OzzieMandias Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 In the light of the new evidence that has been brought to light during this discussion (thanks Mick!), I am happy to amend my original statement: People keep saying this. We "know" no such thing, What we DO know (those of us who have been paying attention, anyway) is that a) Ashley has put about £136.5 million into the club so far while just £1 million out*, and b) he has said that all money from player sales will go back into the squad, and that, from the accounts published so far, this has indeed been the case. *Assuming Greg's reading of Mick's illegible (to me) posting is correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Pure speculation. I agree that its speculation and I didn't try to pass it off as fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 In the light of the new evidence that has been brought to light during this discussion (thanks Mick!), I am happy to amend my original statement: People keep saying this. We "know" no such thing, What we DO know (those of us who have been paying attention, anyway) is that a) Ashley has put about £136.5 million into the club so far while just £1 million out*, and b) he has said that all money from player sales will go back into the squad, and that, from the accounts published so far, this has indeed been the case. *Assuming Greg's reading of Mick's illegible (to me) posting is correct. In the light of the new evidence that has been brought to light during this discussion (thanks Mick!), I am happy to amend my original statement: People keep saying this. We "know" no such thing, What we DO know (those of us who have been paying attention, anyway) is that a) Ashley has put about £136.5 million into the club so far while just £1 million out*, and b) he has said that all money from player sales will go back into the squad, and that, from the accounts published so far, this has indeed been the case. *Assuming Greg's reading of Mick's illegible (to me) posting is correct. So all the argument was about $1 million? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 "The club would like to make it clear for the very last time that Carroll is simply not for sale." The source went on to describe the bid from Tottenham as 'paltry in the current climate'. Love the way he worded that Harry is a bellend of magnificent proportions, the twat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 £23 million can never be considered paltry. Daft word to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So all the argument was about $1 million? No the argument is about him taking money out of the club when it was wrongly claimed that he hadn't. It also wasn't $1 million, the £1 million difference is the amount that he'd put in by the end of the financial year and no reflection what he took out during the season as he'd put more in by the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 £23 million can never be considered paltry. Daft word to use. It is paltry. It's a fucking laughable amount. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henke Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 The only thing that bugs me about that statement is why we felt the need to go to the press about it. If spurs made a bid, we turned it down, then fair enough. Us then taking it to the media seems like we're saying £23mil ain't enough, but if you up it a bit we might sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So all the argument was about $1 million? No the argument is about him taking money out of the club when it was wrongly claimed that he hadn't. It also wasn't $1 million, the £1 million difference is the amount that he'd put in by the end of the financial year and no reflection what he took out during the season as he'd put more in by the end. That's semantics at best. If there were 4 chocolates on the table, I took 3 and put back 2 in a given day, then by the end of the day, I've only taken 1. Nobody else would say it differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 The only thing that bugs me about that statement is why we felt the need to go to the press about it. If spurs made a bid, we turned it down, then fair enough. Us then taking it to the media seems like we're saying £23mil ain't enough, but if you up it a bit we might sell. or when word gets out that there was a bid and we haven't pubically denied it "Oooh they haven't denied it so they must be thinking about it" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 That's semantics at best. If there were 4 chocolates on the table, I took 3 and put back 2 in a given day, then by the end of the day, I've only taken 1. Nobody else would say it differently. Fact is, it was claimed that he hadn't taken money out of the club, the accounts are proof that he has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 £23 million can never be considered paltry. Daft word to use. It is paltry. It's a fucking laughable amount. totally agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So all the argument was about $1 million? No the argument is about him taking money out of the club when it was wrongly claimed that he hadn't. It also wasn't $1 million, the £1 million difference is the amount that he'd put in by the end of the financial year and no reflection what he took out during the season as he'd put more in by the end. Effectively he never took anything out then. If I take a £5 out of my wallet on a wednesday and then on friday I put in a £10, ah never mind.. it's easy seen why NE5 was always arguing with you, I'm not going down that route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 That's semantics at best. If there were 4 chocolates on the table, I took 3 and put back 2 in a given day, then by the end of the day, I've only taken 1. Nobody else would say it differently. Fact is, it was claimed that he hadn't taken money out of the club, the accounts are proof that he has. Ya that point is conceded based on the accounts, was arguing your point though that "it also wasn't $1 million". Do you concede on that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 well obviously mick is only talking about the direction of individual transactions, whereas the rest of world is talking about the direction of the year end balance. Like I said to begin with, semantic pedantry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Anyone seen the odds on the team he is to join this window? These odds are IF he goes where to, not putting them all only the ridiculous ones Liverpool 16-1 West Ham 25-1 :lol: Villa 33-1 fwiw Spurs are 4/6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 So all the argument was about $1 million? No the argument is about him taking money out of the club when it was wrongly claimed that he hadn't. It also wasn't $1 million, the £1 million difference is the amount that he'd put in by the end of the financial year and no reflection what he took out during the season as he'd put more in by the end. Effectively he never took anything out then. If I take a £5 out of my wallet on a wednesday and then on friday I put in a £10, ah never mind.. it's easy seen why NE5 was always arguing with you, I'm not going down that route. should have taken your advice to be honest Now I will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Effectively he never took anything out then. If I take a £5 out of my wallet on a wednesday and then on friday I put in a £10, ah never mind.. it's easy seen why NE5 was always arguing with you, I'm not going down that route. Using your logic, it would be more like taking £10 out of your wallet and then putting £9 back in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 At the end of the day it's his money anyway, he can do what the fuck he likes, all we can hope is he cares to keep the engine oiled and watered (as it were) and not let it seize up. Contrary to some frequent comments the signs are that he does intend to keep it running in quite a healthy condition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Anyone seen the odds on the team he is to join this window? These odds are IF he goes where to, not putting them all only the ridiculous ones Liverpool 16-1 West Ham 25-1 :lol: Villa 33-1 fwiw Spurs are 4/6 what odds on him to stay ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Not offering them, its only if he goes, where to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 That's semantics at best. If there were 4 chocolates on the table, I took 3 and put back 2 in a given day, then by the end of the day, I've only taken 1. Nobody else would say it differently. Fact is, it was claimed that he hadn't taken money out of the club, the accounts are proof that he has. Ya that point is conceded based on the accounts, was arguing your point though that "it also wasn't $1 million". Do you concede on that? The difference between maximum and final loan in that period wasn't $1 milion, that would be just over £600,000 (assuming it was USD). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 well obviously mick is only talking about the direction of individual transactions, whereas the rest of world is talking about the direction of the year end balance. Like I said to begin with, semantic pedantry. You seem to be forgetting what this is about, it was to do with the claim that Ashley has never taken any money out of the club, he clearly has and we have no reason to think that if we sell players he'll not do it again. He hasn't taken out any more than he was legally entitled to take in the past as he has a legal obligation which ensures that he pays the bills or we go bust. Nothing can stop him from taking money out of the club if we are making more than we spend as long as he does it legally. He can take as much of his loan back as he wants as long as the club has that money to pay to him. It doesn't matter where that money comes from as long as it's legally obtained, I think that covers everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 At the end of the day it's his money anyway, he can do what the f*** he likes, all we can hope is he cares to keep the engine oiled and watered (as it were) and not let it seize up. Contrary to some frequent comments the signs are that he does intend to keep it running in quite a healthy condition. I agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2010/05/02/newcastle-united-accounts-reveal-111m-debt-79310-26358985/ Last set of accounts show that the club owes him £111 million, and that Subsequent to the year end, the ultimate controlling party, Mr MJW Ashley, has advanced additional funding of £25.5m. So obviously he's taking out loads, like. At least someone willing to use actual numbers rather than spouting rubbish Specific figures and arithmetic apart, despite doing an awful PR job and making some almost universally unopular decisions, it must be obvious to anyone who can add 2 + 2 that without Mike Ashley, Newcastle United would be in a big financial mess. Ridiculous assertions that he will trouser money from selling players (bearing in mind during his tenure we have never looked like a "selling" club) are as laughable as they are ludicrous. Up until now anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts