Club to announce financial good news all round

44 Responses

1. Now there’s a surprise!

2. I live in London, hence I’m not a season ticket holder. However, if I’m not mistaken, don’t season ticket holders now have to be members, paying a membership fee which they didn’t have to pay before? A membership fee which has recently risen from £15 and to £25. I certainly do, even if I only wanted to buy one away ticket.

   So correct me if I’m wrong here, but it seems season ticket holders now have to pay £25 which they didn’t have to pay before, and as Ashley hasn’t announced a freeze on membership fees, he can put this fee up again, and again if he wants to?

   As some fans wrote on Ed Harrison’s blog:

   Ruvio // Mar 5, 2012 at 6:58 PM

   You should all look at the increase in price in club membership. You need to have membership to continue purchasing your season ticket. So the price is actually increasing by slightly more than it was prior to this “Price Freeze”
   HWTL

   kingkev9 // Mar 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM

   The membership which is compulsory has gone up £10 so there has been an increase and could be next year and the year after…

   Also, why buy a season ticket now or sign up to the deal when you could get a half price ticket? How did that scheme benefit season ticket holders like me who have had a season ticket for 25 years? No reward for loyalty

   puretoon // Mar 5, 2012 at 10:28 PM

   @kingkev9 #12
   You’re spot on! we said that last year; this membership crap will rise each year, but they’ll still say the season ticket price is frozen, which in reality it is, but we will be paying out more and more every year.
   Talk about a right con-Ashley and Llambias would make excellent politicians.
   They’re making it sound like this clubs doing so well, but in reality, it’s no more than it should be

   There just always seems to be a catch with Ashley.

3. “The Telegraph goes on to suggest that they will show the club has made a profit for the first time since Mike Ashley bought it in 2007.”

   Where did it say that Hugh? The only bit I could find was:

   “For the year ending April 30, 2011, Mr Ashley’s holding company made a profit of £79.4m. Turnover was up 10pc at £1.68bn. The company did not pay a dividend.”

   But that was referring to MASH Holdings, not the club, though I not saying that they haven’t.

   Also, what is Newcastle United’s current level of debt?

4. the club have confirmed that they will not be offering 50% off season tickets this season.

   the 9 year price freeze is the only offer going to be available to fans.

   in all fairness i think you might find that season tickets sales increase this season as the majority of people who took out the half price deal will sign up for the 9 year pay monthly price freeze. i know there was a few hundred added to the platinum club when the deal cam around i just hope they move to more appropriate parts of the ground for next season.

   with cheap seats it lowered the standard of clientelle in certain areas of the ground, and us tea drinking prawn sandwich eating supporters could not eat are lunch without hearing foul and abusive language. although i did get a free cup of team for complaining though.

   but on a serious note i know some people who paid full price for their season ticket complained about the half price deal, but as far as business goes it is nothing sky, bt or virgin dont do to new customers. there is always a “get them through the door”price to then increase subscriptions at a latter date but in doing so gaining valuable customers.

   i can see people frustration but ashley hasnt done anything any other businesses havent.

   let hope we dont spend all the £70 odd million in the summer. give it a few years and go on a £140 million spree in 3 or 4 years.
   now that will be worth looking forward to.

5. Stephen C says:
   March 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm

   “let hope we dont spend all the £70 odd million in the summer. give it a few years and go on a £140 million spree in 3 or 4 years.
   now that will be worth looking forward to.”

   If you are referring to the quoted £79.4m profit, that is for Mike Ashley’s MASH holdings, which I beleive also includes Sports Direct. It’s not an announcement that the club has made almost £80 million profit.

6. “although I still have my doubts about this whole financial fair play stuff and suspect that the stinking rich clubs – such as Manchester City and Chelsea – will find some way around it. I could be wrong of course.”

   Hugh, Manchester City have already found a way around it though their ridiculous and phony £400 million sponsorship deal with Etihad, a company which is owned Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Manchester City is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, can you spot the connection? Do you ever read any of my stories? ;-)

7. Worky: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/9124262/Newcastle-United-revival-reaches-boardroom-as-club-prepare-to-announce-return-to-profit.html

   “Managing director Derek Llambias has overseen a remarkable shift in the health of the club’s accounts and Newcastle are likely to have bucked the Premier League trend and will not record a loss for the first time since Mike Ashley bought the club in the summer of 2007.”

8. The club still has long-term debt of course, not least the large sum it owes Ashley.

   I can’t see how the club moving into operational profit is a bad thing though.

9. Hugh @ 8

   There can’t be many, if any, organisations (and perhaps individuals) that don’t have a debt.

   Agreed, a good thing. We should be healthy on and off the pitch. And, it’s starting to look that way.

10. Aye Hugh, I’m sorry. You’re right of course. Well known financial expert, Luke Edwards, does indeed “suggest” it, he even makes it look as if it is an assertion of fact. However that’s just empty shite which suggests absolutely nothing to me until there are some proper figures to back it up.

    “Managing director Derek Llambias has overseen a remarkable shift in the health of the club’s accounts and Newcastle are likely to have bucked the Premier League trend and will not record a loss for the first time since Mike Ashley bought the club in the summer of 2007.”

11. Quite so, but at the very least I suspect the club’s finances will show an improvement over previous years.

    The Telegraph suggests a profit (in its headline, anyway) and others suggest break-even.

    The main point is that it’s going in the right direction, which I believe is a good thing.

12. Kamar says:
    March 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    “There can’t be many, if any, organisations (and perhaps individuals) that don’t have a debt.”

    So why was it such an issue before, Kamar, when it was smaller?

    I’m not saying that we are in a worse financial position, or a better one. I just think that people should think these things through rather than swallowing the PR without examining it.

    http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html

13. I think we have to take this as good news, whichever way we slice it. It’s far better than reading about an increased deficit.

    However, changing the subject, this statistic from a Wolved blog caught my eye and bothers me:

    “However, Fulham scuppered this plan by adopting a more fluid shape and passing the ball far better than Newcastle did the previous week. They strung together a gigantic 567 passes compared to Newcastle’s 421.
    It wasn’t just the number of passes that killed Wolves, it was the accuracy. Fulham had a 90% pass completion rate compared to Newcastle’s 79%. They kept the ball to devastating effect and very rarely gave it away cheaply.”

    Surely this is what Alan Pardew needs to address on the training ground if we are to improve and entertain.

14. Paul in Hollywood says:
    March 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Paul, what is there to slice up so far? Of course, it’s pretty certain that the profit / loss figure will be a significant improvement on the last set of accounts, but they aren’t there yet, hence there’s nothing to “slice up.” It’s just supposition.

    “However, Fulham scuppered this plan by adopting a more fluid shape and passing the ball far better than Newcastle did the previous week. They strung together a gigantic 567 passes compared to Newcastle’s 421.
    It wasn’t just the number of passes that killed Wolves, it was the accuracy. Fulham had a 90% pass completion rate compared to Newcastle’s 79%. They kept the ball to devastating effect and very rarely gave it away cheaply.”

    It’s just that Pardew’s tactics tend to favour long, speculative passes / crosses into the area, it’s “percentage” football. On the other hand, Jol’s Fulham seem to be playing a more sophisticated “passing” game lokking at those figures. Long balls will mean fewer passes and have a lower chance of completion than shorter ones, hence the higher amount of passes and better pass completion rate for the Cottagers.

15. Paul in Hollywood says:
    March 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    “Surely this is what Alan Pardew needs to address on the training ground if we are to improve and entertain.”

    You’d think so wouldn’t you? But he won’t. It’ll be hoof ball next weekend, and the weekend after. With HBA sitting on the bench.

16. Soh ! there’s still money in the bank?
    Question is will we get Vertonghen or Pieters, or perhaps both ?
    Probably niether.
    By the way think it’s time we showed the new improved version, talking about weight watching Ashley, looking slim and trim, with everything going his way.
    Certainly showed those Geordies who were recently scoffing and protesting, that he knows how to run a football club.
    This could i believe be a banner year for spending in the EPL, considering the new fair play laws.
    As someone already mentioned, there are numerous ways around them, such as the ridiculess amount payed to Citeh from the actual owner to remame the stadium.
    Perhaps Ashley could do the same by renaming St James’ Park, Sports Direct Stadium, oh! i forgot he already did.
    Guess from now on it’s a car in every garage n’ a chicken in every pot, onwards and upwards, challenging for silverware, a big club with a big manager and a slimmer owner.
    Hell! what more could a fan ask for ?

17. I guess the bottom line is that Alan Pardew learned nothing from being thrashed by Fulham and Spurs, and the fact that Fulham then thrashed Wolves against whom we scraped a draw, just as we did against the Mackems who, the previous week, were hammered 4-0 by WBA. Without our much more plucky (lucky?) start, we could (would?) be seriously struggling right now.

    Where are the quality games that we should be seeing that prove we are worthy of the top six in the table?

18. chuck says: “As someone already mentioned, there are numerous ways around them, such as the ridiculess amount payed to Citeh from the actual owner to remame the stadium.”

    I was hoping UEFA would (or will) plug these loopholes. They need to otherwise their FFP regulations are worth squat.

19. chuck says:
    March 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    ” As someone already mentioned, there are numerous ways around them, such as the ridiculess amount payed to Citeh from the actual owner to remame the stadium.”

    Not quite Chuck, it’s from the owner’s half brother, His Highness, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of UAE, Ruler of Abu Dhabi and chairman of Etihad, the flag carrier for the UAE, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is Minister of Presidential Affairs for Abu Dhabi, but Abu Dhabi, Etihad Airways and Manchester City are all pretty much the same really, the Al Nahyan family mafia.

20. Hugh de Payen says:
    March 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    “I was hoping UEFA would (or will) plug these loopholes. They need to otherwise their FFP regulations are worth squat.”

    Au contraire, Hugh. The FFP regulations could be worth a considerable amount for some people.

21. WORKY
    Same money, different account,the Saud family owns Saudi Arabia, the Nahyans own Abu Dhabi and in general the gulf states are usually owned and run by the dominant family (tribe)
    Not unlike the North east where the Duke of N’umberland owns most of the county (land) and an enormouse amount of the real estate.
    That and the fact that other prominent local families once owned the coal mines, steel works, shipyards and armament manufacturing.
    We are not so different from one another.

22. I would’nt be too concerned about the game becoming overregulated, it’s mostly for fan consumption.
    Both FIFA & Euafa, being what many would consider corrupt organizations, have to be seen as attempting to improve things, by implimenting what are essentially toothless measures.
    Which they have niether the power or any real desire other than a need to be seen as doing something positive.
    The real power is as eveyone knows with the club owners.
    And they will do whatever is in their best interests,
    Regardless of the so called controlling bodies.

23. chuck says:
    March 6, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    “We are not so different from one another.”

    Not really Chuck. If the UK was like Abu Dhabi, the Queen would also be Prime Minister, Chairwoman of British Airways, and the Royal family members such Prince Charles, Prince Andrew etc would run most other major businesses.

24. The steady improvement of the books over the last 2/3 years was inevitable.
    We all knew this would happen!

    A relegation season.
    A season in the chumpionship.
    Back to the big league.
    Staying in the big league.
    New sponsorship deals.

    Do the math,
    either literally or otherwise.

    Good/bad?
    Whatever!

25. chuck,
    it’s uefa mate, not euafa.
    Soz to be a pedant like.
    ;)

26. union of european football associations, i think.

27. Yeah your right again Clint, thanks!

    Workey
    Lets not split hairs here, the royals still own vast tracts of land and wealth in the UK, not unlike their fellow tribalists in the gulf area.
    It,s common knowledge the duke of N’umberland owns around three hundred farms in the county alone, not to mention London real estate, etc.
    To bad parliament reinstated the monarchy, having proven even then to be an archaic institution and a drain on the public purse , and remains so to this time.
    Oh by the way, anyone willing to contribute a few quid to-wards building the queen a new yacht, it’s disgusting when she has to do the royal tour of the colonies having to fly like a bucket and spade prole.
    After all she and her wonderfull family are the glue that holds the empire to-gether.
    And Oh! just watched the Beeb news where prince Arry, was representing her royal majesty in Jamaica, only for the prime minister to remind him of the horrors of slavery and actually had the nerve to ask for an apology from the motherland, what gall!
    Even threatening the removal of her majesty as head of state and had the nerve to actually touch the royal personage, by giving him a hug.
    I just dont know what this worlds comming to?

28. Big fan of the monarchy then, Chuck?

    I seem to recall that monarchy or not, the slave trade was abolished far earlier on this side of the pond than it was on your (Republican) side. What was it that slave owner, Ben Franklin, said about all men being created equal? ;-)

    The way Abu Dhabi is ruled is more like those days and indentured servitude isn’t a thing of the past there. It is one of the world’s great hubs for human trafficking.

29. Sure the slave rade was abolished by Britain earlier than by most others, so what ?
    Does that relieve them of the guilt of being a major player in the business, perhaps you should check out the history of slavery, which built many a british family fortune and filled the coffers of HM’s government.
    There are stillmany companies in existence (Tate and Lyle, Fyffes etc whos origins were built on slavery)
    And these were not only Africans, many were white Indentured servants, who worked alongside African slaves on the plantations of varous islands in the West Indies and America.
    These so called indentured servants, were often people captured by sea raiders (Slavers) or political prisoners, who being they had a certain time span before they weres supposedly freed, were in turn treated worse than slaves, who were considered property.
    And yes i am no defender of the obviously hypocrit’s, known as the founding fathers of the US, you are singing to the choir there.
    But to claim that because the UK was an early advocate for the abolishment of slavery as any kind of excuse is a bit lame, doncha think.

    And yeah, at no time was i making any comparisons, between life in the UK and that of the lot of so called guest workers in the gulf states.
    Only that there are similarities between your royals and the gulf tribal leaders and their families, in the fact they have both over time used the legaslature in order to protect both wealth and privelage in both areas.

    And looking at the present w/wide financial chaos, i’m not so sure Wor Karl had it wrong.

30. chuck says:
    March 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    “Sure the slave rade was abolished by Britain earlier than by most others, so what ?
    Does that relieve them of the guilt of being a major player in the business, perhaps you should check out the history of slavery, which built many a british family fortune and filled the coffers of HM’s government.”

    Chuck, with all due due respect, I suspect I know more about the history of slavery than you do. It isn’t a European phenomenon, it isn’t an American phenomenon either, it is a world phenomomenon and most of the world have been slavers at some time in their history. The slave trade in Africa already existed long before Europeans came along in the sixteenth century, and during the time European – African slave trade was happening in the 16th – 19th Cebtury, over a million Europeans were captured and enslaved by African Barbary pirates too. The last country to officially ban slavery was the West African nation of Mauritania, and that wasn’t until 1981!

    Slavery and indentured servitude still happens on a very wide scale though, in fact it’s happnening more now than at any time in history and that is what is most important as you can’t change the past, but you can change the future.

    Karl Marx’s “The Capital” is essential reading for anyone with an intellect who wants to understand how Capitalism works.

    BTW Chuck, what’s all this guff about on your side of the pond about Obama being a “Socialist,” and even a “Marxist”? Or this ridiculous idea that we somehow despise free healthcare over here? What are they smoking? :lol:

31. Worky-the term you’re looking for is “weasel words.” That bit is full of them. Qualifications abound.

    I thought MA looked like death.

    Another term needed here: FFP = “regulatory theater.” (That one’s for you, chuck.) There is no desire at FIFA to antagonize the big clubs in any way. There is, however, an interest in maintaining the image of their authority being applied evenly.

    Ben Franklin said nothing about men being equal as I recall. Thomas Jefferson was the hypocrite.

32. chuck: Wor Karl was possibly the most insightful historian of economics ever. Most of what he said has either been proven right or opened dialog into topics that hadn’t been considered before at all. Since his legacy has been politicized to the point of hyperbole, nobody wants to talk about that though.

    Seriously, don’t hate on Franklin. He was the only one of our “founding fathers” with any elan (or any tast for European culture, actually).

    Obama as “Marxist”-I wish. The Republicans ran a candidate for a congressional seat who at one time claimed, seriously, to be a witch. But you can’t get elected over here if you’re a socialist or atheist. True story. Our political dialog is exceptionally stupid, a match for our undereducated and credulous population.

    Worky-as a recovering history lecturer, I’ve done a bit of looking into the slave trade myself. Slavery as it existed in west Africa was a very different thing to the trans-atlantic trade, which y’all did a lot to get started. I mean, Greeks and Romans had slaves too but it was a very different setup from what prevailed in the Caribean and American south.

33. tunyc says:
    March 7, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    “Ben Franklin said nothing about men being equal as I recall. Thomas Jefferson was the hypocrite.”

    Oh hell, aye! Fair point tunyc, I’m gannin’ senile again. Franklin did write the next bit though: “We hold these truths to be self evident.”

    “chuck: Wor Karl was possibly the most insightful historian of economics ever.”

    Damn right he was!

34. tunyc says:
    March 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    “Worky-as a recovering history lecturer, I’ve done a bit of looking into the slave trade myself. Slavery as it existed in west Africa was a very different thing to the trans-atlantic trade, which y’all did a lot to get started. I mean, Greeks and Romans had slaves too but it was a very different setup from what prevailed in the Caribean and American south.”

    Yes, you are right to assert that it was a different thing after the establishment of the Atlantic slave trade. We brought efficiency and logistics, built large forts to hold them and over ten million were enslaved during that long era. One thing which has become something of a taboo in the discussion of the Slave trade though is the role of Africans. We bought slaves from African tribal leaders, and even after it was abolished throughout the British Empire, some of those leaders continued with the trade, and refusing to abolish it themselves.

35. Coming back to chuck’s anti monarchist diatribe, the worst of the lot in Africa though was undoubtedly Prince / King Leopold II of Belgium, who was a monster of truly epic proportions. Leopold was a Saxe-Coburg like our own East German Royal Family, the Saxe-Coburg Gothas, who subsequently changed their name to “Windsor” due to a little European family squabble which started in 1914.

    Leopold killed almost as many African slaves as were transported in the whole period of the Atlantic slave trading era. No one mentions the Belgians though.

    The Butcher of Congo: King Leopold II of Belgium.

    http://digitaljournal.com/blog/11297#ixzz1oU4WG2Tz

36. slavery has existed in africa for over 1200 years, although i abhor our role in it, during colonial times.
    the british were introduced to slavery, by the wealthy african slave masters from the country of benin.

    i hate racism and bigotry of every kind, but slavery existed in africa, long before white people arrived there.

37. TROJAN RECORDS 73 says:
    March 8, 2012 at 1:15 am

    “slavery has existed in africa for over 1200 years, although i abhor our role in it, during colonial times.
    the british were introduced to slavery, by the wealthy african slave masters from the country of benin.”

    Correct Trojan.

    http://autocww.colorado.edu/~blackmon/E64ContentFiles/AfricanHistory/SlaveryInAfrica.html

    The time when the slave trade was at it’s height was a time for great heroes of the “Age of Reason”, such as the Quakers including the great Thomas Paine, and of course, great villains too.

    Thomas Paine of course is thought by many to be the father of the American Revolution, especially due to his piece “Common Sense.” The founding fathers should have listened to him more though, especially on the subject of slavery.

    http://www.constitution.org/tp/afri.htm

38. One thing Thomas Paine was guilty of though was designing the original Wearmouth bridge, which is thought to be responsible for the growth of the town of Sunderland. The Bastad! :lol:

39. I don’t really care about these figures. I just know that anything spouted from Lambastard or Ashley’s mouths is always, always bullshit tinged with an agenda.
    Clever though, announcing these ‘fantastic’ figures to further smokescreen the fact that these two con artists (ask anyone who deals in The City what Ashley is all about) have successfully pulled the cashmere wool from their XXXL jumpers over our eyes.
    Don’t be distracted by things going well on the pitch either. It’s only a matter of time before he shafts us again. Then, who will give a rats about these apparent financial figures?
    I hate the bloke for making me feel like this, I really do.

40. Blacknwhitey says:
    March 8, 2012 at 9:57 am

    “I hate the bloke for making me feel like this, I really do.”

    So do I Blacknwhitey. If we had a winning run, or got into Europe, I just wait for Ashley seeing it as a good time to announce that he’ll be changing the name of the club to “Sports Direct United” or that we’ll be playing in red white and blue or something like that.

    This announcement of a good set of accounts to come is just pure PR. The club is still more in debt than when Ashley took over the club, yet it’s contantly repeated that he’s “cleared our debts.” We’ve just consolidated them into one easy package, like “Ocean Finance.” The spectre of Fat Freddy and how the club supposedly wouldn’t be here without Ashley is always raised by the club when difficult questions arise. Stories about Nike being in talks to sponsor the stadium are fed to the media when fans are up in arms about the name change. These are all carefully managed PR stunts, constantly repeated until they sink in. When you say it, your fellow fans turn on you and tell you that you’re just an Ashley hating idiot who doesn’t understand the realities of modern business, just like the courtiers who are afraid of looking foolish in the Hans Christien Andersen tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” They repeat the same old mantras which have been fed to them by the club’s PR company.

    fans think their season ticket prices will be frozen now, forgetting that they now have to pay membership fees which have increased, and can increase again at any time, cancelling out the saving and so on. It’s all just pure “spin.”

    Ashley is one hell of a divisive bastad.

41. XXXL jumpers ? I’m looking for a decent one – are you saying Sprouts Direct sell them?

42. There are many arguments about slavery.
    But what i am stating is there’s no denying that British slavers with the assistance of the Royal Navy and the government, played a major role.
    Of course this is never mentioned in the official history,i find that history is selective, according to which country you are in.
    (better to keep it quiet)
    Of course it took place centuries ago and we dont do things like that anymore.
    Oh no ? Then what about the terrorism inflicted in Kenya during the late fifties, not by the Mau Mau, but by a combination of the police forc and the British army, who are responsible for the deaths of over a quarter million Africans.
    Using both concentration camps and torture, ( and we are all aware of who started concentration camps The British during the Boer War)
    Of course the Mau Mau, who possibly killed fewer tha two hundred white settlers or police were demonized and the term Mau Mau became synonymous with Evll.
    Bessie Bradock brough the situation to in light in parliament, but was a voice in the wilderness, as the government was concerned more by the dissolution of the empire of which Kenya was an important part, having a large white population who were farming on land stolen from the native’s.
    These settlers, for the most part were from the upper classes, therefor having connections in parliament.
    To this day the official report on what took place there has yet to be made public.
    However there are books available that describe what actually took place, though the government remains officially in denial.

43. Supermac says:
    March 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    “XXXL jumpers ? I’m looking for a decent one”

    Time for a diet then ye fat basket! :-)

    Chuck, I’ll be back for you later, after another Ashley diatribe.

44. Supermac says:
    March 8, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    XXXL jumpers ? I’m looking for a decent one – are you saying Sprouts Direct sell them?
    _________________________

    Oh good – al fellow Blobby :)

    Cotton Traders and Jacamo Mate!!