jonny1403

Some brutal comments from some of the columnists here - fair play to the first two in particular https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/11789306/can-steve-bruce-be-blamed-for-newcastles-issues-the-sunday-supplement-panel-discuss

As much as I agree with the general point: - Sunderland got their money back on Gyan - no idea where that figure above has come from. - John O Shea and Wes Brown were good signings for Sunderland given the length of service provided - not their fault they continued to be played four years later when they were completely finished because Sunderland didn't replace them. - Abel Hernandez was consistently Hull's best player during his time there and only left because they couldn't agree a new contract. They got money back on gyan because of the first loan fee, but the transfer fee they received the year after was just over £6m True, but the first loan fee was something like £6.5m so they were net neutral overall.

As much as I agree with the general point: - Sunderland got their money back on Gyan - no idea where that figure above has come from. - John O Shea and Wes Brown were good signings for Sunderland given the length of service provided - not their fault they continued to be played four years later when they were completely finished because Sunderland didn't replace them. - Abel Hernandez was consistently Hull's best player during his time there and only left because they couldn't agree a new contract.

Chose Lundstram as my 5th choice defender as read an article saying he was going to start every game and is only £4m. Turns out he plays in midfield despite being listed as a defender and is going to get me 12 or so points today

Dubravka* Blob Darlow Woodman Yedlin* Manquillo Lascellout* Schar * Lejeune * Fernandez * Dummett * Clark Lazaar Ginger dog Hayden * Ki * Jonjer* when he can be arsed Longstaff * Almiron * Atsu Ritchie * Murphy Aarons Gayle Joelinton ? 25 man squad. I make it about 12 that are serviceable/ proven to do a basic job in the PL. ones worth having and who can do a job in the PL 19/20 marked with a *. Very harsh on Clark and Atsu.

Borini to us for 10m

To be fair to him he came runner up in their player of the year vote

What penalty miss?? When he played against us in 2008 for the Mackems, he botched a penalty on purpose. It wasn't a penalty, it was a shot from 6 yards out.

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. If you incapable of understanding that he has reduced the clubs income for his own/another company's benefit then I'm lost for words tbh I understand that perfectly well, but a lack of advertising income from Sports Direct is not linked in any way to the reasons why Mike Ashley has loaned money to the club. Read up on our finances A considered and well thought out response You don't seem able to understand that the club is more than £100 million poorer than it should be as Ashley has diverted that money to himself basically, then loans the club money back that it wouldn't need. So it's really pointless discussing anything with you. You don't seem to understand that this sentence : is completely wrong. The club lost approx 70% of its immediate income on relegation for the first time under Ashley. Loans were made immediately post-relegation to cover that funding gap, and were made by MA so that the club wouldn't pay third party interest. Those loans would have been needed whether or not we were receiving advertising income from Sports Direct - no advertising deal would have been sufficient to cover the immediate, massive loss of income following relegation. So to suggest that the club would not have needed to be loaned money had sports direct paid for its sponsorship (over a period of ten years) is just complete bollocks and massively misunderstands the impact (or lack of) advertising income has on a club when compared to the cost of relegation. And just to reiterate - I 100% agree that MA should be paying for any sports direct advertising around the stadium. I also agree that relegation the first time round was MA's fault in the first place, and if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have needed those loans in the first place.

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. If you incapable of understanding that he has reduced the clubs income for his own/another company's benefit then I'm lost for words tbh I understand that perfectly well, but a lack of advertising income from Sports Direct is not linked in any way to the reasons why Mike Ashley has loaned money to the club. Read up on our finances A considered and well thought out response

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. If you incapable of understanding that he has reduced the clubs income for his own/another company's benefit then I'm lost for words tbh I understand that perfectly well, but a lack of advertising income from Sports Direct is not linked in any way to the reasons why Mike Ashley has loaned money to the club. Read up on our finances

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. Any extra sponsorship income would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of relegation - we'd have still needed financing sponsorship or no sponsorship.

West Ham have bid accepted for £29m Maxi Gomex after already signing £24m Pablo Fornals

Downie is trying: We’ve taken legal advice from our lawyers. The Company’s House listing from Sheikh Khaled is a Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) used to transfer shares at outset of a new company. Can be done by anyone though, & difficult to prove veracity. NUFC aware & still refusing to comment. 40 replies 32 retweets 122 likes What I would say is Mike Ashley has been using Denton’s Lawyers to sell the club, and not Pinsent Masons - as I’m aware. As it stands, this means nothing other than a new company has been registered #NUFC This is exactly what I said earlier and points to Downie not understanding what is going on: - Yes anyone technically can set up a company, but internal legal documents have been used to do so, which you would somehow have to obtain. - Yes MA uses Dentons, but you'd expect the firm setting up that company to be acting for the buyer, not the seller.

People generally don't incorporate in these circumstances until they need to. I've worked in plenty of processes where the binding bid document simply refers in general terms to 'a UK limited company, to be incorporated in due course' because it saves the hassle of setting one up and then closing it all back down again if the other conditions of the sale are not fulfilled. I'd disagree with that slightly. I agree that in a normal bid scenario you would establish the company and acquire within a few days. However I've seen clients establish just to reserve the name and then never use the company again. It's really not that much hassle - it costs £40 to incorporate a company (£120 same day) and not much more to terminate. For large corporates that's less than 15 minutes of legal fees.

When the entity is a newco, would the lawyers still run the insolvency checks on the morning of completion? I'm guessing they need to have at least been incorporated the day before to allow a clean search. You would run the searches on the day of completion - they take ten minutes.

Brilliant. Cheers for this. Ashley has been using Dentons so you’re no doubt right about these being the buyers lawyers You would definitely expect the buyer, not the seller, to set up the bidding company, so it would point more towards Pinsents acting for the buyer, yes. I am not sure where all the twitter chatter is coming from regarding Pinsents acting for Ashley tbh - I'd always thought he used two other firms. One thing to stress - we have often set up companies (only costs £90) purely to hold on to a name for our client. This suggests that something is definitely happening, and could happen imminently, but shouldn't be a guarantee that any deal is going to be completed.

As a lawyer in this area: - It's impossible for that company to be fake. It is possible for it to be fraudulently incorporated but you'd need a lot of personal information about the two directors, and would need to fraudulently impersonate Pinsent Masons, the law firm that has submitted the documents. The company is using PM's own, bespoke articles rather than the model articles, so any fraudster would need to have somehow obtained these as well. In short, it's real. - The two directors are not directors of any other UK company, so whatever they are involved with is something new to them and not run of the mill. - Companies established to acquire assets are often done so one or two days before completion of a deal. In other cases, they are established to ensure they have secured the name they want and then left on file for months while the deal is completed. - It is common for businesses to have more than one law firm acting for them in the M&A sphere, often on different deals. I know that MA has used different law firms in the past. It could well be that Pinsent Masons are acting as UK counsel for the buyer, not the seller. They would need UK lawyers themselves regardless.

I work in corporate M&A - heads of terms are not typically understood to be legally binding. It's an understanding of the general agreement between the parties but this can often be one or two pages max with the actual share purchase agreement being 100 pages plus. Often the terms in the HOTs themselves are tweaked slightly as issues arising with the drafting of the SPA.

Not this season they haven’t Jeremy Factsman. Should’ve checked this with your world leading psychopath mate. Ok then, well last season they sold them at £15 each to uni students. The club was not selling tickets to Liverpool fans for £2,000 ffs He's obviously either (i) bought from a newcastle fan and paid a massive mark up or (ii) bought corporate tickets from the club which were never on sale for £15 in the first place.

With all due respect, most of the above is bollocks.

Rivière wins this hands down. Joselu is shocking but at least has contributed something (and scored a really good goal at the start of this season). Rivierie literally only managed to score by accident.

If you add in Saivet we've actually got 7 senior CMs on the books. Two of which have no future here, one wants to leave, one is out of contract in the summer and questions over the future of Shelvey. A lot of work to do in the summer...