David Icke - Son of God Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I don't doubt our financial situation under Shepherd was less than sound, I just haven't seen anything to suggest Mike Ashley & Derek Llambias have any sort of 'plan' to take us to the top. The only thing we do know Ashley has is deep pockets which he isn't particularly keen to put his hand in unless he absolutely has to. Not entirley true, given the amount of money he had to put in toward's the debt, which was built up by the previous chairman/board. While a lot of that is his own fault for not carrying out due diligence before buying the club, perhaps if he hadn't had to plough as much in towards the debt, then he may have been prepared to spend more on the playing side. But should he be expected to run/fund the club and keep buying players out of his own 'deep pockets'? Maybe he would have, we'll never know. However, the fact he was unwilling to spend last January when it was obvious to all we were in a relegation dogfight sums the man up. There is no plan, everything is done on a whim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Could anyone seriously have expected Fred to have put £20m of his own money into Newcastle in any one year? Nope. Fred wasn't an idiot. The facts on that beg to differ! Whatever criticism you have of Fred (and plenty is justified), no way was he an idiot. He helped make a massive success of a club about to drop into the third tier. [/NE5] FYP. There seems to be a lot of anti-Shepherd/pro-Ashley people and a few pro-Shepherd/anti-Ashley people and it's always a case of comparing one to the other. We need consensus agreement that they've both done some good and some bad, but overall they're a set of cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I thought I was being very balanced by just putting the facts in there and not commenting. Not commenting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wally_McFool Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Plenty of people will tell you that if it wasn't for Mike we could well be where Portsmouth are today. However, if it wasn't for Mike we could well be where Birmingham are today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Newcastle managing director Derek Llambias believes owner Mike Ashley has proved his commitment to supporters this season. "No it is not up for sale. There is no money out there. Football is not what it was," he explained. "We had two possible buyers and they didn't put their money up so at the end of the day they are not real." I've been more commited to clapped out bangers with 6 months left on the MOT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I thought I was being very balanced by just putting the facts in there and not commenting. Not commenting? In the op Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I don't doubt our financial situation under Shepherd was less than sound, I just haven't seen anything to suggest Mike Ashley & Derek Llambias have any sort of 'plan' to take us to the top. The only thing we do know Ashley has is deep pockets which he isn't particularly keen to put his hand in unless he absolutely has to. Not entirley true, given the amount of money he had to put in toward's the debt, which was built up by the previous chairman/board. While a lot of that is his own fault for not carrying out due diligence before buying the club, perhaps if he hadn't had to plough as much in towards the debt, then he may have been prepared to spend more on the playing side. But should he be expected to run/fund the club and keep buying players out of his own 'deep pockets'? That's exactly what you accept when you buy 100% of a football club.....unless you can run it such that revenue covers costs...which he (like Shepherd) has not been able to do. Maybe he would have, we'll never know. However, the fact he was unwilling to spend last January when it was obvious to all we were in a relegation dogfight sums the man up. There is no plan, everything is done on a whim. We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Come on man, we made an £8m profit on players in January 09. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Could anyone seriously have expected Fred to have put £20m of his own money into Newcastle in any one year? Nope. Fred wasn't an idiot. The facts on that beg to differ! Whatever criticism you have of Fred (and plenty is justified), no way was he an idiot. He helped make a massive success of a club about to drop into the third tier. [/NE5] FYP. There seems to be a lot of anti-Shepherd/pro-Ashley people and a few pro-Shepherd/anti-Ashley people and it's always a case of comparing one to the other. We need consensus agreement that they've both done some good and some bad, but overall they're a set of c***s. There are quite a few people who have been saying just that for some time tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Newcastle managing director Derek Llambias believes owner Mike Ashley has proved his commitment to supporters this season. "No it is not up for sale. There is no money out there. Football is not what it was," he explained. "We had two possible buyers and they didn't put their money up so at the end of the day they are not real." I've been more commited to clapped out bangers with 6 months left on the MOT. Sadly, we'll only know the truth of that statement (Llambias' statement, not your statement) in the summer, if he doesn't put the club on the market again and does provide some additional cash for building the squad then it'll be proved true otherwise it'll just be Llambias talking crap again. If he does attempt to sell the club again, I doubt it'll be anywhere near as public as the last couple of attempts and I doubt he'll use Seymour Pierce again. He'll probably try to find a buyer on his own or wait for someone to approach him directly. Llambias does more damage to Ashley's reputation at the club than he does to help it. If Ashley is serious about the club one of the first things he should be looking at is putting in place a real MD who understands football rather than relying on one of his mates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. Nolan and taylor weren't really the answer to our troubles, having sold Given and Nzogbia to turn a profit we really could have done with a bit of pace to secure the 1 point extra needed to survive. It's funny because he arrived and spent massively when we should have been cutting back, then in the window before relegation he changed his policy to spend nothing when a little investment would have been massively cost effective long term. I get the impression that his refusal to spend now only coincidentally matches up with being the right thing to do at this time. When we reach a window where real investment is needed again, I'm certain he'll get it wrong again. Also, I don't think Shepherd actually invested in '92 did he?, I thought it was all bank loans that he and the Halls were liable for if it went tits up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I don't doubt our financial situation under Shepherd was less than sound, I just haven't seen anything to suggest Mike Ashley & Derek Llambias have any sort of 'plan' to take us to the top. The only thing we do know Ashley has is deep pockets which he isn't particularly keen to put his hand in unless he absolutely has to. Not entirley true, given the amount of money he had to put in toward's the debt, which was built up by the previous chairman/board. While a lot of that is his own fault for not carrying out due diligence before buying the club, perhaps if he hadn't had to plough as much in towards the debt, then he may have been prepared to spend more on the playing side. But should he be expected to run/fund the club and keep buying players out of his own 'deep pockets'? That's exactly what you accept when you buy 100% of a football club.....unless you can run it such that revenue covers costs...which he (like Shepherd) has not been able to do. Maybe he would have, we'll never know. However, the fact he was unwilling to spend last January when it was obvious to all we were in a relegation dogfight sums the man up. There is no plan, everything is done on a whim. We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. We made around £8 million during that transfer window. We weakend our squad when we should've been looking to improve. The fact of the matter is Ashley could've done what you've highlighted (running the club on a sensible budget, reducing wages etc.) without us getting relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I thought I was being very balanced by just putting the facts in there and not commenting. Not commenting? In the op The headline man, even the new one is just taking the most negative spin possible, and well you know it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Could anyone seriously have expected Fred to have put £20m of his own money into Newcastle in any one year? Nope. Fred wasn't an idiot. The facts on that beg to differ! Whatever criticism you have of Fred (and plenty is justified), no way was he an idiot. He helped make a massive success of a club about to drop into the third tier. [/NE5] FYP. There seems to be a lot of anti-Shepherd/pro-Ashley people and a few pro-Shepherd/anti-Ashley people and it's always a case of comparing one to the other. We need consensus agreement that they've both done some good and some bad, but overall they're a set of c***s. There are quite a few people who have been saying just that for some time tbh. You're right. Not an unreasonable minority either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I thought I was being very balanced by just putting the facts in there and not commenting. Not commenting? In the op The headline man, even the new one is just taking the most negative spin possible, and well you know it. How about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I thought I was being very balanced by just putting the facts in there and not commenting. Not commenting? In the op The headline man, even the new one is just taking the most negative spin possible, and well you know it. Jesus wept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca888 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I am no Ashley supporter by any means but it appears that he has learned some lessons out of all this. The message coming from Llambias appeared quite telling and basically admitting that Ashley is now here to stay. We were a shambles financially, probably still are to some extent and Ashley has acted foolishly in many ways, including the financial side of things by failing to conduct due diligence when he bought the club. Like it or not, he clearly had to introduce severe measures to cut the debt and he is continually backing the club financially to keep uis going. We are still the highest earning club in the CCC by a country mile and he could have purged us more in the pre season. Instead, he is putting money in and if we get promoted, as expected, he seems to be intent on putting more money in without increasing the overall debt to unmanageable levels again. He will never be accepted but at least, he seems to be trying to put the club back on an even keel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. Nolan and taylor weren't really the answer to our troubles, having sold Given and Nzogbia to turn a profit we really could have done with a bit of pace to secure the 1 point extra needed to survive. It's funny because he arrived and spent massively when we should have been cutting back, then in the window before relegation he changed his policy to spend nothing when a little investment would have been massively cost effective long term. I get the impression that his refusal to spend now only coincidentally matches up with being the right thing to do at this time. When we reach a window where real investment is needed again, I'm certain he'll get it wrong again. Also, I don't think Shepherd actually invested in '92 did he?, I thought it was all bank loans that he and the Halls were liable for if it went tits up. Not sure about that. We didn't really spend massively in the transfer market in summer 2007, although there was a hike in wages. We may have had a net transfer spend of between £5 million and £10 million (after selling Parker, Dyer) but at that stage, having done no due diligence, I don't think Ashley had the first idea of the economics of the business he'd just bought and he simply went where Fat Sam led him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca888 Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. Nolan and taylor weren't really the answer to our troubles, having sold Given and Nzogbia to turn a profit we really could have done with a bit of pace to secure the 1 point extra needed to survive. It's funny because he arrived and spent massively when we should have been cutting back, then in the window before relegation he changed his policy to spend nothing when a little investment would have been massively cost effective long term. I get the impression that his refusal to spend now only coincidentally matches up with being the right thing to do at this time. When we reach a window where real investment is needed again, I'm certain he'll get it wrong again. Also, I don't think Shepherd actually invested in '92 did he?, I thought it was all bank loans that he and the Halls were liable for if it went tits up. Not sure about that. We didn't really spend massively in the transfer market in summer 2007, although there was a hike in wages. We may have had a net transfer spend of between £5 million and £10 million (after selling Parker, Dyer) but at that stage, having done no due diligence, I don't think Ashley had the first idea of the economics of the business he'd just bought and he simply went where Fat Sam led him. Fair comment. It might also be noted that when Ashley bought the club, he was something like the 25th richest person in the country. The GEC saw him lose half his fortune in one fell swoop and that was bound to have some sort of flow on effect against the club. I dont think anyone envisaged relegation last season, hence the reason why reduced salaries were not factored into players contracts in case of relegation. It has been a huge learning curve for him but there appears to be indications that he is certainly understanding the business of a football club a lot more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I thought I was being very balanced by just putting the facts in there and not commenting. Not commenting? In the op The headline man, even the new one is just taking the most negative spin possible, and well you know it. Jesus wept. Yay, title change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 Wow, the positive media brigade are out in force again like Weeks of 'sources' and 'insiders' pointing towards Ashley saving the club from going under and put all his hard earned money in, then Llambias comes out randomly after months of saying nothing in public to praise and bum Ashley from here to Hexham. Must they really continue to do this every 4 months? It doesn't point away from the fact that he's still an utter cock-end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. Nolan and taylor weren't really the answer to our troubles, having sold Given and Nzogbia to turn a profit we really could have done with a bit of pace to secure the 1 point extra needed to survive. It's funny because he arrived and spent massively when we should have been cutting back, then in the window before relegation he changed his policy to spend nothing when a little investment would have been massively cost effective long term. I get the impression that his refusal to spend now only coincidentally matches up with being the right thing to do at this time. When we reach a window where real investment is needed again, I'm certain he'll get it wrong again. Also, I don't think Shepherd actually invested in '92 did he?, I thought it was all bank loans that he and the Halls were liable for if it went tits up. Not sure about that. We didn't really spend massively in the transfer market in summer 2007, although there was a hike in wages. We may have had a net transfer spend of between £5 million and £10 million (after selling Parker, Dyer) but at that stage, having done no due diligence, I don't think Ashley had the first idea of the economics of the business he'd just bought and he simply went where Fat Sam led him. Yeah, £10m down in that first window, but then once he bought Colo he was £20m in the hole. Even though he almost immediately recouped half of that from Milner etc. He remained £16m out of pocket until Zoggy and Given were shipped out. http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3374/ashleytransfers.jpg If it took him 15 or 16 months to work out his balance sheet (long after Mort had finished the transition) then he really screwed up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 I don't doubt our financial situation under Shepherd was less than sound, I just haven't seen anything to suggest Mike Ashley & Derek Llambias have any sort of 'plan' to take us to the top. The only thing we do know Ashley has is deep pockets which he isn't particularly keen to put his hand in unless he absolutely has to. Not entirley true, given the amount of money he had to put in toward's the debt, which was built up by the previous chairman/board. While a lot of that is his own fault for not carrying out due diligence before buying the club, perhaps if he hadn't had to plough as much in towards the debt, then he may have been prepared to spend more on the playing side. But should he be expected to run/fund the club and keep buying players out of his own 'deep pockets'? That's exactly what you accept when you buy 100% of a football club.....unless you can run it such that revenue covers costs...which he (like Shepherd) has not been able to do. Maybe he would have, we'll never know. However, the fact he was unwilling to spend last January when it was obvious to all we were in a relegation dogfight sums the man up. There is no plan, everything is done on a whim. We signed Nolan and Ryan Taylor January 09, didn't we?. Not saying it was the answer and/or enough (it clearly wasn't), but he did give JFK the money to spend. I'm not pro-Ashley, but I can understand (to a degree) why he isn't spending all of his own money on players each transfer window, while also (allegedly) putting money into keeping the club running. Shepherd never put any of his own money in beyond his intial investment in '92, but because Ashley is a Multi-Millionaire (was a billionaire), he is seemingly expected to continuously. There is clearly some kind of plan to get the club running off it own back again (reducing wages, etc), which is taking time, and hopefully promotion can/will help that as well, with the additional monies that will come with it. We made around £8 million during that transfer window. We weakend our squad when we should've been looking to improve. The fact of the matter is Ashley could've done what you've highlighted (running the club on a sensible budget, reducing wages etc.) without us getting relegated. Maybe JK had identified Nolan and Taylor as the players he needed and felt that Harper was solid enough to replace Shay. Man Utd made a huge profit last summer on transfers, Fergie seems happy enough with the dealings though. Pretty sure Arsenal made a profit too, they are stronger now than last season. Net profit/loss is a stupid number to use, you could overspend on 2 players to have a net overspend and actually weaken the team or get 2 on the cheap and improve the team. Its the quality of player (managers choice) that matters not the £ notes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 What the fuck is that graph? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted March 3, 2010 Share Posted March 3, 2010 What the fuck is that graph? Stat attack! 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