St James' Park

[UV]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

 

I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ??

 

Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan.

 

£28.8 million (30 June 2009 £nil) is secured on future broadcasting income, of which £12.3 million is repayable in August 2010 and the remainder, £16.5 million is repayable after more than one year (see note 13).

 

The loan of £16.5 million from Mr M J W Ashley is secured on future broadcasting income and is repayable no earlier than August 2011.

 

We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

He can't just take money out of the club. That's called extortion and is illegal.

 

Or as its his business he can draw funds out in a comletely legal fashion.

 

He could pay himself a salary (he doesn't)

He could pay himself dividends (he doesn't)

He could pay back some of the loan he has given the club (he has put more in than he has taken out - we don't know how much of the 2011 player slaes have gone to him yet, if any)

He could use the assets of the club to advertise his other interests and not pay anything for it (this he has done)

 

All ways of effectively taking money away from a business.

[Guest Roger Kint]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

He can't just take money out of the club. That's called extortion and is illegal.

 

Or as UV points out for the 20th time perfectly legal.

[Guest Shaun]

Extortion? Wut?

 

Are you thinking of another word, like embezzlement, which it isn't either?

Look it up in the dictionary.

[Toonpack]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

 

I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ??

 

Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan.

 

£28.8 million (30 June 2009 £nil) is secured on future broadcasting income, of which £12.3 million is repayable in August 2010 and the remainder, £16.5 million is repayable after more than one year (see note 13).

 

The loan of £16.5 million from Mr M J W Ashley is secured on future broadcasting income and is repayable no earlier than August 2011.

 

We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you?

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

[Wullie]

Good post POOT.

[themanupstairs]

Good post POOT.

 

 

I think there's a fine line between "not minding the name change because I'm detached from the history side of things", and "I don't want to let the name change bother me now, as I'm more bothered about keeping the good results coming by keeping the harmony and support going on matchday". I think you'll find the large majority fall in the latter.

[Optimistic Nut]

this.

[Wilson]

OLYMPIC and council bosses have issued a twin rebuff to Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley’s move to re-name St James’ Park as the Sports Direct Arena.

 

Mr Ashley’s decision to axe the 131-year-old name sparked outrage on Tyneside yesterday as fans criticised the club’s hierarchy for choosing commercialism over tradition.

 

 

But now it has emerged that any prospective investors will not benefit from next year’s global coverage as Olympic organisers vie to stop sponsors hijacking the competition.

 

In addition, road signs will stay, pointing people to St James’ Park after Newcastle City Council refused to adopt the new name.

 

Newcastle’s 52,000-seater stadium is one of the venues to host fixtures in the Olympic football tournament next year as nine matches are played in July and early August including a men’s quarter-final.

 

But under rules aimed at stopping businesses that have not paid for sponsorship packages benefiting commercially from the event any sponsorship will be removed or covered. The move follows an agreement to re-badge London’s O2 Arena, named after the mobile telephony company, as the North Greenwich Arena during the games. Meanwhile Coventry City’s Ricoh Stadium will be called the City of Coventry Stadium.

 

A spokesman for the 2012 Olympics said: “Tickets have not been printed for games but in terms of sponsorship there will be no advertising or commercial branding.

 

“It will be called St James’ Park and all the venues that we’ve contacted for staging events do not have promotional material. The Olympic rules are that you do not have commercial branding. As part of the agreement with venues we would cover up or work around the naming in the venue.”

 

Club chiefs announced yesterday that the name St James’ Park would disappear as the club offer full stadium naming rights to sponsors – and in the meantime the ground will be renamed the Sports Direct Arena.

 

Managing director Derek Llambias says the move will generate essential finance to allow the club to move forward. But dropping the iconic 131-year-old name of St James’ Park is certain to raise a storm among many fans.

 

Two years ago under owner Mike Ashley, United attempted to secure a sponsorship deal linking a brand name to St James’ Park. But that did not come off, and now the club is prepared to go a step further. Mr Llambias said the club had to become financially self-sufficient to face the future in difficult economic times.

 

Meanwhile, city officials have also attacked the decision to rename St James’ Park and refused to change signs bearing the stadium’s name.

 

Cabinet member for quality of life, Coun Henri Murison, said: “The name of St James’ Park has been synonymous with Newcastle United football club and the city for more than 130 years.

 

“It is recognised around the world and the decision to change it, without consultation, will upset the overwhelming majority of fans who loyally support the team week in and week out.

 

“While I understand the commercial reasons for renaming sports venues when they relocate, this is not the case in this instance, and some things are beyond profit when they mean so much to people.

 

“The football club is part of the beating heart of the city, and while the council values its relationship with the club, it has no plans to change any existing wayfinding signs which bear the name St James’ Park. As far as the fans and Newcastle City Council are concerned, the home of Newcastle United will always be known as St James’ Park.”

 

It’s the identity of city’s brand

 

THE decision to re-name St James’ Park is unlikely to change the “beating heart” of the club, a business branding expert said last night.

 

Dr Joanna Berry, 49, director of engagements for Newcastle University Business School, is also a life-long Toon fan.

 

She said: “This is a commercial venture first and foremost but from a marketing perspective it is important to remember that a brand is more than just a name.

 

“It’s about the identity and the history of the club and the proud people that have been there for years. You cannot change that entire heritage by altering the name of the stadium.” Dr Berry teaches finance marketing to executive MBA students and believes that any potential sponsorship will only work if the values of the investor match that of the club.

 

She said: “You need to bring in a sponsor who holds the same beliefs and aspirations as the fans. Someone who has a passion for succeeding and who represents what the club is about.

 

“If a balance can be struck it is often very effective for both parties. I think the clubs good form will certainly have been a factor in the timing of the announcement but Ashley will have his own business reasons for doing it.”

 

She also pointed out that the move to sell the naming rights was not an unprecedented one. She said: “Plenty of other football stadiums have undergone similar processes around the country.

 

“Bolton have done it, Arsenal have with the Emirates and of course Wigan’s stadium is named after their chairman Dave Whelan. The world of football moves on very quickly and none more so than here in Newcastle.”

 

Football finance expert Vinay Bedi, of Brewin Dolphin said: “In my view those in charge had no choice but to do this. UEFA guidelines come in next year and by 2014 there is a requirement that all clubs completely re-assess their revenue streams.

 

“It’s impossible to say when an investor will come. It could be next week it could be next year but I would imagine that the club have something in the pipeline.”

 

Simon Chadwick, professor of sport business strategy at Coventry University’s Business School, does not expect Newcastle to be the last top-flight club to try the move.

 

“The ongoing cost pressure in wages and transfer fees, in addition to external financial pressures, mean it is inevitable we see more and more clubs start to do this type of thing,” he said.

 

“It is not just clubs that are willing to sell but brands are willing to associate to.

 

“Given that you have that market I think it is inevitable that over the next five or 10 years more clubs follow this route.”

 

Read More http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2011/11/11/olympic-and-council-bosses-rebuff-st-james-park-name-change-61634-29757146/2/#ixzz1dOY5fFqN

[quayside]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

He can't just take money out of the club. That's called extortion and is illegal.

 

Or as its his business he can draw funds out in a comletely legal fashion.

 

He could pay himself a salary (he doesn't)

He could pay himself dividends (he doesn't)

He could pay back some of the loan he has given the club (he has put more in than he has taken out - we don't know how much of the 2011 player slaes have gone to him yet, if any)

He could use the assets of the club to advertise his other interests and not pay anything for it (this he has done)

 

All ways of effectively taking money away from a business.

 

Yup.

 

There is also the "warehouse scheme" used by the previous regime. Club sells an asset to a shareholder who rents it back to the club giving a healthy return on the funds invested.

 

There is also the Randy Lerner method of charging interest on money lent to the club.

 

This whole issue of whether repayment of the capital sum of a debt is taking money out of the club has been debated at length on here before and will, no doubt, continue to reappear. My view is that repayment of money you loan to your own business isn't taking money out any more than repayment of a bank loan is taking money out.

 

The use of the ground as an advertising vehicle could be taking money out. IMO it's a bit of a grey area unless there is another potential advertiser who would pay but is rejected because Ashley wants to continue to advertise SD. In that case clearly the club is being deprived of some external income to satisfy the owner and he is utilising something that could yield cash for his own purposes.     

[Colos Short and Curlies]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

 

I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ??

 

Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan.

 

£28.8 million (30 June 2009 £nil) is secured on future broadcasting income, of which £12.3 million is repayable in August 2010 and the remainder, £16.5 million is repayable after more than one year (see note 13).

 

The loan of £16.5 million from Mr M J W Ashley is secured on future broadcasting income and is repayable no earlier than August 2011.

 

We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you?

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

Worth pointing out that just because he had the right to call in parts of the loan in 2011 doesn't mean he has.

 

Its perfectly OK for MA to waive this right and roll the loan over indefinitely

[High Five o]

For those who don't think it's a big deal...why do you support Newcastle United and not some other team? Genuine question.

 

Because if tradition and soul aren't important to you then what is it that makes you support NUFC? Or any club for that matter? You could support any team if it's not important. Tradition and soul are what it's all about. We're born into supporting a team or chose to support a team because of everything the club is/has stood for and has been (those who choose and stick to it no matter what).

 

Yes we can admire the current players, even admire the owners if that's your bag. But they aren't Newcastle United or what personifies Newcastle United. They are the current employees who are trying to propel the 'Club' forward as everyone before and everyone after will. They'll all be gone in a few years or so. It's not what supporting any specific club is about. That's admiration of someone...it's different.

 

It's the collective fight and allegiance for the whole history and future. It's to be a part of something bigger than just the now.

 

I'm not disrespecting anyone who thinks selling off the name of the ground is fine. I'm just struggling to work out why some people pick a certain club to support if tradition and history aren't important.

 

Well said  :clap:

[cp40]

For those who don't think it's a big deal...why do you support Newcastle United and not some other team? Genuine question.

 

Because if tradition and soul aren't important to you then what is it that makes you support NUFC? Or any club for that matter? You could support any team if it's not important. Tradition and soul are what it's all about. We're born into supporting a team or chose to support a team because of everything the club is/has stood for and has been (those who choose and stick to it no matter what).

 

Yes we can admire the current players, even admire the owners if that's your bag. But they aren't Newcastle United or what personifies Newcastle United. They are the current employees who are trying to propel the 'Club' forward as everyone before and everyone after will. They'll all be gone in a few years or so. It's not what supporting any specific club is about. That's admiration of someone...it's different.

 

It's the collective fight and allegiance for the whole history and future. It's to be a part of something bigger than just the now.

 

I'm not disrespecting anyone who thinks selling off the name of the ground is fine. I'm just struggling to work out why some people pick a certain club to support if tradition and history aren't important.

 

 

 

yeah- fuck off ya cunts

[Guest Roger Kint]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

 

I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ??

 

Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan.

 

£28.8 million (30 June 2009 £nil) is secured on future broadcasting income, of which £12.3 million is repayable in August 2010 and the remainder, £16.5 million is repayable after more than one year (see note 13).

 

The loan of £16.5 million from Mr M J W Ashley is secured on future broadcasting income and is repayable no earlier than August 2011.

 

We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you?

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

Worth pointing out that just because he had the right to call in parts of the loan in 2011 doesn't mean he has.

 

Its perfectly OK for MA to waive this right and roll the loan over indefinitely

 

That was pointed out already tbh, we wont know til next April though

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

POOT's post is spot on. 

 

With regards to the Olympics and refusal to change road signs, they really didn't think this through.  Its only going to be known by its shit name through the media.  If anyone is to start a form of campaign, it has to be to get all others to follow Stelling's pledge and keep referring to it as St. James' Park.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

POOT's post is spot on. 

 

With regards to the Olympics and refusal to change road signs, they really didn't think this through.  Its only going to be known by its shit name through the media.  If anyone is to start a form of campaign, it has to be to get all others to follow Stelling's pledge and keep referring to it as St. James' Park.

 

I'm guessing the target must be the overseas market, so the inevitable local backlash won't matter so much. They must have expected this to go down incredibly badly in Newcastle and the UK.

[colinmk]

For those who don't think it's a big deal...why do you support Newcastle United and not some other team? Genuine question.

 

Because if tradition and soul aren't important to you then what is it that makes you support NUFC? Or any club for that matter? You could support any team if it's not important. Tradition and soul are what it's all about. We're born into supporting a team or chose to support a team because of everything the club is/has stood for and has been (those who choose and stick to it no matter what).

 

Yes we can admire the current players, even admire the owners if that's your bag. But they aren't Newcastle United or what personifies Newcastle United. They are the current employees who are trying to propel the 'Club' forward as everyone before and everyone after will. They'll all be gone in a few years or so. It's not what supporting any specific club is about. That's admiration of someone...it's different.

 

It's the collective fight and allegiance for the whole history and future. It's to be a part of something bigger than just the now.

 

I'm not disrespecting anyone who thinks selling off the name of the ground is fine. I'm just struggling to work out why some people pick a certain club to support if tradition and history aren't important.

 

Well said  :clap:

[BlueStar]

Extortion? Wut?

 

Are you thinking of another word, like embezzlement, which it isn't either?

Look it up in the dictionary.

 

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion

 

Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted.

[UV]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

 

I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ??

 

Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan.

 

£28.8 million (30 June 2009 £nil) is secured on future broadcasting income, of which £12.3 million is repayable in August 2010 and the remainder, £16.5 million is repayable after more than one year (see note 13).

 

The loan of £16.5 million from Mr M J W Ashley is secured on future broadcasting income and is repayable no earlier than August 2011.

 

We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you?

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

It's money the club is generating which is not being spent on the team whatever you want to call it, but if loaning the club money is called "putting in", then repaying that loan is surely "taking out". Does the whole of the £150m debt have to be paid off before reducing the amount of club generated money available to spend on the team & facilities can be called "taking out"? Why stop there, he paid £133m for the club, it's only right he should be paid back for that out of the club profits.

 

The club wont miss £15m a year, it's only 1.5 players. Sell a Milner or an N'Zogbia & a Bassong every year, or a Carroll every 2 and the club will break even as long as there's no net spend on the other transfers. It's the Ashley model, guaranteed to succeed, unless you get relegated of course.

 

 

I have no idea where you made up that £52m figure from btw.

[mrmojorisin75]

another annoying thing about this after more thought is that surely they'd have far more success with the whole concept if they were selling the advertising spots they've started creating all over the ground to one company, sell that as a oner and make sure it's attractive by placing everything in view of the cameras through some analysis...not aware of any other club in england covering its stadium in adverts like these arseholes have done at sjp so it'd potentially be 'a first' as well, plus people would fucking love a decent brand to replace that gaudy shit

 

ground sponsors if you like, similar to shirt sponsors, then in literature and whatever else you could just refer to the ground as st. james' park sponsored by xxxxxx

 

as with everything these fuckwits do it just didn't have to be this shit

[Toonpack]

In previous windows, it would be appear that despite promises, money hasnt been made readily available due to the debt levels we were carrying.

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

He has taken money out.

 

I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ??

 

Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan.

 

£28.8 million (30 June 2009 £nil) is secured on future broadcasting income, of which £12.3 million is repayable in August 2010 and the remainder, £16.5 million is repayable after more than one year (see note 13).

 

The loan of £16.5 million from Mr M J W Ashley is secured on future broadcasting income and is repayable no earlier than August 2011.

 

We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you?

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

It's money the club is generating which is not being spent on the team whatever you want to call it, but if loaning the club money is called "putting in", then repaying that loan is surely "taking out". Does the whole of the £150m debt have to be paid off before reducing the amount of club generated money available to spend on the team & facilities can be called "taking out"? Why stop there, he paid £133m for the club, it's only right he should be paid back for that out of the club profits.

 

The club wont miss £15m a year, it's only 1.5 players. Sell a Milner or an N'Zogbia & a Bassong every year, or a Carroll every 2 and the club will break even as long as there's no net spend on the other transfers. It's the Ashley model, guaranteed to succeed, unless you get relegated of course.

 

 

I have no idea where you made up that £52m figure from btw.

 

Taking out is taking out, i.e. money belonging to or generated solely by the club being creamed off. Paying back is a totally different thing, yes it could be detrimental, but less detrimental that the effect of not putting in, in the first place would/could have been.

 

The £52 Million is not "made up" by the way, it is the amount of money taken out by the Halls and Shepherds during thier tenure

 

The Halls -  £20 million from share sales (to NTL and back to the the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary.

The Shepherds - £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

Does not include, warehouse deals or the paying of Kenny Shep's company to use offices at SJP and any other "commercial" deals.

 

All generated by loans because the club didn't do profits.

[Dave]

Haven't you got enough people to argue with?

[Guest Shaun]

Extortion? Wut?

 

Are you thinking of another word, like embezzlement, which it isn't either?

Look it up in the dictionary.

 

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion

 

Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted.

How long did it take you to find something worded to make me look wrong? Most likely off wikipedia and edited yourself.

 

[themanupstairs]

another annoying thing about this after more thought is that surely they'd have far more success with the whole concept if they were selling the advertising spots they've started creating all over the ground to one company, sell that as a oner and make sure it's attractive by placing everything in view of the cameras through some analysis...not aware of any other club in england covering its stadium in adverts like these arseholes have done at sjp so it'd potentially be 'a first' as well, plus people would f***ing love a decent brand to replace that gaudy s***

 

ground sponsors if you like, similar to shirt sponsors, then in literature and whatever else you could just refer to the ground as st. james' park sponsored by xxxxxx

 

as with everything these fuckwits do it just didn't have to be this s***

 

Aye, that's what it boils down to for me.

[Guest tinytots]

A shley's S ports D irect A rena -  ASDA