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...
Benwell Lad Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Here's a screen print of note 23, it's probably not good enough as it's not a link from a newspapers website but here goes, paragraph 3. http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2069/note23.jpg You make a fine and valid point. Ozzie was factually incorrect. Still, the sentiment is reasonable. Considering the likes of Learner and the Boro fella charge interest on their mahosive loans which is something he has yet to have done, that sum is a pitance in comparison to be fair. He will take decent money out at some point, which he has every right to do, but has shown admirable restraint in that regard so far. Actually scratch that (sorry Ozzie). Cheers Greg, so it was just reducing the loan? Can't see any issue with that really. Oh, and another thing, am I right in thinking that he hasn't even drawn out any salary from the club either? You may be confusing the fat cockney fella with previous owners/chairmen/directors who were good old Geordie lads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 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 f***ing laughable amount. It's just not though, "in the current climate". Bent went for 18M rising to 24M, and Suarez for 23M. You can discount anything Chelsea and Man City pay as it's come from a limitless piggy bank. If he'd said that it was a paltry amount compared to your valuation then fair enough, but if Suarez goes for 23M then it's a reasonable amount to offer for Carroll. 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 f***ing laughable amount. It's just not though, "in the current climate". Bent went for 18M rising to 24M, and Suarez for 23M. You can discount anything Chelsea and Man City pay as it's come from a limitless piggy bank. If he'd said that it was a paltry amount compared to your valuation then fair enough, but if Suarez goes for 23M then it's a reasonable amount to offer for Carroll. It's a ridiculous amount to offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco 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 f***ing laughable amount. It's just not though, "in the current climate". Bent went for 18M rising to 24M, and Suarez for 23M. You can discount anything Chelsea and Man City pay as it's come from a limitless piggy bank. If he'd said that it was a paltry amount compared to your valuation then fair enough, but if Suarez goes for 23M then it's a reasonable amount to offer for Carroll. It's a ridiculous amount to offer. Tbf, it is. Who would you rather have in your side, Bent or Carroll? He's young, and for the type of player he is has developed early. Targetmen often aren't as developed as him at his age in terms of strength but he doesnt just have that. The man has dominated some of the supposed best centrebacks in the world, Vidic for example. He's not just a traget man either though, he has good pace, good feet, great shooting, clooness when finishin and good technque. I don't think I've seen a player like him before. He's obviously not the best player in the world but I can't recall a striker like him. Duncan Fergrson was similar and without his injuries was brillaint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 If, and I suppose it is an IF, he develops further he could well become the most iconic english centre forward of his generation I, for one, would not want the likes of crappingham hotspur having him at all never mind for less than 30 mill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 His price tag is only going to head in one direction. Ashley knows this and has done the right thing. Under no illusions that he'll move on but I want absolute top dollar for him and £23m doesn't even come close to his potential cost if City, Man U and Chelsea start a bidding war for him. He's young, talented, English and offers something different to any other forward out there. He's priceless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 I dont see him as the type to be driven by money. I reckon he loves doing the business in front of his hometown fans and can see him seeing out his career here. Obviously if the shit hit the fan again ( the big R) he'd be off and rightly so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 If he goes our squad won't see fuck all of the money we get for him. Just hope his loyalty is for his hometown club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 His price tag is only going to head in one direction. Ashley knows this and has done the right thing. Under no illusions that he'll move on but I want absolute top dollar for him and £23m doesn't even come close to his potential cost if City, Man U and Chelsea start a bidding war for him. He's young, talented, English and offers something different to any other forward out there. He's priceless. Don't know, stranger things have happened. Odds are perhaps not in our favour though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 If he's good enough to play for one of the regular CL clubs, he'll end up playing for one of those clubs. I imagine we might be able to hang on to him for a couple of seasons, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts