Ashley has failed Newcastle United.

[fredbob]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

[NE5]

 

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're happy with this relegation fight and the possibility of ending up where the Halls and the fat b****** found us as soon as they have left then ?

 

 

we have a debt and  make a loss. the top 4 (abramovic apart) have debts and make profits...can you spot the difference ?

 

please tell us how they make a profit ?

 

 

they make an operating profit...ie over the finacial year they bring in more than they pay out...if you can do this it's ok to carry debts,create debt to invest with etc.

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

so how do they make a profit

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

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 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then 

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

[Guest Knightrider]

Reading some of this & you would forget that football is played out on the pitch. I think as club we focus on the board room far too much. Maybe it is because of people like me who when younger in the 80's we used to sing "SACK THE BOARD" & now every generation since when the going gets tough focuses on the board, when it is really about players & managers.

 

There is a focus on all things NUFC and it's always been that way. I've got old newspaper clippings from the 30s when fans advertised in the local chronicle a meeting in the town centre to oust the then board of directors/committee.

[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 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then 

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

 

By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable.

 

I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk.

 

Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by  attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting  2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season.

 

Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

[UV]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

 

Most of them? Unless the manager leaves the club, what's the point of sacking one manager to appoint someone exactly the same? The board of that club would get (rightly) slaughtered by their fans.

 

BTW, do you think Robson should still be manager?

[UV]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro 

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

[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.

 

 

 

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 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then 

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

 

By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable.

 

I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk.

 

Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by  attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting  2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season.

 

Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

 

To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ?

 

 

[NE5]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro   

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

 

maybe, in line with his signature, he should show us some links to the gross mismanagement of the smoggies by the great Steve Gibson then 

[Baggio]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro   

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

 

maybe, in line with his signature, he should show us some links to the gross mismanagement of the smoggies by the great Steve Gibson then 

 

I'm not sure if anyone should be knocking Gibson considering he's one of the few chairman that puts his hand in his own pocket to cover any signings they want.

[fredbob]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

 

Most of them? Unless the manager leaves the club, what's the point of sacking one manager to appoint someone exactly the same? The board of that club would get (rightly) slaughtered by their fans.

 

BTW, do you think Robson should still be manager?

 

So you think that most clubs have sacked or replaced a manager whichhas directly affected the team and therefore the business? It was actually an open question, the one that comes to mind would be Charlton replacing Curbishley with Dowie, but even that had itmerits. Another that comes to mind is when West Ham replaced Redknapp with Roeder, and the same actaully applies to Southampton and Portsmouth. We know what happned with these clubs.

 

I just think that the club of our size should not been in a situation where it makes mistakes on the most fundamental decision, i.e the appointment of a new manager. to get in wrong once in such spectacular fashoin is one thing, to get it wrong twice is undefendable, and potentially getting it wrong 3 times (not really putting any emphasis on the Allardyce appointment because he didnt obviusly have Shephard behind him although the signs suggested that Allardyce wouldnt have gone down well anyway) is shocking.

 

To be honest yes i would of liked to stuck with Bobby, he had brought us to a place where we deserved to be and i think fans lost sight a little bit. It was a new beginning for the club and even though he had had a poor season which was compounded by no CL qualification i still think that had Shephard backed him to the extent he backed Souness then we would e in a much stronger position. People seem to suggest that SBR was on his last legs and the signs were there, well yes, we had had one poor season but if you cant trust a legendary manager to turn it around, who can you trust?

 

In light of the treatment SBR recieved (undermining him etc) as well as the sacking, the job became completely unteneable, with outrageously fickle fans who booed the boys off for finishing 5th and a chairman who seemed intent on undermining the manager at every oppurtunity, who else would of come on board.

 

SBR should of been left to finish the job he started, if i rememebr correctly he already had Mourihno marked downto take over but Mourihno turned down thining SBR would never leave, this to me suggests SBR did have leaving the club on his mind at one point, he should of been moved upstairs in all ideal situations, should of been able to plan his own "retirement" in order to prepare the club better.

 

The whole SBR sacking was an amateur mistake, and has cost the club alot.

[Baggio]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

 

I thought the infatuation with the board on here is because NE5 insists on talking about it in nearly every thread he posts in every day, even if it has nothing to do with the subject.

[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 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then 

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

 

By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable.

 

I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk.

 

Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by  attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting  2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season.

 

Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

 

To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ?

 

 

 

What? I never said anything about making a profit, i said the club didnt stick to the orthodox accepted plan, i.e 50% wage bill of revenue. Which to me suggests that they were forced to such extreme measure because of the poor decisions they made, ie the sacking of Bobby and replacement.

 

the only criticism i have of the signings were that 2 of them in my mind at least werent made in the interest of the playing  side of the team, but made for the sake of the business.

 

I'e Signing "foreigner so must be classy" Luque as opposed to signing "tried and tested so not very interesting Boa Morte" stoked up more interest so the fans obvioulsy came on board expecting a new era, ergo, season ticket sales increased and the clubs debts were tamed for antoher season.

 

The same financial risk was taken with Owen, we were forced to pay inflated wages for Owen because there was no other way to sign him, it was a mark of desperation to try and recoup interest for season ticket holders.

 

In my opinion the signing was made for the business primarily, not the first team, the circumstancial evidence would suggest the saem as well.

[madras]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro 

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

 

maybe, in line with his signature, he should show us some links to the gross mismanagement of the smoggies by the great Steve Gibson then 

i'd like to see if their accounts show they are about £150 million in debt.....and who to ?

[fredbob]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

 

I thought the infatuation with the board on here is because NE5 insists on talking about it in nearly every thread he posts in every day, even if it has nothing to do with the subject.

 

 

that as well!!

[UV]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

 

Most of them? Unless the manager leaves the club, what's the point of sacking one manager to appoint someone exactly the same? The board of that club would get (rightly) slaughtered by their fans.

 

BTW, do you think Robson should still be manager?

 

So you think that most clubs have sacked or replaced a manager whichhas directly affected the team and therefore the business? It was actually an open question, the one that comes to mind would be Charlton replacing Curbishley with Dowie, but even that had itmerits.

 

I just think that the club of our size should not been in a situation where it makes mistakes on the most fundamental decision, i.e the appointment of a new manager. to get in wrong once in such spectacular fashoin is one thing, to get it wrong twice is undefendable, and potentially getting it wrong 3 times (not really putting any emphasis on the Allardyce appointment because he didnt obviusly have Shephard behind him although the signs suggested that Allardyce wouldnt have gone down well anyway) is shocking.

 

To be honest yes i would of liked to stuck with Bobby, he had brought us to a place where we deserved to be and i think fans lost sight a little bit. It was a new beginning for the club and even though he had had a poor season which was compounded by no CL qualification i still think that had Shephard backed him to the extent he backed Souness then we would e in a much stronger position. People seem to suggest that SBR was on his last legs and the signs were there, well yes, we had had one poor season but if you cant trust a legendary manager to turn it around, who can you trust?

 

In light of the treatment SBR recieved (undermining him etc) as well as the sacking, the job became completely unteneable, with outrageously fickle fans who booed the boys off for finishing 5th and a chairman who seemed intent on undermining the manager at every oppurtunity, who else would of come on board.

 

SBR should of been left to finish the job he started, if i rememebr correctly he already had Mourihno marked downto take over but Mourihno turned down thining SBR would never leave, this to me suggests SBR did have leaving the club on his mind at one point, he should of been moved upstairs in all ideal situations, should of been able to plan his own "retirement" in order to prepare the club better.

 

The whole SBR sacking was an amateur mistake, and has cost the club alot.

 

Robson would never have stepped down willingly, and if people think Shearer is a spectre over the club keeping away quality managers and undermining the ones we had, what would a (relatively) successful ex-manager in a senior role have been?

 

To clarify, you think Robson should still have been manager a year later while he was in & out of hospital for his brain tumour?

[UV]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro 

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

 

maybe, in line with his signature, he should show us some links to the gross mismanagement of the smoggies by the great Steve Gibson then 

i'd like to see if their accounts show they are about £150 million in debt.....and who to ?

 

I have to say I was surprised and can't quite believe myself, but that site does look like it knows what it's talking about (it's accurate about our figures), so I don't think it's just making it up.

[madras]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro 

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

 

maybe, in line with his signature, he should show us some links to the gross mismanagement of the smoggies by the great Steve Gibson then 

i'd like to see if their accounts show they are about £150 million in debt.....and who to ?

 

I have to say I was surprised and can't quite believe myself, but that site does look like it knows what it's talking about (it's accurate about our figures), so I don't think it's just making it up.

i'd be very surprised if gibson wasn't the major creditor with the banks much lesser so. like a chelsea with smaller numbers.

[Baggio]

 

if, on the other hand, you are paying out more than you have coming in,building up more debt can be ruinous.

 

It only goes up to 2006, but how are these clubs still in operation with year on year losses?

 

Villa

Blackburn

Everton

Man City

Boro   

 

keep going like that and thay wont be in operation

 

Did you even look at 'boro?

 

Losses for 12 out of 13 years. Total losses of about £150m. I just wish Delima was around to say how great they are.

 

maybe, in line with his signature, he should show us some links to the gross mismanagement of the smoggies by the great Steve Gibson then 

i'd like to see if their accounts show they are about £150 million in debt.....and who to ?

 

I have to say I was surprised and can't quite believe myself, but that site does look like it knows what it's talking about (it's accurate about our figures), so I don't think it's just making it up.

i'd be very surprised if gibson wasn't the major creditor with the banks much lesser so. like a chelsea with smaller numbers.

 

He must know he's unlikely to ever get it back either, fair play to the bloke though as he clearly does it for the love of the club.

[Parky]

It wasn't quite the point of the example tho was it Baggy?

[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.

 

 

 

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 87 or so who haven't qualified for europe as often as we did ? They have better "business plans" then 

 

You're missing the point though, we havent always operated this way, in fact we were more successful when we operated the normal way. Its apretty silly comparison to be honest.

 

It seems to me that Shephard et al were forced to open up the threshold on wages and transfers after the sacking of Bobby in orde to stir up interest for season ticket sales.

 

To me, the whole plan was akin to a person using one credit card to clear the debts off another credit card.

 

on the contrary, we operated in the "normal" way for over 30 years and ended up with one foot in the 3rd division, sub 20,000 crowds, and any half decent player that we managed to find somewhere down in the 4th division moved on to further their career, not to mention 3 local lads who all became major England players.

 

By "normal" i mean the standard accepted, ie with a wage bill which was ridiculously dispropoitnate to the clubs standings. There isnt a single successfull club in the world which had the wage figures that we did and the reason for this is that they are unsustainable.

 

I dont complain about debt in the sense that if we are £30m in debt if we spend £30m that makes us £60m in debt, thats by all accounts is the way that alot of people seem to view debt, i understand that clubs need to speculate in order to accumulate, but i think you miss the fact that the club had no choice but to risk the fututre of the club by extendeing the wage threshold in order to cover the fallacies of there decisions, which in turn put the future of the club at reasonable risk.

 

Shephard was in a situation where because of the poor decision he and the board had made, the season ticket revenue against which the loan for the sttadium was pinned against was dropping, he and the board were desperate capture the imagination of the season ticket holders by  attempting to cover up there poor decisions by firstly attempting to sign Wayne Rooney, then go on a lavish £50m spending spree, which (by putting  2 and 2 together and getting..) included shunning lesser options such as Boa Morte (undeniably Souness' first choice) and going on the lavish but expensive Luque which included lavish wages and silly transfer fee. The Anelka and Owen situation is a little clouded so i wont go into it but i believe honestly that the same applies here. When 20k people turned up for the signing of Owen shephard et al must of been licking thier lips. They had recouped the interest back in the team and had the interest payments for the loan susidised for another season.

 

Never in the past did any of our signings have to do more with the business that it did for the club. It was a calculated risk, and as far as i can see and forsee wouldnt of paid off.

 

To clarify, you are saying the club didn't focus enough on making a profit ie through handing their appointed manager a lot of money, then criticising moves to bring in another player or make other moves to increase spectator interest and generate more money ?

 

 

 

What? I never said anything about making a profit, i said the club didnt stick to the orthodox accepted plan, i.e 50% wage bill of revenue. Which to me suggests that they were forced to such extreme measure because of the poor decisions they made, ie the sacking of Bobby and replacement.

 

the only criticism i have of the signings were that 2 of them in my mind at least werent made in the interest of the playing  side of the team, but made for the sake of the business.

 

I'e Signing "foreigner so must be classy" Luque as opposed to signing "tried and tested so not very interesting Boa Morte" stoked up more interest so the fans obvioulsy came on board expecting a new era, ergo, season ticket sales increased and the clubs debts were tamed for antoher season.

 

The same financial risk was taken with Owen, we were forced to pay inflated wages for Owen because there was no other way to sign him, it was a mark of desperation to try and recoup interest for season ticket holders.

 

In my opinion the signing was made for the business primarily, not the first team, the circumstancial evidence would suggest the saem as well.

 

you see, you're being hypocritical again. You are complaining about the business angle not being in good order then complaining they signed players primarily for the business rather than the team ?

 

At least, that is your view, but I don't agree.

 

I think Owen was signed as one of the few players able to fill the boots of Alan shearer, about to enter his last season as the clubs record goalscorer. I naturally therefore view it as good foresight and "planning", which should please some people although its a shame that just because they hate the fat bastard they are unable to see this deal or admit it for what it was.

 

One point, is that you are addressing the wrong person if you choose to have a go at the signing of Luque, the vast majority of people on here took the view that because he's a foreigner he must be good, but sadly for you I was the exact opposite, in fact I took one look at him on his debut and was absolutely slaughtered for writing him off as a complete waste of space.

 

Bobby Robson had been increasingly showing signs that age was catching up with him, by the way. And your point about Mourhino in the earlier post is incorrect. Bobby Robson didn't want him to come to Newcastle and succeed him, he wanted to bring him to the club as his number 2 as he had been previously in Portugal. Mourhinho turned it down because he wanted to be his own number 1.

 

 

[Baggio]

It wasn't quite the point of the example tho was it Baggy?

 

It wasn't the best example anyway tbf, everyone knows Gibson has bankrolled Boro for years, the same way as Al Fayed has with Fulham and Abramovich has with Chelsea.

[Dave]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

[fredbob]

Personally, i think the "infatuation" with the board has come as a result of there not being too many clubs in recent history who's board's decisions when appointing or sacking a manager have actually affected the team directly as much as they have done at nufc. You often get reasonably like for like mangers changes, but rarely has there been a sacking and appointment as lop sided as SBR-Souness, i personally cant think of one, can anyone else?

 

Most of them? Unless the manager leaves the club, what's the point of sacking one manager to appoint someone exactly the same? The board of that club would get (rightly) slaughtered by their fans.

 

BTW, do you think Robson should still be manager?

 

So you think that most clubs have sacked or replaced a manager whichhas directly affected the team and therefore the business? It was actually an open question, the one that comes to mind would be Charlton replacing Curbishley with Dowie, but even that had itmerits.

 

I just think that the club of our size should not been in a situation where it makes mistakes on the most fundamental decision, i.e the appointment of a new manager. to get in wrong once in such spectacular fashoin is one thing, to get it wrong twice is undefendable, and potentially getting it wrong 3 times (not really putting any emphasis on the Allardyce appointment because he didnt obviusly have Shephard behind him although the signs suggested that Allardyce wouldnt have gone down well anyway) is shocking.

 

To be honest yes i would of liked to stuck with Bobby, he had brought us to a place where we deserved to be and i think fans lost sight a little bit. It was a new beginning for the club and even though he had had a poor season which was compounded by no CL qualification i still think that had Shephard backed him to the extent he backed Souness then we would e in a much stronger position. People seem to suggest that SBR was on his last legs and the signs were there, well yes, we had had one poor season but if you cant trust a legendary manager to turn it around, who can you trust?

 

In light of the treatment SBR recieved (undermining him etc) as well as the sacking, the job became completely unteneable, with outrageously fickle fans who booed the boys off for finishing 5th and a chairman who seemed intent on undermining the manager at every oppurtunity, who else would of come on board.

 

SBR should of been left to finish the job he started, if i rememebr correctly he already had Mourihno marked downto take over but Mourihno turned down thining SBR would never leave, this to me suggests SBR did have leaving the club on his mind at one point, he should of been moved upstairs in all ideal situations, should of been able to plan his own "retirement" in order to prepare the club better.

 

The whole SBR sacking was an amateur mistake, and has cost the club alot.

 

Robson would never have stepped down willingly, and if people think Shearer is a spectre over the club keeping away quality managers and undermining the ones we had, what would a (relatively) successful ex-manager in a senior role have been?

 

To clarify, you think Robson should still have been manager a year later while he was in & out of hospital for his brain tumour?

 

Your first point is down to a matter opinion, who knows if SBR would of eventually stepped down, but the fact that he spoke to Mourihno and asked him to come here so that he would take over the job eventually, suggests to me that SBR did realise that there was a shelf life to him career at NUFC. Thats what i base my opinion on, what do you base your opinion on?

 

As for the SBR undermining the new manager, again i said it was a suggesstion, an idealogy, not necessarily what should of been done, in the end, we ended up sacking him for finishing 4th, 3rd and 5th. Could you tell me of a manager who would like to come in and have to achieve 4th as a minimum to keep his job?

 

As for you second point, what a silly thing to say. Are you trying to intimate that i would rather have the future of the clubs interest at heart rather than SBR, was anyone to predict what was to happen to SBR regarding the brain tumours?  

[Baggio]

Bit daft bringing up Luque considering the embarrassing defence of Alan Smith tbh.

 

He'll show his class once he's had a run up front, Dave.