bealios

"That money goes into Ashley's pocket" on about season tickets..  Jesus wept they've got a qualified accountant there, has he not seen the accounts or what?.. 

Doing the maths, on a £600 season ticket isn't the VAT saving about £13 a year, i.e. about £1 a month? The admin cost of sending back the £1 would outweigh the refund, surely its a bit daft asking for this back?

Listened for 20 minutes or so, and have some admiration for what they're trying to do, but it is still an Ashley out pressure group with no alternative offered.

NUSC have stated tonight that at present the main aim of the group is to get Ashley out of the club. As there is no buyer, then this is a group without a viable goal. If there is a buyer then by all means then the agenda may be to favour the proposed buyer instead of Ashley. This is exactly what happened with Halls and the Magpie Group - once there was a proper interested buyer the fans ramped up the pressure. Until that exists, focus on taking the club forward with Ashley in control.

Until they get some viable common goals then what's the point? The meeting so far has failed to address the most important issue relevant to the club today and it is not Ashley. It is the fact that the football club at the moment is not self sufficient and is technically insolvent! How can this group be taken seriously when it glosses over this fact?

Having said that bloke who just spoke about being pragmatic made more sense than I've heard so far.

Similar thing happened with Bowyer I think. He was banned for 6 Euro games i think, so NUFC didn't register him. As they didn't register him, he wasn't technically eligible to play in those games so they didn't count towards his ban, so he ended up missing 12 games I think.

Under the rules Tottenham have fielded an ineligible player for a Premier League game, and they should be docked points. You cannot apply one rule to lower teams and throw them out the FA Cup (which has a massive impact on the club involved given the relative income from cup games), and another rule to rich teams.

IF we go down (and I will be an 8 out of 10 certainty voter if we don't get 3 points on Saturday) then it has to be Darren Ferguson. Not only has he shown promise so far, but when dealing with the type of players we have/should have he has the advice of the greatest manager there has possibly ever been, and also the contacts that come with that.

Who knows, if Ferguson retires, he may get bored an pop in on the odd day!!

Why are we still being referred to as a 'minority' when over 50% of the people here are against Ashley?

 

I think the 10% or so supporting Ashley would roughly correspond to those with IQs under 80, and the 35% stupid enough to reserve judgement until February safely fill out 'below average intelligence but still functional' bracket.

 

Just goes to prove the old adage. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool all the stupid ones most of the time. Ashley's been running Sportsdirect on that adage for years, so he should know.

 

 

I hate to say 'I told you so', but I told you so.

 

To those of you who feel the need to 're-assess' every time Ashley comes out with another empty promise, please be aware you are stupid, and he's taking you for a ride. There is overwhelming evidence that he paid far too much for the club, and is now determined to get his money back regardless of the impact to the club in the meantime.

 

Please do not embarrass yourselves any further by falling over yourselves to give him a chance when he makes an announcement in two months time that he recognises the squad needs improving, and will be acting in the summer.

 

Its all lies. Freddy & co. ripped him off and he'll burn this club to the ground if thats what it takes to get his money back.

To be fair, I reckon the majority of people supporting Ashley are those who have read and understand the accounts and realise what a complete mess the club were in financially BEFORE Ashley took over, and appreciate that given the absence of anyone prepared to buy the club and keep it afloat, he is the only one available. Not sure you can say that this equates to those with a low IQ.

Conversely, the Anti- Ashley activisits and the "Cockney Mafia Out" brigade don't seem to be the sharpest tools in the box. The allegations that Ashley is only in it for the money and that he is "asset stripping" are ludicrous. Incompetent decision making and poorly advised certainly, but can you point out one profitable football club please? They're all fucked - apart from possibly Man Utd with their global turnover.

You can only sign the players who (1) agree to come to you, and (2) the clubs will let them go. If bids had been accepted for Veloso and Johnson then net spend would have been more - unfortunately we're not an attractive proposition at present.

Of course there's another way of looking at this - if Ashley has made his mind up that Kinnear goes at the end of the season, then who would you rather have spending any available cash - Kinnear or Bruce/Shear/someone else? Nolan and Taylor are both players that we may be able to hang on to if we go down, and I can't imagine they're on huge wages. I suspect you could say the same for Johnson. Veloso's a different case perhaps, although I'm sure if we went down we would recoup a lot of what we spent.

I'm having a snow day. Have the highlights on Sky at the moment, and flicking between posting on here, playing Football Manager (come on Blyth) and giving legal advice (working from home....), probably in that order of importance as well.

FFS! He sent a bloody email to a Sky reporter. So what? How did he know they would show it live on Sky?

Cue loads of muppets moaning because he should be buying players rather than sending emails. AT least he's at the ground and not in bed asleep.

Daniel Fox and Ryan Taylor coming in. Can't see us going for another striker to be honest with Martins and Smith coming back. Would be reasonably happy with the window as a whole if that happenss.

I imagine we may also have someone lined up, conditional on if Zog goes. Veloso maybe, but can't see us signing him unless Zog goes.

Distin would be an immense signing, although since Bassong should be untouchable, can't see JFK dropping Colo - although if its true that he can play at DM (never seen him myself - I suspect a lot of this comes from Football Manager!) then might make sense.

Fee is base of nearly £6m, but with a series of add ons over next 3 years, probably appearance related and based on how successful Man City are in next 3 years.

Excellent service for 11 years, wish him well. Slightly bitter taste over the manner of departure - and the club he has gone to. No doubt in my mind that the statements by lawyers etc. were released to engineer a move, and Man City had made it clear beforehand that they were interested. WIsh he'd gone to a top club though - the earliest Man City could possibly win anything in Europe is 2011 - can't see Shay being first choice in 2011!

How well did he do at Fulham?  City?  England?

Changed the first two from struggling lower division clubs to established Premier League clubs. You could argue that without Keegan's time at City they would not be in the position they are now.

England wasn't the greatest success, but subsequent managers show that he certainly wasn't the worst in recent years. A lot of international football is luck and "what if's" - England were unlucky to go out of the Euros with that last minute penalty when Keegan was in charge, who knows what might have happened if we hadn't. Italia 90 is considered by many to be England's best tournament performance since 1966, however we were so close to going out in the group stages - abysmal in the first two games, until a very late goal in the last game took us through.

With out a doubt!, the worse Manager that has ever been at Newcastle.

How long have you been watching Newcastle - one season?

Souness spent a fortune turning a top 4/5 team into a team destined to struggle in the lower half of the Premier League for years. Not bad for a year and a half.

Wise doesn't want the job. He left Leeds because he didn't like the day to day management. He wanted an executive scouting role where he was doing the deals at a higher level. Why would he then open himself up to the abuse and hassle of managing us?

He's not brilliant by any stretch, but to be fair what he has had to deal with has been more than any of the other managers in the Premier League. Try this little game:

1. Run through our squad list on cross out all players who are injured.

2. Then run through our squad list and then cross out all of those players who have expressed an intention to leave and play like they couldn't give a fuck.

3. Try and pick a decent first 11 and a sub bench. Pretty difficult isn't it?

4. Factor in the fact that we have had more upheaval at the start of the season than perhaps every other club.

5. Consider the fact that despite points 1 to 4 above we are only 1 point behind Spurs who have spent many many millions, and only 5 points being Man City with their inifinite resources.

I would say Mark Hughes and Harry Redknapp make a good case for being a worse manager than Joe Kinnear.

I can't criticise the original sentiment behind the banner but it just looks completely stupid now in light of recent events i.e. the published accounts.

FACT 1 - The accounts make it clear that NUFC is not currently a going concern (i.e. solvent), and the auditors would not issue the legally required statement as to its solvency unless someone underwrote club financing for the next 12 month accounting period.

FACT 2 - Mike Ashley underwrote the club financing for the next 12 month accounting period.

FACT 3 - If the "Cockney Mafia" were indeed "Out", then nobody would underwrite the club financing for the next 12 month accounting period.

We therefore have no club to support - or at least a club in administration, with a 10 point deduction, all player sold, i.e. Leeds.

Unlikely to happen in reality as MA would struggle to recover his £250m investment, but lets be clear, there is NOTHING to guarantee that the accounts will be signed of next year. If the club were insolvent then administrators would be appointed to try and ensure the survival of the business. This would must likely result in the stadium being sold off (perhaps leased back), all players with any real capital value sold, and we would have to start again with a bunch of kids. Those who think this is all speculation, please see Leeds United - and do not think that we are different in any way.

There is a risk here of being too pessimistic.

Ok, competing with the current top 4 may be difficult at the moment. But to attract young players, all we need is a manager with enthusiasm and a clear vision of where the cluib is going. Take said youngster to our state of the art training complex. Invite them to a game at St. James Park. Sell the fact that they will get an opportunity very early on to play in a fantastic stadium in front of nearly 50,000 fans.

Perhaps those who only go to home games (or not at all) may not appreciate this, but most of the grounds in the Premier League are either soulless retail parks, or absolute dumps in the middle of nowhere.  How we manage to lose out on players who have chosen to go to clubs like Spurs, Portsmouth, Wigan etc. is beyond me. It can only be the perceived managerial chaos which scares them off. Put that right, and it shouldn't be too difficult to become an attractive proposition again.

yeah, but xisco has been an unnecessary signing, we didn't need another striker, we needed cover at LB too

To be honest, Xisco would appear to be the only dud signing made so far by this team, and even that maybe a little unfair. A young player coming to a new league in an underperforming team. He is nowhere near on a par with Luque or Boumsong in terms of daftness and no value for money. Xisco could probably be sold next year with much of what was paid out recouped. I also expect that he isn't on £3m a year like many other pre-Wise signings.

Personally, I think the transfer record so far has been good, albeit missing a couple of full backs - which hopefully will be put right this window.

Would have thought is makes more sense to buy a young player to cover Beye now.  Never saw the point in waiting until your first choice leaves or retires before buying in anyone new. Think a couple of years ahead, which means that Ebondo can train with Beye on a daily basis and benefit from that, and be ready for the Premier League when he becomes ourt first choice.

I just hope being thrown into a relegation battle with no league experience doesn't damage him and that expectations are at a sensible level from our home fans...

Thank fuck.

I've said it on other threads, without two proper full back we will go down. Most of our shit performances this season have been when we have not had two proper full back. Most obvious example to me was the Stoke home game in the second half. Once the shape goes, it messes everything else up. The central defenders have no idea where they're supposed to be and they get pulled out of position and lose attackers. Also reference any game where N'Zogbia has played left back as an example.

If we get another left back in the window and Mbia as well I would be happy and it would be a good window, particularly for a January when not much happens.

It does look like he's on his way, we could know for sure by Wednesday night if he starts or not.

Personally would be ok to see him go and would wish him well. He has served us well for 10 years or so, and if he wants to leave then there's no use having unhappy players in the squad. I also think the step down to Harper isn't that big a step - Keegan certainly had faith in him. And if £14m means that we have 2 or 3 more players to fight relegation with then it's a good move.

Hopefully the deal with City means he can play his final game on Sunday, and get a fantastic send off.

Freddie's just trying to deflect attention from the recent accounts which don't reflect well on him and his spongeing family. Obviously Bruce Shepherd had the best warehouses available in the whole of Newcastle, and young Ken was picked as an agent because he was the best agent around, not because he was fatso's son 

 

the only family in the world  ........

 

You couldn't make it up if you tried. Any stick will do.

 

 

 

i'm embarrased for you, any defence will do

 

Not defending anything, I'm embarrassed for you lot given the current state of the club since the change of ownership was made, because at the end of the day, this and other comments he has made, and SJH too, are all totally and completely irrelevant to what happens on a football pitch and how the club is run by its owners.

 

 

 

It's not a case of 'if you dislike Shepherd then you must like Ashley'. People can criticise him all they want, it doesn't mean they think highly of Ashley in the slightest, even if it's a point on which they base a particular defence of Ashley.

 

Given how much longer Shepherd had control at the club it's no surprise that people look back at his time with a lot more fondness than they have the year and a half or so of Ashley's time. They've both messed up.

 

I wouldn't call playing in the Champions League, capacity crowds, top quality international footballers, and 2 FA Cup finals messing up.

 

 

No, and nor would I. Under his tenure we did a lot right. However towards the end of his time in particular he was doing a pretty poor job of it. Recruiting the wrong managers, backing the wrong managers, and backing them with money that put us heavily in debt.

 

in the 2nd last season with Shepherd as chairman, we finished 7th and consequently played in the UEFA Cup. A position matched only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd, and considered to be massively successful.

 

A "poor job" ?

 

 

 

Leeds had similar league finishes to NUFC, got the semi finals of the CL and built a fairly decent side. Would you therefore consider Ridsdale's time a success?

 

There are obvious similarities. I don't think Shepherd deserves half the stick he gets on here and elsewhere, but your seemingly blind defence of him is sometimes amazing. Both gambled at getting success, and did so in a manner which put the future of the club at risk. When it didn't happen, they gambled some more. It MIGHT have worked, and Shepherd MIGHT have got lucky under Robson and delivered a piece of silverware, but it didn't, and with all high risk strategies when it goes wrong it can have devastating affects.

 

The club without someone prepared to fund it out of their own pocket would have hit administration. When the credit dries up, where does the cash come from? The future income was securitised, the expenses were fixed and difficult to shift. Shepherd himself knew this, hence the comments about paying "Rolls Royce" wages.

 

Shepherd is a fan, he gambled, he got close, but failed. The price of his gamble was leaving a club which at the moment is not self sufficient. This is an unquestionable fact.

 

Firstly, Shepherd didn't own the club, he only had less than 30% of the shares, so its extremely unlikely he ran the club, made major decisions, and told the Halls later.

 

Secondly, not a single Leeds supporter didn't enjoy the run to the Champions League semi finals. I would rather have a club that aims for the top and doesn't make it than a club who never tries. We now have an owner who isn't going to attempt it, so do you want to spend the next 20 years as a yo-yo club going absolutely nowhere like the mackems have done for the last 20 years, and ourselves in our current predicament, or do you want to see the club at least have a go ?

 

Its your choice by the way, but if you prefer the 2nd option, I simply don't agree.

 

 

Technically the board run the company, the shareholder's don't. The board of directors made the decisions, and Shepherd as chief executive would have had most sway in those decisions.

I'm not disagreeing that the Leeds fans enjoyed the ride, as did the NUFC fans. But if the Leeds fans were told that this ride would threaten the existence of the club, and lead to them being out in the wilderness for the forseeable future, they might have traded that Champions League semi and top 4 finish for a sustainable top flight club.

Not a personal dig at you here, but the current disagreements between supporters might be to do with too many polarised views, and your last post is an example. You suggest the only alternative to massive expenditure without regard to the risks of it not producing anything is to become a yo yo club going nowhere. There is a middle ground. It is possible to speculate and aim for the top, without putting the future of the club at risk. Those in charge have a responsibility to the fans and wider community. Since we didn't have anyone who would finance out of their own pocket, the club had to be self sufficient, and ensure that what was being spent on players, agents, fees could be financed out of club income. Instead we spent future income in the hope we would get back into the top 4, but with little regard to what would happen if we didn't.

I can admit that I have thoroughly enjoyed large parts of Shepherds tenure, without his gamble we might not had had nights at the San Siro etc., but the legacy of this risk taking is still being felt now, and may get a lot worse.

I believe at law the company accounts need to make reference to the viability of a company as a going concern. I'm led to believe that the independent auditors could not make that statement unless Ashley personally committed to underwrite funding of the club for the next 12 months. So putting personal opinions to one side, it seems that legally NUFC are not a viable business without Ashley. So despite our views, he personally is the reason we have a club to support next season.

We might be able to move forward as a club it we just accept that neither Shepherd or Ashley are/were the devil, they just have different views on how the club should be run. Shepherd's tried, but didn't quite make it. Perhaps its time to give Ashley's method a go.

Technically the board run the company, the shareholder's don't. The board of directors made the decisions, and Shepherd as chief executive would have had most sway in those decisions.

I'm not disagreeing that the Leeds fans enjoyed the ride, as did the NUFC fans. But if the Leeds fans were told that this ride would threaten the existence of the club, and lead to them being out in the wilderness for the forseeable future, they might have traded that Champions League semi and top 4 finish for a sustainable top flight club.

Not a personal dig at you here, but the current disagreements between supporters might be to do with too many polarised views, and your last post is an example. You suggest the only alternative to massive expenditure without regard to the risks of it not producing anything is to become a yo yo club going nowhere. There is a middle ground. It is possible to speculate and aim for the top, without putting the future of the club at risk. Those in charge have a responsibility to the fans and wider community. Since we didn't have anyone who would finance out of their own pocket, the club had to be self sufficient, and ensure that what was being spent on players, agents, fees could be financed out of club income. Instead we spent future income in the hope we would get back into the top 4, but with little regard to what would happen if we didn't.

I can admit that I have thoroughly enjoyed large parts of Shepherds tenure, without his gamble we might not had had nights at the San Siro etc., but the legacy of this risk taking is still being felt now, and may get a lot worse.

I believe at law the company accounts need to make reference to the viability of a company as a going concern. I'm led to believe that the independent auditors could not make that statement unless Ashley personally committed to underwrite funding of the club for the next 12 months. So putting personal opinions to one side, it seems that legally NUFC are not a viable business without Ashley. So despite our views, he personally is the reason we have a club to support next season.

We might be able to move forward as a club it we just accept that neither Shepherd or Ashley are/were the devil, they just have different views on how the club should be run. Shepherd's tried, but didn't quite make it. Perhaps its time to give Ashley's method a go.

Freddie's just trying to deflect attention from the recent accounts which don't reflect well on him and his spongeing family. Obviously Bruce Shepherd had the best warehouses available in the whole of Newcastle, and young Ken was picked as an agent because he was the best agent around, not because he was fatso's son 

 

the only family in the world  ........

 

You couldn't make it up if you tried. Any stick will do.

 

 

 

i'm embarrased for you, any defence will do

 

Not defending anything, I'm embarrassed for you lot given the current state of the club since the change of ownership was made, because at the end of the day, this and other comments he has made, and SJH too, are all totally and completely irrelevant to what happens on a football pitch and how the club is run by its owners.

 

 

 

It's not a case of 'if you dislike Shepherd then you must like Ashley'. People can criticise him all they want, it doesn't mean they think highly of Ashley in the slightest, even if it's a point on which they base a particular defence of Ashley.

 

Given how much longer Shepherd had control at the club it's no surprise that people look back at his time with a lot more fondness than they have the year and a half or so of Ashley's time. They've both messed up.

 

I wouldn't call playing in the Champions League, capacity crowds, top quality international footballers, and 2 FA Cup finals messing up.

 

 

No, and nor would I. Under his tenure we did a lot right. However towards the end of his time in particular he was doing a pretty poor job of it. Recruiting the wrong managers, backing the wrong managers, and backing them with money that put us heavily in debt.

 

in the 2nd last season with Shepherd as chairman, we finished 7th and consequently played in the UEFA Cup. A position matched only twice in over 30 years prior to the Halls and Shepherd, and considered to be massively successful.

 

A "poor job" ?

 

 

Leeds had similar league finishes to NUFC, got the semi finals of the CL and built a fairly decent side. Would you therefore consider Ridsdale's time a success?

There are obvious similarities. I don't think Shepherd deserves half the stick he gets on here and elsewhere, but your seemingly blind defence of him is sometimes amazing. Both gambled at getting success, and did so in a manner which put the future of the club at risk. When it didn't happen, they gambled some more. It MIGHT have worked, and Shepherd MIGHT have got lucky under Robson and delivered a piece of silverware, but it didn't, and with all high risk strategies when it goes wrong it can have devastating affects.

The club without someone prepared to fund it out of their own pocket would have hit administration. When the credit dries up, where does the cash come from? The future income was securitised, the expenses were fixed and difficult to shift. Shepherd himself knew this, hence the comments about paying "Rolls Royce" wages.

Shepherd is a fan, he gambled, he got close, but failed. The price of his gamble was leaving a club which at the moment is not self sufficient. This is an unquestionable fact.

We are a high turnover club, one of the highest. The reason for the poor financial performance is the scandalous wages being paid to non-contributing players, with no sell on value.

You can still be financially sound by paying high wages, as long as they are paid to key members of your first team squad. But you cannot have loads of players picking up £3m plus per year who are not contributing anything (or very little) to the first team. Think Viduka, Smith, Duff, Butt, Geremi, Cacapa. IMO you can still pay star players (i.e. Owen) high wages if they're contributing. Owen's goal record suggest he may not be a complete waste of money.

The same goes for transfer fees. Economically it is less of a risk spending large amounts on players, if there is some sort of resale value. Modric - if we got him, even if he didn't perform then it would be put down to not suiting this league, and due to his age there would have been a number of clubs in Europe who would take him back and we would recoup the fee. However if he was a sensation the CL clubs would be offering silly money. Xisco is not as bad a purchase as you would think. Its his first season, but even if he doesn't make it next year then a Spanish club will take him back for a couple of million.

Next year's accounts will quite possibly be worse, with the same high wages, lower gates and commercial revenue, and potentially a Keegan pay off.

It's going to be nerve wracking, but if we do stay up then I genuinely think there is a better time ahead - losing the aforementioned players from the wage bill would be a good start, only Owen will damage the first team - otherwise I still think we are attactive enough to get players as good as or better than  Viduka, Smith, Duff, Butt, Geremi, Cacapa. FFS - Martins accepted £30,000 per week when he signed.

This might give some clue to the unrest with Keegan - I don't believe the crap about him wanting Henry, Beckham, Lampard etc. - but if he was willing to pay Richard Dunne £90,000 per week to get him here on a 4 year deal, we may have had another Stephen Carr on our hands.

 

I think someone from Mike Ashleys management team should start communication with the fans.

 

They are going to, they said in the press that they would be saying something after the transfer window has closed.

i can almost guarantee now that whatever is said will be laughed at and not believed.

 

What has Ashley done so far to merit being taken seriously by the fans?

 

Why do you cut Ashley so much slack? Not trying to be provocative, I'm genuinely interested.

 

Because right now there's a marked absence of any other fucker willing to put tens of millions of their own cash into the club to keep it out of insolvency?

And also its worth remembering that Ashley pretty much bought the club for £130million on a whim, who's to say that if it looks like being fun again he won't decide to spunk another £50m on it ...