Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST)

[Guest michaelfoster]

think the thread needs a title change

 

NUSt launch "Yes We Can if we had half a brain between us" Campaign to buy the club

 

Why don't you offer to get involved at the top level?

 

Seriously.  They'd be over the moon to have any assistance people can give.

 

Because the whole thing is going to fall flat on its arse. Their PR is beyond awful and the latest news sounds like 'we are actually really struggling as not enough people want to use their money so we will remind them how evil Mr Ashley is to try to change their mind. The £7m thing is utter bollocks, they have probably just plucked that from nowhere without any research and the whole thing is just a shambles. At first i thought it would be a good idea but was skeptical, now i just think they are embarassing themselves.

[Guest Roger Kint]

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

Turnover: £27.2m

 

Wage bill £21.8m

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

 

 

[Stu]

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

Turnover: £27.2m

 

Wage bill £21.8m

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

 

 

 

Player sales?

[Mick]

If we were making a £7 million a month profit, why did Ashley have to put £20 million in at the end of October? 

[BottledDog]

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

Turnover: £27.2m

 

Wage bill £21.8m

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

 

 

 

Player sales?

 

Has to be. Something that should see us through this to as long as we don't lose any more and bugger up promotion.

[quayside]

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

Turnover: £27.2m

 

Wage bill £21.8m

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

 

 

 

Player sales?

 

Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

[Guest Roger Kint]

 

Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

 

So considering they were still in debt after this its hardly a good set of figures as an example(not that the whole size/background differences ever made it a fair one)

[quayside]

 

Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

 

So considering they were still in debt after this its hardly a good set of figures as an example(not that the whole size/background differences ever made it a fair one)

 

Yes, totally different economics involved tbh - for example the running costs of the Hawthorns wouldn't be close to those of SJP.

[Parky]

The supporters trust is going the wrong way with its negative attitude. As the club purchase is clearly a pipe-dream, it would be better if they concentrated on more realistic solutions. Because of this amateurism and name calling, they have spurned the chance to be a powerful voice regarding the club. Bush / Saddam was brought up a bit earlier. If NUST acted as the Lib-Dems before Iraq: principled, measured opposition which goes on record, they would make themselves an authoritative voice regarding the club, which would translate eventually into influence in the media (a form of real power) and may make them - even without a change in ownership – and organisation which, down the road, would receive official recognition from the club (real influence). I wish their aim was dialogue with the club towards mutual benefit. Even the Ashley regime seemed willing to try this, before it became clear how supporter organisations were capable of saying nothing more than 'not this'.

 

Anyway, here's the problem with this opposition not in terms of (pure)power, but in terms of what Ashley wants from the club. I absolutely believe it is not money – or at least would not be so long as we don't obsess over it. What Ashley wants is to be – for want of a better word – mean, and his best way of realising how to effect this is to see what we are most knee-jerk in our response to.

 

At the beginning, Ashley asked us out on date,  bought us flowers, opened his heart up to us: it went OK. Our last date was a shit too, so it looked like a good thing at the start. But since then the situation has radically changed. As soon as things got bad, we dumped him, went screaming to all of the others – we literally told everyone else in school that he was useless and that we'd faked it – and withdrew from him. He couldn't have what he wanted.

 

But the crucial relationship here is power. Ownership of the club gives him a certain advantage in this structure. He loves us, we love the club, he owns the club. Instead of the reciprocal triad 'he helps club → we give him what he wants → the club is what we want it to be' we now have a breakdown in the structure. We hurt him → he hurts club → we get no enjoyment from club → he enjoys our pain.  

 

Ashley gets his excitement either way. In possession of the object or in a sadistic relation to it where he can hurt it. Remember, this guy doesn't want the club, he wants the fans: to imagine himself in our eyes as the hero, the boss, the head honcho. But under the current dynamic, I would think that he is enjoying the fact that he is pissing us off with his every action and yet succeeding in the league (despite the 'experts' predictions) almost as much as would have enjoyed a 'healthy relationship'. We have created the monster here, and given fuel to his perversion.

 

What am I saying should be done? Everything or nothing. Either seduce him again: get back into bed with him, stroke his hair and say “you were right all along big man”;* that or to withdraw the investment entirely. Stop attending, paying, care(ss)ing. Play a game of bluff, let the size of his asset decline to nil, see how much pain he is willing to suffer.

 

There's no dignity in going back to the man who beats you; even if you are screaming like a hysteric about it in public. NUST don't hurt Ashley with their confrontational, hysterical attitude – they turn him on. 

 

* ie form a supporters trust which tries to help the current board, even if that involves a bit of play acting from the supporters.

 

You forget he has the brains of a duck.

[binnsy]

If we were making a £7 million a month profit, why did Ashley have to put £20 million in at the end of October? 

 

Who's to say he did put £20m in?  Coming from proven serial liar Llambias??? 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

If we were making a £7 million a month profit, why did Ashley have to put £20 million in at the end of October? 

 

Who's to say he did put £20m in?  Coming from proven serial liar Llambias??? 

 

That settles it then?

[Stu]

If we were making a £7 million a month profit, why did Ashley have to put £20 million in at the end of October? 

 

Who's to say he did put £20m in?  Coming from proven serial liar Llambias??? 

 

Well, it'll be proven either way in 12months time when this year's accounts come to light but until then, judging by the previous sets of accounts, I'm confident that "serial liar Llambias" might actually be telling the truth here.

 

No one really has a leg to stand on when it comes to questioning Ashley's personal monetary contribution to the club - by all means question his decision making and intentions, but the guy has actually put the money on the table.

[James]

It was said that George Orwell's Animal Farm was about Soviet Russia.

 

They were wrong. It was about NUST.

[Big Geordie]

Congrats PP.

 

With regards to the email, it's poorly worded and will have doubtlessly done more harm to the trust than good. The trust need to reorganize their PR if they want to maintain some of the credibility that they have gained over the last couple of months. In their defence though, the organization is still young and mistakes will be made. They will need to learn from them though. Can they achieve their aims? I'm not sure because should we gain promotion, Ashley will up what he wants and the trust just won't have the clout. That's not to say they can't get a piece of the action in the future though. That remains to be seen.

 

I also look forward to seeing the accounts and the subsequent analysis of them.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I long for the day a sensible debate about NUST breaks out on here. There are far too many people who work themselves into a state of hysteria when anything vaguely unprofessional works it's way out into the public domain. Some of the stuff posted on here over the past 24 hours ("They may as well jack it in", "I'd rather Ashley than them" etc.) is just as cringeworthy as their last newsletter.

 

And before I'm pigeonholed as an unquestioning NUST minion (as I have been before) I would like to point out that I find the latest email completely laughable and I think they need to seriously take a look at themselves for publishing such a statement regardless of the validity of it. If there is truth in it then a comprehensive press release detailing all the sums, their sources etc. is a much better platform for it than a rogue, unsubstantiated sentence or two which is simply going to incite the masses. It beggars belief that they can't see that not only would such an approach shield them from criticism but it would present them as a safe pair of hands, especially as people are being asked to trust them financially. Unless these figures are then corroborated by others sources, regardless of whether they do finally present the fans with something that does make sense, they're going to look very silly. It's naive in the extreme.

 

There's one right here, people are only really criticising them for their press release/statement that's been released today, which is also something you've also said is worthy of criticism.

[Mick]

 

Who's to say he did put £20m in?  Coming from proven serial liar Llambias??? 

 

One of the few things they've done so far which has been proven is that when they say they put money in, they put money in and we should see a new set of accounts any day now.

[Cronky]

I long for the day a sensible debate about NUST breaks out on here. There are far too many people who work themselves into a state of hysteria when anything vaguely unprofessional works it's way out into the public domain. Some of the stuff posted on here over the past 24 hours ("They may as well jack it in", "I'd rather Ashley than them" etc.) is just as cringeworthy as their last newsletter.

 

And before I'm pigeonholed as an unquestioning NUST minion (as I have been before) I would like to point out that I find the latest email completely laughable and I think they need to seriously take a look at themselves for publishing such a statement regardless of the validity of it. If there is truth in it then a comprehensive press release detailing all the sums, their sources etc. is a much better platform for it than a rogue, unsubstantiated sentence or two which is simply going to incite the masses. It beggars belief that they can't see that not only would such an approach shield them from criticism but it would present them as a safe pair of hands, especially as people are being asked to trust them financially. Unless these figures are then corroborated by others sources, regardless of whether they do finally present the fans with something that does make sense, they're going to look very silly. It's naive in the extreme.

 

There's one right here, people are only really criticising them for their press release/statement that's been released today, which is also something you've also said is worthy of criticism.

 

The NUST accusation is more than 'vaguely unprofessional', and it didn't 'work its way into the public domain'. NUST put it there. They have themselves sought to attract attention to this accusation and so you are going to get some kind of a debate. Obviously not everyone is going to see things the way that they hope.

 

Why have they done it? Well, NUST have received a lot of favourable press attention over the last few months. Not long ago, we had an equally implausible story from 'a source close to NUST' to the effect that they had £50 million worth of pledges. I can't help but think that the main reason it made one or two papers was that the laws of libel weren't infringed.

 

I can only think that on this particular occasion, NUST have become over-confident, given the completely uncritical coverage they've received from the media in the past.

[quayside]

 

Who's to say he did put £20m in?  Coming from proven serial liar Llambias??? 

 

One of the few things they've done so far which has been proven is that when they say they put money in, they put money in and we should see a new set of accounts any day now.

 

That seems to be true. It's almost like there's an unwritten code on what they can lie about and what they can't lie about.

 

So the rules allow them to say there are a number of punters offering £100m for the club and it's fair game - a bit like "closing down sale" or "75% off".  It's a marketing tactic and who cares about any of that shyte?

 

But so far, as you say "Mike has stuck £20m in" seems to be in different territory.

Let's see.

[Teasy]

Im going to be unable to provide any real answers here because Ive been out of the main loop for the last couple of weeks due to personal circumstances. What I will say is that the £7m isnt a figure that we've plucked out of the air, this is something that will be coming out through other respected media organisations very shortly.

 

If it was down to me, I wouldnt have put that bit in the mail but we did and whats done is done, all I would ask is that when someone else reports the same allegation with the evidence to back it up then people need to backtrack on some of the stuff theyve been saying.

 

Its a known fact, Ashley is taking money out of this club (and to be fair he can do, its his club, he owns it and he can technically do what he wants), the amount is the only thing that has been at question. When that withdrawal of funds however imacts the clubs ability to run properly ie last seasons transfer windows and the subsequent relegation then that is the fans business.

 

NUST told us where the info comes from, problem is it clearly doesn't back up their claim:

 

The £7m figure comes from a respected company's Investment document

that was used to try to raise investment to buy the Club.

 

The headline figures in summary are for an investment of £95m and the

document states that they would expect "turn the investment of

£95million into a value of between £150million to £205million on

return to the Premiership.The £205m was top end but a 5% return on

investment would equate to over £84m on the predicted turnover.

 

Without going into lots of detail it is based on a £42m reduction in

wages (6months), £14m transfer fees received set against a projected

reduction of ticket revenue based on 34,000 crowds.  We are getting

crowds of 43,000 with the subsequent increase in half year season

tickets. Other reductions include  - outsourcing catering, outsourcing

match programmes, reduction of backroom staff by over 200 and still

continuing, the scaling down of the academy, a parachute payment of

£11.25m, decent television income, perimeter advertising of £50,000

per month, recent sponsorship deals etc etc

 

The perimeter advertising and large Sports Direct sign on the stand

are likely to be free advertising for his business.

 

One newspaper also came out with this same figure last week.

 

In the Sunday papers Mr Ashley said that he would not stay where he

was not wanted and would sell in the summer. We think this is why he

is waiting until then.

 

Since relegation Mr Ashley has invested an alleged £20m and that

figure has never been confirmed and the club has reduced its overdraft

without any significant investment in the playing staff.

 

Obviously, these figures are on return to the Premiership with the

extra revenue that will entail and we will have to wait to see the

actual published accounts but we think that these figures will stand

up to scrutiny.

 

How can they claim the club is currently making £7m profit per month based on info that they themselves say are only potential figures on return to the Premiership?

[Frazzle]

 

Who's to say he did put £20m in?  Coming from proven serial liar Llambias??? 

 

One of the few things they've done so far which has been proven is that when they say they put money in, they put money in and we should see a new set of accounts any day now.

 

That seems to be true. It's almost like there's an unwritten code on what they can lie about and what they can't lie about.

 

So the rules allow them to say there are a number of punters offering £100m for the club and it's fair game - a bit like "closing down sale" or "75% off".  It's a marketing tactic and who cares about any of that shyte?

 

But so far, as you say "Mike has stuck £20m in" seems to be in different territory.

Let's see.

 

Nobody said it was a fact that they didn't put £20m in, only that just because Lllambias says something is happening doesn't mean it's true.

 

As for the 'sensible debate' argument, it's as close as you'll get to a sensible debate on here as snide remarks etc. seem unavoidable.

[Happy Face]

 

Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

 

So considering they were still in debt after this its hardly a good set of figures as an example(not that the whole size/background differences ever made it a fair one)

 

Yes, totally different economics involved tbh - for example the running costs of the Hawthorns wouldn't be close to those of SJP.

 

Our wage bill will be higher, but I'm sure you're aware Ashley has cut two thirds of behind the scenes staff.  You know those queues outside the game every week that don't clear until twenty past 3.  Ashley has closed half the gates to ensure our running costs come down to the level of a club like West Brom.

 

Also, we made more than West Brom in the transfer market. Martins, Bassong, Beye & Duff went for more than a combined total of £18m so that's another area we'd exceed their profits.

 

Their £7m gate receipt will compare to avbout £20m plus from our 40,000+ average so there's another £13m.

[Happy Face]

West Brom turned a profit of almost £1m a month when they were last in the championship...

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

 

Ownership Over 50% owned by the chairman, Jeremy Peace

 

 

Turnover (2007-08, in the Championship): £27.2m (up from £24m the previous year, an increase of 13% mainly due to increased parachute payments)

 

Gate and matchiday £7m

 

Merchandising £2.2m

 

TV and broadcasting £14m

 

Other commercial income £4m

 

 

Wage bill £21.8m (up from £17.4m the previous year, an increase of 25%)

 

Wages as proportion of turnover 80%

 

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

Interest payable £91,000

 

Highest paid director Jeremy Peace: £625,000

 

 

State they're in This is the portrait of a former Premier League club pushing for promotion in the Championship, with the benefit of parachute payments, which increased by £4.5m during the year. West Bromwich carry little debt, have reduced ticket prices, and under Jeremy Peace's chairmanship do not gamble when they are promoted. Can be expected to be strong in the Championship next season and to yo-yo back up while still under the Premier League's parachute canopy.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

 

I find the refusal to believe Newcastle could turn any kind of profit this season strange with double the gate, advertising, pies, pints and strips while having (apparently) only £8m more in wage bill and non of the debt.

our wage bill is 40m a year by my guess and most certainly not less than 30m

 

Ashley is quoted as saying he's brought the wage bill down to £35m.

 

£13m more than West Brom.

 

As i said in the post above.  We make that up on gate receipts alone.

[Happy Face]

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

Turnover: £27.2m

 

Wage bill £21.8m

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

 

 

 

Player sales?

 

Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

 

They also spent £16m on players that year.

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744

 

We've spent zero.

[bealios]

Reading the posts in this thread from those close to NUST, the £7m claim has nothing to do with turnover, wages, player sales or gate receipts - it is based upon an estimate of the market value of the club now, and an estimate that if we returned to the Premier League there would be an £84m increase in the value of the club, so in 12 months it would have increased by £7m a month on average. This is being put to investors to justify a return on their investement.

 

This is an estimated increase in value of the club, and not the profit that anyone is making every month, which is something different. The message seems to be that if Ashley holds on to the club until the summer and then sells, he will have made £7m per month profit. What that ignores though is the massive losses per month he has made in the 12 months before last August.

 

What the statement should say really is that Ashley had lost close to £150m on the club as of August 2009, and if he holds on to it until the end of the season he will only have lost £65m.

 

I'm all for sensible debate on both sides, but you can only have that if both sides accept certain obvious facts - and the fact that Ashley will in any way make money from his association with NUFC is not one of them.

 

 

 

 

[Stu]

 

West Bromwich Albion

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008

 

Turnover: £27.2m

 

Wage bill £21.8m

 

Profit before tax £11.3m

 

Debts £8.9m

 

 

 

 

Player sales?

 

Yup they made an £18m profit on selling players. Koumas, Kamara, Ellington and Kuszczak left them that year for decent fees.

 

They also spent £16m on players that year.

 

http://www.soccerbase.com/transfers_by_team.sd?teamid=2744

 

We've spent zero.

 

There's about £6-7million which relates to players bought in the summer of 2008, which probably aren't included on the accounts discusses above. Furthermore, we don't know the payment plans for any of the outgoing or incoming transfers, so we can't be exact on where the 'profit' is coming from - all we know is that it certainly isn't coming from their annual turnover and that outgoing transfers is a realistic suggestion, given the figures involved.