Baggio Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It was in a statement announced a few weeks back. We didn't lose £4 million in the same financial year as we sold Carroll because Llambias was bragging that we were almost breaking even before the sale. Pretty sure he said we lost £4 million for the last year, break even predicted for the next one. EDIT: In 2008/09 we reported an operating loss before player trading of £37.7m. In 2009/10 that loss was £33.5m. Once audited, our accounts for 2010/11 are expected to show an operating loss of just £4.7m and this year we hope we will be close to breaking even. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Don't see the point in revisiting the entire Ashley and transfer spending debate just because of the stadium naming. The stadium naming is our future transfer kitty according to Llambias. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/379842_2387430697723_1609490782_32305157_1886412988_n.jpg dear me For fuck sake man, can we not get this idiot sectioned or summit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEEJ Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Anyone see that lad on SSN? He looked like he was being serious and said 'it's absolutely the right thing to do, we need to compete with Man United, Spurs, etc.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 He wont get invited to training again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Anyone see that lad on SSN? He looked like he was being serious and said 'it's absolutely the right thing to do, we need to compete with Man United, Spurs, etc.' must have been baggio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I'm expecting a statement released in the coming weeks from Mike stating that he's sacked himself like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Pretty sure he said we lost £4 million for the last year, break even predicted for the next one. EDIT: In 2008/09 we reported an operating loss before player trading of £37.7m. In 2009/10 that loss was £33.5m. Once audited, our accounts for 2010/11 are expected to show an operating loss of just £4.7m and this year we hope we will be close to breaking even. The £4.7 will be before player trading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Swift Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It was in a statement announced a few weeks back. We didn't lose £4 million in the same financial year as we sold Carroll because Llambias was bragging that we were almost breaking even before the sale. Pretty sure he said we lost £4 million for the last year, break even predicted for the next one. EDIT: In 2008/09 we reported an operating loss before player trading of £37.7m. In 2009/10 that loss was £33.5m. Once audited, our accounts for 2010/11 are expected to show an operating loss of just £4.7m and this year we hope we will be close to breaking even. Operating loss before player trading. Ergo, we will make a full year profit because we made a significant profit in player trading. If you're going to quote something then make sure you've read and understood what it means. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 How did you get that from what I said? We'll sign a striker in January and the rest will be earmarked for spending over the next 2 or 3 summers. So we don't need £8 million. Depends if you want to spend more or not. Like I said more profit means more expendable cash for transfers. It doesn't in the Ashley philosophy like Doesn't it? On that philosophy, we'd have spent a canny bit in the Summer (I don't think we were operating with losses of £39m or whatever it was we made). I don't remember us making that much, unless we're not including what I presume are decent signing on fees to Ba and Marveaux, they also failed to get another striker they wanted that's now apparently set up for January. Like I said the money for Carroll will be used over a few years, not just one summer. are you using a magic 8 ball to tell us this? the wum spin is in over drive It's my opinion, what's yours? That Ashley is 'trousering' the money? Despite the accounts showing he hasn't ever taken money out? no, but thanks for suggesting one. my opinion is that you're justifying the change in name of St. James' Park based on it bringing in a hypothetical fee in order that we spend it on players, when we had an 'unexpected' cash windfall of four times the proposed fee 11 months ago and on balance, £0 of it was invested in new players. saying 'it'll be invested over the years' means nowt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cort Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/nov/10/newcastle-sports-direct-arena-sponsorship?CMP=twt_gu Newcastle United's hopes of raising £8m-10m a year in new income from their stadium naming rights are highly unlikely to be realised because the plan breaks the "golden rules" of a successful sponsorship property, industry experts have warned. Newcastle are third in the Premier League after an 11-match unbeaten start to the season and announced on Wednesday that St James' Park is to be renamed the Sports Direct Arena. Derek Llambias, the club's managing director, said : "I would hope to generate between £8m-10m a year, that will give us another player." It was, in the eyes of sponsorship consultants, the worst possible thing he could have said. Shaun Whatling, the chief executive of the management and brand consultancy company Red Mandarin, cast doubt on Llambias's forecasts, saying: "They're unwise to raise expectations of £10m incremental revenue and creating linkage with new signings – there's already antagonism amongst fans to the sale of naming rights and Derek Lambias is now preparing a frosty welcome for any sponsor buying in 'on the cheap'." Tim Crow, the chief executive at the sponsorship consultancy Synergy, believes the best way to avoid the risk of brand damage for interested sponsors would be to stay away. "I'd be very surprised if any brand came forward and if any of my clients asked me for my opinion I'd advise them in the strongest possible terms not to," said Crow. "Or they could do the shirt sponsorship on its own, which would be entirely positive." Crow has devised six "golden rules" for a successful naming-rights proposition and it is clear the latest development breaches them. His advice is never to rename an existing stadium with a strong heritage and, 125 years after the club first played football there, St James' Park certainly qualifies as that. The exception, Crow has written, is when stadium operators rebuild or relaunch an unloved or decrepit stadium, when a sponsor's cash provides tangible improvements to the facility. This happened at the Millennium Dome (now the O2) and Dublin's Lansdowne Road (now the Aviva Stadium). But at Newcastle, a wholly owned subsidiary of the retailer Sports Direct, the extra money would go towards players; the likely net effect being only that the unloved parent company is spared the expense. "They've driven a cart and horses through the golden rules," said Crow, who described the stadium's former incarnation as SportsDirect.com@St James' Park as "a horror". Andy Westlake is the chief executive of the sponsorship and management firm Fast Track and advises clients including Emirates, which signed a successful shirt and stadium deal with Arsenal in 2004. The deal was worth £6.5m a year in shirt sponsorship and only about £2.75m in naming rights. Those were more buoyant economic times but Arsenal discounted the sponsorship value to receive cash up front, without which their new home could not have been built. Although Manchester City's £200m-plus, 10-year deal with Etihad bucked a declining trend in naming-rights values, the relationship between Abu Dhabi's national flag-carrier airline and its Premier League proxy may have distorted the value of that contract. Westlake cannot see Newcastle achieving anything like that amount. "I don't think any brand will be buying in to naming rights at Newcastle unless they are focusing on building a relationship with fans," said Westlake. With Mike Ashley trending on Twitter on Thursday in a far from complimentary context, that is unlikely. "In this [recessionary] market you have to recognise what sponsorship is about: adding value for fans in the club they love," added Westlake. "But Newcastle fans are universally against this. Perhaps he's generating the wrath so that a brand coming in can restore the St James' Park name and be loved for it. Otherwise, I can't explain it." Joey Barton, who left Newcastle in August to join QPR, thinks he can. "Ashley and his subordinates, know the cost of everything but the value of nothing…" he tweeted. "#numpties." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/379842_2387430697723_1609490782_32305157_1886412988_n.jpg dear me Escapes his carers with such skill. Fair play to the lad. Starting to think that may be his real skin. Me to Socks tucked inside the tracksuit! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It was in a statement announced a few weeks back. We didn't lose £4 million in the same financial year as we sold Carroll because Llambias was bragging that we were almost breaking even before the sale. Pretty sure he said we lost £4 million for the last year, break even predicted for the next one. EDIT: In 2008/09 we reported an operating loss before player trading of £37.7m. In 2009/10 that loss was £33.5m. Once audited, our accounts for 2010/11 are expected to show an operating loss of just £4.7m and this year we hope we will be close to breaking even. Operating loss before player trading. Ergo, we will make a full year profit because we made a significant profit in player trading. If you're going to quote something then make sure you've read and understood what it means. http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,36257.msg3327838.html#msg3327838 Probably because we haven't made a profit without transfers yet, Mick. Now take some of your own advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 He's wearing shorts I think, he wraps a Newcastle flag around his waste though to create some sort of skirt. He's a mong like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 How did you get that from what I said? We'll sign a striker in January and the rest will be earmarked for spending over the next 2 or 3 summers. So we don't need £8 million. Depends if you want to spend more or not. Like I said more profit means more expendable cash for transfers. It doesn't in the Ashley philosophy like Doesn't it? On that philosophy, we'd have spent a canny bit in the Summer (I don't think we were operating with losses of £39m or whatever it was we made). I don't remember us making that much, unless we're not including what I presume are decent signing on fees to Ba and Marveaux, they also failed to get another striker they wanted that's now apparently set up for January. Like I said the money for Carroll will be used over a few years, not just one summer. are you using a magic 8 ball to tell us this? the wum spin is in over drive It's my opinion, what's yours? That Ashley is 'trousering' the money? Despite the accounts showing he hasn't ever taken money out? no, but thanks for suggesting one. my opinion is that you're justifying the change in name of St. James' Park based on it bringing in a hypothetical fee in order that we spend it on players, when we had an 'unexpected' cash windfall of four times the proposed fee 11 months ago and on balance, £0 of it was invested in new players. saying 'it'll be invested over the years' means nowt. Why does it mean 'nowt' and where do you think the money is gone if it won't go on players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Don't see the point in revisiting the entire Ashley and transfer spending debate just because of the stadium naming. The stadium naming is our future transfer kitty according to Llambias. Obviously any income is (in theory) beneficial to our future spending power. I still don't see the point in raking over so much old ground. Anyway, nothing to do with me really, go ahead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Obviously any income is (in theory) beneficial to our future spending power. Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjb Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Iknow this is off-topic but I bet this is what Mike Ahley has been dying to do to us.. Sports Direct United http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/308794_136546209781484_100002783184916_123466_1088159774_n.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I think Graham Taylor said it best of all when he said "Do I not like that". Think I might stand outside Sports Direct in town and hoy eggs at anyone coming out of there with a bag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Iknow this is off-topic but I bet this is what Mike Ahley has been dying to do to us.. Sports Direct United http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/308794_136546209781484_100002783184916_123466_1088159774_n.jpg Lush Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Way to make everyone feel worse for no reason at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Obviously any income is (in theory) beneficial to our future spending power. Exactly. FWIW I don't think that means we should raise income from any source. The stadium name I think should be sacred. Just to clarify like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Way to make everyone feel worse for no reason at all. Hows that? I would be class advertising, will be great for our future spending power etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Iknow this is off-topic but I bet this is what Mike Ahley has been dying to do to us.. Sports Direct United http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/308794_136546209781484_100002783184916_123466_1088159774_n.jpg Its time to see if we can start a Fans team in Newcastle like wimbledon did tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Iknow this is off-topic but I bet this is what Mike Ahley has been dying to do to us.. Sports Direct United http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/308794_136546209781484_100002783184916_123466_1088159774_n.jpg I'm more offended by the horrific Photoshop job than anything else in this thread. 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