Guest Eric Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Wagebill up 7%. How is this possible? He'll be including signing on fees etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 There's that shit about £280m again. Did the fact cunt expect to get the club for free? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Wagebill up 7%. How is this possible? We're paying the new lads 7% more than we payed the ones we moved on.... Or its a ready made excuse for when we move the next few 'High Earners' on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 There's that s*** about £280m again. Did the fact c*** expect to get the club for free? No doubt that will come back to haunt him when the next accounts come out and that figure has reduced. Hard to explain the £35m stayed in the club when his debts reduce by a similar amount. Unless of course the notes in last years accounts arent used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 To be fair to the bong eyed cunt i think his answers are decent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 There's that s*** about £280m again. Did the fact c*** expect to get the club for free? The annoying thing is, it gets regurgitated, 'til it becomes "fact" and so called journalists use it to excuse his disastrous tenure and idiots everywhere eat it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I also like how the basis of pretty much the whole thing is that they're supposedly trying to get to the point at which the club pays its own way, and yet he's also warning that if the nasty songs about 'Mike' continue that he won't spend any more money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 To be fair to the bong eyed c*** i think his answers are decent. For the most part aye, largely due to the wording of the questions giving him easy ways out as well as some being plain daft. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 The question about wanting a marquee signing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ykmkmdd Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Overall very impressed with those answers - seem to have picked up on the need for positive PR and hopefully this sort of exercise will become a regular event. The point about Ashley not wanting to invest his personal fortune when he is abused by fans at home and away is a valid one IMO - "boo, you fat bastard, put your hand in your fucking pocket you fat twat" is never really going to have the desired effect is it. He could've screwed us over a hell of a lot worse by refusing to put in the extra money in the relegation season, or even charging interest on his loans but (so far at least) he hasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Overall very impressed with those answers - seem to have picked up on the need for positive PR and hopefully this sort of exercise will become a regular event. The point about Ashley not wanting to invest his personal fortune when he is abused by fans at home and away is a valid one IMO - "boo, you fat b******, put your hand in your f***ing pocket you fat t***" is never really going to have the desired effect is it. He could've screwed us over a hell of a lot worse by refusing to put in the extra money in the relegation season, or even charging interest on his loans but (so far at least) he hasn't. It's an absolutely ridiculous business decision because once the fans really get apathetic, he will have to put his hands in his pocket or sell at a much lower cost he would now. But it's par for the course for these idiots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 I notice a general admission that money was available for a striker, only we didn't spend it. Asley can't be blamed for that, Pardew can't be blamed for that, but Llambias can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Antec Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 The question about wanting a marquee signing. Aye, played right into the sensible spending/right players for Newcastle regardless of cost line of responding Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 The question about wanting a marquee signing. Aye, played right into the sensible spending/right players for Newcastle regardless of cost line of responding Yep, a very insulting question if you're a supporter and a perfect straw man question for them to answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ykmkmdd Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Overall very impressed with those answers - seem to have picked up on the need for positive PR and hopefully this sort of exercise will become a regular event. The point about Ashley not wanting to invest his personal fortune when he is abused by fans at home and away is a valid one IMO - "boo, you fat b******, put your hand in your f***ing pocket you fat t***" is never really going to have the desired effect is it. He could've screwed us over a hell of a lot worse by refusing to put in the extra money in the relegation season, or even charging interest on his loans but (so far at least) he hasn't. It's an absolutely ridiculous business decision because once the fans really get apathetic, he will have to put his hands in his pocket or sell at a much lower cost he would now. But it's par for the course for these idiots. I just don't think it's realistic that we think the only way we can progress as a club is for a wealthy individual to subsidise losses from his own pocket, epecially when our wealthy individual is an absolute pauper compared to some of the others we're up against. Trying to build sustainably with young, good value talent on reasonable wages is the only sensible option we have IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Our wage bill have increased Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eric Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Overall very impressed with those answers - seem to have picked up on the need for positive PR and hopefully this sort of exercise will become a regular event. The point about Ashley not wanting to invest his personal fortune when he is abused by fans at home and away is a valid one IMO - "boo, you fat b******, put your hand in your f***ing pocket you fat t***" is never really going to have the desired effect is it. He could've screwed us over a hell of a lot worse by refusing to put in the extra money in the relegation season, or even charging interest on his loans but (so far at least) he hasn't. It's an absolutely ridiculous business decision because once the fans really get apathetic, he will have to put his hands in his pocket or sell at a much lower cost he would now. But it's par for the course for these idiots. I just don't think it's realistic that we think the only way we can progress as a club is for a wealthy individual to subsidise losses from his own pocket, epecially when our wealthy individual is an absolute pauper compared to some of the others we're up against. Trying to build sustainably with young, good value talent on reasonable wages is the only sensible option we have IMO. Who thinks that way? I think it's absolutely correct that the club should be self-sufficient. It's far more likely to be self-sufficient if you have a full ground for every game, but for that you would need to be honest with your customers, employ credible people at the club and follow through with promises. The £35m was initially only accepted because everyone agreed it was too good to turn down IF the full proceeds were re-invested into the team; as we know this has been revised several times, from including wages, running costs and friggin bore holes, to just sitting in the bank account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Disgusting PR exercise, that. Pretty smart though, and I imagine it will actually satiate some. Accepted some very good questions (some of them, anyway). Presented some ostensibly plausible answers which are of course bollocks, but can't be counter-pointed within the framework of a question-answer reply format. Any real dialogue or discourse would rip that shit to shreds. Were this Q&A session not a big sham from the beginning, MA and DL had an opportunity to actually begin to engender a sense of trust with the fans by coming clean and apologising - instead we get these defensive patronising lies and hovering threats. Utter wankers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Its a point weve mentioned before, but transfer fees are only one part of the cost incurred in signing players. A free transfer mistakenly indicates that it is without cost to the club, but no transfer is actually free. Most supporters will be aware that the agents fees, signing on fees and salaries are inflated in deals with free agents. whats the bet we paid about £7m for Demba Ba then? They went for him and were stung by various add-ons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Derek Llambias with the Bart Simpson 'Damned if you do, Damned if you don't' line on PR was canny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Q13: Why was Joey Barton allowed to go? We felt we couldn’t improve on that offer and therefore would need to consider selling. However with a transfer fee attached we received no formal interest from any club. We eventually made a decision to release Joey on a free transfer after well-publicised differences between the club and the player couldn’t be resolved. We wish Joey all the best at Queens Park Rangers and look forward to seeing him on Monday for our fixture at Loftus Road. we're not gonna receive a transfer fee for Alan Smith, and he contributes fuck all, unlike Barton. So why wasn't he released too? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Q10: Is NUFC competitive on player recruitment? By Evening Chronicle Sep 10 2011 Add a comment Recommend inShare Newcastle United has the third highest attendances in the country, Sky TV and income from merchandising, plus a lower debt position than many in the EPL. Why in terms of player recruitment can Newcastle not compete with smaller clubs like Stoke, Fulham and QPR? WE'RE privileged to have a huge fan-base and the TV income and merchandising revenue that goes hand-in-hand with that. The efforts we’ve made over recent years to reduce our debts has only been possible because we’ve kept our operating costs in check and carefully managed our wage structure, wage to turnover ratio, and transfer spending policy. It would be inappropriate to pass comment on the way other clubs run their business, and it would be a largely irrelevant exercise. Suffice to say that we have a strong business strategy which we are committed to following and which we believe will reap benefits for the club and its supporters over the years to come. Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/09/10/q10-is-nufc-competitive-on-player-recruitment-72703-29393414/#ixzz1XXnr6oJh The last set of published accounts had a note saying that part of the loan from Ashley was secured against future broadcasting income and that £12.3 million was repayable August 2010 and £16.5 million was repayable after more than one year. The remaining (unsecured) balance of £111 million is repayable on demand. Note 15 says that that the loan of £16.5 million is repayable no earlier than August 2011. My guess is that at least some of the Sky TV money has gone to Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Q13: Why was Joey Barton allowed to go? We felt we couldn’t improve on that offer and therefore would need to consider selling. However with a transfer fee attached we received no formal interest from any club. We eventually made a decision to release Joey on a free transfer after well-publicised differences between the club and the player couldn’t be resolved. We wish Joey all the best at Queens Park Rangers and look forward to seeing him on Monday for our fixture at Loftus Road. we're not gonna receive a transfer fee for Alan Smith, and he contributes fuck all, unlike Barton. So why wasn't he released too? because noone wanted him even for free Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David28 Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Q13: Why was Joey Barton allowed to go? By Evening Chronicle Sep 10 2011 Add a comment Recommend inShare Why was Joey Barton allowed to leave for free and join a club that could be considered to be a rival in the Premier League? JOEY'S a big character and a talented player, which is why we supported him from the moment he came to Newcastle, in spite of the difficulties he faced in his first two seasons here. In January 2011, we were keen to offer Joey a new contract because we wanted to keep him at the club. We offered him what we considered to be a great deal but unfortunately Joey chose not to accept it. We felt we couldn’t improve on that offer and therefore would need to consider selling. However with a transfer fee attached we received no formal interest from any club. We eventually made a decision to release Joey on a free transfer after well-publicised differences between the club and the player couldn’t be resolved. We wish Joey all the best at Queens Park Rangers and look forward to seeing him on Monday for our fixture at Loftus Road. Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/newcastle-united/nufc-news/2011/09/10/q13-why-was-joey-barton-allowed-to-go-72703-29393436/#ixzz1XXoMMqw9 I still would be interested to know what exactly happend on the day we played Leeds in pre-season. It was ok till that day. Joey was even captaining the side in pre-season before Colo was announced captain. Only after the Leeds game he really started against the club on twitter and the day that after he was transfer listed for free. Would really be interested to know that happened behind the scenes that day. Probably he was told he would be transfer listed for free the next day by Llambias/Pardew? Well, as Joey has said, there will be a time and a place to tell it all..... I only wonder when it will finally be. Probably in his authobiography to make some money with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Q13: Why was Joey Barton allowed to go? We felt we couldn’t improve on that offer and therefore would need to consider selling. However with a transfer fee attached we received no formal interest from any club. We eventually made a decision to release Joey on a free transfer after well-publicised differences between the club and the player couldn’t be resolved. We wish Joey all the best at Queens Park Rangers and look forward to seeing him on Monday for our fixture at Loftus Road. we're not gonna receive a transfer fee for Alan Smith, and he contributes f*** all, unlike Barton. So why wasn't he released too? because noone wanted him even for free Barton wasn't released - we just didn't want a fee for him. If we release Smith, we would have to pay his contract up. 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