quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". No, I did. I have posted a differently worded response. You need to separate finances from the decisions he has made and the action he has taken. Even if you are saying money is the root cause, the end result is inexcusable irrespective of what caused it. Well I disagree with your main point. Although, of course, I won't argue that the end result has been inexcusable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". No, I did. I have posted a differently worded response. You need to separate finances from the decisions he has made and the action he has taken. Even if you are saying money is the root cause, the end result is inexcusable irrespective of what caused it. Well I disagree with your main point. Although, of course, I won't argue that the end result has been inexcusable. Ironically, my main point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Kinnear as Director of Football Pardew as Manager Llambias as Chairman Sacking Chris Hughton Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach. SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium. Sports Direct everywhere. Relegation Joe Kinnear as Manager. Disbanding the singing section. The Keegan Fiasco. Deliberate lies to the fans. Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman. Why the f*** are we even talking finances? A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". No, I did. I have posted a differently worded response. You need to separate finances from the decisions he has made and the action he has taken. Even if you are saying money is the root cause, the end result is inexcusable irrespective of what caused it. Well I disagree with your main point. Although, of course, I won't argue that the end result has been inexcusable. Ironically, my main point. Ah well, I saw your main point as advising me to look at Ashley's decisions without considering that many of them are financially motivated. And I struggle to do that as I think it is his main driver tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Finance is a parameter that Ashley has to work under. It's not an excuse for ineptitude, incompetence and indifference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 That's right so comparing Liverpool's situation to ours favourably doesn't make sense then, because of their success they are a worldwide brand, a point made earlier in this thread. That's why if we are going to compare ourselves to another club, it would be closer to Everton. Or Spurs maybe. Barring the London location, we should be able to model ourselves on them. But the difference isn't really one of finance it's more about having competent people running the club. The London thing is big. People there have more money and there's way more room for corporate money when you're in London. Lots of competition in that area makes it less exciting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Contrary to popular belief the bulk of the debt owed to the bank was not a mortgage on the stadium, it was secured on season ticket sales. The credit crunch was just around the corner, when banks got the sh*ts about lending money to any businesse, let alone one racking up huge losses. It wasn't a bank loan, though. The debt relating to the stadium development was in the form of privately-placed loan notes and couldn't simply be accelerated at the drop of a hat, the club would have to breach a covenant first (admittedly it's highly likely that releation would directly or indirectly lead to covenant breach). The notes amortised in such a way that as long as people turned up for games, the financing was covered. The real issue with the club's finances was the colossal wage bill which was weighed down by bumper contracts given out on the back of CL participation which is what lead to the overdraft position and the subsequent hocking of future sponsorship monies which most likely would have been repayable on relatively short terms (up to 3 years most likely). The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO. That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them. Bullshit. Yep- though we were headed for the financial wall- no doubt about it- you have to think through the series of events. Financial distress would have lead to a collapse in the club's share price- making us a relatively attractive purchase at a time when a number of clubs found themselves under new ownership. I don't think administration would have been necessary, but it could have happened. We certainly would have been in new owners hands fairly quickly. Instead we were bought for a ludicrous price and as a result Ashley is here for the foreseeable. There is no way we'd have sunk into the abyss. As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. Good post, again though I'm surprised that if the club run properly is self-financing, why so little interest from outside buyers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. I have quoted your paragraph above, as I'm not so sure about it. Clearly Spurs have done something like that over the years but they are an exception rather than a rule. There is a bit of Everton about it. I'm not sure the supporter base would be too receptive to a new ownership regime creating another Everton. Maybe I'm wrong. It is a club that lives within its means but a lot of the fan base criticise the board for lacking ambition (ambition = money). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. Also, not just the question of repayment of existing debt, but the availability of new debt to finance our continued significant losses. Was it going to be easy to keep borrowing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 To put it more eloquently. You can easily assess Ashley's performance as owner of Newcastle United without assessing the clubs finances. Finance is a parameter that Ashley has to work under. It's not an excuse for ineptitude, incompetence and indifference. To be fair, the discussion turned to finance as this is Ashley's only redeeming factor according to some. Everybody seems in agreement pretty much everything else bar possibly scouting, is well below what we should aspire to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. I have quoted your paragraph above, as I'm not so sure about it. Clearly Spurs have done something like that over the years but they are an exception rather than a rule. There is a bit of Everton about it. I'm not sure the supporter base would be too receptive to a new ownership regime creating another Everton. Maybe I'm wrong. It is a club that lives within its means but a lot of the fan base criticise the board for lacking ambition (ambition = money). Haing ambition does not equal operating beyond your means. It means having the will and determination to improve and grow. Mix that with some ability and we have the potential to improve and grow in stature both on and off the field. As there is a total lack of will or determination the talent that could help realise it will keep well away. Naturally. The able and the apathetic are not natural bedfellows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. Also, not just the question of repayment of existing debt, but the availability of new debt to finance our continued significant losses. Was it going to be easy to keep borrowing? I don't think so, there was nothing left to offer as security. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 As for the argument that we need an owner with deep pockets made earlier- no we don't. Why should we expect someone else to shovel their cash on the bonfire? This club- run properly- can wash its own face and the supporter base should be prepared to be right behind that. It's a poor excuse and just masks the fact that we're not as strong operationally than we were in the past. You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. I have quoted your paragraph above, as I'm not so sure about it. Clearly Spurs have done something like that over the years but they are an exception rather than a rule. There is a bit of Everton about it. I'm not sure the supporter base would be too receptive to a new ownership regime creating another Everton. Maybe I'm wrong. It is a club that lives within its means but a lot of the fan base criticise the board for lacking ambition (ambition = money). Haing ambition does not equal operating beyond your means. It means having the will and determination to improve and grow. Mix that with some ability and we have the potential to improve and grow in stature both on and off the field. As there is a total lack of will or determination the talent that could help realise it will keep well away. Naturally. The able and the apathetic are not natural bedfellows. Fair enough. I think Everton is as ambitious as it can be given it's finances. They do their best to attract the best manager and players they can, and they never have the comedy show routines that we are adept at providing. But, despite that, there is still some supporter unrest as I understand it from a good mate of mine who is a lifelong Evertonian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I don't want to overstate it, but I do think there is some truth in the view that spending is the biggest example of 'ambition' in the minds of fans. I'm not saying everyone thinks that, or that it's the only factor, but I would be interested to see how Ashley would be viewed if his financial approach was identical but his other decisions were slightly better. (Possibly the wrong person to be asking this, as I would be quite happy) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Also, not just the question of repayment of existing debt, but the availability of new debt to finance our continued significant losses. Was it going to be easy to keep borrowing? The club was maxed out. Ashley could hav bode his time and saved himself £100m. It's ironic he's so focused on cost control when you consider the reckless abandon with which he bought the club. I can't really get my head around it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I don't want to overstate it, but I do think there is some truth in the view that spending is the biggest example of 'ambition' in the minds of fans. I'm not saying everyone thinks that, or that it's the only factor, but I would be interested to see how Ashley would be viewed if his financial approach was identical but his other decisions were slightly better. (Possibly the wrong person to be asking this, as I would be quite happy) In the end, it's not about spending, it's about results in football matches. Even the odd ridiculous decision would be forgiven if he had us challenging for the title. Unfortunately, we aren't, and there is a clear correlation between transfer and wage spending and success, so it's fairly logical that this is an area of focus, on top of the valid criticism of his many other mistakes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugoinufc Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I don't want to overstate it, but I do think there is some truth in the view that spending is the biggest example of 'ambition' in the minds of fans. I'm not saying everyone thinks that, or that it's the only factor, but I would be interested to see how Ashley would be viewed if his financial approach was identical but his other decisions were slightly better. (Possibly the wrong person to be asking this, as I would be quite happy) its definitely not ambitious to sell 1 and bring 1 in on loan when we just avoided relegation last season. Hiring Joe K. is the biggest sign that ashley doesnt give a fuk about where we finish as long as we dont go down. Spending money is a sign of ambition...i like how we started scouting and signing "cheap" quality players with talent and the possibility of making good money on them. Problem is we dont buy what we need - but who is the best deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Also, not just the question of repayment of existing debt, but the availability of new debt to finance our continued significant losses. Was it going to be easy to keep borrowing? The club was maxed out. Ashley could hav bode his time and saved himself £100m. It's ironic he's so focused on cost control when you consider the reckless abandon with which he bought the club. I can't really get my head around it. Did he not just see a window of opportunity to get what he wanted and acted quickly to avoid possible competition or Freddie being able to bend the Halls' ears ? Freddie was on his sick bed at the time iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I want to point out that, if Ashley's ultimate aim is to sell the club, then the arguments of "milking out the money" "pay back the loan" actually do not hold, because these will only decrease the club's net assets value and in turn decrease the potential selling price. So Ashley's best interest would be to maximize the club's value without any more personal inputs. I agree that he is trying to take least risk in running the club. But at the same time, I also wonder how "risky" that could be. We were almost close to administration just because 1. we missed out on CL and 2. spending 15m on Owen and 10m on Luque. Even taking into account the wages, the hit shouldn't be that critical. So is that we over estimate our club's revenue generating power? The likes of Liverpool and Spurs could afford to have a few 10m+ flops, but "seems" we can't. I didn't read the accounts in detail, just my general impression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Owen and Luque, aye, and Boumsong, and Parker, and Emre, all in the same year, to the tune of £50m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyn davies Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Canny read from True-Faith http://www.true-faith.co.uk/questions-answers/ There's some cracking questions in there. shame we won't get any cracking answers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Got to be worrying having SD tills in the club shop and receipts with SD on them....Is the club shop now outsourced? Is that true? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Got to be worrying having SD tills in the club shop and receipts with SD on them....Is the club shop now outsourced? Is that true? I cant confirm as i wont buy from the club shop...true-faith seem to think so. Nufc could well be a departnent in SD now. If so its no longer NUFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I'm surprised the club shop isn't already The Newcastle United Club Shop by Sports Direct or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 If the club shop is now spirts direct he is fleecing everyone buying from it...its clearly not going back to the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosenrot Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Canny read from True-Faith http://www.true-faith.co.uk/questions-answers/ There's some cracking questions in there. Got to be worrying having SD tills in the club shop and receipts with SD on them....Is the club shop now outsourced? That is a complete disgrace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts