Hughesy Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Almost every Premier League club makes a loss, the difference is that all our debts are owed to Ashley and he's not prepared to keep seeing them grow. I wish he would subsidise bigger spending out of his own pocket, but he won't. One season of profit doesn't offset the last decade off loss making, surely that's obvious. We'll see what has happened to all the money and whether we make a profit or loss in the accounts. The last few sets don't make great reading - but everyone seems happy to ignore that. You're going on about past losses and Ashley not wanting to put any more money into the club while ignoring that Llambias said we were close to breaking even long before we sold Carroll. People aren't expecting Ashley to dip into his own pocket, we want the income to be spent on the squad, like they promised when we sold Caroll. I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Almost every Premier League club makes a loss, the difference is that all our debts are owed to Ashley and he's not prepared to keep seeing them grow. I wish he would subsidise bigger spending out of his own pocket, but he won't. One season of profit doesn't offset the last decade off loss making, surely that's obvious. We'll see what has happened to all the money and whether we make a profit or loss in the accounts. The last few sets don't make great reading - but everyone seems happy to ignore that. You're going on about past losses and Ashley not wanting to put any more money into the club while ignoring that Llambias said we were close to breaking even long before we sold Carroll. People aren't expecting Ashley to dip into his own pocket, we want the income to be spent on the squad, like they promised when we sold Caroll. But the only way we can spend while making a loss is for Ashley to dip into his own pockets. Either he finances the spending or he lends us more money to cover our losses. But the income can only be spent on the squad if doing so doesn't create a debt position that's unsustainable. Previously that meant not lending more than Barclays would allow, now the decision is down to Mike. I'm not saying Ashley's definition of how big the debt is or how much we should be spending is correct, but it is what it is. When we post a few years of accounts where we're in the black then obviously I'll have to change my mind about the situation, but I think that's a fair way off. At the end of the day the accounts will speak for themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. The mistake was saying that, not refusing to do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. And? I am not sure what your point is? That doesn't really change what I said, unless you think Pardew could have stopped the sale of Carroll if Ashley had told him he wasn't getting any of the money? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. You're wasting your time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. You're wasting your time Funny how both sides of this debate think they're wasting their time. How about we just discuss it instead of whinging? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. sorry but it doesn't work like that, he's bought a football club and needs to act accordingly let's say he bought a company that provided a service but was burned on the debt like he was with us how likely is he to make it succeed and pay back by cutting spending and providing a poorer service to his customers? not very if he'd bought a famous comic book company 'cause he liked comic books, he'd not succeed by cutting production costs, hiring cheaper artists and writers and generally destroying the morale of his company and fanbase would he? the man is an utter cunt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But the only way we can spend while making a loss is for Ashley to dip into his own pockets. Either he finances the spending or he lends us more money to cover our losses. But the income can only be spent on the squad if doing so doesn't create a debt position that's unsustainable. Previously that meant not lending more than Barclays would allow, now the decision is down to Mike. I'm not saying Ashley's definition of how big the debt is or how much we should be spending is correct, but it is what it is. When we post a few years of accounts where we're in the black then obviously I'll have to change my mind about the situation, but I think that's a fair way off. At the end of the day the accounts will speak for themselves. So you'll be happy for us to spend nothing until we've been running at a profit for a few years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 The mistake was saying that, not refusing to do it. Why is that the case? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. You're wasting your time Funny how both sides of this debate think they're wasting their time. How about we just discuss it instead of whinging? You will just twist and squirm and continue to ignore the facts as usual. Like I said, waste of time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But the only way we can spend while making a loss is for Ashley to dip into his own pockets. Either he finances the spending or he lends us more money to cover our losses. But the income can only be spent on the squad if doing so doesn't create a debt position that's unsustainable. Previously that meant not lending more than Barclays would allow, now the decision is down to Mike. I'm not saying Ashley's definition of how big the debt is or how much we should be spending is correct, but it is what it is. When we post a few years of accounts where we're in the black then obviously I'll have to change my mind about the situation, but I think that's a fair way off. At the end of the day the accounts will speak for themselves. So you'll be happy for us to spend nothing until we've been running at a profit for a few years. i'm tired of this shit now, as i've just said elsewhere - when you're making losses in business you don't just stop doing the things that are likely to generate more revenue for the company yes you cut overheads and costs within reason whilst trying to maximise profit what ashley is doing now is not that, he's taking the fucking piss, no club ever had sustained success without a modicum of investment and never will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But the only way we can spend while making a loss is for Ashley to dip into his own pockets. Either he finances the spending or he lends us more money to cover our losses. But the income can only be spent on the squad if doing so doesn't create a debt position that's unsustainable. Previously that meant not lending more than Barclays would allow, now the decision is down to Mike. I'm not saying Ashley's definition of how big the debt is or how much we should be spending is correct, but it is what it is. When we post a few years of accounts where we're in the black then obviously I'll have to change my mind about the situation, but I think that's a fair way off. At the end of the day the accounts will speak for themselves. So you'll be happy for us to spend nothing until we've been running at a profit for a few years. Not at all, but I accept that limited spending is that way that Ashley is going to run the club, and I don't think it's a bad thing in principle. Spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But the only way we can spend while making a loss is for Ashley to dip into his own pockets. Either he finances the spending or he lends us more money to cover our losses. But the income can only be spent on the squad if doing so doesn't create a debt position that's unsustainable. Previously that meant not lending more than Barclays would allow, now the decision is down to Mike. I'm not saying Ashley's definition of how big the debt is or how much we should be spending is correct, but it is what it is. When we post a few years of accounts where we're in the black then obviously I'll have to change my mind about the situation, but I think that's a fair way off. At the end of the day the accounts will speak for themselves. So you'll be happy for us to spend nothing until we've been running at a profit for a few years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. You're wasting your time Funny how both sides of this debate think they're wasting their time. How about we just discuss it instead of whinging? You will just twist and squirm and continue to ignore the facts as usual. Like I said, waste of time I don't know what facts I'm supposed to have ignored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 And? I am not sure what your point is? That doesn't really change what I said, unless you think Pardew could have stopped the sale of Carroll if Ashley had told him he wasn't getting any of the money? Where did I suggest that Pardew could have stopped the Carroll sale? I do think he could have put up a fight but in the end I realise that he was powerless. We've also been told that Ashley will not take any money out of the club so the debt to him is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Not at all, but I accept that limited spending is that way that Ashley is going to run the club, and I don't think it's a bad thing in principle. Spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad IMO. flaw 1: he's not sanctioning "limited spending", we're not spending anything flaw 2: why can't we be as prudent with money as we appear to be without it? why does every call for money preclude it being spent on "overpaid wasters" nowadays? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But the only way we can spend while making a loss is for Ashley to dip into his own pockets. Either he finances the spending or he lends us more money to cover our losses. But the income can only be spent on the squad if doing so doesn't create a debt position that's unsustainable. Previously that meant not lending more than Barclays would allow, now the decision is down to Mike. I'm not saying Ashley's definition of how big the debt is or how much we should be spending is correct, but it is what it is. When we post a few years of accounts where we're in the black then obviously I'll have to change my mind about the situation, but I think that's a fair way off. At the end of the day the accounts will speak for themselves. So you'll be happy for us to spend nothing until we've been running at a profit for a few years. i'm tired of this shit now, as i've just said elsewhere - when you're making losses in business you don't just stop doing the things that are likely to generate more revenue for the company yes you cut overheads and costs within reason whilst trying to maximise profit what ashley is doing now is not that, he's taking the fucking piss, no club ever had sustained success without a modicum of investment and never will Of course you don't, that's a fair point. As I've said, I'm not saying Ashley has set the spending limits at the right amount, it's not an exact science. Obviously if he spends a bit more on the right players we might do a bit better in the league and therefore earn a bit more money. Maybe even enough to offset the cost of those players. That's the decision the owner has to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. You're wasting your time Funny how both sides of this debate think they're wasting their time. How about we just discuss it instead of whinging? You will just twist and squirm and continue to ignore the facts as usual. Like I said, waste of time I don't know what facts I'm supposed to have ignored. The first six words of my previous post perfectly illustrated, thank you and goodnight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Not at all, but I accept that limited spending is that way that Ashley is going to run the club, and I don't think it's a bad thing in principle. Spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad IMO. I agree that spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad, nobody is suggesting that we do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Not at all, but I accept that limited spending is that way that Ashley is going to run the club, and I don't think it's a bad thing in principle. Spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad IMO. flaw 1: he's not sanctioning "limited spending", we're not spending anything flaw 2: why can't we be as prudent with money as we appear to be without it? why does every call for money preclude it being spent on "overpaid wasters" nowadays? We're spending all the time, just not necessarily enough on transfer fees. The club accounts won't show £0 outgoings as far as I know. On your second point, obviously that's possible, I've never denied that more spending could lead to more success and more income. It might, it might not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. "The one thing I said to Mike yesterday was, 'Look, if this boy is going to go, this money has to be reinvested in the team, all of it', and he has assured me of that. "For the Newcastle fan, that is the most important message I can give today, that all that money will be used. You're wasting your time Funny how both sides of this debate think they're wasting their time. How about we just discuss it instead of whinging? You will just twist and squirm and continue to ignore the facts as usual. Like I said, waste of time I don't know what facts I'm supposed to have ignored. The first six words of my previous post perfectly illustrated, thank you and goodnight Night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. sorry but it doesn't work like that, he's bought a football club and needs to act accordingly let's say he bought a company that provided a service but was burned on the debt like he was with us how likely is he to make it succeed and pay back by cutting spending and providing a poorer service to his customers? not very if he'd bought a famous comic book company 'cause he liked comic books, he'd not succeed by cutting production costs, hiring cheaper artists and writers and generally destroying the morale of his company and fanbase would he? the man is an utter c*** There isn't only one way to run a business. But, cutting costs in one of the most important ways that a company losing money can reduce its losses and even make a profit. In fact, it's probably the first thing that any purchaser of any business would do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timnufc22 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I am sure every NUFC fan does want the money spent on improving the team, but when Ashley is owed £200 million (or whatever the figure is), he might be somewhat reluctant to pump all the profit the club makes into transfers. I would love us to go out and spend £35 million tomorrow, but the fact is Ashley owns the club, Ashley is owed money and we have no right to demand that he spends the money. Depressing though that may be. sorry but it doesn't work like that, he's bought a football club and needs to act accordingly let's say he bought a company that provided a service but was burned on the debt like he was with us how likely is he to make it succeed and pay back by cutting spending and providing a poorer service to his customers? not very if he'd bought a famous comic book company 'cause he liked comic books, he'd not succeed by cutting production costs, hiring cheaper artists and writers and generally destroying the morale of his company and fanbase would he? the man is an utter c*** Exactly, people are talking as if his name was picked out of a hat as the unlucky bugger who had to buy us. It was his choice to buy us, so there was motivation to do so. So what was (and is) that motivation? You cant just buy a football club and then act beyond the realms of normality as to what's appropriate for the club because 'its costing him money' and 'we owe him money'... he choose to buy it! So it is then his duty to attempt to run it with some intention of making the main purpose of the damn thing work - the football side, what happens on the pitch. And there's a difference between putting the clubs future at risk and spending some sensible money, surley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Not at all, but I accept that limited spending is that way that Ashley is going to run the club, and I don't think it's a bad thing in principle. Spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad IMO. I agree that spunking massive fees on overpaid wasters is just as bad, nobody is suggesting that we do that. Not one single person that I know of in fact Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts