ChezGiven Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Newcastle's ability to invest and back their managers during the period 92-05 (which the previous board did without any doubt) was because football was, as the article above highlights, experiencing (like the overall economy in the UK incidentally) a period of sustained growth financially and economically. The outlook for the game is still good but the levels of growth in revenue are not the same they were, which changes the ability of club's to raise finance beyond their current means. The model is now more static and financial performance in the current year is expected to be similar in forthcoming years now that the Sky money has been factored into the financial analysis of the lenders and backers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/feb/10/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-john-hall-freddy-shepherd That's spot on basically, he looked to be the perfect owner and I still don't want to let go of that. I think he can get things back on track... the principles are all sound. And now he knows about how explosive fan reaction can be! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 One thing that gives me a little optimism is our relative position financially to other clubs. If we survive this year then i think we'll pull more weight than several clubs who are spending (seemingly) more heavily than us for now. The annoying thing for everyone is the fact that money should have been invested to guarantee survival. I feel Ashley assessed the options in January, saw they were not perfect or over-priced and gambled on our future by delaying any further activity until the summer. If we get there, i think things should get better. Big if. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 One thing that gives me a little optimism is our relative position financially to other clubs. If we survive this year then i think we'll pull more weight than several clubs who are spending (seemingly) more heavily than us for now. The annoying thing for everyone is the fact that money should have been invested to guarantee survival. I feel Ashley assessed the options in January, saw they were not perfect or over-priced and gambled on our future by delaying any further activity until the summer. If we get there, i think things should get better. Big if. Sounds about right. Massive gamble for sure. The main point of contention for me is that they surely could have brought in a manager of the quality that could have done more to guarantee survival for much less money than they were prepared to spend on Johnson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 One thing that gives me a little optimism is our relative position financially to other clubs. If we survive this year then i think we'll pull more weight than several clubs who are spending (seemingly) more heavily than us for now. The annoying thing for everyone is the fact that money should have been invested to guarantee survival. I feel Ashley assessed the options in January, saw they were not perfect or over-priced and gambled on our future by delaying any further activity until the summer. If we get there, i think things should get better. Big if. which other clubs ? just it seems like most have pulled the reins right in and we were in a worse position to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I suppose the one area for optimism is our revenue which is very high. If we can cut down the wages to a level nearer to the likes of the Spuds and Everton and stop giving managers massive payoffs we'll be in a position to make big money rather then lose it. Most clubs can't say the same, clubs like West Ham have a wage bill 30% lower then ours but they're still in big trouble because they just don't make enough money. I suppose what I'm saying is its much easier to see how we can turn our finances around then it is for a lot of other clubs in this league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 15/Feb/09 Said and Done - CALL ME A CAPITALIST - David Hills The Observer 1997: Sir John Hall ("call me a capitalist with a social conscience") says football needs ethical club ownership. "Chairmen have to be responsible financially. All I hope is that pure greed does not take over and ruin everything." 2009: Newcastle publish final accounts covering Hall's years as club co-owner. • Hall's salary: £837,000. • Son Douglas's salary: £794,000. • Daughter Allison's fee as a director: £151,000. • £14m: amount they made in dividends. • £10m: amount made from selling part of the club to NTL. • £20m: amount made from share sales in the years before the final disposal to Mike Ashley. Total overall profit for the Halls: £95.7m. ("People in the south exploit this region," said Hall in 1994. "They use us and take everything they can from us. I'm fighting for the Geordie Nation!") Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. • Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle • Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing so y r we not buying all da players ffs?!?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. • Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle • Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. • Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle • Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. • Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle • Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. Except for the additional £24 million which could have been invested in the team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. ? Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle ? Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. You think Ashley wants the team to fail? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. ? Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle ? Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. You think Ashley wants the team to fail? No but his priority is money - the number one priority of any football club should be the first team imo. That doesn't mean the financial situation should be ignored but I think he has seriously ignored the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. ? Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle ? Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. You think Ashley wants the team to fail? No but his priority is money - the number one priority of any football club should be the first team imo. That doesn't mean the financial situation should be ignored but I think he has seriously ignored the team. Like skimming off £24million? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Except for the additional £24 million which could have been invested in the team? Fair enough but I don't remember too many windows where we ended up in profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Was just about to post the very same link.. ? Former owners made £145.8m from Newcastle ? Ashley has put fortune on line and taken nothing Considering Ashley did exactly what the Halls did when he floated SD (though the Halls weren't damned by the City for ripping them off) how are they "morally" different if that's what you're implying? Also what about the price he allegedly wanted off the Arabs in September which would have made him more that £150m? Shepherd & Hall creamed millions of the trading income out of the club & left it in a disastrous financial state, that's entirely different to money made from selling shares. The vast majority of the £146m was from selling shares. Yes they did take salaries and dividends but that's small beer compared with what Ashley wanted to and would have made but for the credit crunch. I also object to any money Wise and the rest have had from the club far more more than what Shepherd did. You carry on comparing taking profits out of the club which could have been used for player purchases with making money from selling the whole entity though. I believe they (the Halls & Shepherds) made over £24m by taking dividends & using the club's money to buy their own shares off them. That £24 million doesn't include their salaries either. Small beer to you perhaps, but more than a couple of players for the football club. I always knew the Halls and The Shepherds were in it for the money and never subscribed to their "Geordie nation" bollocks but I was always happy that despite being bastards they wanted the team to succeed (even if there was an element of further financial interest in that) and on the whole did their best to do make that happen. That's why I think they come off better when compared to Ashley's lies. You think Ashley wants the team to fail? No but his priority is money - the number one priority of any football club should be the first team imo. That doesn't mean the financial situation should be ignored but I think he has seriously ignored the team. Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club. All will be sorted when he sells. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Except for the additional £24 million which could have been invested in the team? Fair enough but I don't remember too many windows where we ended up in profit. And where has that profit gone? To stave off the losses already incurred. You can talk about transfer window profits all you want, but the fact is the financial situation is desperate, as a result of the actions of the previous owners/board/managers. No money has been taken from the club by its owners. IIRC the summer we only signed Bowyer on a free coincided with club funds being used to buy back shares from them as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club. All will be sorted when he sells. Who is he selling to like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club. All will be sorted when he sells. Who is he selling to like? Did you not know. NUSC seems to believe that there are a long line of eager buyers queuing up to the Strawberry, cash in hand to buy the club! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club. All will be sorted when he sells. Who is he selling to like? Anyone who'll stump up the money - I'd guess in about 12-15 months time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yet he's put in more than the last lot took out, hasn't taken any money out himself, and isn't charging interest on his loan to the club. All will be sorted when he sells. Who is he selling to like? Anyone who'll stump up the money - I'd guess in about 12-15 months time. No one then. mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now