Llambias - Gone?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

[Happy Face]

Seems strange to refuse point blank to be held to ransom when buying players, but act the pussy when selling them.

[Guest The Libertine]

given was finished here. if we said no to city he would just rot on the bench and his value would only decrease. better out than in in this situation.

 

i noticed no other team were trying to break the bank to outbid city either. 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

Seems strange to refuse point blank to be held to ransom when buying players, but act the pussy when selling them.

 

Unless Villa were offering less in one go of course.

[Guest The Libertine]

Seems strange to refuse point blank to be held to ransom when buying players, but act the pussy when selling them.

 

you're desperate to justify that £10 arent you 

 

have you seen the prices we've got for some players?

[Mick]

 

It's only confusing because of the lies I've been told about the debt in the past.

 

I only want to know what's been confirmed...and apart from taking Mick's word for it, I can't find a source that quotes £30M from the accounts.

 

If it turns out £30M extra has been loaned to the club, thatr's fine...it doesn't alter the fact that a lot of it is spent on players up front which needn't happen, but Ashley insists on to make it a saleable commodity.

 

While doing that income from the sale of top players is being delayed.

 

I might be daft here too, but in loaning the club money to buy players full whack, up front, isn't Ashley just ensuring that the depreciation doesn't affect him because he gets back EVERYTHING he puts in as a loan(bar the initial purchase price) if he fails?

 

Ashley paid off loans to the value of £70,319,000 out of the £110 million he loaned to the club, the £110 includes the £10 million loaned later but mentioned.  Amortisation of players was only up £1 million from the year before at £17,833,000.

[Happy Face]

 

It's only confusing because of the lies I've been told about the debt in the past.

 

I only want to know what's been confirmed...and apart from taking Mick's word for it, I can't find a source that quotes £30M from the accounts.

 

If it turns out £30M extra has been loaned to the club, thatr's fine...it doesn't alter the fact that a lot of it is spent on players up front which needn't happen, but Ashley insists on to make it a saleable commodity.

 

While doing that income from the sale of top players is being delayed.

 

I might be daft here too, but in loaning the club money to buy players full whack, up front, isn't Ashley just ensuring that the depreciation doesn't affect him because he gets back EVERYTHING he puts in as a loan(bar the initial purchase price) if he fails?

 

Ashley paid off loans to the value of £70,319,000 out of the £110 million he loaned to the club, the £110 includes the £10 million loaned later but mentioned.  Amortisation of players was only up £1 million from the year before at £17,833,000.

 

Aaah, so it was part of the £100M.

 

Okey dokey. 

[Mick]

 

As I've tried to say in previous posts, the majority of the money Ashley has loaned the club on top of taking on the £70m debt when he took over is to pay for his decision to pay for players up front rather than stagger the payments as is typical. It's been specifically said that some of  the recent £10m is to cover the up front purchase of Nolan while we've received nothing for Given.

 

A lot of the additional money that Ashley has loaned the club would not have been necessary under the old board or indeed any other owners.

 

Assuming 4 year staggered payments, and starting with Smith as a signing Ashley would have had full control under:

 

Smith + Enrique + Beye + Feye = £16.5m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under Ashley = £16.5m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 07-08 under anyone else = £4.1m

 

Bassong + Guthrie + Coloccini + Xisco + Nolan = £24m

 

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under Ashley = £24m

Incoming transfer costs to the club in 08-09 under anyone else = £4.1m + £6m = £10.1m

 

So assuming all other things equal, the club has paid out up to 16.5+24 - (4.1+10.1) = £26.3m more in advance of when strictly necessary (ie if we did it like other clubs) simply due to Ashley's choice to pay up front for players rather than in instalments.

 

The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year.

[Dave]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

[Mick]

 

If he's loaning money, he'd be entitled to getting his money back same way as the banks would. I'm not really sure what advantage he's getting personally out paying the money up front you haven't really made that very clear.

 

Ashley does gain an advantage, interest on savings is almost nil while interest on loans has gone through the roof, it's as basic as that.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

We're not discussing why they want to leave FWIW, we're discussing how they set the fee & received the money as you know.

 

I hope you're not using the Chronicle translation as a fact tool.

 

From your article...

 

"My dream is for the two club to agree a fee, however if he does not happen it is not the end of the world."

 

Desperate to join us?

 

Given "got injured" shortly before the teams were announced for Man City, despite not having reported a problem all week.  You make your own mind up.

 

I'll give you a chance & ask the questions again.

 

Did any of those listed by you hand in a transfer request?

 

Would you have made Given or Milner stay once they said openly they wanted to leave?

[Mick]

 

Absolutley.

 

The way I see it, he's running the club the same as Shepherd.  Borrowing money to pay for things while making a loss.  He's just borrowing from himself and is only left open to risk if he actually takes the club into administration.

 

The difference is Shepherd would borrow money to finance big, ambitious moves.

 

Ashley seems to be borrowing to finance measly purchases that could have been financed by a combination of player sales and staggered payments within the club.

 

Stick £1000 into your bank and see how much you get back, at the same time borrow £1000 from the same source over the same period and see how much it costs, I'll give you odds of 100/1 that you end up out of pocket.

 

That's why Ashley has loaned his own money to his own club.

[Mick]

 

Aaah, so it was part of the £100M.

 

Okey dokey. 

 

It was £100 million but he's put in another £20 million since then.

[TRon]

 

If he's loaning money, he'd be entitled to getting his money back same way as the banks would. I'm not really sure what advantage he's getting personally out paying the money up front you haven't really made that very clear.

 

Ashley does gain an advantage, interest on savings is almost nil while interest on loans has gone through the roof, it's as basic as that.

 

I know that, I was just trying to get HF to explain why he thought Ashley was somehow trying to make financial gain at the expense of the club by doing it that way.

[Mick]

 

I know that, I was just trying to get HF to explain why he thought Ashley was somehow trying to make financial gain at the expense of the club by doing it that way.

 

Ok but at least it gets the point across.

[Baggio]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

Milner handed in a transfer request to try and get the club to give him more money, we didn't and chose to sell him instead, Given went to City because they are spending big to try and get success and we don't stand a chance of competing with them.

 

I'm not sure why Ashley wants to pay for transfers up front but perhaps people can ask Llambias in the next Q&A session in the Chronicle if it bothers them that much, I don't see how it's made any difference to the club if he's prepared to stick the money in and get it back when the deals for Given and co pay out.

[Dave]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

We're not discussing why they want to leave FWIW, we're discussing how they set the fee & received the money as you know.

 

I hope you're not using the Chronicle translation as a fact tool.

 

From your article...

 

"My dream is for the two club to agree a fee, however if he does not happen it is not the end of the world."

 

Desperate to join us?

 

Given "got injured" shortly before the teams were announced for Man City, despite not having reported a problem all week.  You make your own mind up.

 

I'll give you a chance & ask the questions again.

 

Did any of those listed by you hand in a transfer request?

 

Would you have made Given or Milner stay once they said openly they wanted to leave?

 

Touché on the Ebondo article, didn't spot that.

 

No, they didn't hand in transfer requests. I'd have at least tried to convince them to stay, which according to Given at least we barely bothered with. 'We don't want to sell our best players' they say.

 

It just sticks in the throat that our one remaining player of genuine class, one who's given us years and years for wonderful service was sold to the world's richest club for so little, and without us seeing any of that money until the summer when we might be in the Championship. Feels like we've been stitched up tbh.

[Dave]

Btw I totally accept they've done really well with the fees received on other less able players.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

 

Touché on the Ebondo article, didn't spot that.

 

No, they didn't hand in transfer requests. I'd have at least tried to convince them to stay, which according to Given at least we barely bothered with. 'We don't want to sell our best players' they say.

 

It just sticks in the throat that our one remaining player of genuine class, one who's given us years and years for wonderful service was sold to the world's richest club for so little, and without us seeing any of that money until the summer when we might be in the Championship. Feels like we've been stitched up tbh.

 

Fair enough.

 

The only thing that would have convinced Milner to stay was more money though, he handed in a transfer request because they wouldn't give him an improved.......... this has been done before, you know the point I'm making.

 

As Baggio said, we can't compete financially with Man City any more.  They have a decent chance of making an impact simply because of the clout they have, but I'd have thought Given might have got himself a move to someone already in the Champions League.

 

In the end I'd say we've done pretty well in terms of the fees we've got overall when selling (looking at it from that point of view only of course) so criticising the Given fee whilst probably correct in an isolated case is a bit unfair.  EDIT: You've just said that.

 

Selling is like buying, you win some, you lose some.  The purchase price & selling price we negotiated for Bellamy prove that.

 

 

[Parky]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

Milner handed in a transfer request to try and get the club to give him more money, we didn't and chose to sell him instead, Given went to City because they are spending big to try and get success and we don't stand a chance of competing with them.

 

I'm not sure why Ashley wants to pay for transfers up front but perhaps people can ask Llambias in the next Q&A session in the Chronicle if it bothers them that much, I don't see how it's made any difference to the club if he's prepared to stick the money in and get it back when the deals for Given and co pay out.

 

He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years.

[Baggio]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

Milner handed in a transfer request to try and get the club to give him more money, we didn't and chose to sell him instead, Given went to City because they are spending big to try and get success and we don't stand a chance of competing with them.

 

I'm not sure why Ashley wants to pay for transfers up front but perhaps people can ask Llambias in the next Q&A session in the Chronicle if it bothers them that much, I don't see how it's made any difference to the club if he's prepared to stick the money in and get it back when the deals for Given and co pay out.

 

He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years.

 

I don't see what difference us owning them as full assets will make as the money owed out on players, whether to Ashley or to the club we bought the player from will be taken into consideration when agreeing the selling price of the club.

 

 

[TRon]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

We're not discussing why they want to leave FWIW, we're discussing how they set the fee & received the money as you know.

 

I hope you're not using the Chronicle translation as a fact tool.

 

From your article...

 

"My dream is for the two club to agree a fee, however if he does not happen it is not the end of the world."

 

Desperate to join us?

 

Given "got injured" shortly before the teams were announced for Man City, despite not having reported a problem all week.  You make your own mind up.

 

I'll give you a chance & ask the questions again.

 

Did any of those listed by you hand in a transfer request?

 

Would you have made Given or Milner stay once they said openly they wanted to leave?

 

Touché on the Ebondo article, didn't spot that.

 

No, they didn't hand in transfer requests. I'd have at least tried to convince them to stay, which according to Given at least we barely bothered with. 'We don't want to sell our best players' they say.

 

It just sticks in the throat that our one remaining player of genuine class, one who's given us years and years for wonderful service was sold to the world's richest club for so little, and without us seeing any of that money until the summer when we might be in the Championship. Feels like we've been stitched up tbh.

 

I have to say again: just because we rate Given at £10m or £15m, it doesn't necessarily mean everyone else does. It was common knowledge all through the window he was determined to leave, if £6m was such a low fee, why didn't other clubs come in? I'm sure we'd have preferred to have got more if there was anyone out there willing to pay it.

 

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

We keep the player? Like City did with Johnson, Sunderland did with Richardson, Toulouse did with Ebondo etc.

 

What use is an on strike goalkeeper like the one we had?

 

And how many of the players you've listed had handed in transfer requests as Milner did?

 

Would you honestly have made them stay Dave? Honestly?

 

 

Why do you think they wanted to leave? Money? Play more often? Or was it because Man City and Villa look like actually going somewhere and we don't? These other clubs manage to convince their players to stay when other clubs come in for them.

 

FWIW Ebondo was desperate to join us: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2009/01/29/toon-target-albin-ebondo-keen-on-nufc-move-72703-22810181/. His club just played hardball.

 

If Given was effectively on strike then Kinnear wants shooting for continually picking him when he wasn't committed to the cause as you suggest.

 

Milner handed in a transfer request to try and get the club to give him more money, we didn't and chose to sell him instead, Given went to City because they are spending big to try and get success and we don't stand a chance of competing with them.

 

I'm not sure why Ashley wants to pay for transfers up front but perhaps people can ask Llambias in the next Q&A session in the Chronicle if it bothers them that much, I don't see how it's made any difference to the club if he's prepared to stick the money in and get it back when the deals for Given and co pay out.

 

He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years.

 

Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments.

[UV]

The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year.

 

Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but...

 

He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years.

 

Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

The only problem with that theory is that in 2006 we were showing £16,950,000 and in 2007 we were showing £17,833,000 for player amortisation so if we are now paying up front then we weren't during the last financial year.

 

Strange that LLLO didn't pick you up on this, but...

 

He wants to pay upfront to keep the books straight and so as the players appear as full assets (intangible) for a sale if one appears on the horizon. FWIW I think MA will be gone in the next 2 years.

 

Er........ they will either way, whether he pays in full or by installments.

 

Strange how?