Keefaz Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Looks like a standard Irish tramp to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Five o Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I for one, do not hold my breath... Just gone into hibernation regarding this, wake me up when its done even if you get the hiccups ? I guess i might do, but i rather like to get someone to scare the living shit out of me.... Witch is easy to do, if i got a hangover... jezez. I think this takeover thingy has been going on for to long now, time to end it, eh? Americans, unite! Spending Spree is preferred, but not necessary.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 HAs anyone noticed that picture of roy keane on their makes him look like hes iraqi? You're joking, yeah? Lost me, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 HAs anyone noticed that picture of roy keane on their makes him look like hes iraqi? You're joking, yeah? Lost me, like. Call you 999, they'll come and find you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 HAs anyone noticed that picture of roy keane on their makes him look like hes iraqi? You're joking, yeah? Lost me, like. Call you 999, they'll come and find you. Help... somebody... my sides! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Reducing it from £40m to £20m because Barclays effectively forced us does not in any way leave £20m left to us no matter how rammed up your own arse you want to sound Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Reducing it from £40m to £20m because Barclays effectively forced us does not in any way leave £20m left to us no matter how rammed up your own arse you want to sound They didn't force us to, only if Ashley leaves, ashley guarantees the overdraft, they'd give us a 100m overdraft if he was guarantor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Who says we're currently £20m into the overdraft anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Reducing it from £40m to £20m because Barclays effectively forced us does not in any way leave £20m left to us no matter how rammed up your own arse you want to sound They didn't force us to, only if Ashley leaves, ashley guarantees the overdraft, they'd give us a 100m overdraft if he was guarantor. Yeah ok then you just ignore all the reports of it, it was even explained seconds before you posted. The overdraft was £39m (confirmed on .cock), and the reports were that we were using £25m of it. Barclays wanted both of these figures reducing considering our relegation, and particularly if someone with significantly less disposable cash (ie Moat) took over. Barclays have probably been begging Ashley to stay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Reducing it from £40m to £20m because Barclays effectively forced us does not in any way leave £20m left to us no matter how rammed up your own arse you want to sound They didn't force us to, only if Ashley leaves, ashley guarantees the overdraft, they'd give us a 100m overdraft if he was guarantor. Yeah ok then you just ignore all the reports of it, it was even explained seconds before you posted. The overdraft was £39m (confirmed on .cock), and the reports were that we were using £25m of it. Barclays wanted both of these figures reducing considering our relegation, and particularly if someone with significantly less disposable cash (ie Moat) took over. Barclays have probably been begging Ashley to stay. Thats because they thought he was selling. Banks will let you guarantee any amount provided you have enough money to cover it. If this was the case how do we still have a 39m overdraft? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Reducing it from £40m to £20m because Barclays effectively forced us does not in any way leave £20m left to us no matter how rammed up your own arse you want to sound They didn't force us to, only if Ashley leaves, ashley guarantees the overdraft, they'd give us a 100m overdraft if he was guarantor. Yeah ok then you just ignore all the reports of it, it was even explained seconds before you posted. The overdraft was £39m (confirmed on .cock), and the reports were that we were using £25m of it. Barclays wanted both of these figures reducing considering our relegation, and particularly if someone with significantly less disposable cash (ie Moat) took over. Barclays have probably been begging Ashley to stay. Thats because they thought he was selling. Banks will let you guarantee any amount provided you have enough money to cover it. If this was the case how do we still have a 39m overdraft? No the agreement ended and Ashley had to reduce it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/02/mike-ashley-newcastle-sale-barry-moat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 .com claim 'club insiders' claim (lot of claims i know) that the keegan payout could force us into administartion. Why should we believe you? How do you know .com? Actually thinking now, its complete bollocks, we reduced our 40m overdraft to 20m meaning there is 20m left. Our overdraft LIMIT was £40m(may have been £39m) its highily unlikely we were on the limit for so many months. No way it would have taken so long to sell in that case. I never said we were at our LIMIT. So what were you talking about then? I was just saying we'd reduced it to 20m ands its limit is 40m. What were you talking about? Reducing it from £40m to £20m because Barclays effectively forced us does not in any way leave £20m left to us no matter how rammed up your own arse you want to sound They didn't force us to, only if Ashley leaves, ashley guarantees the overdraft, they'd give us a 100m overdraft if he was guarantor. Yeah ok then you just ignore all the reports of it, it was even explained seconds before you posted. The overdraft was £39m (confirmed on .cock), and the reports were that we were using £25m of it. Barclays wanted both of these figures reducing considering our relegation, and particularly if someone with significantly less disposable cash (ie Moat) took over. Barclays have probably been begging Ashley to stay. Thats because they thought he was selling. Banks will let you guarantee any amount provided you have enough money to cover it. If this was the case how do we still have a 39m overdraft? No the agreement ended and Ashley had to reduce it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/sep/02/mike-ashley-newcastle-sale-barry-moat Thats about Moat trying to come to an agreement, if Ashley Gurantee'd it we could get a 100m overdraft, he won't so it's a pointless discussion, but it's true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 As a general rule, Championship clubs are never extended overdrafts over £10m by Barclays. But Newcastle – whose old facility expired on Monday night – argue they are a special case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anyway none of this is particularly important. Simply a tangent from your claims we reduced our overdraft from £40m to £20m yet were never at our £39m LIMIT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anyway none of this is particularly important. Simply a tangent from your claims we reduced our overdraft from £40m to £20m yet were never at our £39m LIMIT Can't be arsed anymore, can't even remember what point I was trying to make. But http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/4646573.Moat_moves_closer_to_Magpies_buy_out/ Moat’s representatives have been in talks with Barclays Bank, who currently have a £39m overdraft facility with the Magpies Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anyway none of this is particularly important. Simply a tangent from your claims we reduced our overdraft from £40m to £20m yet were never at our £39m LIMIT Can't be arsed anymore, can't even remember what point I was trying to make. But http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/4646573.Moat_moves_closer_to_Magpies_buy_out/ Moat’s representatives have been in talks with Barclays Bank, who currently have a £39m overdraft facility with the Magpies Your original point was we reduced our £40m overdraft to £20m leaving £20m to spare. When questioned you said we were never at the limit so my point was pretty simple. Either you think the overdraft limit was reduced or you were talking crap when you denied we were at the limit. Fair enough though, lets drop it as its easier. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Anyway none of this is particularly important. Simply a tangent from your claims we reduced our overdraft from £40m to £20m yet were never at our £39m LIMIT Can't be arsed anymore, can't even remember what point I was trying to make. But http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/4646573.Moat_moves_closer_to_Magpies_buy_out/ Moats representatives have been in talks with Barclays Bank, who currently have a £39m overdraft facility with the Magpies Your original point was we reduced our £40m overdraft to £20m leaving £20m to spare. When questioned you said we were never at the limit so my point was pretty simple. Either you think the overdraft limit was reduced or you were talking crap when you denied we were at the limit. Fair enough though, lets drop it as its easier. We both may have made false statements, lets agree to agree to not really understand what the other persons point is. I don't even know what I'm trying to say now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Fair enough Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I reckon the last 20-30 posts in this thread may have represented a new low. That's some impressive going. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Try the Keegan thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I reckon the last 20-30 posts in this thread may have represented a new low. That's some impressive going. There was a point to this at the start Anyway like Dave said, the Keegan thread totally pisses on this for being a new low. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Try the Keegan thread. Yeah, it's grim in there now. What's the matter with everyone, we've just signed a player! This is as good as it gets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I reckon the last 20-30 posts in this thread may have represented a new low. That's some impressive going. There was a point to this at the start Anyway like Dave said, the Keegan thread totally pisses on this for being a new low. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom to start all over again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts