Ashley has failed Newcastle United.

[Syrette]

Nah, it's old.

[NE5]

Nah, it's old.

 

only to a naive young lad 

[Tooj]

NE5's a young 53 apparently. He has said several times he doesn't look his age.

[NE5]

As long as the chairman learns from his mistakes, something which Shepherd never learned to do, I'll be very happy.

 

At the moment, *the only mistake hes made is not sacking Big Sam sooner and bringing Keegan in before the opening of the January transfer window.

 

The significant mistake, amidst all the transfer strategy cautiousness delivered by Mort & Ashley which has already been cited, which may well bring about our relegation.

 

That mistake is the one that counts the most. That one month will go down as a 'not to do' blueprint for other clubs to go by. If we survive the drop, and if Keegan isn't sufficiently backed - surely promises must've have been made when considering the manner in which Keegan originally left - in the Summer as far as i'm concerned Ashley can bring in the scaffolders have them remove his "...... Direct" advertising and sell-up & bugger off, sooner rather than later that is.

 

*Yet some many people still can't see the point. I guess 'not being Freddy Shepherd' is one factor, along with all the other stuff ie. Ashley's "i stand as the leader of Toon Army - i bleed as they do" warcry in the press and by getting down & dirty in the terraces and generally coming across as your everyday grassroots supporter.... and the debt reduction issue is also a relevant point, which weighs in Ashley & Mort's favour at the minute.

 

This idea that because we couldn't buy in the January transfer window, we have endangered the club's Premier future sounds damning, but when you look at the actual circumstances it was perfectly understandable. The money wasn't going to be released to Allardyce because we didn't want to buy any more Smiths, Bartons or Nolans etc. He was sacked for abysmal results during an easy early fixture list (KK's now suffering the consequences). Keegan couldn't get in the players he wanted in a very short space of time, and here we are.

 

What could we have done differently? Kept Allardyce which would have meant starting again in the summer. Is that the argument?

 

not making excuse after excuse for not recognising a serous situation and putting the club in danger of relegation would be a start.

 

Quite amazing the hypocrisy on here. People slating Shepherd for not splashing cash every time we lose, then complaining about debts and saying Ashley did right not to waste money on a team in relegation trouble.

 

Then we have the sacking of a manager at a "bad time", where the last regime was absolutely slaughtered for it.

 

It would really appear that being a fat bastard who eats all the pies is the ultimate crime, and  you can get away with anything else.

 

 

[Baggio]

As long as the chairman learns from his mistakes, something which Shepherd never learned to do, I'll be very happy.

 

At the moment, *the only mistake hes made is not sacking Big Sam sooner and bringing Keegan in before the opening of the January transfer window.

 

The significant mistake, amidst all the transfer strategy cautiousness delivered by Mort & Ashley which has already been cited, which may well bring about our relegation.

 

That mistake is the one that counts the most. That one month will go down as a 'not to do' blueprint for other clubs to go by. If we survive the drop, and if Keegan isn't sufficiently backed - surely promises must've have been made when considering the manner in which Keegan originally left - in the Summer as far as i'm concerned Ashley can bring in the scaffolders have them remove his "...... Direct" advertising and sell-up & bugger off, sooner rather than later that is.

 

*Yet some many people still can't see the point. I guess 'not being Freddy Shepherd' is one factor, along with all the other stuff ie. Ashley's "i stand as the leader of Toon Army - i bleed as they do" warcry in the press and by getting down & dirty in the terraces and generally coming across as your everyday grassroots supporter.... and the debt reduction issue is also a relevant point, which weighs in Ashley & Mort's favour at the minute.

 

This idea that because we couldn't buy in the January transfer window, we have endangered the club's Premier future sounds damning, but when you look at the actual circumstances it was perfectly understandable. The money wasn't going to be released to Allardyce because we didn't want to buy any more Smiths, Bartons or Nolans etc. He was sacked for abysmal results during an easy early fixture list (KK's now suffering the consequences). Keegan couldn't get in the players he wanted in a very short space of time, and here we are.

 

What could we have done differently? Kept Allardyce which would have meant starting again in the summer. Is that the argument?

 

not making excuse after excuse for not recognising a serous situation and putting the club in danger of relegation would be a start.

 

Quite amazing the hypocrisy on here. People slating Shepherd for not splashing cash every time we lose, then complaining about debts and saying Ashley did right not to waste money on a team in relegation trouble.

 

Then we have the sacking of a manager at a "bad time", where the last regime was absolutely slaughtered for it.

 

It would really appear the being a fat bastard who eats all the pies is the ultimate crime.

 

 

 

I thought everyone hated Shepherd for employing two of the worst managers the Premiership has ever had back to back.

 

Not for running up huge debts, calling people names or sacking managers at the wrong time.

 

 

You've ignored Big Tron's point totally btw. What could we have done differently?

[Mick]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

[NE5]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

[madras]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

we've been through the debt thing before...they produce turnover to finance it....we dont...thats why our debt has escalated.

[fredbob]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

 

How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now?

 

Typically stupid argument.

[NE5]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

we've been through the debt thing before...they produce turnover to finance it....we dont...thats why our debt has escalated.

 

we have indeed. Simple fact is that NUFC will never go bust and the nearest they will ever be is where they were when the Halls and Shepherd saved it in 1992.

 

As I have also said, the top 4 are quite happy with their debts - and success on the field, the purchase of these despicable "trophy" players, and the trophies that these players win. While some people on here prefer us to operate a "sell to buy" policy, buying a host of Johnny Averages and fight a relegation battle as a result, simply because they didn't like the fat bastard and were so absolutely obsessed and had their heads in the sand so much re their hatred of the fat bastard, they even rather sadly dismissed his attempts to back his managers to bring top quality players to the club, being totally incapable of admitting or even realising that this is indeed the way that a club such as NUFC should be operating.

 

 

[NE5]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

 

How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now?

 

Typically stupid argument.

 

I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen.

 

Your loss.

 

 

[madras]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

we've been through the debt thing before...they produce turnover to finance it....we dont...thats why our debt has escalated.

 

we have indeed. Simple fact is that NUFC will never go bust and the nearest they will ever be is where they were when the Halls and Shepherd saved it in 1992.

 

As I have also said, the top 4 are quite happy with their debts - and success on the field, the purchase of these despicable "trophy" players, and the trophies that these players win. While some people on here prefer us to operate a "sell to buy" policy, buying a host of Johnny Averages and fight a relegation battle as a result, simply because they didn't like the fat b****** and were so absolutely obsessed and had their heads in the sand so much re their hatred of the fat b******, they even rather sadly dismissed his attempts to back his managers to bring top quality players to the club, being totally incapable of admitting or even realising that this is indeed the way that a club such as NUFC should be operating.

 

 

you haven't quiteexplained why we couldn't do a leeds ?

[Mick]

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

 

Good for the top 4, pity we got the debt without those trophies, isn't it?

 

Who said I thought that we were in a better shape than the top 4 clubs, as usual, link?

[Mick]

 

we have indeed. Simple fact is that NUFC will never go bust and the nearest they will ever be is where they were when the Halls and Shepherd saved it in 1992.

 

As I have also said, the top 4 are quite happy with their debts - and success on the field, the purchase of these despicable "trophy" players, and the trophies that these players win. While some people on here prefer us to operate a "sell to buy" policy, buying a host of Johnny Averages and fight a relegation battle as a result, simply because they didn't like the fat b****** and were so absolutely obsessed and had their heads in the sand so much re their hatred of the fat b******, they even rather sadly dismissed his attempts to back his managers to bring top quality players to the club, being totally incapable of admitting or even realising that this is indeed the way that a club such as NUFC should be operating.

 

 

[fredbob]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan? I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

never mind mick. The top 4 who win all the trophies have debts of 1.5bn quid between them. I'm pleased you think we are in better shape than those 4 clubs and didn't waste any money in the transfer window

 

mackems.gif

 

How long have they been in debt to such an extent that they are now?

 

Typically stupid argument.

 

I've tried to explain the mess the club was in before they completely transformed it but you don't want to listen.

 

Your loss.

 

 

 

Was talking about the top 4. The stats that were released earlier show a business which categorically wasnt being run properly. This statement has nothing to do with thier ambition or transfer funds but the fact that they didnt stick to a sustainable business plan which is the norm for other clubs, including the ones winning trophies.

 

They made one bad decision after another and ended up having to gamble the future of the club in order to help cover the inept decisions. With the club £100m in debt and having 72% of its revenue supped away by the tropy signings with no European competition to help back the finances up, where do you think this club was going?

 

My opinion is that there came apoint where this club was mismanged to an extent that they had to gamble the entire business and implement an unsustainable plan which could and possilby would of backfired unless things started to improve and quick. All the while the board were attaining lovely dividends at the end of it which were clearly undeserved.

 

Add the the fact that Shephard was the second best paid chairman in the league (if i rememebr correctly) and you see every reason why fans get frustrated with him.

 

Also the bit in bold, how is that relevant to todays situation?

 

Are you saying that as long are we are in a better situation than we are pre92 then we are a success? I dont quite see where the past has any relevance to the present when is comes to running a business.

 

I mean, if we were to transfer that idealogy to another club (obviosly not a direct comparison but a relative one) and Arsenal were to do the unthinkable and sack Wenger and replace him with Allardyce (for example) and the club were to sustain heavy periods or relative mediocrity, then could the board be excused because of there past achievments? Because thats basically what you are saying.

 

Surely you see this point???

 

Is that not a fair-ish comparison?

[TRon]

As long as the chairman learns from his mistakes, something which Shepherd never learned to do, I'll be very happy.

 

At the moment, *the only mistake hes made is not sacking Big Sam sooner and bringing Keegan in before the opening of the January transfer window.

 

The significant mistake, amidst all the transfer strategy cautiousness delivered by Mort & Ashley which has already been cited, which may well bring about our relegation.

 

That mistake is the one that counts the most. That one month will go down as a 'not to do' blueprint for other clubs to go by. If we survive the drop, and if Keegan isn't sufficiently backed - surely promises must've have been made when considering the manner in which Keegan originally left - in the Summer as far as i'm concerned Ashley can bring in the scaffolders have them remove his "...... Direct" advertising and sell-up & bugger off, sooner rather than later that is.

 

*Yet some many people still can't see the point. I guess 'not being Freddy Shepherd' is one factor, along with all the other stuff ie. Ashley's "i stand as the leader of Toon Army - i bleed as they do" warcry in the press and by getting down & dirty in the terraces and generally coming across as your everyday grassroots supporter.... and the debt reduction issue is also a relevant point, which weighs in Ashley & Mort's favour at the minute.

 

This idea that because we couldn't buy in the January transfer window, we have endangered the club's Premier future sounds damning, but when you look at the actual circumstances it was perfectly understandable. The money wasn't going to be released to Allardyce because we didn't want to buy any more Smiths, Bartons or Nolans etc. He was sacked for abysmal results during an easy early fixture list (KK's now suffering the consequences). Keegan couldn't get in the players he wanted in a very short space of time, and here we are.

 

What could we have done differently? Kept Allardyce which would have meant starting again in the summer. Is that the argument?

 

not making excuse after excuse for not recognising a serous situation and putting the club in danger of relegation would be a start.

 

Quite amazing the hypocrisy on here. People slating Shepherd for not splashing cash every time we lose, then complaining about debts and saying Ashley did right not to waste money on a team in relegation trouble.

 

Then we have the sacking of a manager at a "bad time", where the last regime was absolutely slaughtered for it.

 

It would really appear that being a fat bastard who eats all the pies is the ultimate crime, and  you can get away with anything else.

 

 

 

So your objections are

 

1) That Allardyce was sacked at a bad time, meaning you must believe that appointing Keegan was a mistake, seeing as Allardyce should still be boss in your own words. In which case:

 

2) Allardyce should have been given serious money to spend in January, regardless of the fact he wasted £18m on Smith, Enrique and Barton?

 

This is where you're reasoning seems to be leading. Fair enough but your hypocrisy is astounding as you were more than happy enough at the time when Keegan was appointed. Once again people making arguments armed with shitloads of hindsight.

[Lotus]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

[Parky]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Da da dah!!

[UV]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

0?

 

 

I thought everyone hated Shepherd for employing two of the worst managers the Premiership has ever had back to back.

 

 

Roeder may never have been a manager that was going to get us challenging back at the top, but he is nowhere near one of the worst managers the Premiership has ever had. Even Souness isn't tbh.

[Parky]

The thing about this thread is that seen within the context of the recent club history, the financial management of the club is better, but generally the football on the pitch has gone downhill. Basically the two are connected. Yes?

[TRon]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

0?

 

 

I thought everyone hated Shepherd for employing two of the worst managers the Premiership has ever had back to back.

 

 

Roeder may never have been a manager that was going to get us challenging back at the top, but he is nowhere near one of the worst managers the Premiership has ever had. Even Souness isn't tbh.

 

They were both bad appointments showing lack of judgement. In context of what's being discussed that's the important part.

[Mick]

The thing about this thread is that seen within the context of the recent club history, the financial management of the club is better, but generally the football on the pitch has gone downhill. Basically the two are connected. Yes?

 

I'm not sure that the financial management is any better, we've just got somebody who is rich enough to pay off a large slice of the debt.

[Guest alex]

The thing about this thread is that seen within the context of the recent club history, the financial management of the club is better, but generally the football on the pitch has gone downhill. Basically the two are connected. Yes?

No.

[quayside]

 

 

 

You are right about the debt. £45 million was repayable in instalments ending in 2016. The takeover triggered a clause in the loan agreement to the effect that the lender could call the debt in with 60 days notice. So Ashley got stuck with that. The other £30 million that Ashley put in was to satisfy the auditors that the club could carry on trading as a going concern. It was technically insolvent at 30th June 2007 so the auditors would have needed that assurance.

 

How much was the original loan?  I'm sure it wasn't much different to £45 million.

 

Sorry - don't know when the loan notes were first taken out or what their original value was. I only can go back as far as 2004 and they were in existence then. There was an agreed repayment schedule which would have resulted in them being paid off in 2016. But as I said the takeover triggered an early repayment.

[quayside]

I'm curious, what percentage of the top 4 debt is Chelsea's?

 

Chelsea's debt is about £500 million if that helps. The key difference with Chelsea compared to the  others is that virtually all of their debt is owed to the owner of the club, whereas the others have external debt.