40k a week and insult, FFS

[Lucaaas]

I'm not ignoring anything and you have no real insight to presume otherwise.

You presume a lot; don't you.

I'm basing my presumptions on Mike Ashley's previous behaviour and Liverpool's past experience with similar type of owners. If you like Ashley, and think his transfer policy is benifical to the club, then more power to you, but I won't be sucked in by his silly little PR antics, and neither will some of the Geordie faithful, looking at this thread.

 

[Lucaaas]

I want you to tell me. If it's so obvious it should be easy for you. Just outline it. Back it up with facts as well please...

That Ashley has no intention of buying Barnetta.

 

[overseasTOON]

I'm basing my presumptions on Mike Ashley's previous behaviour and Liverpool's past experience with similar type of owners. If you like Ashley, and think his transfer policy is benifical to the club, then more power to you, but I won't be sucked in by his silly little PR antics, and neither will some of the Geordie faithful, looking at this thread.

I can understand the financial aspect of Ashley's dealings in terms of the club. Can you? Do you know the clubs financial situation?

Please define what the transfer policy of NUFC is as well. I'd be very surprised if you get it right.

Also, why should you be sucked in by his PR antics when you don't support Newcastle?

 

[Lucaaas]

I can understand the financial aspect of Ashley's dealings in terms of the club. Can you? Do you know the clubs financial situation?

Please define what the transfer policy of NUFC is as well. I'd be very surprised if you get it right.

Also, why should you be sucked in by his PR antics when you don't support Newcastle?

Put simply? Buy low, sell high.

And yes, I can understand Ashley's approach, it doesn't mean its any good or beneficial for Newcastle United though. He is clearly a poor businessman in football terms, Stoke are a sustainable businesses even though they have a stadium with less capacity than St James' Park and they manage to pay more for players than Newcastle do. And they also manage without selling key players, why can't Newcastle do the same?

 

[Chappaz]

Put simply? Buy low, sell high.

And yes, I can understand Ashley's approach, it doesn't mean its any good or beneficial for Newcastle United though. He is clearly a poor businessman in football terms, Stoke are a sustainable businesses even though they have a stadium with less capacity than St James' Park and they manage to pay more for players than Newcastle do. And they also manage without selling key players, why can't Newcastle do the same?

Newcastle have ambition to climb higher though, which is where this sort of buying/selling policy comes into play. A club like Stoke may remain sustainable, but their revenues will never increase, and they'll never move above mid-table mediocrity, even years into the future.

Of course, it could be that Newcastle have no ambition, and that Ashley simply wants to make more cash than the Stoke owners do. I'd hope it's the former, but I'm not so sure.

 

[Clarence Acuna]

Put simply? Buy low, sell high.

And yes, I can understand Ashley's approach, it doesn't mean its any good or beneficial for Newcastle United though. He is clearly a poor businessman in football terms, Stoke are a sustainable businesses even though they have a stadium with less capacity than St James' Park and they manage to pay more for players than Newcastle do. And they also manage without selling key players, why can't Newcastle do the same?

Because we got relegated with one of the top flight's highest wage bills, over-paid for years and got ourselves into a financial mire that led to Ashley having to bail us out to the tune of £100m.

Stoke have a great business model, which sees them invest more and more each season, but they spent very little in their first and second seasons in order to ensure they were financially prepared for any eventuality.

As for the 'Ashley won't buy Barnetta' I think it's too early to say that. It's like saying Liverpool didn't want to sign Carroll because they initially bid below our asking price. It's an opening offer that has been publicly outed by somebody who actually may not be that close to the player. Not saying you're right or wrong, but it's too early to tell.

 

[Smudger]

Because we got relegated with one of the top flight's highest wage bills, over-paid for years and got ourselves into a financial mire that led to Ashley having to bail us out to the tune of £100m.

Stoke have a great business model, which sees them invest more and more each season, but they spent very little in their first and second seasons in order to ensure they were financially prepared for any eventuality.

As for the 'Ashley won't buy Barnetta' I think it's too early to say that. It's like saying Liverpool didn't want to sign Carroll because they initially bid below our asking price. It's an opening offer that has been publicly outed by somebody who actually may not be that close to the player. Not saying you're right or wrong, but it's too early to tell.

Try 200 million. Who knows how much we've paid back.

 

[overseasTOON]

Put simply? Buy low, sell high.

And yes, I can understand Ashley's approach, it doesn't mean its any good or beneficial for Newcastle United though. He is clearly a poor businessman in football terms, Stoke are a sustainable businesses even though they have a stadium with less capacity than St James' Park and they manage to pay more for players than Newcastle do. And they also manage without selling key players, why can't Newcastle do the same?

That has been put very simply.

The actual ethos of the club is to buy YOUNG and develop that talent over a period of time so that the club can cut back on extortionate transfer fees leaving the clubs coffers by bring these players into the first team.

Sure we'll sell eventually if we have to or the offer is just to good.

You could also have added that it's part of a 5 year plan of which the policy is in it's 2nd year since promotion from the CCC.

NUFC also pay the transfer fee in FULL and not in instalments so that any sell on value is retained by NUFC. Bet you didn't know that! Could you even have presumed it?

You only see it in very basic terms because you don't have an understanding of NUFC but presume that you have enough of an understanding. I'd hope you stop presuming.

As for Stoke? I don't know. I don't support Stoke so I'd never presume anything about them nor pass comment on them based on presumption.

Perhaps they don't pay as much on wages? Perhaps they pay in instalments?

 

[Steven Royston O'Neill]

with all this tyne/wear love I can see little magums being born

 

[Lucaaas]

Newcastle have ambition to climb higher though, which is where this sort of buying/selling policy comes into play. A club like Stoke may remain sustainable, but their revenues will never increase, and they'll never move above mid-table mediocrity, even years into the future.

Of course, it could be that Newcastle have no ambition, and that Ashley simply wants to make more cash than the Stoke owners do. I'd hope it's the former, but I'm not so sure.

I just think Newcastle are a vehicle to promote Ashley's Sport Direct if I'm honest. People say he bankrolled the club, but he's going to get the loan money back isn't he, plus some handsome extras from pocketing some of the transfer fees isn't he? Look at the example of John Henry, he paid off most of our debt, not as a loan or anything, just got rid of it with FSG's own money. I can't help but think Ashley is holding Newcastle back, simple things like negotiating your Northern Rock sponsorship deal while you were in the championship wasn't a smart move for me, you are getting £2.5m a year I believe, while Everton, a similarly sized club, are getting £4m a year. Its madness if you ask me.

 

[overseasTOON]

I just think Newcastle are a vehicle to promote Ashley's Sport Direct if I'm honest.

Hmm. He's invested £250 million into Newcastle. He'd have had far more publicity if he'd run advertising campaigns.

People say he bankrolled the club, but he's going to get the loan money back isn't he

He'll get the loan money back when he sells the club. The cost of the loan is still in the asking price.

plus some handsome extras from pocketing some of the transfer fees isn't he

Legal restrictions state he cannot simply remove money from the club.

simple things like negotiating your Northern Rock sponsorship deal while you were in the championship wasn't a smart move for me

The contract was coming to an end. Ashley renegotiated it with a company already linked to NUFC and when it was negotiated; there was no guarantee that NUFC would be promoted.

 

[Grem1983]

I just think Newcastle are a vehicle to promote Ashley's Sport Direct if I'm honest. People say he bankrolled the club, but he's going to get the loan money back isn't he, plus some handsome extras from pocketing some of the transfer fees isn't he? Look at the example of John Henry, he paid off most of our debt, not as a loan or anything, just got rid of it with FSG's own money. I can't help but think Ashley is holding Newcastle back, simple things like negotiating your Northern Rock sponsorship deal while you were in the championship wasn't a smart move for me, you are getting £2.5m a year I believe, while Everton, a similarly sized club, are getting £4m a year. Its madness if you ask me.

He cant legally do this, the only money he can take out of the business is as a wage! due to tax and national insurance laws money cannot just be taken out of a business, so when people say he is lining his pockets he legally can't, the club still have to issue financial statements to the tax office!

 

[Lucaaas]

The actual ethos of the club is to buy YOUNG and develop that talent over a period of time so that the club can cut back on extortionate transfer fees leaving the clubs coffers by bring these players into the first team.

Sure we'll sell eventually if we have to or the offer is just to good.

That's only half the policy, you forgot that its also based on selling your most senior players if they don't accept pay cuts and short term contracts. Its similar to the Arsenal policy of only 1 year deals for people over 30, and it's not served them well at all when it comes to the business end of the season.

I think I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with you on this one, because I really have not got the patience to argue with you over something that we are never going to change each others mind on.

Because we got relegated with one of the top flight's highest wage bills, over-paid for years and got ourselves into a financial mire that led to Ashley having to bail us out to the tune of £100m.

Stoke have a great business model, which sees them invest more and more each season, but they spent very little in their first and second seasons in order to ensure they were financially prepared for any eventuality.

As for the 'Ashley won't buy Barnetta' I think it's too early to say that. It's like saying Liverpool didn't want to sign Carroll because they initially bid below our asking price. It's an opening offer that has been publicly outed by somebody who actually may not be that close to the player. Not saying you're right or wrong, but it's too early to tell.

Stoke didn't sell anyone for £35m though, which I'm sure would've made them spend a considerable amount of money to replace the player they lost. And we'll see about Barnetta, but I really can't see him signing, I said the same about Gervinho to the 5-1 guy, that I couldn't see you signing him and that it was all a PR thing from Ashley.

 

[Lucaaas]

He cant legally do this, the only money he can take out of the business is as a wage! due to tax and national insurance laws money cannot just be taken out of a business, so when people say he is lining his pockets he legally can't, the club still have to issue financial statements to the tax office!

And he can earn what he wants.

 

[Grem1983]

And he can earn what he wants.

He can take so much as a wage, but if he was taking too much ie making the company make a loss cos of his wage the company wouldnt be allowed to continue trading

 

[Commachio]

Why does Ashley and Derek just keep making us look like twats over and over again?

Well you do call one by surname, and one by first name............

Plus it's a fairly easy task for them to do.........

 

[Rafa's Championship Party]

Put simply? Buy low, sell high.

And yes, I can understand Ashley's approach, it doesn't mean its any good or beneficial for Newcastle United though. He is clearly a poor businessman in football terms, Stoke are a sustainable businesses even though they have a stadium with less capacity than St James' Park and they manage to pay more for players than Newcastle do. And they also manage without selling key players, why can't Newcastle do the same?

Because we were apparently in debt under Shepherd, and the club didn't finance for getting relegated.

 

[Munstertoon]

That has been put very simply.

The actual ethos of the club is to buy YOUNG and develop that talent over a period of time so that the club can cut back on extortionate transfer fees leaving the clubs coffers by bring these players into the first team.

Sure we'll sell eventually if we have to or the offer is just to good.



You could also have added that it's part of a 5 year plan of which the policy is in it's 2nd year since promotion from the CCC.

NUFC also pay the transfer fee in FULL and not in instalments so that any sell on value is retained by NUFC. Bet you didn't know that! Could you even have presumed it?

You only see it in very basic terms because you don't have an understanding of NUFC but presume that you have enough of an understanding. I'd hope you stop presuming.

As for Stoke? I don't know. I don't support Stoke so I'd never presume anything about them nor pass comment on them based on presumption.

Perhaps they don't pay as much on wages? Perhaps they pay in instalments?

Praise the Lord! At least that must mean that we're not after that useless 30 year old numpty, Robert Green.

 

[SAFCOL]

I think we can all agree that Mike Ashley is the best thing to happen to SAFC in a long time.......












SORRY, I meant Niall Quinn. Silly me.

 

[Steven Royston O'Neill]

That has been put very simply.

The actual ethos of the club is to buy YOUNG and develop that talent over a period of time so that the club can cut back on extortionate transfer fees leaving the clubs coffers by bring these players into the first team.

Sure we'll sell eventually if we have to or the offer is just to good.

You could also have added that it's part of a 5 year plan of which the policy is in it's 2nd year since promotion from the CCC.

NUFC also pay the transfer fee in FULL and not in instalments so that any sell on value is retained by NUFC. Bet you didn't know that! Could you even have presumed it?

You only see it in very basic terms because you don't have an understanding of NUFC but presume that you have enough of an understanding. I'd hope you stop presuming.

As for Stoke? I don't know. I don't support Stoke so I'd never presume anything about them nor pass comment on them based on presumption.

Perhaps they don't pay as much on wages? Perhaps they pay in instalments?

I know nowt like that but I dont feel that I'm missing out, still enjoy to go to games.