Pardew on Total Sport tonight

[madras]

He's definitely very shy with facts about the 35m, lot's of yadda yadda about he will make sure it's reinvested but he doesn't exactly spread confidence.

From that interview I would put my hand in the coals and say we will get a 5-8M striker and a couple of 1-3M players (LB and other). jUST MY INTERPRETATION!!

were you expecting " cabaye 1mill signing on fee and 1 mill agents also his wages add on 30kpw on last years, ba 1 mill signining on fee......etc etc etc"

[AyeDubbleYoo]

You are positive about players turning us down?

 

 

I obviously didn't mean that. I'm not positive about the results, but I'm positive that we're trying for some decent players.

 

We can't make NUFC any more successful and appealing than it is, and we won't pay over the odds in wages. Therefore if we go for top players they are quite likely to reject us. It's all part of the process.

 

No wonder you're happy with the running of the club if you really believe that.

 

Come on, that's obviously not what I meant either.

 

I mean we can't make NUFC a Champions League club right now in order to appeal to those players who want that, so we have to accept some might turn us down.

 

Clearly in the future we can make the club more successful and appealing, didn't think I would need to explain that TBH.

 

So now top players only go to Champions League clubs? Did Andy Carroll? Did Luis Suarez? Did Luka Modric? Did Darren Bent?

 

This defeatist attitude is embarrassing. If you pay good money, good players will come, and that's how you improve. Simple as that.

 

You're a good bloke Ian but you talk in contradictions. You claim we can't compete with the clubs at the top because they spend loads of money but you say we shouldn't spend money because that's not the way to improve the team.

 

Surely even you can see that the current management of the club is not going to get us back into the top six?

 

I don't claim that at all, I'm saying that because we won't pay massive wages sometimes players will choose to turn us down. Whether you agree or disagree with that policy is another question. I'm not saying we shouldn't spend money, I've never said that, I just realise that we are going to spend restrained amounts compared to the past.

 

In the past we could attract players purely based on the massive wages and contracts we handed out. We don't do that any more.

 

FWIW, obviously I agree we could potentially improve the team more quickly if we spent more. I would have thought that was obvious. What I'm arguing is all based on the fact that we've decided to restrict our wage/contract spending.

 

I don't know whether we'll get back into the top six or when, but I wouldn't be surprised if we end up between 10th and 7th. We've already recovered successfully from a relegation and posted a decent finish.

 

Hopefully as we make steady progress we will build a squad that might just achieve European football, then attract better players and higher income to move on from there. But unless we get a Man City style owner we have to live in the real world with regards to spending.

 

IMO we're progressing alright over the last year or two, and this summer is encouraging. Obviously as fans we'd always like more.

[Wullie]

You are positive about players turning us down?

 

 

I obviously didn't mean that. I'm not positive about the results, but I'm positive that we're trying for some decent players.

 

We can't make NUFC any more successful and appealing than it is, and we won't pay over the odds in wages. Therefore if we go for top players they are quite likely to reject us. It's all part of the process.

 

No wonder you're happy with the running of the club if you really believe that.

 

Come on, that's obviously not what I meant either.

 

I mean we can't make NUFC a Champions League club right now in order to appeal to those players who want that, so we have to accept some might turn us down.

 

Clearly in the future we can make the club more successful and appealing, didn't think I would need to explain that TBH.

 

So now top players only go to Champions League clubs? Did Andy Carroll? Did Luis Suarez? Did Luka Modric? Did Darren Bent?

 

This defeatist attitude is embarrassing. If you pay good money, good players will come, and that's how you improve. Simple as that. We have the fanbase to be in amongst the best teams in the country and I for one will never accept less than that.

 

You're a good bloke Ian but you talk in contradictions. You claim we can't compete with the clubs at the top because they spend loads of money but you say we shouldn't spend money because that's not the way to improve the team.

 

Surely even you can see that the current management of the club is not going to get us back into the top six?

 

this current management, but for an awful WBA defeat would have had us top 10. IF, they find more tiote's, ben arfa's and enriques, then they will have us top 6.

 

If we sign good players, we'll improve. That's what I just said.

 

Ben Arfa's played two games btw.

[madras]

I don't believe that two free transfers is a large chunk madras, I will simply not accept that. What were we going to spend if we'd not sold Carroll in your eyes? Yet another sale of top players?

probably yes, and hopefully improve the squad on the back of it. do those free transfers not carry signing on fees,agents, increases in the clubs wages etc ?

[Wullie]

You are positive about players turning us down?

 

 

I obviously didn't mean that. I'm not positive about the results, but I'm positive that we're trying for some decent players.

 

We can't make NUFC any more successful and appealing than it is, and we won't pay over the odds in wages. Therefore if we go for top players they are quite likely to reject us. It's all part of the process.

 

No wonder you're happy with the running of the club if you really believe that.

 

Come on, that's obviously not what I meant either.

 

I mean we can't make NUFC a Champions League club right now in order to appeal to those players who want that, so we have to accept some might turn us down.

 

Clearly in the future we can make the club more successful and appealing, didn't think I would need to explain that TBH.

 

So now top players only go to Champions League clubs? Did Andy Carroll? Did Luis Suarez? Did Luka Modric? Did Darren Bent?

 

This defeatist attitude is embarrassing. If you pay good money, good players will come, and that's how you improve. Simple as that. We have the fanbase to be in amongst the best teams in the country and I for one will never accept less than that.

You're a good bloke Ian but you talk in contradictions. You claim we can't compete with the clubs at the top because they spend loads of money but you say we shouldn't spend money because that's not the way to improve the team.

 

Surely even you can see that the current management of the club is not going to get us back into the top six?

 

You must have been awfully depressed over the last 50 years then..

 

Very, it got so bad that I wasn't even alive for half of it.

[Wullie]

I don't believe that two free transfers is a large chunk madras, I will simply not accept that. What were we going to spend if we'd not sold Carroll in your eyes? Yet another sale of top players?

probably yes, and hopefully improve the squad on the back of it. do those free transfers not carry signing on fees,agents, increases in the clubs wages etc ?

 

Yes, and every other club in the league/country/world is prepared to pay transfer fees on top of those standard fees. That's how it works, how it has always worked and how it will always work.

 

You are actually advocating an annual firesale to "improve" the squad? Fucking hell man. What is this financial crisis you've created in your own head?

[buzza]

"in the past we attracted players purely based on the massive wages"

I am glad we don't do this any more, I think we have been shafted so many times by this type of player before that we should not enter into this trap again.

What I do think is that when we do reach higher positions consistently we will have to alter our wage structure accordingly so that we can move up onto the next level, we would also be receiving more revenue if we made it into the top six so we could justify more outlay...

[Skirge]

He did say that it was the defenders who were back in yesterday, then midfielder today & strikers tomorrow.. didn't he ?

[madras]

I don't believe that two free transfers is a large chunk madras, I will simply not accept that. What were we going to spend if we'd not sold Carroll in your eyes? Yet another sale of top players?

probably yes, and hopefully improve the squad on the back of it. do those free transfers not carry signing on fees,agents, increases in the clubs wages etc ?

 

Yes, and every other club in the league/country/world is prepared to pay transfer fees on top of those standard fees. That's how it works, how it has always worked and how it will always work.

 

You are actually advocating an annual firesale to "improve" the squad? f***ing hell man. What is this financial crisis you've created in your own head?

annual firesale ? if someone offers a lot more than someone os worth they take it and use it. (spurs have done well at it over the last few years, see swiss ramble). it's not so much a financial crisis as the understanding that you can't  keep on racking up debts unless you have the backing. nowt wrong with living in debt, i can't remember the last time i ended a month without using my overdraft but i don't add to it every month so the debt gets bigger.

 

i personally think ashley has put enough in (in his position i wouldn't have) and we can and should get on without his financial input and think when we reach february (for if we can't get what we want now we may wait)we'll still be looking to break even year on year, ie the carroll money and tv money,gates,merchandise will all be used.

 

in short,spend what we can on the entire deal, not just thinking the transfer fee is the end of it to improve the squad.

[buzza]

He's definitely very shy with facts about the 35m, lot's of yadda yadda about he will make sure it's reinvested but he doesn't exactly spread confidence.

From that interview I would put my hand in the coals and say we will get a 5-8M striker and a couple of 1-3M players (LB and other). jUST MY INTERPRETATION!!

were you expecting " cabaye 1mill signing on fee and 1 mill agents also his wages add on 30kpw on last years, ba 1 mill signining on fee......etc etc etc"

I was expecting some thing like "I will be spending a significant amount of that money on signings as long as they will improve the team. Don't worry we are working our hardest to get a striker and some versatile players who will improve the squad and be competing with the first teamers for a place"...

 

[madras]

He's definitely very shy with facts about the 35m, lot's of yadda yadda about he will make sure it's reinvested but he doesn't exactly spread confidence.

From that interview I would put my hand in the coals and say we will get a 5-8M striker and a couple of 1-3M players (LB and other). jUST MY INTERPRETATION!!

were you expecting " cabaye 1mill signing on fee and 1 mill agents also his wages add on 30kpw on last years, ba 1 mill signining on fee......etc etc etc"

I was expecting some thing like "I will be spending a significant amount of that money on signings as long as they will improve the team. Don't worry we are working our hardest to get a striker and some versatile players who will improve the squad and be competing with the first teamers for a place"...

 

i'm guessing a good bit of that has already gone on that through wages and fees on those we've already brough in, the rest will still get used on the same.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

He did say that it was the defenders who were back in yesterday, then midfielder today & strikers tomorrow.. didn't he ?

 

Think so, but I guess individual players might have their own return dates as well for whatever reason.

[buzza]

He's definitely very shy with facts about the 35m, lot's of yadda yadda about he will make sure it's reinvested but he doesn't exactly spread confidence.

From that interview I would put my hand in the coals and say we will get a 5-8M striker and a couple of 1-3M players (LB and other). jUST MY INTERPRETATION!!

were you expecting " cabaye 1mill signing on fee and 1 mill agents also his wages add on 30kpw on last years, ba 1 mill signining on fee......etc etc etc"

I was expecting some thing like "I will be spending a significant amount of that money on signings as long as they will improve the team. Don't worry we are working our hardest to get a striker and some versatile players who will improve the squad and be competing with the first teamers for a place"...

 

i'm guessing a good bit of that has already gone on that through wages and fees on those we've already brough in, the rest will still get used on the same.

I don't like the way they are mixing "transfer fees" with wages:

-Transfer fees should be a net zero at the end of the financial year i.e. 35 million in, 35 million out on transfer fee and third party fees.

-Wages should be be kept at 50% of turnover, they shouldn't be mixed with tranfer fees.

 

[Wullie]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on shit. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

[James]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on shit. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

 

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees, and these are often the worst, so in reality we have probably already paid at least £8m for Ba and Marveaux. Cabaye too would have probably gained a good agent fee given that we found his release clause. Similarly we could end up paying at least double what Swansea actually receive if and when we sign Neil Taylor.

[Theregulars]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

 

 

Is he perhaps not arguing the undoubted merit of spending the money but saying that, for good or for bad, we're not going to spend lots, and the results of the policy thus far have been encouraging (aside from whatever the financial reality is)?

 

Out of interest which are the types of players, with estimated prices, that we should be competing for? Let's say N'Zogbia as current example figures to go for 8-12m, for instance. Let's say we lodge that bid, only a club higher up the league without a wage limit comes in, he's far more likely to ship out there. Instead of competing for big-name signings which aren't likely to win a) due to the wage restrictions (whether or otherwise), the fact we don't offer European football, the fact the public perception is that we don't treat players or managers particularly well and the fact as soon as you play well you may be shipped out (for instance, this may be a problem for players wanting stability). We aren't an attractive proposition in my opinion, outside our brilliant stadium, unrivalled fanbase and strong history. Therefore, I'm happy to see us target players other seems don't be following on the basis of clandestine and, thus far results-wise, fairly high-quality scouting, if it means we can get a player of similar, if not the same or better quality, without a more-than-likely defeat in any bidding war. If we happen to save some cash in the process to be put back into all aspects of the club - the amount of promising youngsters we have means better facilities, better coaching, just as examples - that's a helpful by-product. If we are massively saddled by debt due to ludicrous contracts thrown at disinterested players, then this is all the more acceptable.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your point, of course I believe we should be a top club and would love for us to compete on the transfer front, and wages is the prime if not only real factor in achieving that. But at the same time I wouldn't say it would necessarily be a massive improvement over what we have now - a sensible, business-minded approach which is reaping dividends slowly as part of a process and in a much more sustainable way than before. Much as high wages are the reality to attract the top players, prudent business practice the reality to ensuring the long-term survival and viability of a football club (even though, again, this is is more detrimental to success than otherwise - see Arsenal). I suppose, to the detriment of fans, football being a business means that you have to find different measures to gauge, achieve and sustain success.

[buzza]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

 

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees, and these are often the worst, so in reality we have probably already paid at least £8m for Ba and Marveaux. Cabaye too would have probably gained a good agent fee given that we found his release clause. Similarly we could end up paying at least double what Swansea actually receive if and when we sign Neil Taylor.

But even with that calculation we still should have net 20+ million in the transfer pot, minus the training ground improvements (maybe 1M+).

[madras]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

search me but i'll bet if you look closely enough you'll find out why whether it be a benefactor, profits from other sales or profits from how the clubs ran or even they are building up debt the way we did.

 

i don't think we are now runniong at a continuous loss, i think we'd near enough break even without the carroll money and the reason prior to that was that we were paying more out on our biggest expenditure, wages, as a %age of turnover than most other teams and still buying on top of that.

 

we are at the end of the cycle, watch sunderland and villa etc go the same way if they don't get the financial success their current outlay is going to need.

 

stokes wage bill for 2008/9 their first season back in the prem was 26million and with the premier revenus to add on gave them scope to spend, like we did when promoted in the 90's, even then neither we nor stoke really spent much till the money was actually in the bank. take each club on it's own accounts instead of comparing for a truer picture.

[STM]

I think it's alot more simple than all that.

 

When Ashley first bought the club i think he put alot of his own money into it and has since regretted the decision. Now he running a very tight budget, with the club spending as minimum as humanly possible on transfers, whilst trying to move the club forward at the same time.

 

I presume his intention is to take money back out of the club but i haven't seen any proof of it. Meanwhile alot of fans have mixed up feelings about what is going on, due mainly to the change in extremes for the Shepard era, as well as Ashley's persistance silence and puppeteering (his biggest downfall IMO).

 

In the end we can't expect him to spend money, we can want it but we simply can't expect it. If people feel so strongly about the lack of money being spent on transfers they should vote with their feet, although i suspect it would be futile.

 

From my point of view i would like the club to be more honest. When we sold Carroll, why couldn't Ashley just have grown some bollocks and admitted his reasons for cashing in? Or why can't he tell us his intentions now?

 

I'd rather hear the truth (the worst) from the horses mouth, then we can all move on.

[Guest neesy111]

Some idiot on twitter is trying to claim we made a £55m profit last season.

 

I'm sure MA would love it if we did.

[Mr Logic]

I'm prepared to be patient. I appreciate some of what Wullie says but, without meaning to denigrate him, also feel it is too simplistic.

 

IF we do manage to finish 8th, 7th or 6th, and bring further players in next season, who is to say a genuine crack at Europe is not on the cards for 2012/13.

 

The fact that Ashley no longer communicates anything to the fans leaves us rather in the dark as to what his intentions are. Arguably he never communicated much anyway. We have his past misdemeanors to go by, some of which are frequently taken out of context, exaggerated or twisted to serve varying points.

 

You can take a bleak view, or you can try and view things through rosy tinted spectacles. But a middle of the road approach would allow for some cautious optimism. None of us truly know what the plan is anymore, we just go off our opinions - which rather like prejudice are preformed. There is a tendency to always twist things to fit with your preconceptions.

 

I for one am waiting to see what happens next, right now I am satisfied the team will be stronger next season, even at this moment.. come the end of the season if we sell the likes of Tiote or Ben Arfa then I will despair and surrender to bleakness.

[madras]

I'm prepared to be patient. I appreciate some of what Wullie says but, without meaning to denigrate him, also feel it it is too simplistic.

 

IF we do manage to finish 8th, 7th or 6th, and bring further players in next season, who is to say a genuine crack at Europe is not on the cards for 2012/13.

 

The fact that Ashley no longer communicates anything to the fans leaves us rather in the dark as to what his intentions are. Arguably he never communicated much anyway. We have his past misdemeanors to go by, some of which are frequently taken out of context, exaggerated or twisted to serve varying points.

 

You can take a bleak view, or you can try and view things through rosy tinted spectacles. But a middle of the road approach would allow for some cautious optimism. None of us truly know what the plan is anymore, we just go off our opinions - which rather like prejudice are preformed. There is a tendency to always twist things to fit with your preconceptions.

 

I for one am waiting to see what happens next, right now I am satisfied the team will be stronger next season, even at this moment.. come the end of the season if we sell the likes of Tiote or Ben Arfa then I will despair and surrender to bleakness.

the clubs accounts carry more weight than what any chairman/owner could say. unfortunatly we have to wait till a year later to get them.

[James]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

 

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees, and these are often the worst, so in reality we have probably already paid at least £8m for Ba and Marveaux. Cabaye too would have probably gained a good agent fee given that we found his release clause. Similarly we could end up paying at least double what Swansea actually receive if and when we sign Neil Taylor.

But even with that calculation we still should have net 20+ million in the transfer pot, minus the training ground improvements (maybe 1M+).

 

You aren't really counting everything though, we have the signing on fees for five players if you include HBA. £10m transfers if you include HBA. Agent fees for the five players. Loyalty payments to agents for players that are still here come 1st Sept. Loyalty bonuses bonuses for players that are still here come 1st Sept. Pro-rata loyalty bonuses for players we sell this summer that haven't handed in a transfer request. An increase in annual wage budget of over £5m. Training Improvements probably cost £3-5m. Money on the development side of things which Shepherd hardly spent a penny on. Installments for earlier signings.

[The Prophet]

Seriously though madras, how much debt must all the other clubs in the world be running up if they're all paying transfer fees on top of all the other standards fees that come with running a club and buying players? You mention Spurs but that's a total nonsense because Spurs spend money i.e. transfer fees. You're advocating selling but not buying, other than for free. Bringing Spurs into it is totally misrepresenting the argument.

 

You talk like we're the only club who pays wages and signing-on fees and like it's a radical new development. How has football survived for this length of time if the standard practice of paying money to other clubs for players is so financially crippling to the clubs and can only lead to more debt?

 

If it's true that we are making a continuous loss despite massive transfer profits and the third biggest stadium in the country, then would you not agree that the club's financial management must in fact be absolutely catastrophically bad under Mike Ashley? Shepherd's NUFC ran in profit year on year if you didn't include the dreaded outgoing transfer fees and the dividends that him and Hall were creaming off the top. His mistake was never spending money - it was letting mugs like Souness spend money on s***. His one attempt at 'keeping the powder dry', we are still suffering from.

 

How can Ashley possibly have managed to turn the finances round so badly, to the point where the only aspect of the business that had us running at a loss is now a massive profit making enterprise, and yet the business is still losing money hand over fist, according to the propaganda. Either they're telling blatant lies or they are astonishingly incompetent at generating revenue, either way it's indefensible that clubs like Stoke and Fulham regularly outspend us. Stoke spend £9m a season on transfer fees alone, Fulham spend £7m, neither generally sell anybody worth anything and you claim Newcastle United, with a British transfer record in our pockets, can't afford a penny?!

 

I honestly can't believe what I'm reading sometimes.

 

Since Shepherd, wages have gone up significantly more than the revenues, that is the big problem really. Also a lot of hidden fees have sprung up in contracts, we are still paying installments for some players last I heard, plus all players get millions of pounds in loyalty bonuses every year. Then there are the signing on fees and agent fees, and these are often the worst, so in reality we have probably already paid at least £8m for Ba and Marveaux. Cabaye too would have probably gained a good agent fee given that we found his release clause. Similarly we could end up paying at least double what Swansea actually receive if and when we sign Neil Taylor.

But even with that calculation we still should have net 20+ million in the transfer pot, minus the training ground improvements (maybe 1M+).

 

You aren't really counting everything though, we have the signing on fees for five players if you include HBA. £10m transfers if you include HBA. Agent fees for the five players. Loyalty payments to agents for players that are still here come 1st Sept. Loyalty bonuses bonuses for players that are still here come 1st Sept. Pro-rata loyalty bonuses for players we sell this summer that haven't handed in a transfer request. An increase in annual wage budget of over £5m. Training Improvements probably cost £3-5m. Money on the development side of things which Shepherd hardly spent a penny on. Installments for earlier signings.

 

Mike, is that you?

[STM]

I hate that whole your either with us or against us shit.