madras Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 surely i can't be the only one to find this a load of tosh ? things aren't worked out on transfer fees ar wages but the estimated cost of the whole package and possible resale value. the way some are believing it is that they will spend £2million on a player and a wage cap of £15,000 but wouldn't go £17,000 for the same player on a free. i've always loved the way everyone slags the press off but they swallow every line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 i've always loved the way everyone slags the press off but they swallow every line. What i 'love' is when people make reasoned arguments and then decimate them in one fell swoop by trying to attribute individual opinions to everyone at once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 The performance related pay is a brilliant idea in theory, but it has major flaws. Who will be the judge on whether the performance was good enough? If it's the club that judges than surely there could be all sorts of nasty disagreements on how good a player did. For a striker you could argue that goals could be the driving force, but what if the striker get's his leg broken by a shocking tackle? it's not the strikers fault however he will lose out on a lot of money because he can't be on the pitch to score the goals. It will also never work because all clubs would have to adopt this policy at the same time. If you have a choice of £15k a week or £5k a week basic with potential to earn much higher, the player will always go for the £15k a week contract imo. It may work if the players performances were judged by the fans, but even then I'm sure arguments and debates would ensue. It's not worth discussing as it will never happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 It would have to be mostly based on stats rather than opinion. Clean sheets, goals, assists, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 It would have to be mostly based on stats rather than opinion. Clean sheets, goals, assists, etc. Except that might bias players to try to score themselves when a team mate was in a far better position. Easier to just base it on a win, possibly give a smaller bonus for a draw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 It may work if the players performances were judged by the fans, but even then I'm sure arguments and debates would ensue. Just a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 It may work if the players performances were judged by the fans, but even then I'm sure arguments and debates would ensue. Just a bit. people constantly changing usernames gets on my tits. Just a bit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/735093/ASHLEY-MADE-EMERGENCY-LOAN-TO-TOON.html ASHLEY MADE EMERGENCY LOAN TO TOON Newcastle still in deep financial trouble PROMOTION COUNTDOWN: Chris Hughton By Martin Hardy, 20/02/2010 MIKE ASHLEY had to make an emergency £25million loan in December to keep Newcastle going. Sport of the World has learned the Toon owner arranged the interest-free deal to meet player wages and the general running costs of the Championship leaders. It further highlights the precarious nature of the club's financial situation despite a campaign that has seen them largely lead the Championship. It also increases the need for an immediate return to the Premier League with revenue streams having been slashed in the wake of relegation. Newcastle's wage bill remains around £40million despite a huge cull of personnel in the summer. Turnover has dropped to around £50million and the hush-hush refinancing deal enabled the club to not only secure its short-term future but also strengthen their squad with four permanent signings and two loan deals arriving in January. However the loan has effectively been offset against Newcastle's second and final parachute payment from the Premier League and the outstanding deferred fees to be paid on the outgoing transfers that took place in the summer. That means the £11million parachute payment that will arrive in August has already been spent, as has a sum believed to be around £9million that was owed from the sales of Obafemi Martins, Damien Duff and Sebastien Bassong. "Mike did not want people to know about the loan he put into the club in December," said a club source. "If he had not done that, who knows what could have happened? The only other possible option would have been to have arranged an outside finance deal and the interest rate for that would have been around 20 per cent, which means you've lost another £5million straight away. "Mike has committed more money to the club. It is a secured loan, interest free and it had to be done. "There is a shortfall of around £50million because of relegation. The club had to bring some payments forward. That is not unusual. "Doing this was the only way the club could operate. All the previous sponsorship money had been spent on the Michael Owen deal before Mike Ashley even bought the club. "That deal alone has cost Newcastle £44million. The TV money went with relegation, the retail income has gone, the commercial income has been cut. The money has to come from somewhere and that is why there had to be an injection of £25 million at the end of last year. Despite crowds staying around the 40,000 mark, turnstile income has dropped to £14million and hospitality has similarly been more than halved to around £3million. An immediate return to the Premier League would bank the club around £40million in television revenue alone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 That will be the £20m or so he said he was going to invest into the club when he took us off the market again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 "Mike did not want people to know about the loan he put into the club in December," said a club source. Spot the flaw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 "Mike did not want people to know about the loan he put into the club in December," said a club source. Spot the flaw. ??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 Er... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 Er... Well theirs two, the fact it is a loan, and the fact that a club source said he didn't want anyone to know but revealed it in anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 That will be the £20m or so he said he was going to invest into the club when he took us off the market again. sounds like it alright 5m extra to cover signings fees and wages Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/735093/ASHLEY-MADE-EMERGENCY-LOAN-TO-TOON.html "Doing this was the only way the club could operate. All the previous sponsorship money had been spent on the Michael Owen deal before Mike Ashley even bought the club. I didn't know this. For real? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/735093/ASHLEY-MADE-EMERGENCY-LOAN-TO-TOON.html "Doing this was the only way the club could operate. All the previous sponsorship money had been spent on the Michael Owen deal before Mike Ashley even bought the club. I didn't know this. For real? Yep. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 "Mike did not want people to know about the loan he put into the club in December," said a club source. Spot the flaw. ??? Oh my. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/735093/ASHLEY-MADE-EMERGENCY-LOAN-TO-TOON.html "Doing this was the only way the club could operate. All the previous sponsorship money had been spent on the Michael Owen deal before Mike Ashley even bought the club. I didn't know this. For real? just one of many horrendous business decisions from that cock. But probably the worst one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 That will be the £20m or so he said he was going to invest into the club when he took us off the market again. Mike seems to put in (lend) the club (his business) £20m every other week. The total he’s put in (lent) the club (himself) since he decided not to undertake due diligence must now be about three hundred zillion spondoolies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 It wouldn't surprise me if he had but since he threatened legal action the NotW have opted for pro-Ashley angles. I'm taking it with a pinch of salt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 It wouldn't surprise me if he had but since he threatened legal action the NotW have opted for pro-Ashley angles. I'm taking it with a pinch of salt. In the same way Thomson House have changed their tune since the Sunday Sun was banned from SJP? Is that ban still in place? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 It wouldn't surprise me if he had but since he threatened legal action the NotW have opted for pro-Ashley angles. I'm taking it with a pinch of salt. In the same way Thomson House have changed their tune since the Sunday Sun was banned from SJP? Is that ban still in place? They'll continue to make it up as they go along, same as they always have. Access or not, they'll print shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 It wouldn't surprise me if he had but since he threatened legal action the NotW have opted for pro-Ashley angles. I'm taking it with a pinch of salt. In the same way Thomson House have changed their tune since the Sunday Sun was banned from SJP? Is that ban still in place? Aye. A national daily has been banned too but I'm barred from divulging which one. It's not a News Corp paper either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Is Alan Oliver still banned. Is Dave Kidd still banned? Is Neil Farrington still banned? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Whatever the opinion on Ashley, the fact is it was reported Barclays were unwilling to back Barry Moat to the same tune during his somewhat pathetic takeover attempt. Like the saying goes, the grass isn't always greener.... 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