Should wages be coming out of the £35?

again it comes down to interpretation. i heard him say invested in the team, but i would say that imporving the training facilities and handing out contracts was improving the team.

 

You've also picked a tiny part of that article out. If you read the all the content of that article the very first Paragraph reads "Alan Pardew has received assurances from Mike Ashley, Newcastle United's owner, that the £35m from the sale of Andy Carroll will be his to reinvest on transfer fees and salaries next summer."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/feb/01/alan-pardew-newcastle-united

 

He never ever said team, he's always said club!

FAO Fredd: I'm going out, I think I've porved my point with link to the actual articles rather than scrutinizing every word used! You hearing what you want to hear when in actually fact Pardew has always stated fees and wages and club not team.

 

That is what the reporter said.

I am interested in what Pardew said, which is the quoted portion, and which is entirely clear.

 

i consider spending money on the training ground and wages to be 'investing in the team'

 

Also, there's no need ot pickbetween the BBc quote and the Guardian quote. They are clearly reporting on two different utterances. It's not a case that the BBc uses the word "club" and the guardian "team" but they are otherwise the same.

There's no contradiction between the two. The term club is ambiguous. the term team isn't.

And if you want to argue that Ashley is entitled to get soem momey back, legally that' clearly correct. The club owes him millions. Just don't lie about it.

 

But that's what I'm saying the article is rubbish and all paper talk. How do you know if Pardew actually said "team" if the writer is willing to let Pardew's "quotes" make a mockery of his first paragraph? ...think about it!

It's just a poorly written article and the writer has slipped up with his adjustment of Pardew's words. Pardew has never had his voice recorded saying that the money would be invested in the "team" but has saying "club". Whp do you believe? The horses mouth and the chinese whispers that is the UK's media network!!!

 

Investing in the training ground is at least a capital investment, so I could give you that, thoug saying that it is investing in the "team" is a bit funny use of words. Is that £2 million ? Agents fees (a cost of aquisition of capital assets) another £4 million ? Signing on fees (again arguably a capital outlay) another £4 million ?

That does leave a few quid unaccounted for

 

Out of interest, Toontastic, why are you keen to argue that no one may have told a porky in all of this ?

 

you don't know that its not been been spent on a mulitute of different things throughout the club. we're discussing only a portion of what it takes to run a football team. not just training grounds and player wages. it could have went on any amount of things that are team related. I'm sure you don't want to break it down into every single thing that you could consider team/club (or whatever term we're going to settle on...) investment, because the list would be endless in all probability.

 

i freely said earlier that you might feel like you've been lied to on this occasion whereas i think this particular wrap is open to interpretation. however you can guarentee that you will have been lied to by the club and you absolutely will be again. but for the sake of this argument i think its just been over analysed to the point where we're trying find what we want to find from whats been said. thats my take.

 

Pipe4Life

Your correct that there is a lot we do not know. I'll leave it with my previous comment.

"There may be a perfectly good answer to that question, but if so the club certainly seems reluctant to provide us with any details."

And if you want to say I've been lied to before and willbe lied to again, you are absolutely correct. I am kind of interested in the number of people who seem very interested to assert that nothing of the kind is happening.

But we've probably done this to death. Nice chattign with you and on ot the next topic

 

This is all a bit of a non-issue really. It is not like the £35m is made up of bank notes specifically dyed so that we know what it is being spent on. If it stays withing NUFC and gets spent on player purchases (+agents), wages, training ground improvements, or any other expense I really don't care. The point is it is being spent for the betterment of the club and that is what I always took it to mean.

As an aside though I actually think the club should be paying MA back on his loans as well. At the risk of repeating myself they will from now on become an expense to us on the break even calc and it is very much in our interest to reduce this expense.

The financials on the Swiss Ramble blog (thanks for that Freddd, been looking for NUFC financials for some time ) show that our interest loan expense dropped from £6.4m per annum to £1m when MA paid off our debts and replaced them with interest free loans to himself (the remaining £1m expense coming from our overdraft facility). That has saved us in the region of £5.5m each year for the last three years. When we have to start adding interest back on that will rise, because the £6.4m figure was based upon debts of £100m and the latest stats show that the debt has risen to £150m. We could be looking at a cost in the region of £9.5m per annum which will be an increase of £8.5m on our current outlay (note this wouldn't actually have to be paid just shown as an adjustment on the BEC).

That is £8.5m less each year to pay on wages and to cover player purchase amortisation.

 

agreed. not a bad way to rinse away an afternoon i'd have otherwise spent doing my actual job. laters fella.

Pipe4Life signing out.

 

Because I've listen to all Pardew's interviews and he's been consistant in saying "club". I'm sure there are plenty of non-truths been spouted by Pardew but not in this instance!

 

I'm pretty sure it was team and not club. But there is no way of knowing unless someone can be arsed to find the actual soundbite. (I certainly cannot) It was certainly printed in quite a few papers as "team" (Telegraph?) For me it matters not, they were definetly inferring to fans they were talking transfers. They were doing so to appease some fans who rightly concerned their star striker had been sold and Kuqi brought in as a stop gap, when we were far from safe. Sorry but trying to dress it up to say they weren't suggesting that and misleading fans is either naive or just stupid. They were talking about transfer fees and possibly wages. The fact they are now throwing up smokescreens saying training grounds, agents fees and whatever else is typical of their reign. I have to say the reaction of some Newcastle fans to every bit of news to do with them, probably plays a large part in them constantly trying to pull the wool. And it's their business philosphy afterall. I mean how many closing down sales has Sports Soccer had!

The key is just support the team and take everything the owners say with a pinch of salt. You'll remain sane and happy. I'd much prefer they just fronted up and told the truth from the outset. I think the majority of our fans are smart enough to just accept it for what it is and move on. At the time of the Carroll sale they should have just said, "we sold him because it was an unbelieveable deal and we are trying recoup money, lower debts" They should not have started making promises they weren't going to be able to keep, or dress up in palatable way.

 

NO,Wages are part and parcel we lost our priced asset and if we kept him then we would have still paid for wages.
just think of all the players we have flogged under fat mike

 

Pardew does not know the day of the week just how and when to nod his head and repeat wot fat mike tells him