Ashley has failed Newcastle United.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

To an outsider the appointment of KK could now be seen as a friendly face to keep fans happy while Ashley and co trim down the cost of running NUFC as much as possible, while hiking up ticket prices and introducing 3 year ticket purchase schemes. It could also explain the new set-up, to find players that have potential and quality but won't cost the earth in terms of spend and wages - in keeping with the policy to cut down on spending to increase profits. It has spectacularly backfired though because fans are not happy, the club's value is falling and Ashley's plans seem in tatters. The only sensible option now is to sell which is what I suggest will happen and may indeed have been the plan all along. The press were right after all that there were problems behind the scenes, perhaps they have been right all along about Ashley wanting to sell too. We'll know more in the coming weeks.

 

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts.

 

Unbelievable, you're a good poster and I enjoy your posts but I don't think there is any need for that at this moment to be honest because those who were supportive or just plain blind as it may now appear of which I include myself at times because I've been happy to play down the views of you and others and sing a positive note or two since Ashley took over, but you know as well as I do, most of it came from wishful thinking, hope and a desire for things to work rather than down right 100% blind faith. We've all been duped and conned and I know I feel silly and quite angry. Remember we're on the same side.

[Unbelievable]

To an outsider the appointment of KK could now be seen as a friendly face to keep fans happy while Ashley and co trim down the cost of running NUFC as much as possible, while hiking up ticket prices and introducing 3 year ticket purchase schemes. It could also explain the new set-up, to find players that have potential and quality but won't cost the earth in terms of spend and wages - in keeping with the policy to cut down on spending to increase profits. It has spectacularly backfired though because fans are not happy, the club's value is falling and Ashley's plans seem in tatters. The only sensible option now is to sell which is what I suggest will happen and may indeed have been the plan all along. The press were right after all that there were problems behind the scenes, perhaps they have been right all along about Ashley wanting to sell too. We'll know more in the coming weeks.

 

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts.

 

Unbelievable, you're a good poster and I enjoy your posts but I don't think there is any need for that at this moment to be honest because those who were supportive or just plain blind as it may now appear of which I include myself at times because I've been happy to play down the views of you and others and sing a positive note or two since Ashley took over, but you know as well as I do, most of it came from wishful thinking, hope and a desire for things to work rather than down right 100% blind faith. We've all been duped and conned and I know I feel silly and quite angry. Remember we're on the same side.

 

Fair enough. Sorry, didn´t mean to single you out or do an ´I told you so´ gesture and I actually have a lot of respect for people who have come out and said although they were previously in hopeful support and anticipation but after recent events (transfer window activity and Keegan debacle) admit they have been underwhelmed and feel let down rather than holding on to their initial view for dear life, the likes of Wullie and Dave these recent days. I´m not even sure if I would have surfaced the way they and you did if the situation had turned out in such a way that my initial scepticism had been proved to be premature and plain wrong, so kudos for coming out and telling it how it is.

[NG32]

I think the more this transfer window drew to a close a lot of our fears wer starting to come true.

 

Not sure if i can see a long term plan at the moment, especially if the rumor about every single first team player was for sale at the right price.  You, you just cant build a team like that,  let a lone keep it in the division.

 

So i'm starting to wonder what is "the plan" for NUFC with Ashley.

 

 

[cp40]

I think the more this transfer window drew to a close a lot of our fears wer starting to come true.

 

Not sure if i can see a long term plan at the moment, especially if the rumor about every single first team player was for sale at the right price.  You, you just cant build a team like that,  let a lone keep it in the division.

 

So i'm starting to wonder what is "the plan" for NUFC with Ashley.

 

 

 

 

the plan, is, buy club......sell club for more than you buy it for....

[Mick]

 

So why the f*** are you slagging him off then?

 

I wasn't slagging him off but he's not faultless.

[Mick]

 

Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox style ?

 

Yep.

 

if I were you, I'd keep up with the thread and finally get your head out of the sand.

 

 

 

Keegan the first time style.

[NE5]

 

Gordon Lee and Arthur Cox style ?

 

Yep.

 

if I were you, I'd keep up with the thread and finally get your head out of the sand.

 

 

 

Keegan the first time style.

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

[Guest elbee909]

I personally fully concede that I think Ashley's fucked up royally, and am massively disappointed.  Was expecting more professionalism, otherwise why buy into the club in the first place? - there are better ways to make money, after all, ways that don't piss people about.

 

However, I was disappointed before with Shepherd over a longer term, the realisation to me with his tenure was more a gradual erosion, than the sudden earthquake that we've got here.  I won't fully accept anyone crowing about how obviously 'right' they were about Ashley and sneering at people for having a bit of hope when it seemed that positive changes were - in general - happening.  Opinions may differ on what people think are the right ways to go about things but that's fair enough.  Bit more respect for each other's views rather than continual character assassination wouldn't go amiss, it's not like it was hugely obvious what was happening in a near-total information vacuum.  Too easy to say 'I told you so' for some people on either side of the fence.

 

A lot of people were hoping for the best here, I was one of them.  I've never believed in 'better the devil you know' as an acceptable stance, and right now we all want someone - whoever it is - to take the club forward, like this lot and the last lot haven't looked like doing.

[mrmojorisin75]

Darth

 

I seem to recall in an interview somewhere recently that Ashley advised that there was still 27 million pounds still to pay off from the spendthrift days of the previous administration.

 

If correct, this will also have an effect on the value of the club, if a new buyer decides to make an offer acceptable to him.

 

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not..

 

As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful  for many years now.

 

Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes.

 

Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club.

 

To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players.

 

 

 

You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here:

 

total borrowings in the League had rocketed from £674 million in 2005 to £1.6 billion in 2006

=> does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary?

 

 

Leading the way are Manchester United, whose owners, the Glazer family, refinanced borrowings of £660 million in 2006 to help pay for the club in their £800 million takeover in May 2005. According to figures released in January, United's pretax profits for the 12 months to June 30, 2007, were £42.28 million, only slightly more than their £42 million interest payments.

 

At Liverpool, the controversial refinancing by estranged American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett has left the club and parent company, Kop Football Holdings, with £350 million of debt and annual interest payments of £30 million.

 

Arsenal announced last month that their net debt had increased to £307 million for the six months to the end of November 2007. Much of that is accounted for by a £260 million bond which was taken out to pay for the move from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium.

 

At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million, with a personal loan of £90 million from Roman Abramovich in that season alone

 

 

Regarding Aston Villa:

The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Regarding Man City:

they are £103 million in debt.

 

West Ham have £142 million of debt

 

Boro were £85 million in debt at the end of the 2006/07 season

 

Regarding Fulham:

as of summer 2007 were £182 million in debt

 

I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out?

 

stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that

 

 

now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on):

 

manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers

i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons

liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt

 

villa & man city have acheived precisely fuck all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup)

 

so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here?

 

you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven

 

it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

[Mick]

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

Where did I say that we didn't back Keegan over that period?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

To an outsider the appointment of KK could now be seen as a friendly face to keep fans happy while Ashley and co trim down the cost of running NUFC as much as possible, while hiking up ticket prices and introducing 3 year ticket purchase schemes. It could also explain the new set-up, to find players that have potential and quality but won't cost the earth in terms of spend and wages - in keeping with the policy to cut down on spending to increase profits. It has spectacularly backfired though because fans are not happy, the club's value is falling and Ashley's plans seem in tatters. The only sensible option now is to sell which is what I suggest will happen and may indeed have been the plan all along. The press were right after all that there were problems behind the scenes, perhaps they have been right all along about Ashley wanting to sell too. We'll know more in the coming weeks.

 

HTT, surely not!? But how about the majority of people on here with their rose tinted glasses who didn't accept any questionning of Ashley's motives even though it was at that point completely unclear what his plans with the club were and a perfectly healthy thing to do rather than just bend over in awe? A case of "the grass is greener" if ever I saw one, and that's not me condoning the previous owner before anybody starts.

 

Unbelievable, you're a good poster and I enjoy your posts but I don't think there is any need for that at this moment to be honest because those who were supportive or just plain blind as it may now appear of which I include myself at times because I've been happy to play down the views of you and others and sing a positive note or two since Ashley took over, but you know as well as I do, most of it came from wishful thinking, hope and a desire for things to work rather than down right 100% blind faith. We've all been duped and conned and I know I feel silly and quite angry. Remember we're on the same side.

 

Fair enough. Sorry, didn´t mean to single you out or do an ´I told you so´ gesture and I actually have a lot of respect for people who have come out and said although they were previously in hopeful support and anticipation but after recent events (transfer window activity and Keegan debacle) admit they have been underwhelmed and feel let down rather than holding on to their initial view for dear life, the likes of Wullie and Dave these recent days. I´m not even sure if I would have surfaced the way they and you did if the situation had turned out in such a way that my initial scepticism had been proved to be premature and plain wrong, so kudos for coming out and telling it how it is.

 

Nee bother and I wasn't having a dig. My own feeling is one of stupidity for falling for it all. My confidence has gone completely in Ashley and co and with it NUFC, there isn't even a small percentage there, just nothing and that's the most painful thing about all this because I crave that from my club, confidence that things are going to be good or that we are heading in some direction. I just don't have a clue where next for us and as every day passes I care less and less it seems. We could announce a new manager tomorrow and I'd be "meh" and I'm not just saying that. I wasn't even shocked about the whole KK saga either which is a sign that we've been here before and I'm numb to it all now. I'm gutted but not shocked. I'm looking forward to the game though, the actual football should help if only for 90 minutes.

[Mick]

 

now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on):

 

manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers

i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons

liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt

 

villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup)

 

so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here?

 

you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven

 

it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

 

Let's see how Liverpool or Arsenal cope once Man City gets into the top 4 which I'm sure they will do within the next couple of years.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on):

 

manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers

i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons

liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt

 

villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup)

 

so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here?

 

you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven

 

it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

 

Let's see how Liverpool or Arsenal cope once Man City gets into the top 4 which I'm sure they will do within the next couple of years.

 

my point about arsenal is that their debt is different, same as our old "stadium debt" - one of their directors was kicking off at the champions league draw iirc about the stadium when someone asked him about the financial weight or something, he pulled figures that said it's making them money now actually not costing them so i see them as an exception

 

massive difference between that and the club being owned by finance (manu & liverpool) or having a huge debt that's been spent on players (leeds) as in both those situations the clubs future is totally dependent on continued "success", i.e. winning trophies

 

liverpool, on the other hand, might well be royally fucked if man city usurp them as i think they might

[Unbelievable]

Darth

 

I seem to recall in an interview somewhere recently that Ashley advised that there was still 27 million pounds still to pay off from the spendthrift days of the previous administration.

 

If correct, this will also have an effect on the value of the club, if a new buyer decides to make an offer acceptable to him.

 

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not..

 

As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful  for many years now.

 

Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes.

 

Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club.

 

To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players.

 

 

 

You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here:

 

total borrowings in the League had rocketed from £674 million in 2005 to £1.6 billion in 2006

=> does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary?

 

 

Leading the way are Manchester United, whose owners, the Glazer family, refinanced borrowings of £660 million in 2006 to help pay for the club in their £800 million takeover in May 2005. According to figures released in January, United's pretax profits for the 12 months to June 30, 2007, were £42.28 million, only slightly more than their £42 million interest payments.

 

At Liverpool, the controversial refinancing by estranged American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett has left the club and parent company, Kop Football Holdings, with £350 million of debt and annual interest payments of £30 million.

 

Arsenal announced last month that their net debt had increased to £307 million for the six months to the end of November 2007. Much of that is accounted for by a £260 million bond which was taken out to pay for the move from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium.

 

At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million, with a personal loan of £90 million from Roman Abramovich in that season alone

 

 

Regarding Aston Villa:

The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Regarding Man City:

they are £103 million in debt.

 

West Ham have £142 million of debt

 

Boro were £85 million in debt at the end of the 2006/07 season

 

Regarding Fulham:

as of summer 2007 were £182 million in debt

 

I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out?

 

stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that

 

 

now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on):

 

manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers

i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons

liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt

 

villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup)

 

so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here?

 

you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven

 

it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

 

What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt?

 

We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it?

 

People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special.

[Robster]

Let's see how Liverpool or Arsenal cope once Man City gets into the top 4 which I'm sure they will do within the next couple of years.

 

I think out of the 2 I would fear for Liverpool more. They already have tensions there between manager and owners. Pressure there is going to be immense if Man City's money does push them up there into the top 4

[mrmojorisin75]

Darth

 

I seem to recall in an interview somewhere recently that Ashley advised that there was still 27 million pounds still to pay off from the spendthrift days of the previous administration.

 

If correct, this will also have an effect on the value of the club, if a new buyer decides to make an offer acceptable to him.

 

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not..

 

As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful  for many years now.

 

Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes.

 

Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club.

 

To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players.

 

 

 

You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here:

 

total borrowings in the League had rocketed from £674 million in 2005 to £1.6 billion in 2006

=> does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary?

 

 

Leading the way are Manchester United, whose owners, the Glazer family, refinanced borrowings of £660 million in 2006 to help pay for the club in their £800 million takeover in May 2005. According to figures released in January, United's pretax profits for the 12 months to June 30, 2007, were £42.28 million, only slightly more than their £42 million interest payments.

 

At Liverpool, the controversial refinancing by estranged American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett has left the club and parent company, Kop Football Holdings, with £350 million of debt and annual interest payments of £30 million.

 

Arsenal announced last month that their net debt had increased to £307 million for the six months to the end of November 2007. Much of that is accounted for by a £260 million bond which was taken out to pay for the move from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium.

 

At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million, with a personal loan of £90 million from Roman Abramovich in that season alone

 

 

Regarding Aston Villa:

The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Regarding Man City:

they are £103 million in debt.

 

West Ham have £142 million of debt

 

Boro were £85 million in debt at the end of the 2006/07 season

 

Regarding Fulham:

as of summer 2007 were £182 million in debt

 

I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out?

 

stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that

 

 

now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on):

 

manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers

i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons

liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt

 

villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup)

 

so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here?

 

you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven

 

it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

 

What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt?

 

We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it?

 

People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special.

 

see above post - arsenal's success has been acheived in spite of the debt not because of it, the debt (to my knowledge) is similar to what we had on expanding the stadium, a very different proposition to spending 300m on players i'm sure you'll agree

 

as you've ignored them i'll take you back to villa, man city & 'boro - what do you propose for them?  despite their debt levels they're basically not that much further forward than us (man city pre-windfall) so do they just keep spending and spending chasing the top four?  what?  you tell me, these are your examples and i'm not sure what point you're making in bringing them up

 

'cause frankly they're not exactly good adverts for debt in football are they?

[Unbelievable]

Darth

 

I seem to recall in an interview somewhere recently that Ashley advised that there was still 27 million pounds still to pay off from the spendthrift days of the previous administration.

 

If correct, this will also have an effect on the value of the club, if a new buyer decides to make an offer acceptable to him.

 

Macca, serious question, are you aware that nearly every club, and certainly every top 4 club has debts of hundreds of millions? It is partly why they are where they are in the league table. Anybody who thinks a club can seriously challenge for the title without debts or huge external investment is living is cloud cuckook land? I believe you have said elsewhere you would rather support a mediocre NUFC that balances the books well than a NUFC that spends more than its incomings in order to put a realistic challenge in to challenge the top clubs? Whilst I accept that position, I don't think many people will agree with you, and I also believe that you are missing a point: with all the billionaires looking to get in on the action the value of Premiership clubs is now less related to its incomings than ever; it's all about the profile of the club and whether it is perceived as being big and successful. When Ashley took over the general consensus was that in order to make money in this sort of venture you need to invest first (accrueing debts if you will). If Ashley hasn't grasped this concept he is well at risk of being in for a shock, especially if this running the club like a business lark will result in us relegated a few years down the line as the likes of QPR will invest heavily to take over the Premiership places left by clubs that will have failed to react to the changes quickly enough. It's a rat race now, and you need to race along to be in with a chance of winning, whether you like it or not..

 

As this is the crux of your argument ill address this point. Would i be mistaken to think that these clubs were pretty stable and successful before they acquired thse massive debts? Chelsea are "in debt" to Roman, Man U have been left with Glaziers debt, Liverpool with H+G and Arsenal have the stadium debt having all been reasonably successful  for many years now.

 

Nufc on the other hand have a fair bit of debt topped off with huge wages without the same level of success OR stability, its hardly a fair comparison in my eyes.

 

Its as though that if Ashley hadnt paid off the debt and in fact added to it, as well as the "roll royce" wages you'd be happier and appeased irrespective of the future of the club.

 

To me what spurs and arsenal have done is what we should be doing, improving the quality of the squad whilst splashing out on big signings but still keeping financially stable, as well as bloodeing younger hungrier players.

 

 

 

You don't seem to be aware of the extent of the situation at all. Here's some reading material for you:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/davidbond/2294763/Credit-crunch-could-hurt-Premier-League-clubs.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2301797/Deloitte-football-finance-review-Club-by-club-Premier-League-analysis.html

 

As I expect there is every chance you will not be arsed to do some investigation into this issue as it doesn't tie in with what you want to believe allow me to make it easier to digest from you by putting a few quotes here:

 

total borrowings in the League had rocketed from £674 million in 2005 to £1.6 billion in 2006

=> does that make a 70m debt for Newcastle United in 2007 so extraordinary?

 

 

Leading the way are Manchester United, whose owners, the Glazer family, refinanced borrowings of £660 million in 2006 to help pay for the club in their £800 million takeover in May 2005. According to figures released in January, United's pretax profits for the 12 months to June 30, 2007, were £42.28 million, only slightly more than their £42 million interest payments.

 

At Liverpool, the controversial refinancing by estranged American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett has left the club and parent company, Kop Football Holdings, with £350 million of debt and annual interest payments of £30 million.

 

Arsenal announced last month that their net debt had increased to £307 million for the six months to the end of November 2007. Much of that is accounted for by a £260 million bond which was taken out to pay for the move from Highbury to the Emirates Stadium.

 

At the end of the 2006/07 season Chelsea had a net borrowing of £620 million, with a personal loan of £90 million from Roman Abramovich in that season alone

 

 

Regarding Aston Villa:

The club also recorded £63 million of debt in the summer of 2007.

 

Regarding Man City:

they are £103 million in debt.

 

West Ham have £142 million of debt

 

Boro were £85 million in debt at the end of the 2006/07 season

 

Regarding Fulham:

as of summer 2007 were £182 million in debt

 

I'm sure after seeing those figures you will agree that Newcastle United was not exactly in a unique debt situation here when compared to their (business) competitors? All in all it's all well saying it will all end up dramatically for those clubs involved and billionaires are cheating when they "buy" their way to titles, but ironically you could just as well claim the top clubs have so far "borrowed" their way to titles and trophies; care to explain to me how that is any less cheating than depending on external investment flat out?

 

stand by for the usual culprits to argue with that

 

 

now i'm no financial wizard, and i do buy into the "manageable debt" theory of running a football club but i have to point out a few things (which i stand to be corrected on):

 

manu's debt didn't exist in such depth until the glazers

i'm ignoring chel$ki for obvious reasons

liverpool cannot afford to back their manager for the players he wants nor finance their new stadium due to their debt

 

villa & man city have acheived precisely f*** all more than us despite their debt, same for west ham, fulham and middlesbrough really (minus one cup)

 

so what point, exactly, are you trying to make here?

 

you guys have pulled this debt rabbit out of your arses so often people are starting to believe you can only achieve success with debt, and it is not true as arsenal have proven

 

it's not enough just to say debt "imo" as arsenals debt is very different from manu's and liverpools, for example

 

What's so different about Arsenal's 300+ million pound debt?

 

We aren't saying you can only achieve success through debts, but you can only realistically hope to achieve (i.e. increase the chance of) succes if you are willing to spend like the big spenders. It appears the big spenders spend big through billionaire benefactors or through accruing debts, so it´s got to be either one or the other and for those who like to take the moral highground, one is no more cheating than the other. Not a difficult concept is it?

 

People go on about Arsenal being some special case, and they are, yet also in contradict seem to think the ´Arsenal way´ is a realistic, achievable alternative road to success for us. It isn´t, which is exactly what makes it so special.

 

see above post - arsenal's success has been acheived in spite of the debt not because of it, the debt (to my knowledge) is similar to what we had on expanding the stadium, a very different proposition to spending 300m on players i'm sure you'll agree

 

as you've ignored them i'll take you back to villa, man city & 'boro - what do you propose for them?  despite their debt levels they're basically not that much further forward than us (man city pre-windfall) so do they just keep spending and spending chasing the top four?  what?  you tell me, these are your examples and i'm not sure what point you're making in bringing them up

 

'cause frankly they're not exactly good adverts for debt in football are they?

 

Yes, they keep investing to reach their goals, be it to qualify for European fooball or even just to stay in this league. If they don't they run a big risk of not reaching these goals, falling behind and maybe even relegation. Of course that doesn't really apply to Man City anymore, which is the other part of my point: with billionaires flogging to the Premiership left, right and center who cares about an extra few (tens? hundreds?) millions debt, when it guarantees the owner the club maintains a high profile and it will remain an attractive propositions for potential buyers as well as an interesting experience to its fans/customers. I called it a rat race, and that's exactly what it is at the moment. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think we can do anything about it except to race along? No. Guess that makes it a catch 22 rat race.

[mrmojorisin75]

 

Yes, they keep investing to reach their goals, be it to qualify for European fooball or even just to stay in this league. If they don't they run a big risk of not reaching these goals, falling behind and maybe even relegation. Of course that doesn't really apply to Man City anymore, which is the other part of my point: with billionaires flogging to the Premiership left, right and center who cares about an extra few (tens? hundreds?) millions debt, when it guarantees the owner the club maintains a high profile and it will remain an attractive propositions for potential buyers as well as an interesting experience to its fans/customers. I called it a rat race, and that's exactly what it is at the moment. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think we can do anything about it except to race along? No. Guess that makes it a catch 22 rat race.

 

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on shite and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing

 

anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again

 

my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger

[Guest Geordiesned]

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

Where did I say that we didn't back Keegan over that period?

 

In NE5's head.

[Unbelievable]

 

Yes, they keep investing to reach their goals, be it to qualify for European fooball or even just to stay in this league. If they don't they run a big risk of not reaching these goals, falling behind and maybe even relegation. Of course that doesn't really apply to Man City anymore, which is the other part of my point: with billionaires flogging to the Premiership left, right and center who cares about an extra few (tens? hundreds?) millions debt, when it guarantees the owner the club maintains a high profile and it will remain an attractive propositions for potential buyers as well as an interesting experience to its fans/customers. I called it a rat race, and that's exactly what it is at the moment. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think we can do anything about it except to race along? No. Guess that makes it a catch 22 rat race.

 

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on s**** and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing

 

anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again

 

my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger

 

O mention the debts of these other clubs because some people on here seem to think we were on the brink of receivership and we have Ashley to thank for Newcastle United still being around at all. It's a myth surrounding the Ashley takeover, because our debts were comparable to a large number of other Premiership clubs (including the ones you mention) and unless I have missed something all these clubs are still around, aren't they?

[mrmojorisin75]

 

Yes, they keep investing to reach their goals, be it to qualify for European fooball or even just to stay in this league. If they don't they run a big risk of not reaching these goals, falling behind and maybe even relegation. Of course that doesn't really apply to Man City anymore, which is the other part of my point: with billionaires flogging to the Premiership left, right and center who cares about an extra few (tens? hundreds?) millions debt, when it guarantees the owner the club maintains a high profile and it will remain an attractive propositions for potential buyers as well as an interesting experience to its fans/customers. I called it a rat race, and that's exactly what it is at the moment. Do I think it's a good thing? No. Do I think we can do anything about it except to race along? No. Guess that makes it a catch 22 rat race.

 

you simply can't count chelski and the current man city in with everything else 'cause they're outwith it now - the man city you mention in your post were not, they were in that amount of debt by pissing money away on s**** and just prior to being taken over last week were loaning money from their former chairman to finance players iirc, and they acheived nothing

 

anyways you're right, and i've not disagreed that a level of debt is not a bad thing per se but i do not see the relevance of even mentioning fulham and 'boro to make your case, it's getting to the point where you'll not really be able to mention liverpool soon unless something unforseen happens again

 

my point is we're not at the citeh/chelski levels of billionairre ownership and to not cap a debt expediture on players is the way to be playing leeds unless we hit the jackpot and get the next ferguson or wenger

 

O mention the debts of these other clubs because some people on here seem to think we were on the brink of receivership and we have Ashley to thank for Newcastle United still being around at all. It's a myth surrounding the Ashley takeover, because our debts were comparable to a large number of other Premiership clubs (including the ones you mention) and unless I have missed something all these clubs are still around, aren't they?

 

oh, i see, yeah then it's a fair point really

 

still, what you're actually saying in reality then is a club like middlesbrough (not to mention fulham) needs to accrue such a sum of debt to scrape into the top half of the table and/or avoid relegation season upon season

 

logically then there will only ever be one outcome for these clubs, and it isn't pretty - this is the point i think you and NE5 conveniently ignore when people bring up the debt; prior to the takover last year we were so far away from challenging for the CL (which is where the real money is) that chasing that dream had become a burden around our necks, a burden FS would not have been able to put down for the good of the club by trying to instill a scouting network and building the club back from the bottom up...balancing things basically

 

it's only my opinion of course but had FS stayed in charge we'd have seen continued spending on high profile players & wages rather than building a squad, chopping and changing managers (i know i know!) and ultimately increasing the debt amount until it became a huge problem

 

you're correct to say it wasn't a problem, i think peoples fears were that it could have been under FS's continued stewardship

[NE5]

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

Where did I say that we didn't back Keegan over that period?

 

well, I'm sure a long standing supporter like you knows why Lee and Cox left.

 

On the other hand, you obviously don't.

 

[NE5]

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

Where did I say that we didn't back Keegan over that period?

 

In NE5's head.

 

Do YOU know why Cox and Lee left ?

 

 

[madras]

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

Where did I say that we didn't back Keegan over that period?

 

well, I'm sure a long standing supporter like you knows why Lee and Cox left.

 

On the other hand, you obviously don't.

 

i also know the 3 different reasons why keegan left first time round as manager

[NE5]

 

of course, he broke the world record transfer, but you say they never backed him during those 5 years ?

 

You're absolutely clueless lad, clueless

 

Pathetic.

 

 

 

Where did I say that we didn't back Keegan over that period?

 

well, I'm sure a long standing supporter like you knows why Lee and Cox left.

 

On the other hand, you obviously don't.

 

i also know the 3 different reasons why keegan left first time round as manager

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?topic=48747.msg1480195#msg1480195

 

this is what is going on, and mick as usual hasn't got any idea.