jonny1403
-
Posts
901 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jonny1403
-
-
£150m to me reads potentially as an agreement for a future staggered payment - hence the vendor loan agreement with SJH as the lender. Again, hard to gleam too much with access to only one of a multitude of legal documents.
That's not correct - see above.
-
I don't think the 150m reference means anything in particular. It's simply a representation relating to the value of the security.
This is correct. She isn't depositing £150 million. The proceeds of her ongoing dispute with Barclays have been secured against this loan. She is representing and warranting that those proceeds could be worth, if she's successful, up to £150 million.
-
nufc.com saying he won't be in the squad?
-
General release clauses in Spain are mandatory by law though - hence the reason even the likes of Messi and Ronaldo had them, just set at laughably high amounts (although Barcelona learnt the hard way with Neymar that what might seem to be a "safe" figure to set it at presently can quickly change)
This has happened a few times in Spain where a club has been caught out setting a release clause too low - I never understand why a Spanish club doesn't just adopt a policy of setting all of its release clauses at a minimum 200 million to avoid any risk.
-
Joelinton and miggy exhausted, ASM just back from injury. Atsu on the bench having barely played this month.
What does Bruce do? Starts two of them and replaces ASM with a third defensive midfielder. Against a league one team. After complaining that we don’t have the players to create enough.
-
Haaland's scored 5 goals in about an hour
I really thought Manchester United would have been in for that kid. His transfer fee was a pittance considering how well he’s done in the CL this season.
They were? Soljsaer even flew out to meet him to try and convince him didn't he or something? He just decided that Dortmund was better choice, which is sensible considering the toxic nature of man u right now
Not true, he is owned by his agent and that is where the transfer fee goes, Dortmund have to sell him within 18 months, they receive a maximum of £20 million and the agent gets the rest, which looks about £80 million, no wonder FIFA are looking into agent fees
This is absolute bollocks
UEFA wouldn't have registered the transfer if there was any hint of third party ownership for a start, it's been banned for a decade -
I refuse to believe, but this guardian article goes into a hell of a lot of detail compared to the high level stuff that was going around following the Peter Kenyon fiasco:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/26/saudi-340m-takeover-newcastle-leak-threatens-deal
-
Dubvraka
Schar Clark Lejeune
Yedlin Ritchie/Gibson
Bentaleb S/M Longstaff
T Allan Miggy
Carroll
Bench: Darlow, Lascelles, Joelinton, ASM, Shelvey, Hayden, Gibson/Ritchie
Can't risk playing Ritchie and I'd stick Atsu in for Almiron, and Lazaro in for Allan if he's available (Bruce is hopeful).
-
Also, why is this such an unpopular fixture with our fans? Never seems to sell out.
-
I'd almost be tempted to move Hayden to RB and bring in one of the Longstaffs rather than play Krafth there again.
-
At this point I'd just give him a free role to do whatever he wants with Almiron on the left, Joelinton on the right. Whoever is fit between Carroll, Gayle and Muto up top.
We can’t do that playing 3 at the back though.
-
Some brutal comments from some of the columnists here - fair play to the first two in particular
-
A post on RAWK to cheer everybody up
:lol: Quote from: Brian Blessed on August 18, 2019, 03:24:38 AM
Bruce is about to go the way of Pardew, this is his last job in football. About fucking time.
rafathegaffa83
RAWK Scribe
I don't think there is a manager in the PL more heavily reliant on a chequebook than Bruce and yet he gets hired again and again. It used to be said when he first started that he had a great scouting network/contacts, which was why he could pull out a few signings above the quality expected for his clubs. But even those are few and far between and some of those players like Maguire and Robertson only flourished after moving on.
What Bruce has shown throughout his career is a scattergun approach to transfers, which he won't be allowed at Newcastle. He's signed several players in the past only to cast them off six to twelve months later (Walter Pandiani, Luciano Figueroa, Marlon King). The latter almost joined Fulham prior to joining Bruce at Wigan, but Fulham were concerned about his legal history and his medical. Bruce signed him anyway for Wigan, doubled his wages and then jettisoned him on loan after 15 games before his legal troubles allowed them to cancel his contract.
Then there are the terrible swaps: £4.25m + Andy Johnson for Clinton Morrison. The latter was sold back for £2m two years later, while Palace sold Johnson for £8m+
Then there are the loss making and high wage/low impact signings:
- Paying £6m for Lee Cattermole
- Frazier Campbell for £3.5m rising to £6m (later sold for £650,000)
- Michael Turner for £5.5m (later sold for £1.5m)
- Asomah Gyan for £13m (sold for £6m a year later)
- Connor Wickham for £12m (sold for between £7m-£9m)
- Scott Hogan for £12m (now on loan at Stoke)
-Paying a combined £6.5m for John O'Shea and Wes Brown when every man and his dog knew they were finished. I also seem to recall he wanted Darron Gibson in this deal before he turned them down
- Abel Hernandez for £10m (later released by Hull)
- Alou Cisse for £4.5m (sold two years later for £300k)
- Olivier Kapo for £3.5m (released a few seasons later)
-James McFadden for £4.75m (released three years later)
- Gary McSheffrey for £4m (released three years later)
- Rowan Vine for £3m (sold a year later for £1m)
- Walter Pandiani for £3m (sold for £1m six months later)
- Luciano Figueroa for £2.5m (released four months later)
- Gary O'Connor for £2.7m (released fhree years later)
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.
-
A post on RAWK to cheer everybody up
:lol: Quote from: Brian Blessed on August 18, 2019, 03:24:38 AM
Bruce is about to go the way of Pardew, this is his last job in football. About fucking time.
rafathegaffa83
RAWK Scribe
I don't think there is a manager in the PL more heavily reliant on a chequebook than Bruce and yet he gets hired again and again. It used to be said when he first started that he had a great scouting network/contacts, which was why he could pull out a few signings above the quality expected for his clubs. But even those are few and far between and some of those players like Maguire and Robertson only flourished after moving on.
What Bruce has shown throughout his career is a scattergun approach to transfers, which he won't be allowed at Newcastle. He's signed several players in the past only to cast them off six to twelve months later (Walter Pandiani, Luciano Figueroa, Marlon King). The latter almost joined Fulham prior to joining Bruce at Wigan, but Fulham were concerned about his legal history and his medical. Bruce signed him anyway for Wigan, doubled his wages and then jettisoned him on loan after 15 games before his legal troubles allowed them to cancel his contract.
Then there are the terrible swaps: £4.25m + Andy Johnson for Clinton Morrison. The latter was sold back for £2m two years later, while Palace sold Johnson for £8m+
Then there are the loss making and high wage/low impact signings:
- Paying £6m for Lee Cattermole
- Frazier Campbell for £3.5m rising to £6m (later sold for £650,000)
- Michael Turner for £5.5m (later sold for £1.5m)
- Asomah Gyan for £13m (sold for £6m a year later)
- Connor Wickham for £12m (sold for between £7m-£9m)
- Scott Hogan for £12m (now on loan at Stoke)
-Paying a combined £6.5m for John O'Shea and Wes Brown when every man and his dog knew they were finished. I also seem to recall he wanted Darron Gibson in this deal before he turned them down
- Abel Hernandez for £10m (later released by Hull)
- Alou Cisse for £4.5m (sold two years later for £300k)
- Olivier Kapo for £3.5m (released a few seasons later)
-James McFadden for £4.75m (released three years later)
- Gary McSheffrey for £4m (released three years later)
- Rowan Vine for £3m (sold a year later for £1m)
- Walter Pandiani for £3m (sold for £1m six months later)
- Luciano Figueroa for £2.5m (released four months later)
- Gary O'Connor for £2.7m (released fhree years later)
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
-
Back from the dead...
Am I right in thinking the club has too many players for the 25 man squad currently?
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
-
Didn't follow as I was rather hoping we'd seen the last of him - but it seemed like he didn't pull up any trees at Forest, and if you can't pull up trees at Forest where can you?
To be fair to him he came runner up in their player of the year vote
-
"To be mid-table in the Premier League has been great and it is up to me to carry on in that fashion.
-
At work so can’t watch the Chopra interview, but if he’s said some good stuff then he’s gone up in my estimation especially after THAT penalty miss.
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.
-
Does anyone know what happens with all of Ashley's personal "loans" he provided to the club (i.e. things that would typically be paid for with club profits but were instead funded by him loaning us back the money we'd made him)??
I wouldn't be surprised if the c*nt tried to add full repayment of those on top of the 350M 'club price'.
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 :
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.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.
-
Does anyone know what happens with all of Ashley's personal "loans" he provided to the club (i.e. things that would typically be paid for with club profits but were instead funded by him loaning us back the money we'd made him)??
I wouldn't be surprised if the c*nt tried to add full repayment of those on top of the 350M 'club price'.
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
-
Does anyone know what happens with all of Ashley's personal "loans" he provided to the club (i.e. things that would typically be paid for with club profits but were instead funded by him loaning us back the money we'd made him)??
I wouldn't be surprised if the c*nt tried to add full repayment of those on top of the 350M 'club price'.
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
-
Does anyone know what happens with all of Ashley's personal "loans" he provided to the club (i.e. things that would typically be paid for with club profits but were instead funded by him loaning us back the money we'd made him)??
I wouldn't be surprised if the c*nt tried to add full repayment of those on top of the 350M 'club price'.
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.
Various: N-O has lost the plot over potential end of Mike Ashley's tenure
in Football
Posted
To be fair, Companies House docs are usually reported as submitted on one date, but don't become available for public viewing until a week or so later.