St James' Park

[adam1]

I'd be more inclined to accept this shit if Ashley just changed the colours of the logo to Black and Grey for example. Having random bits of red and blue dotted around the stadium looks more tatty than the logo itself.

[Colocho]

Space for an @ between the .com and 'Newcastle United' sign?

[Guest sydneycove]

There have been around 20 NFL teams either moving, renamed or founded in the last 30 years though. Dave's spot on - tradition-wise, there is no comparison with here. The use of the word "franchise" rather than "team" over there is a pretty big clue.

 

No there hasn't. Last NFL team to move was the Oilers in 97 from Houston to Tennessee. Last team to join the league was in 2002 Houston Texans.

[Colocho]

Quote from: 2010 accounts

 

"During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services."

[Christmas Tree]

Maybe Im just war weary after everything thats happened since 2008 but this just seems nowt in comparison previous events.

 

Regardless whether he cant flog it yet or is simply using it for himself, this is where football is going and while people laugh at what goes on in the states, thats exactly where we are heading.

 

This continual rise in players salaries will only lead to more and more money being squeezed out of the game. Wouldnt surprise me in a few years time to have TV breaks after 22 mins, half time and 67 minutes.

 

Going to hell........

[UV]

Tbh it wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't Sports f***ing Direct and the money was going towards improving us.

 

But it is costing the club money and it's Sports f***ing Direct which is as s**** as you can get.

 

This stuff about costing us money is going a bit far, there was nothing like that in the last accounts.

 

Yes there was.

 

Edit: looks like I was thinking of the ones before that.

 

Of course it's costing us money! Company's aren't putting the signs up and doing up the dugouts with Sports Direct seats and such, free of charge are they

 

It's costing someone money certainly. There was nowt about it in the latest accounts though, and you'd hope there'd be some wedge from SD to us in the next lot.

 

I'd be pretty amazed if things that have been done in the last month appeared in last year's accounts like

 

Alright, the lot after then. Jeeez.

 

Mabe there will be something in the next lot though fingers crossed. The ramping up of shit plastered around the place hasn't just been in the last month.

 

Yeah, we didn't get a penny from Sports Direct in the first 3 years when we were making a loss, but I'm sure he had a change of heart last year when we made tens of millions of pounds profit. Probably what gave us a million or so to spend on transfers in the Summer.

 

 

He only treats us badly because we don't love him enough, give him another chance. Just wait until the next set of accounts/transfer window, you'll see...

[BottledDog]

I'd be more inclined to accept this shit if Ashley just changed the colours of the logo to Black and Grey for example. Having random bits of red and blue dotted around the stadium looks more tatty than the logo itself.

 

I'm with you there.

[Mr Logic]

Think it's a load of fuss over nothing myself. Like someone changed the cover of your favourite book, the story inside is still the same but now you don't like it.

 

Won't be permanent either, I can think of a lot more important things to get wound up about.

[Mick]

Does Ashley pay for the Sport Direct signs that are appearing on the advertising boards around the pitch and interior of the ground?

Sports Direct have not put a penny into the club for anything.

[Wallace]

Watched "Who Do You Think You Are" last night with Alan Carr.  Ashley must have been cursing missing out on targetting a whole new audience there with the old sign on the East Stand and Carr walking out of the tunnel with Northern Rock and Puma in the background.

 

 

[BottledDog]

Tbh it wouldn't be as bad if it wasn't Sports f***ing Direct and the money was going towards improving us.

 

But it is costing the club money and it's Sports f***ing Direct which is as s**** as you can get.

 

This stuff about costing us money is going a bit far, there was nothing like that in the last accounts.

 

Yes there was.

 

Edit: looks like I was thinking of the ones before that.

 

Of course it's costing us money! Company's aren't putting the signs up and doing up the dugouts with Sports Direct seats and such, free of charge are they

 

It's costing someone money certainly. There was nowt about it in the latest accounts though, and you'd hope there'd be some wedge from SD to us in the next lot.

 

I'd be pretty amazed if things that have been done in the last month appeared in last year's accounts like

 

Alright, the lot after then. Jeeez.

 

Mabe there will be something in the next lot though fingers crossed. The ramping up of shit plastered around the place hasn't just been in the last month.

 

Yeah, we didn't get a penny from Sports Direct in the first 3 years when we were making a loss, but I'm sure he had a change of heart last year when we made tens of millions of pounds profit. Probably what gave us a million or so to spend on transfers in the Summer.

 

 

He only treats us badly because we don't love him enough, give him another chance. Just wait until the next set of accounts/transfer window, you'll see...

 

I don't think there has been an significant upping of loving towards him recently so I'm pretty sure we won't.

 

I agree that 'there has been nothing coming in from SD in the accounts, so why would there be now', and I still can't get my head around whether he thinks it actually makes any difference seeing as they're both his companies. But you just kind of hope that now the tacky signs are all over the shop, he'll at least get them to cough up some money ffs.

[Colocho]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

[Spider Jerusalem]

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

I'd hazard a guess that it's most likely money paid out to external companies to do signs etc.  with the money paid in two installments.  Fell free to shoot that theory down though as it's a complete guess.... 

[kirkwdavis2001]

No, it means NUFC covered the 42k it cost to put the advertisements etc. up

 

[quayside]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

[Colocho]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

 

Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct?

[quayside]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

 

Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct?

 

The club has provided the advertising and promotional services and made no charge for it. So there is no money. It's Ashley's call, he owns the club. In much the same way it's his call on whether he charges the club interest on the money he has loaned.

[TheGuv]

Watched "Who Do You Think You Are" last night with Alan Carr.  Ashley must have been cursing missing out on targetting a whole new audience there with the old sign on the East Stand and Carr walking out of the tunnel with Northern Rock and Puma in the background.

 

 

 

When the historian asked Alan Carr if he knew what a hattrick was, was rather amusing

[kirkwdavis2001]

There is no money! The circa. 42k it cost to put up the tacky advertisements was bourne by NUFC, simples!

[kirkwdavis2001]

and not surprising to be honest as this was the very reason he bought NUFC

[relámpago blanco]

Hasnt he just bought No Fear, I wouldnt mind that

 

"No Fear Newcastle United"

[oldtype]

I'd rather he just renamed the stadium to sports direct park or something.

 

Nobody could force you to call it anything other than St James', but you're forced to see that ugly lettering every home match now.

[Colocho]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

 

Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct?

 

The club has provided the advertising and promotional services and made no charge for it. So there is no money. It's Ashley's call, he owns the club. In much the same way it's his call on whether he charges the club interest on the money he has loaned.

 

That remains to be seen (the interest on the 'loan').

 

Squad photo: http://twitpic.com/6l524k

[Ryan_Taylor]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

 

Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct?

 

The club has provided the advertising and promotional services and made no charge for it. So there is no money. It's Ashley's call, he owns the club. In much the same way it's his call on whether he charges the club interest on the money he has loaned.

 

That remains to be seen (the interest on the 'loan').

 

Squad photo: http://twitpic.com/6l524k

 

Fucking hell

[quayside]

What is there under "Related party transactions" is the following:

 

Advertising and promotional services were provided in the year to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, St James Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services and the cost associated with the services in the prior year was £42,250.

During the current and prior year, advertising and promotional services were provided to companies associated with Mr M J W Ashley, the sole shareholder of the company's parent undertaking, MASH Holdings Limited. No consideration was paid or payable for these services.

 

Wonder what the 2011 accounts will show?

 

Re: 2008 and 2009, does this mean NUFC paid another of Ashley's companies?

 

The notes in the accounts say that NUFC provided the advertising and promotional services. So the issue is about money that might be owed to the club for providing those services, it isn't about the club paying money out to an Ashley company.

 

Understood. So, where is the money from Sports Direct?

 

The club has provided the advertising and promotional services and made no charge for it. So there is no money. It's Ashley's call, he owns the club. In much the same way it's his call on whether he charges the club interest on the money he has loaned.

 

That remains to be seen (the interest on the 'loan').

Squad photo: http://twitpic.com/6l524k

 

I don't think it does.

 

The 2010 accounts clearly disclose that the loans of £140 million from Ashley are non interest bearing.