 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3
|
|
2
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: OWEN to invoke no Euro football clause.
|
on: January 02, 2006, 07:47:06 PM
|
Such a clause would almost certain wipe out any dividends for Fred and Doug, they are pushing it as things stand- throw is a whopping loss on dispoal (the diff between sale price and £12m, which is £16m x 3/4) and they might not get their precious millions.
Would Fred and Doug really sign away their year's money? |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: What could have been?
|
on: December 29, 2005, 01:26:37 PM
|
Get a chief executive to run the football organisation of the club - and to make the right decisions at the right time.
We had a chief executive, David Stonehouse.
He said we shouldn't sign Bellamy and Robert as we couldn't afford them. Fred sacked him, got a loan for the players and we ended up in the CL, due in large part to the contributions of those players.
There is no way in hell that Fred would let anyone else make decisions about the club that is effectively the private property of the two families. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: Jenas
|
on: December 16, 2005, 07:17:30 PM
|
Who cares how he does at Spurs? No matter what he does now, it does not change the fact that in his final 12 months at Newcastle he cut a pretty pathetic figure. I accept that he was low on confidence but you need player to at least give it a go. You make your own luck in football and Jenas did nothing to help himself out of the rut he was in.
In that state he was of no use to us and the £7m was more than he was worth.
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: Toon Eye Joaquin Swoop
|
on: December 13, 2005, 10:22:18 AM
|
Newcastle haven't got a big squad now and you want to reduce it by another 1?  If you did sell the 4 you mentioned, I think Newcastle should be signing 8/9, a mix of proposed 1st teamers and some squad members.
We couldn't afford to put 8 or 9 senior pros on the wage bill- we should be looking to our younger players to give us some additional depth beyond the first team and immediate backup players. If the young players can't provide us with that, we should be looking towards the reasons why. |
|
|
|
|
14
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: Shola Ameobi - left-winger?
|
on: December 10, 2005, 11:08:13 PM
|
I thought he played very well- but unless he can start following up good performances with a run of consistently good games then he's never going to do anything at the club.
Remember that stormer against the Mackems was followed by some pretty abject showings. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: Lee Bowyer
|
on: December 04, 2005, 06:57:22 PM
|
He's done very little in his time here. We should take whatever we can get for him.
A million miles from the player he was at Leeds and won't be missed at all. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: Who would attend an EGM?
|
on: December 02, 2005, 11:31:03 PM
|
Don't do yourself down. It was a good explanation.
I was under the impression that FFS already had the max amount of shares he could hold without having to bid for the company. Surely he can't increase his holding any further by the means described?
I still think he's short of the 30% threshold. Plus, the effect won't be that great as the Halls and Shepherds will be creating and taking new shares and they own most of the company anyway so the increase in the proportions they own will not be huge.
However, when we're talking about potential takeovers and plc/stock market rules, little fractions of a percentage can be very significant. |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Newcastle-Online Forum / NUFC Forum / Re: Halls and Shepherd immune.
|
on: December 01, 2005, 06:43:04 PM
|
The club assets are depreciating all the time. The only thing they wouldn't depreciate is freehold land (the training ground site- SJP's land is owned by the Freemen of the City).
All fixed assets will depreciate, while players contracts will be amortised (same thing, but for intangible assets).
I don't follow your argument that a PLC can only be taken over by a Glazer-type who plans to sweat the assets or an Abrahmovic. Any company can be taken over by anyone. PLCs simply have a few different rules regarding share ownership, disclosure of financial data and some odds and ends in the Companies Act that are of little consequence here. As you say, the fact we're mainly owned by two parties means we're a PLC in name and status only.
The real factor why no-one will buy the club is because the Halls and Shepherds value it too highly- this is what put off the approach from Kia Joorabchian. The numbers simply don't add up. There isn't the kind of leverage in the brand that there is at Man Utd- anyone who bought into Newcastle would do so knowing they would be unlikely to see there money back any time soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
