is it really so hard?

[Baggio]

 

Exactly.

 

In January we were believed to have had bids turned down for Curtis Davies and Peter Crouch, where is the money gone that would have financed those deals?

 

 

We didn't have the money in the first place, I'm sure an £80million debt has been mentioned which would suggest that we were just going further into debt.

 

And relegation would have cost us a helluva lot more than their transfer fee's, which we came close to last season.

[ianovthetoon]

I'm pretty sure there has been mention about improving our worldwide support and making us more of a global brand, surely by having a team that only manages top 8 finishes wouldn't have that much of an international appeal. On top of this, Ashley has made his sportswear business the best in the country so I'm pretty sure his ultimate aim is to put us back in the elite. A consistently successful Newcastle United with an extended ground capacity and extra television coverage would make us more attractive to foreign supporters. If we were to compete up there with Man Utd and Chelsea etc you would likely see Most Newcastle United Merchandise sold in ALL of his Sports World shops, with the possibility of these goods being sold all over the world. Its been made common knowledge the guy is very private but he obviously takes the plaudits for the success of his Sportswear firm, a successful Newcastle United not only makes him more money but gives Sports World a much larger profile all over the world. He never set out to be a middle of the road sports wear retailer, he set out to be the best so why would he settle for a fairly average football club. There are many other clubs he could have bought at a much reduced cost to ours, and still received the same TV revenues etc without the huge ambition that comes with our club. He could have bought a championship club for very little, spent a few quid to get them in the premiership, and spent just enough to keep them there, keeping their supporters relatively happy. I'd say he definitely has aspirations of us doing well

 

[Baggio]

"Believed" by who?

 

This summer we're "believed" to have bid for Deco and inquired about Ronaldinho!

 

All depends on what you read in the papers, personally I prefer to believe f*** all until I see something concrete, to my recollection there was f*** all concrete about Davies or Crouch.

 

*Roeder said we'd had bids turned down for players as their clubs didn't want to sell as they still had things to play for.

 

*West Brom said they had rejected a bid for Davies as they wanted him for the promotion push.

 

*Rafa said he didn't want to sell Crouch.

 

They were linked in the papers but I'd say all had more to the story than Deco in the Sunday Sun.

[Mick]

 

That debt against season ticket sales is totally manageable. I'd look at ManU purchase against club saga for a really frightening debt and Arsenal and Chelsea don't look too clever either in real terms. Debt burden at PL clubs has been growing for the last decade and Ashley would have totally been aware of our debt servicing requirements.

 

The debt for the re-development might be manageable but it's less than half of the £80 million we were supposed to have been carrying, we don't know if Ashley was even aware of the debt, I am guessing that they may have been a bit surprised having seen a comment about it from Mort although I can't remember an exact quote.

[Mick]

 

And relegation would have cost us a helluva lot more than their transfer fee's, which we came close to last season.

 

That doesn't make any difference, we still didn't have the money and would have still needed to increase our debt.

[ohmelads]

Just repeating myself here but this would be the first business deal in history based on an objective of doing nothing.

 

If ohmelads or Baggio think that a Billionaire has bought this club just to leave it as it is, please provide an example of another business deal done like this? From any sector of the business world. Is this called an 'invest and leave it as it is' strategy. Thats a new one for me.

 

Firstly I didn't say he intends to leave it as it is because we're 13th in the league.

 

In fact, I didn't make any assumptions on why he's taken us over, and I don't know why many like yourself have made assumptions that he has grand plans to take on people far richer than himself and already in charge of much bigger clubs than his own. That's a major assumption to make, I think this debate would be a lot more sensible if we avoided any assumptions on his business plans.

 

Admit it, everything you've said is pure speculation.

 

What I did say is that, for all we know, he does intend to get the club in the top 8 but isn't prepared to gamble the necessary finances to challenge the big clubs and instead expects to make money and "grow his business" through raising the club's profile and making money through merchandising and TV rights. Take a look at his area of business expertise and some of the recent comments made from Sir John Hall.

[Cajun]

"Believed" by who?

 

This summer we're "believed" to have bid for Deco and inquired about Ronaldinho!

 

All depends on what you read in the papers, personally I prefer to believe f*** all until I see something concrete, to my recollection there was f*** all concrete about Davies or Crouch.

 

*Roeder said we'd had bids turned down for players as their clubs didn't want to sell as they still had things to play for.

 

*West Brom said they had rejected a bid for Davies as they wanted him for the promotion push.

 

*Rafa said he didn't want to sell Crouch.

 

They were linked in the papers but I'd say all had more to the story than Deco in the Sunday Sun.

 

We have no idea what these bids were. Anyway with the takeover surely it doesn't matter what money could have been available in January that was money going to be made available by the old owners.

[Baggio]

Just repeating myself here but this would be the first business deal in history based on an objective of doing nothing.

 

If ohmelads or Baggio think that a Billionaire has bought this club just to leave it as it is, please provide an example of another business deal done like this? From any sector of the business world. Is this called an 'invest and leave it as it is' strategy. Thats a new one for me.

 

He has spent £133m of his money to give the fans what they wanted, taken on around £80m worth of debt and a company making very little profit. Just step back and think about that. Say with the new TV revenue and some frugal operating in the transfer market and taking into account player wage inflation, you'd be looking at what? A profit of £10m a year.

 

Thats less than a 5% return on the outlay and debt. I would have just put the money in the bank in that case, still think some current accounts give you that rate, maybe Ashley doesnt realise this 

 

 

So why don't you enlighten us on what you think he's going to do with the business.

[Parky]

 

That debt against season ticket sales is totally manageable. I'd look at ManU purchase against club saga for a really frightening debt and Arsenal and Chelsea don't look too clever either in real terms. Debt burden at PL clubs has been growing for the last decade and Ashley would have totally been aware of our debt servicing requirements.

 

The debt for the re-development might be manageable but it's less than half of the £80 million we were supposed to have been carrying, we don't know if Ashley was even aware of the debt, I am guessing that they may have been a bit surprised having seen a comment about it from Mort although I can't remember an exact quote.

 

 

Here's an example of what I call a really fearful scenario...

 

 

"Manchester United chief executive David Gill is adamant the Red Devils are in good shape even though they had a plan to refinance their massive debts earlier this year.

 

Experts acting on behalf of the Glazer family looked into the possibility of restructuring borrowings which are believed to be in the region of £660million, in order to reduce an eye-bulging annual interest payment of £62million.

 

The move was thwarted when the cost of borrowing rose, forcing United to stick with their present financial structures.

 

However, Gill was keen to point out that the move was instigated purely because of advantageous conditions in the debt market at that time rather than any urgent need for financial flexibility."

[Mick]

Here's a comment by Luke Young after doing an interview with Chris Mort:

 

Newcastle United’s debt is larger than many people first thought and one of the first tasks for Mort is tackling that issue. Had they not taken control, I dread to think what direction Newcastle were heading in financially after years of brave, but ultimately foolish spending.

 

 

[NE5]

 

Well that was who Roeder wanted and Shepherd was just backing his manager like good chairman do.

 

Good chairman don't appoint Roeders.

 

or Bruce Rioch, or Roy Evans, or Gareth Southgate, or Denis Wise, or Gordon Strachan, or Peter Reid, etc etc etc, this list could be endless.

 

You can continue living in your little dreamworld where everybody but us appoints good managers, every time, now.

 

Good chairman however, appoint managers such as Bobby Robson and Sam Allardyce, and attract trophy winners like Dalglish to their clubs even if it didn't go right for him at Newcastle. Of course, all our chairmen pre-1992 all attracted top level managers like this to the club didn't they, as they were - in your opinion - "just the same"

 

This is the most laughable post you've made in ages, and thats saying something.  mackems.gif

[Parky]

Just repeating myself here but this would be the first business deal in history based on an objective of doing nothing.

 

If ohmelads or Baggio think that a Billionaire has bought this club just to leave it as it is, please provide an example of another business deal done like this? From any sector of the business world. Is this called an 'invest and leave it as it is' strategy. Thats a new one for me.

 

He has spent £133m of his money to give the fans what they wanted, taken on around £80m worth of debt and a company making very little profit. Just step back and think about that. Say with the new TV revenue and some frugal operating in the transfer market and taking into account player wage inflation, you'd be looking at what? A profit of £10m a year.

 

Thats less than a 5% return on the outlay and debt. I would have just put the money in the bank in that case, still think some current accounts give you that rate, maybe Ashley doesnt realise this 

 

 

So why don't you enlighten us on what you think he's going to do with the business.

 

 

It's pretty clear from what Chez is saying as to what the medium term plan for the business would be....ie spend and growth.

[Baggio]

"Believed" by who?

 

This summer we're "believed" to have bid for Deco and inquired about Ronaldinho!

 

All depends on what you read in the papers, personally I prefer to believe f*** all until I see something concrete, to my recollection there was f*** all concrete about Davies or Crouch.

 

*Roeder said we'd had bids turned down for players as their clubs didn't want to sell as they still had things to play for.

 

*West Brom said they had rejected a bid for Davies as they wanted him for the promotion push.

 

*Rafa said he didn't want to sell Crouch.

 

They were linked in the papers but I'd say all had more to the story than Deco in the Sunday Sun.

 

We have no idea what these bids were. Anyway with the takeover surely it doesn't matter what money could have been available in January that was money going to be made available by the old owners.

 

If money was made available under the old owners but not under the new one's then we would be worse off after the takeover, correct?

 

This is hypothetical before you point out the window hasn't shut.

[Mick]

 

 

Here's an example of what I call a really fearful scenario...

 

 

"Manchester United chief executive David Gill is adamant the Red Devils are in good shape even though they had a plan to refinance their massive debts earlier this year.

 

Experts acting on behalf of the Glazer family looked into the possibility of restructuring borrowings which are believed to be in the region of £660million, in order to reduce an eye-bulging annual interest payment of £62million.

 

The move was thwarted when the cost of borrowing rose, forcing United to stick with their present financial structures.

 

However, Gill was keen to point out that the move was instigated purely because of advantageous conditions in the debt market at that time rather than any urgent need for financial flexibility."

 

That is a nightmare, it doesn't reduce our problems.

[Mick]

 

or Bruce Rioch, or Roy Evans, or Gareth Southgate, or Denis Wise, or Gordon Strachan, or Peter Reid, etc etc etc, this list could be endless.

 

You can continue living in your little dreamworld where everybody but us appoints good managers, every time, now.

 

Good chairman however, appoint managers such as Bobby Robson and Sam Allardyce, and attract trophy winners like Dalglish to their clubs even if it didn't go right for him at Newcastle. Of course, all our chairmen pre-1992 all attracted top level managers like this to the club didn't they, as they were - in your opinion - "just the same"

 

This is the most laughable post you've made in ages, and thats saying something.  mackems.gif

 

Thanks for that list, how many followed Souness and how many had failed as often as Roeder?

[NE5]

Here's a comment by Luke Young after doing an interview with Chris Mort:

 

Newcastle United’s debt is larger than many people first thought and one of the first tasks for Mort is tackling that issue. Had they not taken control, I dread to think what direction Newcastle were heading in financially after years of brave, but ultimately foolish spending.

 

 

you obviously preferred the decades where we sold our best players, played in the 2nd division, and - eeerrrrr - almost went bankrupt as a result.

 

Still, every club in football is in the black except us aren't they  mackems.gif

[Mick]

Here's a comment by Luke Young after doing an interview with Chris Mort:

 

Newcastle Uniteds debt is larger than many people first thought and one of the first tasks for Mort is tackling that issue. Had they not taken control, I dread to think what direction Newcastle were heading in financially after years of brave, but ultimately foolish spending.

 

 

you obviously preferred the decades where we sold our best players, played in the 2nd division, and - eeerrrrr - almost went bankrupt as a result.

 

Still, every club in football is in the black except us aren't they  mackems.gif

 

Jesus wept, you must even copy and paste the smiley these days.

[NE5]

 

or Bruce Rioch, or Roy Evans, or Gareth Southgate, or Denis Wise, or Gordon Strachan, or Peter Reid, etc etc etc, this list could be endless.

 

You can continue living in your little dreamworld where everybody but us appoints good managers, every time, now.

 

Good chairman however, appoint managers such as Bobby Robson and Sam Allardyce, and attract trophy winners like Dalglish to their clubs even if it didn't go right for him at Newcastle. Of course, all our chairmen pre-1992 all attracted top level managers like this to the club didn't they, as they were - in your opinion - "just the same"

 

This is the most laughable post you've made in ages, and thats saying something.  mackems.gif

 

Thanks for that list, how many followed Souness and how many had failed as often as Roeder?

 

oh dear.

 

Why don't you name the clubs that appointed managers who qualified for europe more than us in the last decade, who were therefore more successful and better choices  ?

 

 

[Cajun]

"Believed" by who?

 

This summer we're "believed" to have bid for Deco and inquired about Ronaldinho!

 

All depends on what you read in the papers, personally I prefer to believe f*** all until I see something concrete, to my recollection there was f*** all concrete about Davies or Crouch.

 

*Roeder said we'd had bids turned down for players as their clubs didn't want to sell as they still had things to play for.

 

*West Brom said they had rejected a bid for Davies as they wanted him for the promotion push.

 

*Rafa said he didn't want to sell Crouch.

 

They were linked in the papers but I'd say all had more to the story than Deco in the Sunday Sun.

 

We have no idea what these bids were. Anyway with the takeover surely it doesn't matter what money could have been available in January that was money going to be made available by the old owners.

 

If money was made available under the old owners but not under the new one's then we would be worse off after the takeover, correct?

 

This is hypothetical before you point out the window hasn't shut.

 

Quite a few clubs that have been taken over have had a waiting period before money has been spent. Its not unusual. Money in January has no relevance now, everything has changed.

[ChezGiven]

Just repeating myself here but this would be the first business deal in history based on an objective of doing nothing.

 

If ohmelads or Baggio think that a Billionaire has bought this club just to leave it as it is, please provide an example of another business deal done like this? From any sector of the business world. Is this called an 'invest and leave it as it is' strategy. Thats a new one for me.

 

Firstly I didn't say he intends to leave it as it is because we're 13th in the league.

 

In fact, I didn't make any assumptions on why he's taken us over, and I don't know why many like yourself have made assumptions that he has grand plans to take on people far richer than himself and already in charge of much bigger clubs than his own. That's a major assumption to make, I think this debate would be a lot more sensible if we avoided any assumptions on his business plans.

 

Admit it, everything you've said is pure speculation.

 

What I did say is that, for all we know, he does intend to get the club in the top 8 but isn't prepared to gamble the necessary finances to challenge the big clubs and instead expects to make money and "grow his business" through raising the club's profile and making money through merchandising and TV rights. Take a look at his area of business expertise and some of the recent comments made from Sir John Hall.

 

No its not, it comes from experience of running a business with revenues of over £300m. It comes from understanding business and how you invest money. Call it 'first principles' if you want.

 

Not sure what the fuck you are on about? If its impossible to break to the top 4 because they have so much more money than us (thats an assumption if you want to focus on those) then we are in a much better position than having Shepherd on board, if this is about the size of Ashley's wealth in relation to other clubs. That really doesnt make any sense to me at all.

 

You seem to fail to realise that the brand is what drives demand for club related products and the eventual broadband HD services that i've been banging on about. So by not changing stuff on the pitch that much, he wont change the brand that much and he wont generate extra demand for products. You tell me to 'take a look' at his area of business expertise as that is a short-cut to not explaining how he would achieve all this without investing in the most important element of the business.

 

Try anwsering the rest of my post too, thats a little harder to work out.

[NE5]

Here's a comment by Luke Young after doing an interview with Chris Mort:

 

Newcastle United’s debt is larger than many people first thought and one of the first tasks for Mort is tackling that issue. Had they not taken control, I dread to think what direction Newcastle were heading in financially after years of brave, but ultimately foolish spending.

 

 

you obviously preferred the decades where we sold our best players, played in the 2nd division, and - eeerrrrr - almost went bankrupt as a result.

 

Still, every club in football is in the black except us aren't they  mackems.gif

 

Jesus wept, you must even copy and paste the smiley these days.

 

its the same one, I've not stopped laughing at you since yesterday

 

 

[Baggio]

"Believed" by who?

 

This summer we're "believed" to have bid for Deco and inquired about Ronaldinho!

 

All depends on what you read in the papers, personally I prefer to believe f*** all until I see something concrete, to my recollection there was f*** all concrete about Davies or Crouch.

 

*Roeder said we'd had bids turned down for players as their clubs didn't want to sell as they still had things to play for.

 

*West Brom said they had rejected a bid for Davies as they wanted him for the promotion push.

 

*Rafa said he didn't want to sell Crouch.

 

They were linked in the papers but I'd say all had more to the story than Deco in the Sunday Sun.

 

We have no idea what these bids were. Anyway with the takeover surely it doesn't matter what money could have been available in January that was money going to be made available by the old owners.

 

If money was made available under the old owners but not under the new one's then we would be worse off after the takeover, correct?

 

This is hypothetical before you point out the window hasn't shut.

 

Quite a few clubs that have been taken over have had a waiting period before money has been spent. Its not unusual. Money in January has no relevance now, everything has changed.

 

Like who?

[Mick]

 

oh dear.

 

Why don't you name the clubs that appointed managers who qualified for europe more than us in the last decade, who were therefore more successful and better choices  ?

 

 

 

No list, I thought not.

[ChezGiven]

Just repeating myself here but this would be the first business deal in history based on an objective of doing nothing.

 

If ohmelads or Baggio think that a Billionaire has bought this club just to leave it as it is, please provide an example of another business deal done like this? From any sector of the business world. Is this called an 'invest and leave it as it is' strategy. Thats a new one for me.

 

He has spent £133m of his money to give the fans what they wanted, taken on around £80m worth of debt and a company making very little profit. Just step back and think about that. Say with the new TV revenue and some frugal operating in the transfer market and taking into account player wage inflation, you'd be looking at what? A profit of £10m a year.

 

Thats less than a 5% return on the outlay and debt. I would have just put the money in the bank in that case, still think some current accounts give you that rate, maybe Ashley doesnt realise this 

 

 

So why don't you enlighten us on what you think he's going to do with the business.

 

I'm working on an article actually. 

[Cajun]

"Believed" by who?

 

This summer we're "believed" to have bid for Deco and inquired about Ronaldinho!

 

All depends on what you read in the papers, personally I prefer to believe f*** all until I see something concrete, to my recollection there was f*** all concrete about Davies or Crouch.

 

*Roeder said we'd had bids turned down for players as their clubs didn't want to sell as they still had things to play for.

 

*West Brom said they had rejected a bid for Davies as they wanted him for the promotion push.

 

*Rafa said he didn't want to sell Crouch.

 

They were linked in the papers but I'd say all had more to the story than Deco in the Sunday Sun.

 

We have no idea what these bids were. Anyway with the takeover surely it doesn't matter what money could have been available in January that was money going to be made available by the old owners.

 

If money was made available under the old owners but not under the new one's then we would be worse off after the takeover, correct?

 

This is hypothetical before you point out the window hasn't shut.

 

Quite a few clubs that have been taken over have had a waiting period before money has been spent. Its not unusual. Money in January has no relevance now, everything has changed.

 

Like who?

 

Villa.