Rafael Benitez

[High Five o]

What is market place price for a club sponsorship anyway. You can argue its a quite high due to exposure.

[Paully]

I thought I was reading Paully's longest ever post there until I saw the misquote.

 

Ha ha ha! I keep my long drivel for true faith!

[Unbelievable]

"I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back."

 

Not once has he put a penny of his own money in, not once, other than when he bought it and to add to the club's debt to pay for his own mistakes.

 

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account

 

A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way).

 

Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation".

 

Most if not all owners have put money in or converted loan into equity (efffectively writing off the loan unlike how our clown claims to have done). It's not hard to find many examples using any search engine. Do some research.

[Zero]

"I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back."

 

Not once has he put a penny of his own money in, not once, other than when he bought it and to add to the club's debt to pay for his own mistakes.

 

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account

 

A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way).

 

Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation".

He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space.

 

Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year?  unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi?

Some owners pay above market price for club sponsorships. Like you know, a clever accounting trick to inject funds to the club.

 

Yea, or they can write off debt for free, like Man city.  And this is sugar daddy owner which I suggested 1. Ashley will never be and 2. Lot of EPL clubs dont have.

[Sean]

"I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back."

 

Not once has he put a penny of his own money in, not once, other than when he bought it and to add to the club's debt to pay for his own mistakes.

 

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account

 

A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way).

 

Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation".

He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space.

 

Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year?  unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi?

 

Have you got evidence to back up your £4m a year figure? Preferable using a similar sized club, and a similar amount of sponsorship granted (including the team going to do meet and greets at Sports Direct and also the huge roof advertising)?

[Zero]

What is market place price for a club sponsorship anyway. You can argue its a quite high due to exposure.

 

As far as I know, kit sponsorship should be the most expensive.  I really doubt our club sponsorship could be more than what we got from northern rock wonga 888 etc.

[Sean]

What is market place price for a club sponsorship anyway. You can argue its a quite high due to exposure.

 

As far as I know, kit sponsorship should be the most expensive.  I really doubt our club sponsorship could be more than what we got from northern rock wonga 888 etc.

 

[NG32]

What is market place price for a club sponsorship anyway. You can argue its a quite high due to exposure.

 

As far as I know, kit sponsorship should be the most expensive.  I really doubt our club sponsorship could be more than what we got from northern rock wonga 888 etc.

 

We were getting the same money from Northern Rock as we do from Funn888 and Wonga.  The only exception is Northern Rock were giving us that money over 10 years ago and the game has move on considerably since then.

 

Ashley has taken this club backwards.

[Altamullan]

What is market place price for a club sponsorship anyway. You can argue its a quite high due to exposure.

 

As far as I know, kit sponsorship should be the most expensive.  I really doubt our club sponsorship could be more than what we got from northern rock wonga 888 etc.

 

Sean, listen to the points rather than trying to win an argument, of your own making. Ashley is not a 'sugar daddy' is not going to take a loss. The Sports Direct shit-smear across the stadium isn't going to make-up 40 million.

[Interpolic]

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/newcastle-united-what-waste.html

 

Not only is commercial income lower than the £28 million that Ashley inherited eight years ago, but Newcastle are the only top ten Premier League club not to grow commercially in that period, even though the club apparently “continues to focus on maximising commercial revenue”.

 

Before Ashley arrived Newcastle’s commercial income was at a similar level to Tottenham, but the North London club has grown this revenue stream by 56% since 2007 while Newcastle have fallen by 10%. In the same period Aston Villa and Everton have overtaken Newcastle, while Liverpool and Arsenal have grown by £73 million and £62 million respectively.

[mrmojorisin75]

Why don't we have a sleeve sponsor yet? Should have got that in to cover a portion of the wages of the shit we need to get rid of for a couple of years until the squad had less shit on it. There are countless examples of Ashley boning the club ffs.

[NG32]

Why don't we have a sleeve sponsor yet? Should have got that in to cover a portion of the wages of the s*** we need to get rid of for a couple of years until the squad had less s*** on it. There are countless examples of Ashley boning the club ffs.

 

He doesn't even hide it 

[Zero]

"I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back."

 

Not once has he put a penny of his own money in, not once, other than when he bought it and to add to the club's debt to pay for his own mistakes.

 

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account

 

A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way).

 

Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation".

He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space.

 

Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year?  unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi?

 

Have you got evidence to back up your £4m a year figure? Preferable using a similar sized club, and a similar amount of sponsorship granted (including the team going to do meet and greets at Sports Direct and also the huge roof advertising)?

 

May not be directly comparable, but the quick source I use is Everton 31 May 2016 annual account which club size is larger than us (sadly).

 

Total revenue consist of

Broadcasting 82.5M

Gate receipts 17.6M

Advertising and Sponsorship 9.3M

Other commercial revenue 12.1M

 

Just very quick math, I assume the max sponsorship in market for our size to be 10M per year.  Our wonga deal is 24M for 5 years so I assume it to be 5M.  So assuming 1M for other advertising we get, the max loss in revenue is 4M.

 

Very rough calculation though.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Why don't we have a sleeve sponsor yet? Should have got that in to cover a portion of the wages of the s*** we need to get rid of for a couple of years until the squad had less s*** on it. There are countless examples of Ashley boning the club ffs.

 

He doesn't even hide it 

he's a fucking joker.

 

 

[Parky]

Just got a great idea for SKY's new marketing PL campaign. Don't bother with it be realistic.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

He could get the money he has put in, including purchase price and 'loan' easy, hell probably interest on it all too. He doesn't want out, he wants to hold onto us for his own benefit, all whilst not running Newcastle United as a football club.

[Parky]

"I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back."

 

Not once has he put a penny of his own money in, not once, other than when he bought it and to add to the club's debt to pay for his own mistakes.

 

Please explain what is loan from club owner and why it has increased to 129m term loan + 33m further loan = 164m as per latest account

 

A loan is money owed (to Ashley), which needs to be paid back at some stage and is interest bearing (we pay for it in free advertising). It is not the same as putting money in and expecting nothing in return. The debt was 70m when he bought us (mainly related to late 90's stadium extension as a 57m mortgage which had to be repaid in the event of a change in ownership). He then added 29m to pay off existing player transfer fees that were spread out in one go, another 29m as the cost of the first relegation (his mistake) and another 33m after the second relegation (again his mistake). He also profits from this loan fiscally as he offsets it in his holding company, hence paying less tax over his profits. So in short: no, a loan is entirely different to putting his own money in (as most other club owners have done by the way).

 

Give me examples that a normal club in EPL would have an income item called "owners donation".

He could have signed a sponsorship deal with sports direct and funded us that way. You know, pay for the advertising space.

 

Yea, by market price, additional 4m per year?  unless it is the difference between relegation or not, would this help to give us an additional Batshuayi?

 

Have you got evidence to back up your £4m a year figure? Preferable using a similar sized club, and a similar amount of sponsorship granted (including the team going to do meet and greets at Sports Direct and also the huge roof advertising)?

 

May not be directly comparable, but the quick source I use is Everton 31 May 2016 annual account which club size is larger than us (sadly).

 

Total revenue consist of

Broadcasting 82.5M

Gate receipts 17.6M

Advertising and Sponsorship 9.3M

Other commercial revenue 12.1M

 

Just very quick math, I assume the max sponsorship in market for our size to be 10M per year.  Our wonga deal is 24M for 5 years so I assume it to be 5M.  So assuming 1M for other advertising we get, the max loss in revenue is 4M.

 

Very rough calculation though.

 

 

 

We have to spend the telly money now or lose another 60m getting relegated. You don't need to pour over the books mate.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

According to Dictionary.com...

 

Zero definition, zero in business knowledge and zero in football knowledge.

[Zero]

Too long to quote.  The fat cunt won't look in this way.  Say the gamble paid off, the 60M won't go to his pocket as he publicly stated that this is Rafas.  However if the gamble failed Rafa won't be here and he has to bear the consequence.  Why would he do the gamble then?

[Zero]

According to Dictionary.com...

 

Zero definition, zero in business knowledge and zero in football knowledge.

 

How about take a look at my original post before posting sth like this?

[Parky]

Too long to quote.  The fat cunt won't look in this way.  Say the gamble paid off, the 60M won't go to his pocket as he publicly stated that this is Rafas.  However if the gamble failed Rafa won't be here and he has to bear the consequence.  Why would he do the gamble then?

 

What is this gamble?

[Altamullan]

According to Dictionary.com...

 

Zero definition, zero in business knowledge and zero in football knowledge.

That's just unnecessarily rude. Is HTT Hardly Tumescent Tool?

[Shearergol]

I must admit, it's fun reading Zero's posts like.....

 

We were right to let Pardew go at that moment (or sack him, sadly we couldn't), and this actually doesn't really related to whether he is a good manager or not - the fact that his existence here helped Ashley to generate huge profits is already more than enough.  If someone doesn't understand this is for the long term good of NUFC, then just let it be.

 

Due to the above, I think people should be more objective in judging Pardew's ability.  His work in Crystal Palace is absolutely brilliant.  Even if it is "the new manager bounce", which I don't agree with, his appointment is already the most successful one in EPL this season, by paying 3m to secure a place for next season, and got lots of funds in the coming summer to enhance the squad.  Unless Crystal Palace relegate next season, he would not be considered a bad manager anymore, at least not here.

 

I think re the unrealistic expectation, Pardew is right, given the resources provided by Ashley.  Newcastle could compete with Liverpool if and only if we are a properly running club, which the truth is we arent, we are just a cash generat ing machine for Ashley. 

 

Not saying Pardew isnt shit, just I dont think there is a manager in this world who can earn money for Ashley and improve the squad to compete with the Big 5 at the same time.  Thus under Ashley all ambitious expectation (i.e. anything above 10) is unrealistic.

 

Fuck this club.

 

I just want to point out one thing: Pardew has excellent man management skills.  Probably the best since SBR.  It is not an easy job to bring colo and cabaye back to the team and perform as usual. It isn't. Throughout his time here he has protected the players extremely well, and the one he criticize most is ben arfa who is playing his best football. 

 

I honestly dont think there is lots of manager better than him in this area.

 

it's simple, you either sack the manager, or give him money to buy the player he needs.  what we are doing now is purely time-wasting. i'd rather give money to Pardew to buy players like Bent or Downing (who is at least a winger) rather than sticking with Obertan as our only winger FFS.

 

Alright I'll make it clear. Why the fuck we need to have transfer profits here?  Say the almighty wages/turnover ratio is 70% now (Chris can confirm later), even excluding other operating expenses, we should still got at least 15m to spend every year. Even if we want to balance our book, we are still able to make a transfer loss of 15m per year. But now we got a 5m profits instead.

 

We aren't Arsenal who got a marvellous youth system to milk. If the 2 cunts continue to run the club like this we would just head for another crash even if we got a new manager.

[loki679]

Too long to quote.  The fat cunt won't look in this way.  Say the gamble paid off, the 60M won't go to his pocket as he publicly stated that this is Rafas.  However if the gamble failed Rafa won't be here and he has to bear the consequence.  Why would he do the gamble then?

 

Stabilising the club in the premier league would increase the value of his asset.  The first season back is always going to be the most expensive however once he has a squad fit for the PL the spending can be scaled back.

[Zero]

Too long to quote.  The fat c*** won't look in this way.  Say the gamble paid off, the 60M won't go to his pocket as he publicly stated that this is Rafas.  However if the gamble failed Rafa won't be here and he has to bear the consequence.  Why would he do the gamble then?

 

What is this gamble?

 

The TV money I.e. The 60M you mention.  In most of the fans perspective it's earned.  In the fat cunt point of view it isn't.  It is spending before earning (which in fact hasn't put into our bank yet) and thus it is a gamble.  And by locking up the amount up, Ashley cost of relegation is covered.