say, we were owned by a fans' trust or by multiple people unable/unwilling to invest? How the hell would we half the costs? He seems to forget that most players are on 3-4 year long contracts and that there could be a huge change in revenues every year.

There's a lot of buzz about youngsters in Hunagry right now since the U-20 WC and Tamás has been getting quite a lot of media attention here lately, most people rate him as one of the better players of his generation. He's still very young though and has a lot to learn, his aerial ability is not up to the mark yet, but he seems to be good on the ball and made some good passing moves today, I hope he can keep up his form and improve.

We've played football for about 15 minutes today, the rest was crappy.

omg like 15 passes in succession!

Enrique is class, not the first time he went past 2-3 defenders and put in a good ball

improved a lot this half, carrol close again

we won't even reach a play-off place if we continue to play like this

thank god henderson couldn't score for his life

we can't put 3 passes together, utter shite so far

I haven't seen it posted here but there were two articles about Tamás Kádár on a major hungarian news portal in the last couple of days, the first one was a report about Newcastle vs Doncaster titled '44 thousand saw Kádár Tamás play in Newcastle' and the other was a decent interview. He talked about how disappointed he was to miss the u-20 WC especially since he didn't play for Newcastle during that period, he's happy he's chosen Newcastle (apparently he had another offer from Bolton), the fans are sticking by the team despite relegation, and that he's happy to be with the first tame and working hard to stay there. All in all it was a good interview and he seems very professional and determined.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1713/facepalmok.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/3839/facepalmle3.jpg

Shearer probably wants more than a couple of packets of Quavers per week in wages. I think the transfer budget & final say are bigger issues than his wages.

Yeah but he'd still need to find a buyer. The club's been on the market for the most part of the last 12 months, and it's proved to be pretty difficult to find someone who's willing and able to put up 100m for the club, I'd imagine it'd be just as hard to find someone who'd fork out even more at the end of the season even if we're promoted. I assume we'll have the same squad as now, and while we'll receive ~20m more in TV revenues next season, we'll have to invest just as much or even more in new players if we don't want to go down again, so the club's true value wouldn't rise a whole lot imo. While all evidence point towards that Ashley is a grade A idiot, I'm sure that either he or one of his advisors are aware of that.

He had a clause in his contract which stated that he'd be entitled to 2m if sacked, regardless when/how. He challenged that clause, the tribunal rejected his claim.

Interesting part from the pdf for those who say that the nacho transfer alone shouldn't have been enough for him to leave:

I am sure UV will reply properly but didnt he say "net" spend. Yet you didnt take the outgoings into account You are correct. I wonder, then, why UV bothered to put in the outgoing figure? Or omitted the money for Shearer. Presumably because the outgoing figure was what those players were sold for after KK had left, gives a decent demonstration of the fact the money was sensibly invested and not just being spunked up the wall for the sake of it with no hope of return (i.e. it was hardly spending in the Chelsea or Man City vein). The Shearer money distorts it somewhat and was spent shortly before he left, but even if you count it a total of £40m net in 5 years is hardly outrageous. No, it's hardly outrageous, though of course UV is talking about a period of only 4 years. Perhaps you or UV can provide us with a list of all the clubs who spent more in that period. Keegan was there for 5 years in total though wasn't he? The time period is clearly going to be longer if you add on the time between Batty signing and KK leaving so it would be 5 years if you're to go on and count Shearer's signing. I couldn't give a fuck what other clubs spent, nor do I have the faintest idea. Although as has been pointed out the money 'remained' in the squad and was ultimately recooped and more if you look past Keegan's tenure, I'd wager there aren't many transfer records that could stand up to that. The figures for other clubs are relevant if what you're trying to do is claim that Keegan didn't spend big or that our spending-power at the time wasn't a huge part of what we achieved in that time, which seemed to be the point UV, in his usual cack-handed fashion, was struggling to make. You can also consider how much the same players would cost in today's market. But without any of that, the figures are pretty much meaningless. Including Shearer it's something like a £40 million net spend. And this was before the days of CL cash and super-rich sugar-daddies. I can understand people hating on Keegan bc he walked out, I can understand blaming the relegation partly on Keegan to some extent, but I find it absolutetly fucking ridicoulos to question his work between 92 and 97, especially his transfer dealings. Ppl saying that he's only been a success bc he spent a lot has to understand the not-so-minor point that he transformed a struggling 2nd division club to a title contender in a few years, which essentially means he made the ~40th best club in English football the 2nd best. That can't be done with coaching or with great tactics alone, the only way to do that is to sign a dozen of quality players, and sadly, they cost massive money. And what's the problem with spending big anyway? As long as it bears fruit - and it certainly did during Keegan - and it's sustainable - it didn't cripple the club's finances iirc - I don't really see the backside of spending top cash on top players, basically that's how all football clubs operate, apart from the Newcastle United nowadays of course. If your argument is that somebody else could've done the same with the money Keegan spent, there's certainly truth in that, but my guess would be that none of those people would've touched a bad 2nd div team. And I agree that it's completely irrelevant how much other teams have spent during those years, bc the rest of the teams fighting along for the title weren't sitting in the second part of the div2 table a couple of years earlier. You can go on about how he bottled it, how he wasn't a winner, how he walked a thousand times in his career, how he wasn't a tactical genius, and surely a lot if that's true, but bashing his transfer policy is complete nonsense. (One more thing: it cost Abramovic 100m to make 4th placed Chelsea 2nd in the PL, and around 100m more to make them win it, and that was also before football went totally crazy, since it went crazy mostly bc of him. Of course theres been infaltion between 97 and 03 but still.)

Which is what? That we're getting better results against weaker sides? Yeah what a miraculous turn around. Just because its the managers job doesnt mean you ignore the situation and write them off if its not instantly achieved. Better results against weaker sides with a much weaker squad who are now far more motivated. Get it right. The whole teams workrate is up massively since last season, you can't put that down to weaker opposition. So you're implying that we're better this season bc of the good work done by Houghton. You're also saying that Shearer wouldn't be a good manager bc the team produced shit results under him last year, which is his fault for not being able to motivate them. So, erm, I mean, have you looked at Houghton's results as caretaker from last year?

So what if we win today and Ashley starts to think that the team can get back to the prem with the current squad and an average manager and decides not to sell for the current price? Or am I an idiot for not being able to be happy that the team is doing well?