Doug Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Generally think academy production has a huge bearing on luck. For every one player that makes it 1000 don't, and the difference at that age is minimal, sometimes the better players don't shine, and you've gone with another. It's a lottery at times, and probably one of the hardest things in football to get right. It also helps when you don't have Willie Donachie in charge of your bairns. What's the average age in the reserves these days? I'll take a wild guess at 20 He's not, he's in charge of the reserves not youth. Won't help their development though. Eh? When they get to that age they should be out on loan, therefore the problem doesn't lie with the reserve manager. What's the average age in our reserves these days? Wild guess at 20 It might seem young, but the player has done the majority of his development by then, the only thing to bring them on is games - giving experience and confidence. WD has very little impact, if any on our youth players. The big strides are made a lot sooner, in finding the players with the qualities to make it and youth development. By the time they are 18 they need to be making an impact somewhere or they are being wasted. Our policy to fill the squad of young players with no game time and who get no game time because the manager doesnt trust them, holds us back, not our reserve manager. Or if he does trust them this owner will sell them because he would rather have the money in his arse pocket than good assets on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Generally think academy production has a huge bearing on luck. For every one player that makes it 1000 don't, and the difference at that age is minimal, sometimes the better players don't shine, and you've gone with another. It's a lottery at times, and probably one of the hardest things in football to get right. It also helps when you don't have Willie Donachie in charge of your bairns. What's the average age in the reserves these days? I'll take a wild guess at 20 He's not, he's in charge of the reserves not youth. Won't help their development though. Eh? When they get to that age they should be out on loan, therefore the problem doesn't lie with the reserve manager. What's the average age in our reserves these days? Wild guess at 20 I'd say younger as it seems very rarely we use any of the first team squad in some of the games. It always baffles me why players like Jonas when out of form, why they dont have a little run out in the reserves to capture a bit of form in an easier game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Our youth set up of course produced Englands latest young big bustling centre forward. Instead of leading the team Ashley couldnt wait to sell him and trouser the money. when are we ever going to see it spent? Were Cabaye, Cisse, Santon etc all free? Did I miss something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malandro Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Our youth set up of course produced Englands latest young big bustling centre forward. Instead of leading the team Ashley couldnt wait to sell him and trouser the money. when are we ever going to see it spent? Were Cabaye, Cisse, Santon etc all free? Did I miss something? About £20m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I dont believe he spends anywhere near what he takes. I believe he hates us after the abuse he took and is hell bent on recouping all his money back and more. No Ashley apologist on here will convince me otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I dont believe he spends anywhere near what he takes. I believe he hates us after the abuse he took and is hell bent on recouping all his money back and more. No Ashley apologist on here will convince me otherwise. They dont have to be one of them not to agree with you though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I dont believe he spends anywhere near what he takes. I believe he hates us after the abuse he took and is hell bent on recouping all his money back and more. No Ashley apologist on here will convince me otherwise. Aren't the accounts available via companies house? I'm sure you could check that out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Yup - I'd be quite surprised if he hasn't started getting his money back. I'd bet that the upcoming accounts will show it - lot of money flowed into NUFC over the last year with very little going back out. I'd be amazed if the club doesn't turn a profit - or at least would have done if he has started clawing money back. For the record, I've got no problem with him getting his loan back. But when it comes at the detriment to the club and the awful way it treats it's fans, then that's something else. Time will tell I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/newcastle-united-life-in-northern-town.html Net debt fell last season from £150 million to £130 million, comprising a £140 million loan from Mike Ashley less £10 million cash balances. Since Ashley arrived, the gross debt has significantly increased from £77 million in 2007, though he also had to clear the mortgage on the ground. Importantly, the club now has no external debt (it had a £36 million overdraft as recently as 2009), which not only provides more stability, but has also saved considerable sums in interest payments. These were £6.5 million in 2007, but would now be around £11 million a year following the rise in debt. Although Newcastle’s annual report initially stated that Ashley’s loans would carry interest at LIBOR + 0.5%, since 2009 they have all been classified as non-interest bearing. The 2010 accounts said that £12.3 million was repayable in August 2010, £16.5 million after more than a year and the remainder on demand, but no repayments have actually been made to date – though it is likely Ashley will want the loans repaid at some stage. As per Big Geordie's post, the next accounts will probably show profits going back to Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/newcastle-united-life-in-northern-town.html Net debt fell last season from £150 million to £130 million, comprising a £140 million loan from Mike Ashley less £10 million cash balances. Since Ashley arrived, the gross debt has significantly increased from £77 million in 2007, though he also had to clear the mortgage on the ground. Importantly, the club now has no external debt (it had a £36 million overdraft as recently as 2009), which not only provides more stability, but has also saved considerable sums in interest payments. These were £6.5 million in 2007, but would now be around £11 million a year following the rise in debt. Although Newcastle’s annual report initially stated that Ashley’s loans would carry interest at LIBOR + 0.5%, since 2009 they have all been classified as non-interest bearing. The 2010 accounts said that £12.3 million was repayable in August 2010, £16.5 million after more than a year and the remainder on demand, but no repayments have actually been made to date – though it is likely Ashley will want the loans repaid at some stage. As per Big Geordie's post, the next accounts will probably show profits going back to Ashley. Would the money he takes back, be the money which he paid on top of the price of the club, to pay off the debts i mean ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I would imagine so, Bimpy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I think so bimbpy...didnt he have to put in an extra 75 mil into the running of the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 He had to put cash in when we went down, as well as pay off the mortgage for ground re-development when he bought the club. It's gonna take some paying back. I'm no expert, but I would guess that he will take enough so the club 'just' doesn't have to turn a profit, otherwise he would have to pay tax on that (Not sure though!) Is Quaysider around? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 The man sickens me. One step forward, fifty steps back. He's made a mockery out of this football club since day one. And he followed Freddie Shepherd ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Cheers guys. I thought that was it. So he needs to take £100m or so out before he takes any profit for himself, unless he sells for more than he bought it for + the whatevers left of the debts he paid off. We are stuck with this bloke for a while longer aren't we Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Cheers guys. I thought that was it. So he needs to take £100m or so out before he takes any profit for himself, unless he sells for more than he bought it for + the whatevers left of the debts he paid off. We are stuck with this bloke for a while longer aren't we One thing's for sure, our approach to transfers isn't going to change any time soon (and rightly so in many regards), so with the mega cash bonanza next season he'll be able to claw that back much more quickly than up to this point. If we stay up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Cheers guys. I thought that was it. So he needs to take £100m or so out before he takes any profit for himself, unless he sells for more than he bought it for + the whatevers left of the debts he paid off. We are stuck with this bloke for a while longer aren't we One thing's for sure, our approach to transfers isn't going to change any time soon (and rightly so in many regards), so with the mega cash bonanza next season he'll be able to claw that back much more quickly than up to this point. If we stay up. I'm with you on the transfers, i think we go about it the right way to an extent. But you mustn't refuse to buy to the detriment of the team, like we did in the summer. I think this is where their lack of football knowledge kicks in, any fool knew we needed more players, all we got was some nonsense about purple players. Such non football speak from non football men. I'm hoping they learn from each mistake. Every plane crash stops a hundred more, to steal a strange fact that floats about in my brain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Cheers guys. I thought that was it. So he needs to take £100m or so out before he takes any profit for himself, unless he sells for more than he bought it for + the whatevers left of the debts he paid off. We are stuck with this bloke for a while longer aren't we One thing's for sure, our approach to transfers isn't going to change any time soon (and rightly so in many regards), so with the mega cash bonanza next season he'll be able to claw that back much more quickly than up to this point. If we stay up. I'm with you on the transfers, i think we go about it the right way to an extent. But you mustn't refuse to buy to the detriment of the team, like we did in the summer. I think this is where their lack of football knowledge kicks in, any fool knew we needed more players, all we got was some nonsense about purple players. Such non football speak from non football men. I'm hoping they learn from each mistake. Every plane crash stops a hundred more, to steal a strange fact that floats about in my brain. It's not "lack of football knowledge." Just a different set of priorities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tollemache Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Chairman has sensible transfer policy and fans demand more expenditure shocker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Chairman has sensible transfer policy and fans demand more expenditure shocker Sensible? Having 3 senior CB's at the club, 1 who is injury prone and 1 is a Championship level defender is sensible? Having 3 senior strikers at the club (now 2), 1 of which is Shola Ameobi, is sensible? It's far from sensible, it's downright stupid and is hurting us now on the pitch. It's not about the expenditure, it's about having a balanced squad with depth. Our squad was short for last season BUT with the additional European games it was obvious more bodies were needed and we didn't get it, that isn't sensible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Having 3 senior strikers at the club (now 2), 1 of which is Shola Ameobi, is sensible? if we start february with this he wants us to get relegated, there is no other logical explanation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I don't think our current lot will be looking at things in terms of footballing success though. They'll be looking to bring in the maximum revenue for the minimum expenditure. It wouldn't surprise me if they've looked at the finances and worked out the optimum finishing position to maximise the revenue vs spend ratio. Each place in the PL is worth about £800k according to the latest data I could find. Obviously positions 18-20 need to be taken out of the equation since relegation would not be profitable. The difference in just merit payments between 8th and 17th is therefore around £7m. In this example a net transfer spend of £6m would give increased revenues of £1m if it resulted in an 8th placed finish rather than 17th. Obviously this is just an example and I don't even know if that level of net spend would result in the improvement in league placings required but it illustrates that there should be a point of inflection on the graph of net spend vs revenue where income is at the optimum level. You would also need to take into account increased gates (not so much for us, our crowds are usually around a similar level) and extra TV money since more successful teams would be selected for TV matches more often. It's hard to get an idea from the last five seasons or so as the relegation clearout and the Carroll transfer distorts the picture. Bit disturbing looking a transferleague.co.uk though, over the last five seasons it has us at a net transfer income of about £38m I would suspect our hierarchy have looked at this and decided where they want us to finish each season and this position will have nothing to do with footballing success. If 15th is the optimum position then I think they'd be just as happy for us to finish there as 5th. As long as Pardew keeps us in the PL I think his job will be safe and he'll be given an amount to spend based on that optimum revenue raising position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 there's a difference between a strategic approach such as you describe and ignoring the inevitable threat of relegation...that then becomes a short-term tactical necessity they ignored the threat last time and we went down, if it's shola / cisse to the end of the season then they clearly intend to flog our assets and try to go back up on the cheap again, there's no other explanation for it as i said Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 there's a difference between a strategic approach such as you describe and ignoring the inevitable threat of relegation...that then becomes a short-term tactical necessity they ignored the threat last time and we went down, if it's shola / cisse to the end of the season then they clearly intend to flog our assets and try to go back up on the cheap again, there's no other explanation for it as i said After relegation we had a net transfer income of £24m (according to transfer league). Combined with the parachute payment that income should have largely offset the negative financial implications of relegation. Indeed, if you check the accounts we actually posted a smaller operating loss in the championship than in the premier league the previous season (£33.3m vs £37m). Undoubtedly this was due to correcting some of the mismanagement by the previous regime and the club is now in a much leaner state. Selling off the crown jewels again if we go down would cover some of the losses but I very much doubt we'd raise enough to cover the loss of income from the improved TV deal. That new TV deal is a game changer in my opinion, nobody will risk missing out on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 was taking the piss with that comment, perhaps a better comment would be they're prepared to take the gamble and sell of cabaye's and HBA's if they have to our better players would pull in a fair wedge tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts