Thomson Mouse

Agree with everything apart 'Mike saved the day' and the club was going down a very poor financial path. Genuinely would like to see how the debt has doubled though. No bullshit or anything. It was around £61m in 2007. It's now £129m. I'm not certain but i thought most of this additional was due to Ashley absorbing the overdraft.

Been away for a bit and with the risk of dragging this shite up again, pretty much bingo from Ian. It was very doubtful whether the club could meet the repayments in the next 12 months. Comparing it to Liverpool is laughable.

Talkshite is the best place for that twat.

http://replygif.net/i/558.gif mine is “All the players that have come here have improved, I can’t think of one who hasn’t. That is the most important thing when you are looking at your coaching strategy.” Trying to claim credit for something Alan??

they're both 10 on the shiteometer for me just for different reasons. Yep, spot on. I just don't like seeing the Shepherd love-in that has been happening over the last few pages. The blokes a moron. Can't put it any clearer than jdckelly

The loan didn't have to be paid off immediately under Shepherd. Surely you know this? It didn't. The club were going to struggle to meet the repayments though due to profit/loss under Shepherd. Surely you knew this?

I agree entirely. People just can't seem to separate Shepherd = bad, Ashely = good, from Shepherd = arsehole, Ashley = arsehole.

Agree with everything apart 'Mike saved the day' and the club was going down a very poor financial path. Genuinely would like to see how the debt has doubled though. No bullshit or anything.

The overdraft was there before Ashley took the club over and the club was losing money. The stadium loan was structured by Shepherd/Halls, not because Ashley did not do DD.

So Shepherd was responsible then?

What was the debt when Ashley took over? That is not pure speculation. Barclays wanted to call the overdraft in, it was common knowledge. Around £61m. "Common knowledge"? You'll have to do better than that. http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/bank_orders_newcastle_united_to_cut_overdraft/ http://www.football.co.uk/newcastle_united/trio_s_exit_vital_to_seal_deal_rss183561.shtml Quick google. That was debts carried over from Shepherd which Ashley paid off by his now infamous 'loan'

Shhh stop talking common sense. There is no common sense involved in that statement. Unfortunately it's something that you cannot disprove. Hence it would and could have been quite possible, and fairly common sense to think it might. Not when you look at how many times Shepherd had blocked potential takeovers.

What was the debt when Ashley took over? That is not pure speculation. Barclays wanted to call the overdraft in, it was common knowledge.

Shhh stop talking common sense. There is no common sense involved in that statement.

Right, let's get this bullshit back on track. A few posts ago I posted this: "Now some people with tiny minds will read that as me sticking up for Ashley." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt mate as your heart seems in the right place. What you and some other people seem unable to grasp is that just because you despise Shepherd and what he did, this doesn't mean you support Ashely and what he is doing. I despise them both and I have not 'fallen' for anything. Please explain how the dept has doubled. I am aware the commercial revenue has dropped and that is a disgrace in itself, although it suggests more about Ashley's attitude towards the club. Financially we are better off, that is a fact. We are in profit, under Shepherd we were making a loss. You mention it is a 'saving grace' that Ashley can shoulder the debt. Why is this a 'saving grace'? Is it, perhaps, that we were on the financial brink as a club? Barclays were straining at the leash to call in our hefty overdraft and most of our immediate future income had already been squandered on the ludicrous Owen transfer (who then Shepherd tried to give away to some scousers at a set of Jesmond traffic lights). You then ask what might have happened if they had not sold their shares - fair comment, but were you aware that Shepherd had already blocked bids from several consortia and that others walked away due to the state of the finances? The only thing that Shepherd was aware of was that the club had very little money to spend when he appointed Allardyce. It was his last role of the dice. I don't say we would have gone under 'without a doubt', but it was more probable than not. We had no serious source of income, were in debt and had no way of out of it. The model under Shepherd was unsustainable. Now please understand this: I hate Ashley, I despise the bastard for what he is doing to my club. His way of managing the club is not the right one and I hope he disappears tomorrow. What you need to understand is that just because I have pointed out how bad the opportunist headline grabbing sack of shit that Shepherd is, THIS DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE ASHLEY OR WHAT HE HAS DONE. I spent a reasonable part of my life trying to get Shepherd out along with some local journos and 'others'. If you don't believe me try this place http://www.nufcmismanagement.info/index.html It's just a shame that the excellent NUFC finances site isn't running still, that would have helped you with the Shepherd era.

Worse than going bankrupt? You just can't help yourself can you? I'll indulge you then. What would you call the financial statements of the club back then? Far from financially solvent? We were just about fucked, please explain how that isn't true or just keep posting smiley faces.

You see I'm now going to say that ti despise those signs an Ashley, but to say they're worse than neatly going bankrupt?? C'mon. Now some people with tiny minds will read that as me sticking up for Ashley.

they're both 10 on the shiteometer for me just for different reasons. Yep, spot on. I just don't like seeing the Shepherd love-in that has been happening over the last few pages. The blokes a moron.

Yep

Old ground and still rubbish. No, entirely true. What's the point in trying to compare then and now. Both are arseholes. Give over man, pure and utter conjecture at best. Nope, you only needed to look at the accounts.

Old ground and still rubbish. No, entirely true. What's the point in trying to compare then and now. Both are arseholes.

There wouldn't have been a club existing now if Shepherd had been given another year or two.

I somehow imagine it being such an enormous shithole. What kind of city is it though? Always imagined Middlesborough being the s*** hole of the north-east. Isn't Middlesborough like an industry town with just bunch of smog? They're both grim, but Boro has something resembling a city centre. A massive, hugely successful university and due to all the heavy industry it actually has character. It has an identity to it that Sunderland completely lacks. Having lived in Boro I would strongly disagree. TBf Sunderland got the shit bombed out of it in the war. It's not a great place but Boro/Teesside is streets ahead in terms of being a shit hole. The place didn't exist until the late 19th century apart from a few villages. Someone once said to think of the north east like this: Boro is the arsehole, Sunderland is the armpit and Newcastle is the brain centre. Pretty accurate from my experience.

Martin Keown on BBC sport: "I'm worried for Newcastle, Alan Pardew has been on the phone a lot from the stands and since he's been suspended, his side haven't been the same."

Trying to desperately get shots of people leaving on TV, followed one bloke along the concorse for a bit and he walked straight past the stairs down, so they desperately tried to find a couple of people leaving again