RE NE5 in Arshavin thread (Warning contains discussion on old and new boards)

[UV]

 

they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.

 

 

They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops?

 

Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown.

 

[relámpago blanco]

 

they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.

 

 

They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops?

They'll probably have breathng space of a year or so to either reign in the spending or get back into the CL.  I would love it if they went into administration.

[madras]

 

they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.

 

 

They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops?

 

Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown.

 

it doesn't matter what the reason is for thir larger turnover. and my guess is that if they went a couple of yeras outside the champs league they would stop spending the way they have been.

 

 

please point out where i said we were in "financial meltdown". all i've ever stated is that  we couldn't keep on racking up debt the way we were.

[UV]

 

they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.

 

 

They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops?

 

Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown.

 

it doesn't matter what the reason is for thir larger turnover. and my guess is that if they went a couple of yeras outside the champs league they would stop spending the way they have been.

 

 

please point out where i said we were in "financial meltdown". all i've ever stated is that  we couldn't keep on racking up debt the way we were.

 

I'm sure they would. Just as I'm sure we would have cut back if we went a couple of years outside the UEFA if we were reliant on that income.

 

If you don't think we were destined for bankruptcy, then I'm glad you agree with myself, NE5 and others; you appeared to be agreeing with those posters who, along with Mort, do believe this (or say they believe this anyway).

[madras]

 

they have a bigger turnover so can afford to finance more debt.

 

 

They have a bigger turnover mostly because they are regularly in the CL. What happens when (not if btw) that stops?

 

Edit: They currently have a £300m debt which costs over £20m/year to service. Their wage bill is around £15m more than ours (probably more now). On a good year for them, and a poor year for us, they make around £30m more than us. How come they're fine but we were in financial meltdown.

 

it doesn't matter what the reason is for thir larger turnover. and my guess is that if they went a couple of yeras outside the champs league they would stop spending the way they have been.

 

 

please point out where i said we were in "financial meltdown". all i've ever stated is that  we couldn't keep on racking up debt the way we were.

 

I'm sure they would. Just as I'm sure we would have cut back if we went a couple of years outside the UEFA if we were reliant on that income.

 

If you don't think we were destined for bankruptcy, then I'm glad you agree with myself, NE5 and others; you appeared to be agreeing with those posters who, along with Mort, do believe this (or say they believe this anyway).

i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.

[Dave]

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever etc. There's absolutely no 'in between', you should know this by now.

[madras]

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever etc. There's absolutely no 'in between', you should know this by now.

you know me. i'll find the third side to an argument that only has two.

[Ericz]

5 years, 02-07:

 

3 years in the PL top 7.

4 years in Europe.

CL 2n'd group stage

UEFA cup last 8, quarter-final, semi-final

FAC quarter-final & semi-final

Intertoto cup winners

 

Not good enough. Good luck Mike.

 

For your information Mr. UV, my post did also mention that, "And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs?"

 

I hope you did manage to read my entire post and that statement in particular. I did intentionally worded it in such manner for your infomation.

 

Assuming that you do manage to take into account that statement, if you want to compare ourselves to the likes of Middleborough, Sunderland... of course the successes/progressions is on par value with those clubs or even of greater value.

 

However, if you regard us as comparable to Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool... what do you say? Do I need to answer that for you? Where do you think our club should be comparable to?

 

Also, let us not forget that the club was previously a Champions League club, it was one of the more feared club in the English Premier League but for the past few seasons, our performance in the table had been dwindling. Granted, it may be the old board that brought us there however they have outlived their efficiency and effectiveness and can no longer keep the club competitive. It would be more respectful and desirable if they decide to change the board themselves to rejuvenate the club  but they didn't. It's not our fault that to this stage, they were being indirectly forced out. I think we already gave them enough face and likewise, their achievements are already appropriately placed in the record books and trophy room.

 

I seriously hope that you don't think of us as Middleborough, Sunderland counterparts etc. We can only be the best if we compare with the best, not with some second raters. Aiming to oust second raters, we will still be second raters. We must have the hunger and ambition to be at the top with whatever means which is legally available.

 

[OzzieMandias]

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever.

 

Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not.

[UV]

i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.

 

Well that's your opinion, but I'll refer you back to the period 98-02 which was similar (worse) than what we were going through and which we recovered from to get into the Champions League.

I'm curious, but at that at that time did you recommend that we not spend on players such as Robert, Bellamy, Jenas, Viana, Woodgate?

 

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever.

 

Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not.

 

Great contributions to the discussion, thanks. Why not just post a picture of a scarecrow next time to save typing.

[Dave]

I take it from that reply then that you can accept there were some things the previous board failed at then? Just as they succeeded at some things.

 

Because it seems most people can accept that Shepherd did some things very well, but a few people cannot accept that Shepherd did some things badly.

[UV]

5 years, 02-07:

 

3 years in the PL top 7.

4 years in Europe.

CL 2n'd group stage

UEFA cup last 8, quarter-final, semi-final

FAC quarter-final & semi-final

Intertoto cup winners

 

Not good enough. Good luck Mike.

 

For your information Mr. UV, my post did also mention that, "And overall, is the successes/progressions on par value with the other clubs?"

 

I hope you did manage to read my entire post and that statement in particular. I did intentionally worded it in such manner for your infomation.

 

Assuming that you do manage to take into account that statement, if you want to compare ourselves to the likes of Middleborough, Sunderland... of course the successes/progressions is on par value with those clubs or even of greater value.

 

However, if you regard us as comparable to Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool... what do you say? Do I need to answer that for you? Where do you think our club should be comparable to?

 

Also, let us not forget that the club was previously a Champions League club, it was one of the more feared club in the English Premier League but for the past few seasons, our performance in the table had been dwindling. Granted, it may be the old board that brought us there however they have outlived their efficiency and effectiveness and can no longer keep the club competitive. It would be more respectful and desirable if they decide to change the board themselves to rejuvenate the club  but they didn't. It's not our fault that to this stage, they were being indirectly forced out. I think we already gave them enough face and likewise, their achievements are already appropriately placed in the record books and trophy room.

 

I seriously hope that you don't think of us as Middleborough, Sunderland counterparts etc. We can only be the best if we compare with the best, not with some second raters. Aiming to oust second raters, we will still be second raters. We must have the hunger and ambition to be at the top with whatever means which is legally available.

 

 

Simple question. Do you think the achievements I posted were not good enough?

Do you expect Ashley to better them in the next 5 years (I'm letting him off with last year as a transitional year myself), and in fact to compete with Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool? If so, that's why I posted "Good luck Mike."

If you do have that expectation, then good on you, however most other posters seem to have a greatly reduced expectation of Newcastle under Ashley than they did of Newcastle under Shepherd.

[Lotus]

Always thought the Shepherd Chairmanship received unwarranted criticism. However i do concede we'd slipped back a bit but that does happen. The Board made a few bad decisions, some you could only say so retrospectively and some seemd stupid to everyone but them at the time, but to err is human.

However, if the criteria for judging the new Board that they qualify for CL 3 years running starting from 2008/9 then i'll have to that that is idiocy. A Shepherd-Allardyce combination would not have acheived that. Had Ashley taken over when SBR was at the club and we had good players then it would have been the minimum i'd of demanded, however, after 2 years of Souness, 1 of Roeder and 1/2 of BSA a top half finish would be a good start, maybe top 6 the season after.

I can't think of a single NUFC player who i'd be desperate to keep so we would need a few very good ones to lift us above mediocrity and those sort of changes rarely happen in one transfer window.

[UV]

I take it from that reply then that you can accept there were some things the previous board failed at then? Just as they succeeded at some things.

 

Because it seems most people can accept that Shepherd did some things very well, but a few people cannot accept that Shepherd did some things badly.

 

Of course. Show me where I've ever said Shepherd did everything right, in fact show me ANY poster who has that opinion. I've certainly not seen one on here.

However there most certainly are posters who will never accept that Shepherd did anything right.

[Dave]

Can you show me them, then?

[Dave]

PS - last time I mentioned the word 'failed' NE5 jumped on my post in hilarious fashion. It was almost as though that was the only word I'd written...

[NE5]

i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.

 

Well that's your opinion, but I'll refer you back to the period 98-02 which was similar (worse) than what we were going through and which we recovered from to get into the Champions League.

I'm curious, but at that at that time did you recommend that we not spend on players such as Robert, Bellamy, Jenas, Viana, Woodgate?

 

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever.

 

Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not.

 

Great contributions to the discussion, thanks. Why not just post a picture of a scarecrow next time to save typing.

 

mackems.gif

[Ericz]

Simple question. Do you think the achievements I posted were not good enough?

Do you expect Ashley to better them in the next 5 years (I'm letting him off with last year as a transitional year myself), and in fact to compete with Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool? If so, that's why I posted "Good luck Mike."

If you do have that expectation, then good on you, however most other posters seem to have a greatly reduced expectation of Newcastle under Ashley than they did of Newcastle under Shepherd.

 

Yes, Newcastle United past 3 - 5 seasons (the aforementioned achievements) were simply not good enough.

 

I cannot foretell whether Mike Ashley will do better. Only time will tell the truth.

 

However, if the old board is inefficient and ineffective, out they go. The same philosophy works for me in student council, student committee, corporate work, legal work and almost anywhere. It is practical but it is the best way to sort things out and I did provide a reasonable time period.

 

I hope I answered your question and you are satisfied with my answer, Mr. UV.

[Dave]

i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.

 

Well that's your opinion, but I'll refer you back to the period 98-02 which was similar (worse) than what we were going through and which we recovered from to get into the Champions League.

I'm curious, but at that at that time did you recommend that we not spend on players such as Robert, Bellamy, Jenas, Viana, Woodgate?

 

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever.

 

Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not.

 

Great contributions to the discussion, thanks. Why not just post a picture of a scarecrow next time to save typing.

 

mackems.gif

 

Great contribution to the discussion, thanks.

[OzzieMandias]

Simple question. Do you think the achievements I posted were not good enough?

Do you expect Ashley to better them in the next 5 years (I'm letting him off with last year as a transitional year myself), and in fact to compete with Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool?

 

I dunno. I'll be surprised.

 

But here's an equally simple question: Do you honestly think that Shepherd, had he remained king of the castle, would have had us back competing with Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool?

 

I don't. I think he peaked five years ago and his business legs had gone. The question of what he achieved back in the day is, frankly, irrelevant.

[NE5]

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever etc. There's absolutely no 'in between', you should know this by now.

 

don't be silly Dave, you're only allowed to comment on things if you make out the board were the worst ever that ever ran a football  club. There's absolutely no "in between", you should know this by now.

 

 

[NE5]

i don't believe bankruptcy was imminent but i couldn't see the club improving on or off the pitch with shepherd in charge.

 

Well that's your opinion, but I'll refer you back to the period 98-02 which was similar (worse) than what we were going through and which we recovered from to get into the Champions League.

I'm curious, but at that at that time did you recommend that we not spend on players such as Robert, Bellamy, Jenas, Viana, Woodgate?

 

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever.

 

Exactly. And as he wasn't the worst chairman ever, he must have done everything right! It's only monstrous ill-luck that saw us win nowt and, over the last ten years, end up in the bottom half of the table more often as not.

 

Great contributions to the discussion, thanks. Why not just post a picture of a scarecrow next time to save typing.

 

mackems.gif

 

Great contribution to the discussion, thanks.

 

I've said my piece, but you don't like it.

 

You should reserve such comments for Ozzie. Oh wait, you agree with him. I'd be quite worried about that.

 

 

[Dave]

Don't be silly madras, you're not allowed to think that things weren't going well without automatically also thinking that Shepherd was the worst chairman ever etc. There's absolutely no 'in between', you should know this by now.

 

don't be silly Dave, you're only allowed to comment on things if you make out the board were the worst ever that ever ran a football  club. There's absolutely no "in between", you should know this by now.

 

 

 

Do you even understand the point I was making there? Because it appears not.

[Dave]

You should reserve such comments for Ozzie. Oh wait, you agree with him. I'd be quite worried about that.

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, tells you everything you need to know.

[NE5]

What were the levels of debt v income in 1991 and what was the level of debt v income 12 months ago?

 

See above, companies with big turnovers never go bust or get into financial difficulty apparently.

 

and Newcastle in 1991 had a big turnover did they  mackems.gif

 

They couldn't even sell shares to the value of 1.25m quid, a fact which thickmick knows only too well.     :idiot2

 

 

 

I was quoting you mate, talking about us never going bust now mackems.gif

 

no, you were quoting Mort when he said we were going bust, but I;m saying he was talking bollocks and was just point scoring with supporters

 

However, we were most definitely going bust in 1991.

 

 

mort said we were on the way to going bust 2007

 

hall said we were on the way to going bust 1991

 

probably both playing the same scare game

 

did YOU put in to buy shares in 1991 ?

 

 

no i didn't. i thought the line being peddled by hall was a ruse and if it didn;t work the club would still go on(and guess what ?). i think i wasn't that impressed about the ammount of shares they were planning on keeping for themselves ie you put the money in but have no say.

 

i did put money in to the buy a player fund of a few years earlier

 

So you thought that sub 20,000 crowds, a failed share issue, and one foot in the 3rd divison, was a ruse ?