Is Mike Ashley steering Newcastle United in the right direction?

[UV]

 

Yes, I agree. It is unbelievable how far down Ashley has managed to take the club in such a relatively short space of time, undoing all of the excellent work done by those he bought the club from.

the undoing of the excellent work started arond 2004.

 

So you keep saying, mate and I read it the first time months ago.

 

It's mildly interesting that according to others the decline started in 2003, when despite heavily investing in the playing squad for the previous 'x' years and bringing in 3 players during 2003, this wasn't ambitious enough.

 

It does seem somewhat stupid to be blaming the situation in 2010 on what happened half a decade ago but then you do have a big determination to not give any credit where it's due. They made mistakes, nobody has ever denied that, but the ambition they showed for the football club transcends anything we've seen so far from Ashley and his crowd of football morons.

 

Ashley took over a PL club and knacked it through a series of poor decisions, it's a fairly straightforward situation to understand.

ashley took over a club going backwards rapidly in every sense.

 

it does seem stupid you trying to make out that i'm referring to only 2004 in particular and not the timeframe since then.

 

yes ashleys decisions have contributed to us being relegated, however by the end of fred's time i wanted him rid as that was where i saw us heading anyway. then again if you don't think we were going backwards with little chance of turning it round due to the financial position we were in then it's not worth discussing further as it's not really being truthful to the situation as was.

 

 

(oh i also said "AROUND" 2004, surely you aren't goiung to be so petty to want an exact date)

edit...i have gave nothing but praise for the previous board until around the time of robsons leaving.

 

This is what I don't understand. Why weren't you critical of them in 98 then? How was the slump between 97 & 2001 different to the one we were going through? The wages were 64% of turnover, the debt was £66m when the turnover was only £55m, we finished bottom half for 4 years. In many ways we were in a far worse position then than the one Ashley inherited, yet you and others are trying to paint it as almost inevitable that we would have been relegated and/or gone into administration. If you're going to be critical of how the club was run in the past, then at least be consistent and say that if you'd had your way we would not have extended the stadium or given Robson the money to buy hit and miss purchases such as Bassedas, Cort, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate, or going further back bought "trophy players" such as Shearer. We shouldn't have risked any of that, and should have played it safe like Villa, Everton, Spurs, etc did back then. Just admit that you'd rather have uncomplainingly settled for mid table mediocrity year in year out, selling off any good young players who came through to the big boys to balance the books, than watch us in FA cup finals, Champions League football, European games every other year, have top players at the club, because the bit of added financial risk that if it didn't work out we'd have to cut back and regroup for a few years just wasn't worth it.

 

 

When Ashley took over and after his first Summer of transfers there was no talk of relegation, it was all about whether or not we'd be able to get into Europe. The squad he inherited had had a bad year with injuries, but were comfortably a mid table squad in a normal year, Ashley had the money to pay off the debts and the full extent of the club's finances were known to him. At that point Ashley had control of the club and had money available to rectify any financial problems (he chose to spend some of his money paying for players in one lump sum rather than spreading the payments). No matter what you think of what would have happened to the club otherwise, at that point the club was stable. That is the context and the point from which Ashley should be judged, not in comparison to some theoretical disastrous future differing wildly from what happened under similar circumstances in the past. Even if it were the case, whether or not we would have been relegated at some point under the old board because they didn't have access to any more external cash is IRRELEVANT to how Ashley's performance as owner should be judged.

 

You are the one who is not really being truthful to the situation as was and the scale for which our relegation, currently far poorer squad, and bleak near future is completely down to Ashley.

[Guest Brummiemag]

Mike Ashley would have been steering the club in the right direction if he had supported KK and not undermined him

 

 

 

Agree

 

Newcastle will never achieve anything under Ashley.

 

The shameful way that Ashley undermined Keegan and lied to the supporters, along with the shambolic way he has managed the club mean that amongst other things, no decent manager would come anywhere near us 

[madras]

 

Yes, I agree. It is unbelievable how far down Ashley has managed to take the club in such a relatively short space of time, undoing all of the excellent work done by those he bought the club from.

the undoing of the excellent work started arond 2004.

 

So you keep saying, mate and I read it the first time months ago.

 

It's mildly interesting that according to others the decline started in 2003, when despite heavily investing in the playing squad for the previous 'x' years and bringing in 3 players during 2003, this wasn't ambitious enough.

 

It does seem somewhat stupid to be blaming the situation in 2010 on what happened half a decade ago but then you do have a big determination to not give any credit where it's due. They made mistakes, nobody has ever denied that, but the ambition they showed for the football club transcends anything we've seen so far from Ashley and his crowd of football morons.

 

Ashley took over a PL club and knacked it through a series of poor decisions, it's a fairly straightforward situation to understand.

ashley took over a club going backwards rapidly in every sense.

 

it does seem stupid you trying to make out that i'm referring to only 2004 in particular and not the timeframe since then.

 

yes ashleys decisions have contributed to us being relegated, however by the end of fred's time i wanted him rid as that was where i saw us heading anyway. then again if you don't think we were going backwards with little chance of turning it round due to the financial position we were in then it's not worth discussing further as it's not really being truthful to the situation as was.

 

 

(oh i also said "AROUND" 2004, surely you aren't goiung to be so petty to want an exact date)

edit...i have gave nothing but praise for the previous board until around the time of robsons leaving.

 

This is what I don't understand. Why weren't you critical of them in 98 then? How was the slump between 97 & 2001 different to the one we were going through? The wages were 64% of turnover, the debt was £66m when the turnover was only £55m, we finished bottom half for 4 years. In many ways we were in a far worse position then than the one Ashley inherited, yet you and others are trying to paint it as almost inevitable that we would have been relegated and/or gone into administration. If you're going to be critical of how the club was run in the past, then at least be consistent and say that if you'd had your way we would not have extended the stadium or given Robson the money to buy hit and miss purchases such as Bassedas, Cort, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate, or going further back bought "trophy players" such as Shearer. We shouldn't have risked any of that, and should have played it safe like Villa, Everton, Spurs, etc did back then. Just admit that you'd rather have uncomplainingly settled for mid table mediocrity year in year out, selling off any good young players who came through to the big boys to balance the books, than watch us in FA cup finals, Champions League football, European games every other year, have top players at the club, because the bit of added financial risk that if it didn't work out we'd have to cut back and regroup for a few years just wasn't worth it.

 

 

When Ashley took over and after his first Summer of transfers there was no talk of relegation, it was all about whether or not we'd be able to get into Europe. The squad he inherited had had a bad year with injuries, but were comfortably a mid table squad in a normal year, Ashley had the money to pay off the debts and the full extent of the club's finances were known to him. At that point Ashley had control of the club and had money available to rectify any financial problems (he chose to spend some of his money paying for players in one lump sum rather than spreading the payments). No matter what you think of what would have happened to the club otherwise, at that point the club was stable. That is the context and the point from which Ashley should be judged, not in comparison to some theoretical disastrous future differing wildly from what happened under similar circumstances in the past. Even if it were the case, whether or not we would have been relegated at some point under the old board because they didn't have access to any more external cash is IRRELEVANT to how Ashley's performance as owner should be judged.

 

You are the one who is not really being truthful to the situation as was and the scale for which our relegation, currently far poorer squad, and bleak near future is completely down to Ashley.

i probably would have complained had i took notice of the finances then as i do now (i'm also guessing that back then there were still things to borrow against) and had the gambling not paid off then, as it didn't with owen/luque etc we may have hit the position of 2007 earlier.

 

the season he took over we were lloking over our shoulders at relegation till we beat sheff utd away.

 

as for the external cash bit, of course it's relevant as the business was in the same position in regards it's ability to raise cash unless some person came along to put his own cash in (and yes i know he is only doing it to get some sort of return or more likely an attempt to minimise his losses.

 

you've spelled it out yourself, robson was given money and it worked, we tried it again and it didn't work...............can we keep on doing it until it does work or at some point will those lending the money say 'no' ?

[madras]

 

Yes, I agree. It is unbelievable how far down Ashley has managed to take the club in such a relatively short space of time, undoing all of the excellent work done by those he bought the club from.

the undoing of the excellent work started arond 2004.

 

So you keep saying, mate and I read it the first time months ago.

 

It's mildly interesting that according to others the decline started in 2003, when despite heavily investing in the playing squad for the previous 'x' years and bringing in 3 players during 2003, this wasn't ambitious enough.

 

It does seem somewhat stupid to be blaming the situation in 2010 on what happened half a decade ago but then you do have a big determination to not give any credit where it's due. They made mistakes, nobody has ever denied that, but the ambition they showed for the football club transcends anything we've seen so far from Ashley and his crowd of football morons.

 

Ashley took over a PL club and knacked it through a series of poor decisions, it's a fairly straightforward situation to understand.

ashley took over a club going backwards rapidly in every sense.

 

it does seem stupid you trying to make out that i'm referring to only 2004 in particular and not the timeframe since then.

 

yes ashleys decisions have contributed to us being relegated, however by the end of fred's time i wanted him rid as that was where i saw us heading anyway. then again if you don't think we were going backwards with little chance of turning it round due to the financial position we were in then it's not worth discussing further as it's not really being truthful to the situation as was.

 

 

(oh i also said "AROUND" 2004, surely you aren't goiung to be so petty to want an exact date)

 

edit...i have gave nothing but praise for the previous board until around the time of robsons leaving.

 

I don't give a toss whether you gave the previous Board praise or not. What I'm saying it is ridiculous to blame anyone other than Ashley for what has happened to the club since the day he took it over. It's nearly 3 bloody years ago, man. He took over a PL league club and took it backwards. Simple as that.

if you don't give a toss why make a point of saying i have " a big determination not to give credit when it's due" when what seems patently obvious is you won't give criticism when it's due.

 

 

 

I  mentioned it because it's a fact, not because I'm bothered.

 

how is it a fact when you know i have gave credit where and when it was due ?

[Benwell Lad]

Love the article on the previous page from sports.co.uk 

Fantastically well written especially the bit which says "Ashley has stuck by Chris Hughton and Joe Kinnear who will tow the line"

Is he a f@cking tug boat ?

 

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/630/GrammarNaziCat.jpg

 

Without wishing to sound pedantic it was a spelling error I pointed out and not a grammatical one. You do understand the difference don't you ?

Further to that, I would never criticise the grammar or spelling of anyone posting on here (we can all make mistakes) but when it is quoted from a media source then I think it's fair game to have a go at them as they should do better.

In fact the number of mis-spellings, grammatical and pronunciation errors delivered by highly paid journalists on Sky etc is quite shameful and shows how far their profession has declined.

[madras]

Love the article on the previous page from sports.co.uk 

Fantastically well written especially the bit which says "Ashley has stuck by Chris Hughton and Joe Kinnear who will tow the line"

Is he a f@cking tug boat ?

 

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/630/GrammarNaziCat.jpg

 

Without wishing to sound pedantic it was a spelling error I pointed out and not a grammatical one. You do understand the difference don't you ?

Further to that, I would never criticise the grammar or spelling of anyone posting on here (we can all make mistakes) but when it is quoted from a media source then I think it's fair game to have a go at them as they should do better.

In fact the number of mis-spellings, grammatical and pronunciation errors delivered by highly paid journalists on Sky etc is quite shameful and shows how far their profession has declined.

i'll be honest, i thought tow the line was the correct usage probably form a nautical thing. having googled it is indeed toe the line.

[Benwell Lad]

Mike Ashley would have been steering the club in the right direction if he had supported KK and not undermined him

 

 

 

Agree

 

Newcastle will never achieve anything under Ashley.

 

The shameful way that Ashley undermined Keegan and lied to the supporters, along with the shambolic way he has managed the club mean that amongst other things, no decent manager would come anywhere near us  

 

Quite right.

Which is why so many on here supported the NUST "Yes we can" campaign as a credible alternative to Ashley.

After all NUST wouldn't lie to supporters, would they ?

[Benwell Lad]

Love the article on the previous page from sports.co.uk 

Fantastically well written especially the bit which says "Ashley has stuck by Chris Hughton and Joe Kinnear who will tow the line"

Is he a f@cking tug boat ?

 

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/630/GrammarNaziCat.jpg

 

Without wishing to sound pedantic it was a spelling error I pointed out and not a grammatical one. You do understand the difference don't you ?

Further to that, I would never criticise the grammar or spelling of anyone posting on here (we can all make mistakes) but when it is quoted from a media source then I think it's fair game to have a go at them as they should do better.

In fact the number of mis-spellings, grammatical and pronunciation errors delivered by highly paid journalists on Sky etc is quite shameful and shows how far their profession has declined.

i'll be honest, i thought tow the line was the correct usage probably form a nautical thing. having googled it is indeed toe the line.

 

Just shows that using N-O can even be educational at times 

 

As I said earlier any of us can make that mistake, but when it's from a media source then they really should know better.

[Happy Face]

Love the article on the previous page from sports.co.uk 

Fantastically well written especially the bit which says "Ashley has stuck by Chris Hughton and Joe Kinnear who will tow the line"

Is he a f@cking tug boat ?

 

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/630/GrammarNaziCat.jpg

 

Without wishing to sound pedantic it was a spelling error I pointed out and not a grammatical one. You do understand the difference don't you ?

Further to that, I would never criticise the grammar or spelling of anyone posting on here (we can all make mistakes) but when it is quoted from a media source then I think it's fair game to have a go at them as they should do better.

In fact the number of mis-spellings, grammatical and pronunciation errors delivered by highly paid journalists on Sky etc is quite shameful and shows how far their profession has declined.

i'll be honest, i thought tow the line was the correct usage probably form a nautical thing. having googled it is indeed toe the line.

 

Just shows that using N-O can even be educational at times 

 

As I said earlier any of us can make that mistake, but when it's from a media source then they really should know better.

 

I'd edited the original article.

 

I did think "is it tow or toe?" and chose to go with an invalid assumption.

 

[Howaythelads]

How about getting back on topic?

 

Nobody cares if it's toe or tow and in any case, yung jernalists can't spell becoz there a product of the currant edgeucashion sistem. Us auld tw*ts hav know problim at all wif speling, we was edgeucated propa.

[Guest toonlass]

First thing Ashley has to do if he is staying is get rid of Llambias. Dekka is an absolute waste of space. I would rather Ashley fucked off but if he is going to stay and make a go of it then Llambias has to be shown the door.

[Happy Face]

First thing Ashley has to do if he is staying is get rid of Llambias. Dekka is an absolute waste of space. I would rather Ashley fucked off but if he is going to stay and make a go of it then Llambias has to be shown the door.

 

Totally agree.

 

We should aim for achievable goals. 

 

Even if Ashley did want to sell the club he couldn't.  The fans ire should be direted at Desmond Decker.  Show that he's less popular than Ashley and give him the opportunity to use him as a scapegoat.

[Howaythelads]

First thing Ashley has to do if he is staying is get rid of Llambias. Dekka is an absolute waste of space. I would rather Ashley fucked off but if he is going to stay and make a go of it then Llambias has to be shown the door.

 

Totally agree.

 

We should aim for achievable goals. 

 

Even if Ashley did want to sell the club he couldn't.  The fans ire should be direted at Desmond Decker.  Show that he's less popular than Ashley and give him the opportunity to use him as a scapegoat.

 

To be replaced by ... ?

 

They haven't contacted me when I offered to be an advisor so maybe his plan is to shift lamb chop and offer me the top arse-licking job. Thing is, I'd be kicking his arse...

[Happy Face]

First thing Ashley has to do if he is staying is get rid of Llambias. Dekka is an absolute waste of space. I would rather Ashley fucked off but if he is going to stay and make a go of it then Llambias has to be shown the door.

 

Totally agree.

 

We should aim for achievable goals. 

 

Even if Ashley did want to sell the club he couldn't.  The fans ire should be direted at Desmond Decker.  Show that he's less popular than Ashley and give him the opportunity to use him as a scapegoat.

 

To be replaced by ... ?

 

They haven't contacted me when I offered to be an advisor so maybe his plan is to shift lamb chop and offer me the top arse-licking job. Thing is, I'd be kicking his arse...

 

Keith Edelman?

 

Mebeez he could tempt Wenger 

[quayside]

 

This is what I don't understand. Why weren't you critical of them in 98 then? How was the slump between 97 & 2001 different to the one we were going through? The wages were 64% of turnover, the debt was £66m when the turnover was only £55m, we finished bottom half for 4 years. In many ways we were in a far worse position then than the one Ashley inherited, yet you and others are trying to paint it as almost inevitable that we would have been relegated and/or gone into administration. If you're going to be critical of how the club was run in the past, then at least be consistent and say that if you'd had your way we would not have extended the stadium or given Robson the money to buy hit and miss purchases such as Bassedas, Cort, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate, or going further back bought "trophy players" such as Shearer. We shouldn't have risked any of that, and should have played it safe like Villa, Everton, Spurs, etc did back then. Just admit that you'd rather have uncomplainingly settled for mid table mediocrity year in year out, selling off any good young players who came through to the big boys to balance the books, than watch us in FA cup finals, Champions League football, European games every other year, have top players at the club, because the bit of added financial risk that if it didn't work out we'd have to cut back and regroup for a few years just wasn't worth it.

 

 

When Ashley took over and after his first Summer of transfers there was no talk of relegation, it was all about whether or not we'd be able to get into Europe. The squad he inherited had had a bad year with injuries, but were comfortably a mid table squad in a normal year, Ashley had the money to pay off the debts and the full extent of the club's finances were known to him. At that point Ashley had control of the club and had money available to rectify any financial problems (he chose to spend some of his money paying for players in one lump sum rather than spreading the payments). No matter what you think of what would have happened to the club otherwise, at that point the club was stable. That is the context and the point from which Ashley should be judged, not in comparison to some theoretical disastrous future differing wildly from what happened under similar circumstances in the past. Even if it were the case, whether or not we would have been relegated at some point under the old board because they didn't have access to any more external cash is IRRELEVANT to how Ashley's performance as owner should be judged.

 

You are the one who is not really being truthful to the situation as was and the scale for which our relegation, currently far poorer squad, and bleak near future is completely down to Ashley.

 

I hate your f*cking posts on finance. I find myself trawling back through old sets of accounts only to discover that you are usually wrong 

 

Not that anyone was particularly interested in club finances at the time but:

 

In 1998 the club had £25 million of cash sitting on deposit a long term £15 million bank loan was the only debt, on a turnover of £45 million wages were only running at 54% and the club’s net worth was £55 million.

 

In 2001 the club still had £16 million of cash on deposit, the debt had risen to £55 million as a result of the stadium expansion, on a turnover of £55 million wages were running at 49% and the club’s net worth was £23 million.

 

 

In 2007 Ashley inherited something far worse than this. I’ve explained the June 2007 financial situation more than once and am not going to do so again. To say we had been in a worse situation in the past is complete and utter crap.

 

Although your post was not directed at anything I said, just for the record I certainly don't think trying to get an accurate view of what happened in the past is in any way some sort of defence of the c*ck ups Ashley has perpetrated since he took over. It is just a matter of putting where the club was at the time of the takeover into full perspective.

[UV]

 

This is what I don't understand. Why weren't you critical of them in 98 then? How was the slump between 97 & 2001 different to the one we were going through? The wages were 64% of turnover, the debt was £66m when the turnover was only £55m, we finished bottom half for 4 years. In many ways we were in a far worse position then than the one Ashley inherited, yet you and others are trying to paint it as almost inevitable that we would have been relegated and/or gone into administration. If you're going to be critical of how the club was run in the past, then at least be consistent and say that if you'd had your way we would not have extended the stadium or given Robson the money to buy hit and miss purchases such as Bassedas, Cort, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate, or going further back bought "trophy players" such as Shearer. We shouldn't have risked any of that, and should have played it safe like Villa, Everton, Spurs, etc did back then. Just admit that you'd rather have uncomplainingly settled for mid table mediocrity year in year out, selling off any good young players who came through to the big boys to balance the books, than watch us in FA cup finals, Champions League football, European games every other year, have top players at the club, because the bit of added financial risk that if it didn't work out we'd have to cut back and regroup for a few years just wasn't worth it.

 

 

When Ashley took over and after his first Summer of transfers there was no talk of relegation, it was all about whether or not we'd be able to get into Europe. The squad he inherited had had a bad year with injuries, but were comfortably a mid table squad in a normal year, Ashley had the money to pay off the debts and the full extent of the club's finances were known to him. At that point Ashley had control of the club and had money available to rectify any financial problems (he chose to spend some of his money paying for players in one lump sum rather than spreading the payments). No matter what you think of what would have happened to the club otherwise, at that point the club was stable. That is the context and the point from which Ashley should be judged, not in comparison to some theoretical disastrous future differing wildly from what happened under similar circumstances in the past. Even if it were the case, whether or not we would have been relegated at some point under the old board because they didn't have access to any more external cash is IRRELEVANT to how Ashley's performance as owner should be judged.

 

You are the one who is not really being truthful to the situation as was and the scale for which our relegation, currently far poorer squad, and bleak near future is completely down to Ashley.

 

I hate your f*cking posts on finance. I find myself trawling back through old sets of accounts only to discover that you are usually wrong 

 

Not that anyone was particularly interested in club finances at the time but:

 

In 1998 the club had £25 million of cash sitting on deposit a long term £15 million bank loan was the only debt, on a turnover of £45 million wages were only running at 54% and the club’s net worth was £55 million.

 

In 2001 the club still had £16 million of cash on deposit, the debt had risen to £55 million as a result of the stadium expansion, on a turnover of £55 million wages were running at 49% and the club’s net worth was £23 million.

 

 

In 2007 Ashley inherited something far worse than this. I’ve explained the June 2007 financial situation more than once and am not going to do so again. To say we had been in a worse situation in the past is complete and utter crap.

 

Although your post was not directed at anything I said, just for the record I certainly don't think trying to get an accurate view of what happened in the past is in any way some sort of defence of the c*ck ups Ashley has perpetrated since he took over. It is just a matter of putting where the club was at the time of the takeover into full perspective.

 

I don't have accounts from back then, so I can only go by what's on nufc-finances

 

It has a net debt in 2001 of £66m

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/assets15.gif

 

In 2000 before income from the expansion started coming in it has turnover at £45.1m and wages at £28.9m, ie 64.1%

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/payrol12.gif

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/income6.gif

 

 

If his figures are wrong I wish you or one of the other accountants had told him ages ago, because I don't think he's interested in us any more and is more concerned with Premier League clubs now it's mission accomplished with NUFC.

[quayside]

 

This is what I don't understand. Why weren't you critical of them in 98 then? How was the slump between 97 & 2001 different to the one we were going through? The wages were 64% of turnover, the debt was £66m when the turnover was only £55m, we finished bottom half for 4 years. In many ways we were in a far worse position then than the one Ashley inherited, yet you and others are trying to paint it as almost inevitable that we would have been relegated and/or gone into administration. If you're going to be critical of how the club was run in the past, then at least be consistent and say that if you'd had your way we would not have extended the stadium or given Robson the money to buy hit and miss purchases such as Bassedas, Cort, Bellamy, Robert, Viana, Bramble, Woodgate, or going further back bought "trophy players" such as Shearer. We shouldn't have risked any of that, and should have played it safe like Villa, Everton, Spurs, etc did back then. Just admit that you'd rather have uncomplainingly settled for mid table mediocrity year in year out, selling off any good young players who came through to the big boys to balance the books, than watch us in FA cup finals, Champions League football, European games every other year, have top players at the club, because the bit of added financial risk that if it didn't work out we'd have to cut back and regroup for a few years just wasn't worth it.

 

 

When Ashley took over and after his first Summer of transfers there was no talk of relegation, it was all about whether or not we'd be able to get into Europe. The squad he inherited had had a bad year with injuries, but were comfortably a mid table squad in a normal year, Ashley had the money to pay off the debts and the full extent of the club's finances were known to him. At that point Ashley had control of the club and had money available to rectify any financial problems (he chose to spend some of his money paying for players in one lump sum rather than spreading the payments). No matter what you think of what would have happened to the club otherwise, at that point the club was stable. That is the context and the point from which Ashley should be judged, not in comparison to some theoretical disastrous future differing wildly from what happened under similar circumstances in the past. Even if it were the case, whether or not we would have been relegated at some point under the old board because they didn't have access to any more external cash is IRRELEVANT to how Ashley's performance as owner should be judged.

 

You are the one who is not really being truthful to the situation as was and the scale for which our relegation, currently far poorer squad, and bleak near future is completely down to Ashley.

 

I hate your f*cking posts on finance. I find myself trawling back through old sets of accounts only to discover that you are usually wrong 

 

Not that anyone was particularly interested in club finances at the time but:

 

In 1998 the club had £25 million of cash sitting on deposit a long term £15 million bank loan was the only debt, on a turnover of £45 million wages were only running at 54% and the clubs net worth was £55 million.

 

In 2001 the club still had £16 million of cash on deposit, the debt had risen to £55 million as a result of the stadium expansion, on a turnover of £55 million wages were running at 49% and the clubs net worth was £23 million.

 

 

In 2007 Ashley inherited something far worse than this. Ive explained the June 2007 financial situation more than once and am not going to do so again. To say we had been in a worse situation in the past is complete and utter crap.

 

Although your post was not directed at anything I said, just for the record I certainly don't think trying to get an accurate view of what happened in the past is in any way some sort of defence of the c*ck ups Ashley has perpetrated since he took over. It is just a matter of putting where the club was at the time of the takeover into full perspective.

 

I don't have accounts from back then, so I can only go by what's on nufc-finances

 

It has a net debt in 2001 of £66m

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/assets15.gif

 

In 2000 before income from the expansion started coming in it has turnover at £45.1m and wages at £28.9m, ie 64.1%

 

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/payrol12.gif

http://www.football-finances.org.uk/newcastle/2007/income6.gif

 

 

If his figures are wrong I wish you or one of the other accountants had told him ages ago, because I don't think he's interested in us any more and is more concerned with Premier League clubs now it's mission accomplished with NUFC.

 

The only thing I know about that website is that the author used to post on here and piss NE5 off.

I've never had the time or inclination to do any sort of detailed review of what's on there. To be honest I never took much of an interest in the club's financial state until Ashley took control and Mort started talking about it. The website does seem to get confused on what is debt and what is normal trade creditors though.

[BottledDog]

First thing Ashley has to do if he is staying is get rid of Llambias. Dekka is an absolute waste of space. I would rather Ashley fucked off but if he is going to stay and make a go of it then Llambias has to be shown the door.

 

Totally agree.

 

We should aim for achievable goals. 

 

Even if Ashley did want to sell the club he couldn't.  The fans ire should be direted at Desmond Decker.  Show that he's less popular than Ashley and give him the opportunity to use him as a scapegoat.

 

I'm sure Uncle Dekka is doing a craking job behind the scenes, but unfortunately he has just got one of those eminently slappable faces. 

 

Achievable aim number one for me has to be - Stop opening your gob whining on about things you can only change when we see progress over years, not months.

 

 

/If even that's to much to ask, at least get shot of the photochromatic lenses ffs.

[Howaythelads]

ffs

 

The club is in a far, far worse position now than it was when Ashley took over, which means he's been taking the club in the wrong direction.

 

End of.

[BottledDog]

ffs

 

The club is in a far, far worse position now than it was when Ashley took over, which means he's been taking the club in the wrong direction.

 

End of.

 

 

Fine... but is Mike Ashley now steering Newcastle United in the right direction? 

 

[Happy Face]

ffs

 

The club is in a far, far worse position now than it was when Ashley took over, which means he's been taking the club in the wrong direction.

 

End of.

 

I hope not.  I hope he can turn it around.

[Benwell Lad]

Now that there are 2 or 3 rabid anti Ashley posters in this thread, I'd like to pose something to them.

It's really easy to abuse and criticise but it takes knowledge and intelligence to criticise constructively. I'm sure you have both of those things so what do you really want for a post-Ashley Newcastle United ?

Do you see Mark Jensen and the NUST bunch running the club ?

Do you think there may be an Abramovic or rich Arab prince willing to take us on in the present economic climate? 

Is there a willing local businessman out there - preferably not like the previous whore mongers who paid themselves small fortunes and abused those who ploughed the money in.

Bear in mind the "club" ethos of Newcastle United was sold down the river years ago, probably long before Mike Ashley even knew where Newcastle was, so we'll be looking for a businessman or group who will want a return on his/their investment or some mega rich philanthropist with the interests of Newcastle and it's fans at heart.(Very unlikely)

So, serious question, if you want rid of Ashley what or who do you want instead ?

Please no loose abstract answers like "anyone who'll have the club's interests at heart" or "will spend loads of money" or "anyone but the FCB" -just serious practical and constructive answers.

 

[Happy Face]

Now that there are 2 or 3 rabid anti Ashley posters in this thread, I'd like to pose something to them.

It's really easy to abuse and criticise but it takes knowledge and intelligence to criticise constructively. I'm sure you have both of those things so what do you really want for a post-Ashley Newcastle United ?

Do you see Mark Jensen and the NUST bunch running the club ?

Do you think there may be an Abramovic or rich Arab prince willing to take us on in the present economic climate?   

Is there a willing local businessman out there - preferably not like the previous whore mongers who paid themselves small fortunes and abused those who ploughed the money in.

Bear in mind the "club" ethos of Newcastle United was sold down the river years ago, probably long before Mike Ashley even knew where Newcastle was, so we'll be looking for a businessman or group who will want a return on his/their investment or some mega rich philanthropist with the interests of Newcastle and it's fans at heart.(Very unlikely)

So, serious question, if you want rid of Ashley what or who do you want instead ?

Please no loose abstract answers like "anyone who'll have the club's interests at heart" or "will spend loads of money" or "anyone but the FCB" -just serious practical and constructive answers.

 

 

I would answer this if the last few posts weren't realistic views on living with Ashley at the club and hoping for the best with regards to who who he puts in charge.

 

 

[Guest malandro]

Now that there are 2 or 3 rabid anti Ashley posters in this thread, I'd like to pose something to them.

It's really easy to abuse and criticise but it takes knowledge and intelligence to criticise constructively. I'm sure you have both of those things so what do you really want for a post-Ashley Newcastle United ?

Do you see Mark Jensen and the NUST bunch running the club ?

Do you think there may be an Abramovic or rich Arab prince willing to take us on in the present economic climate?   

Is there a willing local businessman out there - preferably not like the previous whore mongers who paid themselves small fortunes and abused those who ploughed the money in.

Bear in mind the "club" ethos of Newcastle United was sold down the river years ago, probably long before Mike Ashley even knew where Newcastle was, so we'll be looking for a businessman or group who will want a return on his/their investment or some mega rich philanthropist with the interests of Newcastle and it's fans at heart.(Very unlikely)

So, serious question, if you want rid of Ashley what or who do you want instead ?

Please no loose abstract answers like "anyone who'll have the club's interests at heart" or "will spend loads of money" or "anyone but the FCB" -just serious practical and constructive answers.

 

Bill Gates. With a scheme for supporters to build up a stake in the club over a realistic period of time, say 20 years. 

[David Icke - Son of God]

Now that there are 2 or 3 rabid anti Ashley posters in this thread, I'd like to pose something to them.

It's really easy to abuse and criticise but it takes knowledge and intelligence to criticise constructively. I'm sure you have both of those things so what do you really want for a post-Ashley Newcastle United ?

Do you see Mark Jensen and the NUST bunch running the club ?

Do you think there may be an Abramovic or rich Arab prince willing to take us on in the present economic climate?  

Is there a willing local businessman out there - preferably not like the previous whore mongers who paid themselves small fortunes and abused those who ploughed the money in.

Bear in mind the "club" ethos of Newcastle United was sold down the river years ago, probably long before Mike Ashley even knew where Newcastle was, so we'll be looking for a businessman or group who will want a return on his/their investment or some mega rich philanthropist with the interests of Newcastle and it's fans at heart.(Very unlikely)

So, serious question, if you want rid of Ashley what or who do you want instead ?

Please no loose abstract answers like "anyone who'll have the club's interests at heart" or "will spend loads of money" or "anyone but the FCB" -just serious practical and constructive answers.

 

 

So said posters can't be rabidly anti-Ashley because there's no realistic alternative?