NUFC 2009 Accounts

[UV]

our finances looked fucked tbh, ashley is just to blame as he's been 3 years now and actually increased our wage budget

tbh a fair chunk of the increased wage budget we had could be put down to fat sam viduka geremi smith barton beye was probably on a good wage and that was happening while ashley was getting to grips with owning a football club

 

true, but he should of done due diligence as it would of shown this stuff, but he didn't so it's his own fault

 

 

Surely you're not throwing this old chestnut into the conversation (2008 is calling, it wants it's argument back) - the overall view of the club's finances has to be an improvement from where we were in 2006. It's a slow process, it's a painful process, but he does seem to be getting us there, even if it's only for his own benefit.

 

Fucking hell. 

 

I'm not sure Mike Ashley would agree with you there.

[quayside]

 

The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender?

 

 

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).

 

And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

 

In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort.

 

I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options.

1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it.

2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.

 

Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions.

 

 

[BottledDog]

 

The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender?

 

 

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).

 

And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

 

In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort.

 

I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options.

1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it.

2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.

 

If we started again at the bottom of the league structure I think we'd have to move. I reckon that your idea that the ground would still generate money for the owner is pie in the sky; It would struggle to generate anywhere near enough to even cover the upkeep imho.

 

In you second option, ultimately when it does turn into a hotel after the council allows the change of use, how do the banks see any return on their cash? Auction the fixtures and fittings?

[UV]

 

The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender?

 

 

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).

 

And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

 

In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort.

 

I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options.

1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it.

2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.

 

Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions.

 

 

 

I guess that's true, but the whole Guardian article (whilst it may be sensationalist bollocks parroting old news) seems very specific on details even if the exact meaning of those details are not understood by the reporter (ie the thing about the "trade secrets" in the following quote seems like something he has read from some kind of document).

 

The following day, 1 July, a mortgage was registered assigning St James' Park, the club's training ground and academy centre to the bank, as well as all their intellectual property such as brand names and even Newcastle's "trade secrets", whatever they may be.

 

It seems a strange think to make up, so I'm inclined to think it's probably true, although admittedly I've no idea where he'd get that kind of information from.

[Wilky]

 

The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender?

 

 

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).

 

And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

 

In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort.

 

I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options.

1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it.

2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.

 

Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions.

 

 

 

On a 99 year lease? 99 year leases/long leasehold/effective freeholds are completely different to your typical 10/15/25 year lease.

[quayside]

 

The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender?

 

 

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).

 

And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

 

In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort.

 

I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options.

1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it.

2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.

 

Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions.

 

 

 

On a 99 year lease? 99 year leases/long leasehold/effective freeholds are completely different to your typical 10/15/25 year lease.

 

When did the 99 years start as a matter of interest?

 

The standard conditions that you get in just about every lease - .i.e the right of the owner to agree the purpose the land is used for and the right to agree what is built on it - have caused some friction between club and council over the years. But other than that none  of us knows what the lease says and what restrictions are on it tbh.

[Wilky]

 

The council has the right to dictate what purpose the land is used for. How risky is that for a lender?

 

 

Do they? I'm not saying you are incorrect, they could restrict the land to be used as a football stadium only. That would increase risk but not to the point where it is impossible to lend on. It would appear that Ashley has expoloited this by using the stadium as a degree of collateral. The LTV ratio and the interst will be variable as to the risk but there is still no real reason why any owner would not mortgage the stadium. (of course none of us have seen a copy of the terms and conditions) Also the ability to dictate use of a site will not necessarilly be a factor in risk, for example the Local Planning Authority dictates what sites should be developed and how. The valuation of the site will take this into account, the valuation of SJP will take the fact it can only be a football ground (for example) into account but it doesn't give rise to a situation whereby it is that great a risk where no bank would loan against it (particularly in the care free lending period that existed whilst Shepherd and Hall were in charge).

 

And with all that in its favour Shepherd and Hall didn't borrow against it. Why do you think that was the case? From what you have said it would seem that future season ticket, hospitality and broadcasting income would present a greater risk to a bank - how much of that could the bank be sure of receiving in the event of the club going bust or even being relegated? Yet they loaned against that and not against the stadium.

 

In all likelihood it's simply just as Matt said above that there was no NEED to mortgage the stadium, not because it was impossible to do so. If there are other options - as there plainly were - mortgaging the stadium is the last resort.

 

I really don't comprehend why anyone would think there is zero collateral value in the stadium. If NUFC goes completely out of business there are 2 options.

1) United of Newcastle FC is formed, starting at the bottom of the league structure, but still with a massive level of support (or maybe Gateshead would be adopted as the successor to Newcastle and offered the facility of SJP). The ground would be massively under utilised for a number of years but would still generate revenue for the owner of it.

2) No-one wants to bother with starting a new football club in Newcastle (), in which case what is the council going to do? a) Put it's foot down and just let the the land rot with an ever dilapidating stadium standing on it as a massive eyesore? b) Allow it to be used for other purposes - a massive concert/random sporting event venue. c) Allow it to be knocked down and allow a hotel or shopping centre to be built on prime land? It wont be option (a) for long that's for sure.

 

Obviously we are all speculating here but there is always the possibility that the council has a clause in the lease that prohibits any structure permanantly built by the club on its land to be used as security for an external loan. I have certainly seen such clauses in my limited exsposure to commercial property transactions.

 

 

 

On a 99 year lease? 99 year leases/long leasehold/effective freeholds are completely different to your typical 10/15/25 year lease.

 

When did the 99 years start as a matter of interest?

 

The standard conditions that you get in just about every lease - .i.e the right of the owner to agree the purpose the land is used for and the right to agree what is built on it - have caused some friction between club and council over the years. But other than that none  of us knows what the lease says and what restrictions are on it tbh.

 

About 10 years ago I think. It would be unusual and incredibly naive if the club entered into such a restrictive contract for what is an effective freehold. I could understand a clause against anything other than a football ground, but a clause against borrowing? If you are leasing a property then yes, but land over this length of time? If a council grants a long leasehold to a developer for example (don't forget this is not a unique thing at SJP, there are plenty of properties in the city centre like this) then it is normal for that developer to raise capital based on the valuation of a completed development. As a Chartered Surveyor, I'd be very surprised to see such a clause in this type of lease. Even acounting for Shepherd and Hall's idiocy, it wouldn't make sense for the council to impose it.

[Guest malandro]

our finances looked f***ed tbh, ashley is just to blame as he's been 3 years now and actually increased our wage budget

tbh a fair chunk of the increased wage budget we had could be put down to fat sam viduka geremi smith barton beye was probably on a good wage and that was happening while ashley was getting to grips with owning a football club

 

true, but he should of done due diligence as it would of shown this stuff, but he didn't so it's his own fault

 

 

Surely you're not throwing this old chestnut into the conversation (2008 is calling, it wants it's argument back) - the overall view of the club's finances has to be an improvement from where we were in 2006. It's a slow process, it's a painful process, but he does seem to be getting us there, even if it's only for his own benefit.

 

f***ing hell. 

 

I'm not sure Mike Ashley would agree with you there.

Over the last three years the club have reported a £100m Ashley loan (allegedly to pay off the existing debts) a further £10m (for reasons I can’t recall) and then a further £25m last season to cover the operating loses having the best paid squad in CCC history incurs.  The club owes Ashley £135m and the bank £50m, yes? If this is right the club debts have approximately doubled since Ashley took over. Brilliant.

 

This information really puts last summer’s attempt to sell the club into context. Ashley essentially wanted £100m for a squad of players and a business with a projected operating loss of £25m for the next financial year. Everything else belonged to the bank. The total cost any prospective new owner faced for acquiring a debt free but loss making championship club was near enough £260m.

 

[Stu]

our finances looked f***ed tbh, ashley is just to blame as he's been 3 years now and actually increased our wage budget

tbh a fair chunk of the increased wage budget we had could be put down to fat sam viduka geremi smith barton beye was probably on a good wage and that was happening while ashley was getting to grips with owning a football club

 

true, but he should of done due diligence as it would of shown this stuff, but he didn't so it's his own fault

 

 

Surely you're not throwing this old chestnut into the conversation (2008 is calling, it wants it's argument back) - the overall view of the club's finances has to be an improvement from where we were in 2006. It's a slow process, it's a painful process, but he does seem to be getting us there, even if it's only for his own benefit.

 

f***ing hell. 

 

I'm not sure Mike Ashley would agree with you there.

Over the last three years the club have reported a £100m Ashley loan (allegedly to pay off the existing debts) a further £10m (for reasons I can’t recall) and then a further £25m last season to cover the operating loses having the best paid squad in CCC history incurs.  The club owes Ashley £135m and the bank £50m, yes? If this is right the club debts have approximately doubled since Ashley took over. Brilliant.

 

This information really puts last summer’s attempt to sell the club into context. Ashley essentially wanted £100m for a squad of players and a business with a projected operating loss of £25m for the next financial year. Everything else belonged to the bank. The total cost any prospective new owner faced for acquiring a debt free but loss making championship club was near enough £260m.

 

 

In 2006 we were something akin to a reckless 20-something who has maxed out most of their credit cards and has unsecured loans all over the place, using whatever income they have plus the remainder of their credit limits, just to keep up with the monthly payments. Mike Ashley is the parent who bailed out our reckless youngster without realising the full extent of the debt. Now he's saddled with the debts, he's paying off those that need to be paid immediately, while trying to make his child financially responsible and in control of their spending.

 

 

 

EDIT: The attempts to sell the club were obviously representative of the frustration every parent feels when they are taken for granted by their kids, particularly when they've gone to such lengths (at great personal cost) to save them from long-term damage.

[Mick]

The lease on the land that the club is built on is dependant on it being used as a venue for football.  If the club went bust and football was no longer played then the council could lease the land to anybody and the ground could be knocked down and would then be worthless.

[UV]

our finances looked f***ed tbh, ashley is just to blame as he's been 3 years now and actually increased our wage budget

tbh a fair chunk of the increased wage budget we had could be put down to fat sam viduka geremi smith barton beye was probably on a good wage and that was happening while ashley was getting to grips with owning a football club

 

true, but he should of done due diligence as it would of shown this stuff, but he didn't so it's his own fault

 

 

Surely you're not throwing this old chestnut into the conversation (2008 is calling, it wants it's argument back) - the overall view of the club's finances has to be an improvement from where we were in 2006. It's a slow process, it's a painful process, but he does seem to be getting us there, even if it's only for his own benefit.

 

f***ing hell. 

 

I'm not sure Mike Ashley would agree with you there.

Over the last three years the club have reported a £100m Ashley loan (allegedly to pay off the existing debts) a further £10m (for reasons I can’t recall) and then a further £25m last season to cover the operating loses having the best paid squad in CCC history incurs.  The club owes Ashley £135m and the bank £50m, yes? If this is right the club debts have approximately doubled since Ashley took over. Brilliant.

 

This information really puts last summer’s attempt to sell the club into context. Ashley essentially wanted £100m for a squad of players and a business with a projected operating loss of £25m for the next financial year. Everything else belonged to the bank. The total cost any prospective new owner faced for acquiring a debt free but loss making championship club was near enough £260m.

 

 

In 2006 we were something akin to a reckless 20-something who has maxed out most of their credit cards and has unsecured loans all over the place, using whatever income they have plus the remainder of their credit limits, just to keep up with the monthly payments. Mike Ashley is the parent who bailed out our reckless youngster without realising the full extent of the debt. Now he's saddled with the debts, he's paying off those that need to be paid immediately, while trying to make his child financially responsible and in control of their spending.

 

 

 

EDIT: The attempts to sell the club were obviously representative of the frustration every parent feels when they are taken for granted by their kids, particularly when they've gone to such lengths (at great personal cost) to save them from long-term damage.

 

I wont go into how the analogy is rubbish and based on a made up proposition, and I don't want to get into the old argument about what would have happened if Ashley hadn't bought the club, but it staggers me that after everything that's happened some still buy into this crap about Ashley being some naive footy fan who came in to have a bit of fun and didn't realise what financial trouble the club was in, and has subsequently been carried away on a wave of inevitable misfortune valiantly subsidising the club for our benefit.

 

We're ultra critical as supporters, but for the state Premier League football was in and the state the club was in when he bought it (footballing-wise, turnover-wise and global reputation-wise) we were a relative bargain. There's no doubt in my mind he bought the club first and foremost with the intention of financial gain, either in the short term by selling up quickly at a profit to one of the many new investors at the time, or long term with the lucrative new TV contracts, free advertising for his other businesses, etc while the value of the club theoretically grew too. Anything else was either an ego-boosting bonus or simply put on for our benefit.

 

It hasn't all gone to shit because he didn't know about the stadium debt having to be paid up (in all likelihood he'd have paid it off anyway as originally did with all the other debt including paying up front for players). It hasn't all gone to shit because he didn't know about a small percentage of the annual turnover being paid up front or that players are usually paid for in installments. It's gone to shit and he's lost money because he completely underestimated (as most people do) how difficult it would be to run such a volatile business as a football club and he fucked it up by putting mates and incompetents in the positions of power and backing them over the one decent appointment he did make.

 

 

The club may currently be at lower financial risk than it was in 2006 (if you're happy to rely on the fortune and good graces of one man who has shown himself to be a very poor decision maker), but don't let a lower wage bill forced on us by necessity fool you into thinking the finances are in better shape. He's set this club back massively from where it was when he bought it at a time when other teams once below us in stature in this footballing era were building their teams, their worldwide reputations, and subsequently their turnover. It will take very good leadership just to get us back to where we were as a club when he took over. Do you really think Ashley & Llambias are the men for that? I've seen absolutely nothing to convince me that they are, and for the near future at least they've even given up the pretence of trying. Unfortunately we're stuck with them, but it doesn't mean I have to like it or praise Ashley for partially subsidising his own incompetence.

[Rob W]

"he's set this club back massively from where it was when he bought it at a time when other teams once below us in stature in this footballing era were building their teams, their worldwide reputations, and subsequently their turnover."

 

hmm in the last 4 years Manure & Liverpool are totally awash with debt

 

Citeh & Chelski only survive on foreign cash,

 

Spurs, Rangers & Celtic are buggered, W Ham are on the brink..................................    Portsmouth went under 

 

Arsenal & Spurs are having to watch every penny like a hawk

 

I honestly don't think we're as badly off as we could have been considering we dropped a division

 

 

[Guest neesy111]

3/4's of this squad are paid probably double what they would get at other club's, this is simply the reason that our finances are wrecked

 

how the fuck do we have a 45M wage bill with this lot i don't know

 

this is why i would apporve of 1/2 of the squad being sold, as the wage bill would vastly come down and give more money of transfers! i simply cannot justify colocini being paid 86k a week, that's probably puts him as one the highest paid defenders in the country, where he isn't no-where near that in performance wise

[Teasy]

We should definitely be looking to remove and replace more of the big earners, for instance Smith, Nolan, Barton, Coloccini and Xisco.  We're paying roughly £15m+ a year to those five, two of them aren't anywhere near Premiership quality and won't be first team players, and out of the other three one is injured almost permanently.  That's an average wage of almost £60k a week each, that kind of wage should only be given to quality players, not shit like Smith and Xisco or even just decent players like Nolan and Barton.

 

neesy, just of out interest where are you getting £86k a week for Coloccini??  It just seems that his wage goes up every few months on this forum

 

I like Coloccini, I think he can be a very good player for us even in the Premiership.  But IMO we should only be paying very special players anywhere near that kind of money, even £70k is too much for him IMO.

[Guest neesy111]

We should definitely be looking to remove and replace more of the big earners, for instance Smith, Nolan, Barton, Coloccini and Xisco.  We're paying roughly £15m+ a year to those five, two of them aren't anywhere near Premiership quality and won't be first team players, and out of the other three one is injured almost permanently.  That's an average wage of almost £60k a week each, that kind of wage should only be given to quality players, not shit like Smith and Xisco or even just decent players like Nolan and Barton.

 

neesy, just of out interest where are you getting £86k a week for Coloccini??  It just seems that his wage goes up every few months on this forum

 

I like Coloccini, I think he can be a very good player for us even in the Premiership.  But IMO we should only be paying very special players anywhere near that kind of money, even £70k is too much for him IMO.

 

chronicle have reported it a few times, though that includes appearance and clean sheet bonus, so he would of been paid more in the championship than the premiership ffs

[leffe186]

"he's set this club back massively from where it was when he bought it at a time when other teams once below us in stature in this footballing era were building their teams, their worldwide reputations, and subsequently their turnover."

 

hmm in the last 4 years Manure & Liverpool are totally awash with debt

 

Citeh & Chelski only survive on foreign cash,

 

Spurs, Rangers & Celtic are buggered, W Ham are on the brink..................................    Portsmouth went under   

 

Arsenal & Spurs are having to watch every penny like a hawk

 

I honestly don't think we're as badly off as we could have been considering we dropped a division

 

 

Agreed, but are Spurs really buggered? Was that a mistake?

 

Arsenal and Spurs are having to watch every penny but EVERYBODY should be doing that. The point is fair - Newcastle were in a position where a clever new owner could have stabilized and then built more solid foundations. Ashley signally failed to do that, and it will take longer to recover as a result.

[Teasy]

I doubt he meant to include the Spuds in that line otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned them in the line below.

 

I'm wondering just how much we're still paying each year for past transfers.  When you look at our outgoings from the last couple of financial reports its something like £72m on wages and £50m other costs, despite breaking even those years on transfer dealings.  £50m + wages is a pretty massive running cost even for a Premiership club.