Mick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I know, I know, but I mean when they talk about breaking even, I presume this means excluding any 20 million a year investments by Ashley, or does it? I can only guess that breaking even means without any cash input from Ashley. I don't have any problem with that as most clubs are going to have to work like that if they intend to play European football. If we are expected to get to that position without any investment in new players then I can only see it failing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 my take on the situation: http://manontheterraces.blogspot.com "Why does ashley not learn from lessons learnt?" That's as clear as the statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Mongo Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 But what about the Puma deal? One would imagine that would give the club some money to spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was just thinking, does this also spell the end of the 20 million of his own money Mike promised to put in the club on a yearly basis? £20 million a year only adds up to £60 million, he's already put in much more than that. He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which, the way I see it, was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which the way I see it was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. The timing of when he said he'd put £20 million in doesn't mean that he hadn't planned to do so before that date. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintdempsey Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was just thinking, does this also spell the end of the 20 million of his own money Mike promised to put in the club on a yearly basis? £20 million a year only adds up to £60 million, he's already put in much more than that. He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which, the way I see it, was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which the way I see it was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. The timing of when he said he'd put £20 million in doesn't mean that he hadn't planned to do so before that date. Agreed. He has kept it up though....until now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? Then it means we will have had a pretty impressive 5 years, successful enough to allow him to do that and still have a club. Sounds good to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was just thinking, does this also spell the end of the 20 million of his own money Mike promised to put in the club on a yearly basis? £20 million a year only adds up to £60 million, he's already put in much more than that. He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which, the way I see it, was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm What Llambias said to the BBC doesn't tally with note on the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintdempsey Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was just thinking, does this also spell the end of the 20 million of his own money Mike promised to put in the club on a yearly basis? £20 million a year only adds up to £60 million, he's already put in much more than that. He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which, the way I see it, was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm What Llambias said to the BBC doesn't tally with note on the accounts. Ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? Then it means we will have had a pretty impressive 5 years, successful enough to allow him to do that and still have a club. Sounds good to me. Fucking hell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? Then it means we will have had a pretty impressive 5 years, successful enough to allow him to do that and still have a club. Sounds good to me. Fucking hell You disagree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? For gods sake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? I don't think we'll make enough money for him to do that if we're hanging around the lower reaches of the league or if we get relegated again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 I was just thinking, does this also spell the end of the 20 million of his own money Mike promised to put in the club on a yearly basis? £20 million a year only adds up to £60 million, he's already put in much more than that. He made the £20m a year statement AFTER Keegan went. He'd already paid in at least £70m the day he arrived which, the way I see it, was not part of the £20m a year he was always willing to bankroll us with. Current debt is £111m (up to 2009) plus £25m (09/10) which means his spending over 3 seasons is (111-70)+25 = £66m or £22m per season. Credit to him for sticking to his word....so far. Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm What Llambias said to the BBC doesn't tally with note on the accounts. Ok. I'm not saying he's lying. At that point he may well have put that much in for the season but later took money out of the club. The total loans from Ashley stood at £112m at one point in 08/09 before ending up at £111m which suggests he does pull money out throughout the year as well as putting it in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? For gods sake Pipe down Kunt, adults talking here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm I'm sure Ashley has put in £25.5 million during this financial year, he might have to put in more before it comes to a close but I doubt it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 What happens if he uses the next five years to pay back his loans? I don't think we'll make enough money for him to do that if we're hanging around the lower reaches of the league or if we get relegated again. You don't think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 You don't think? That's what I said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 As someone who takes absolutely no interest in club finances, I find it hard to believe that a club that will almost certainly have an average attendance of 45000+ next season, has to sell before we buy. Will someone please explain in Layman's terms, why teams like Wolves, West Brom, will most likely be spending more then they receive, yet we can't. I realise we are in debt and such but was of the opinion that the majority of teams are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 As someone who takes absolutely no interest in club finances, I find it hard to believe that a club that will almost certainly have an average attendance of 45000+ next season, has to sell before we buy. Will someone please explain in Layman's terms, why teams like Wolves, West Brom, will most likely be spending more then they receive, yet we can't. I realise we are in debt and such but was of the opinion that the majority of teams are. Those clubs get promoted with a £15m wage bill. They can afford to sign some more expensive players. We've been promoted with a £35m wage bill, already a Premier League outlay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clintdempsey Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm I'm sure Ashley has put in £25.5 million during this financial year, he might have to put in more before it comes to a close but I doubt it. I think it says in the accounts that he put in a further £25.5m before yearend (Dec 31 2009). Since then he has according to Llambias put in a further £5.5m for running costs, and £5.5m for transfers during January. But if that's true, who knows? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Didn't he put in £36m this year. I'm sure I saw that somewhere. Right, here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/8553411.stm I'm sure Ashley has put in £25.5 million during this financial year, he might have to put in more before it comes to a close but I doubt it. I think it says in the accounts that he put in a further £25.5m before yearend (Dec 31 2009). Since then he has according to Llambias put in a further £5.5m for running costs, and £5.5m for transfers during January. But if that's true, who knows? Not sure that's the case. The accounts include stuff past that date, for example £3.2m spent in Jan 2010. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Alot of that statement looked to me as if they were trying to have a dig at the national media about something. When i first read it, i thought they were denying the existance of a rumoured salary cap. Bloody bizzare statement. 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