Mike Ashley has once again promised ‘every penny’ to Rafa Benitez.

However, one year on from the last ‘promise’, the manager isn’t quite so quick to take things at face value.

The bargain signing of Martin Dubravka went ahead on Wednesday but still no sign of Rafa extending his NUFC contract.

Just under three weeks ago, one year and three days after the original ”every penny’ statement, Mike Ashley released a very very similar one.

Mike Ashley – 10 May 2017:

“I’ve confirmed to Rafa Benitez he can have every last penny the club generates through promotion, player sales & other means.”

Mike Ashley – 13 May 2018:

“Rafa, as always, has my full support, and contrary to some media reports that portray me as a pantomime villain, I will continue to ensure that every penny generated by the club is available to him.”

So when Mike Ashley talks of Rafa Benitez getting ‘every penny generated by the club’, what exactly does the manager get?

Well last summer Rafa certainly didn’t get what he was expecting.

I think that it is very likely that a key factor in negotiations between Rafa’s people and the club, has been money to spend from player sales…and exactly how many pennies that would equal.

If you actually believe Mike Ashley when he says Rafa gets every penny, including cash from player sales, the big sticking point is timing.

With Mike Ashley happy for clubs to buy Newcastle players over a period up to as long as five years, you have the following potential scenario.

Rafa Benitez this summer sells: Mitrovic, Saivet, Mbemba, Sels, Colback, Gayle, Armstrong, Toney, Merino. With say transfer fees of around £50m in total.

However, if the manager agrees to the sales, it might only add £10m to his summer transfer budget.

Under Mike Ashley’s preferred system, Newcastle would get only 20% (£10m) of that cash up front, then £10m in 2019, £10m in 2020, £10m in 2021, and £10m in 2022.

A lot of people are fantasising about selling Mitro for £20m+, then using £10m of his basic budget, Rafa could then sign a £30m+ striker of his choosing…if only it were that easy.

I think this is probably why the Serbian number 45 is still on Newcastle’s books, despite Rafa making clear two years ago he wasn’t a big fan. What incentive is there to trade in one of your strikers, even if he is only on the bench, for £10m – if you are then going to get only £2m of that cash to strengthen the team/squad in the immediate future?

Newcastle United are at a stage where they need to be investing heavily for the future, or else there might not be a future…or at least not an attractive looking one.

If Rafa could sell players as described above, it would make far more sense to then get all the fees up front, even if it meant getting £5m-£10m less than that £50m figure. As I think Rafa could make far better use of £40m now, rather than the bulk of £50m coming in sometime in the future to spend, probably.

Rafa having as much cash as possible to spend now, would very likely equal accumulating more cash as well anyway, far more than what you would get extra by selling on credit. Te 10th place this past season is proof of that.

Hopefully the next ‘statement’ from the club will be when Rafa Benitez breaks the club’s 13 year old transfer record…

To feature like Dean Wilkins submit your article to [email protected] and/or for more info go here



  • Clarko

    ‘I think that it is very likely that a key factor in negotiations between Rafa’s people and the club, has been money to spend from player sales…and exactly how many pennies that would equal. If you actually believe Mike Ashley when he says Rafa gets every penny, including cash from player sales, the big sticking point is timing.’

    Dean, you don’t know what you’re talking about, the issue last summer wasn’t about the amount of money Benitez had, it was how long it took the club to sanction deals.

    ‘Under Mike Ashley’s preferred system, Newcastle would get only 20% (£10m) of that cash up front, then £10m in 2019, £10m in 2020, £10m in 2021, and £10m in 2022.’

    And what preferred system is that? The “I’ve just made that up” system?

    • Wor Lass

      It`s a good job someone always knows what they`re talking about, Clarko. There was me thinking Cashley was a tight-fisted bar steward but it turns out he`s just a bit slow. Thanks for that!

      • MichaelMaximusMoose

        😂😂😂

    • justchampion

      So what are you saying? He doesn’t insist on paying up front or he doesn’t accept staged payments for player sales? Enlighten us.

      • Clarko

        I think it’s obvious as to what I’m saying and I think it’s obvious that you haven’t read the article or my comment.

  • MichaelMaximusMoose

    Fatso thinks he`s being clever but year on year he`s downsizing the club & if he doesn`t invest this summer it`ll once again end in tears & until the supporters realise this and drive him out we`re going nowhere
    🐷🐽

    • Wor Lass

      You obviously haven`t read Clarko`s illuminating post. He explains it all – you`ve got Mike all wrong. He just can`t move very quickly. Arthritis of the wallet hand maybe?

  • mactoon

    I still can’t understand why he insists on paying the full amount up front for incoming players yet accepts staged payments for players sold. It’s almost as if he is arranging the annual finances so that it seems like there is no cash surplus to back the manager during the transfer window…

    • Whilst no fan of Ashley, I think he would prefer sales for cash but the relegation season was a one off.

      The paper profit on Wijnaldum and Sissoko was about £40m. We would not have got that price for them in cash. He would have huge difficulties in selling the club if we had big Financial Fair Play difficulties.

      Keeping it simple, it is a negotiating point for Rafa. If Mitrovic is sold on instalments, then Rafa should be allowed to sign a replacement in instalments, otherwise, there is no need to sign his contract extension.

      • mactoon

        But Ashley does buy players with one off payments up front so instalments won’t happen

        • Sickandtired

          LOL! Yeah, that’s exactly what’s been in his mind.

      • Sickandtired

        FFP penalties for what? I swear, people comment on here without having a scooby about they are talking about!

        • mactoon

          We don’t have any problems with the FFP rules. Ashley has kept the club well within the rules

        • Read it again. Making profit on player sales avoids FFP dificulties.

          • Sickandtired

            Simple question. Penalties for what, under FFP?

    • tag the ultimate goal

      Very good point. The staged payments on the income and whole payments on the outgoings makes the paperwork look like he has actually backed rafa. Or maybe he just has backed rafa F-ing LOL (last parts a joke)

    • Billmag

      Why would he not take the full amount off the Fulham owner he’s worth twice as much as fatty.

      • mactoon

        Because thats not how he does business. He sells players over a period of time like other clubs. Take Sissoko as an example. £30 million paid over a period of 5 years. But if he buys a player he pays out all in one go.

        • Billmag

          Therefore he should give the manager the full amount of the transfer while he pockets the money in instalments, he can afford it surely.

    • panther

      Yes, almost

    • Come&TakeIt1836

      See my post above for a hypothesis…

  • Beaudan

    What on earth is the point of this piece? Its pure and utter conjecture with absolutely no substance to it whatsoever.

  • Ba ba.

    As much as I dislike fat man until we kick off the first game and our business is done I’m keeping my powder dry… Hwtls

    • MichaelMaximusMoose

      You`re kidding right. 11 yrs he`s been at it, Jesus

      • Ba ba.

        I’m saying…. He may turn round this year and back him….. I don’t believe he will…. But I’m not going to rant on just yet… You know what I mean.?

        • nufcslf

          Not a f**king chance. The pryk is laughing all the way to the bank and simply doesn’t give a sh*t about football. Lost cause until he goes or more preferably dies……

          • Ba ba.

            Death for me

    • Sickandtired

      There you are – one of the actual deluded supporters.

  • Duh

    As mactoon says, consensus amongst reporters is that Rafa can spend every penny the club receive in cash in hand. If Fulham pay 20m for Mitro and they pay in cash then Rafa gets 20m to spend (notwithstanding agent fees and wotnot). The issue is, just about every club in the world seemingly does not pay the 20m up front, they structure it over a number of years (as long as they can get away with).
    Certainly there is rationale in Ashley’s policy but for sure it handicaps the club at the very least in the short term. The rationale is that it makes sure the club is saddled with debt it can’t afford to pay because of relegation or whatever.
    Seemingly when the club needs a player and does not have the money, I think Ashley has put the money in himself rather than effectively lend from a selling club. I would be surprised if they do not get a discount for paying up front as well.

    • MichaelMaximusMoose

      The short term, do you class 11 yrs as the short term., ffs

      • Duh

        I think that is a fair comment and I do not say I agree with the rationale, I just understand it.
        He would say the fact that the club has been relegated and the club has been able to sustain that, means the rationale is proven right.
        The fact that the relegation is down to mismanagement, not just lack of investment, as proven out by this season where we did very well on a small budget is a different matter.
        Ultimately it demonstrates the lack of confidence in himself and Charnley to manage the club competently proven out on a regular basis of the last 10 years.
        You could have Man City team on the books and you would still get relegated with Joe Kinnear at the helm.

        • Sickandtired

          And who appointed JK, twice?

          • Duh

            Well yeah, that was one of my points. He can’t trust himself not to do stupid things so he better make sure his dumb-ass decisions don’t bankrupt the club as well as relegate it.

          • glassjawsh-got-banned

            “durr hurr I’m an idiot, so I’d better protect my soccer club from what an idiot I am, durr hurr” – Mike Ashley?

            The problem isn’t that he’s an idiot, the problem is that he knows exactly what he’s doing (and what he’s doing is insipid).

    • Sickandtired

      Utter [email protected] Ashley has not provided funds for a single player. His ‘personal’ loan of £29 million followed relegation 1, for which he has now been fully repaid thanks to a £33 million loan via SJH. £18 million went straight back to fatty and the remaining £15m was for operating expenses – again because of another relegation.

      • Duh

        yeah, I did not mean a permanent “gift”.. But since he owns the club he is borrowing from one pocket to pay another. Point is, when he deemed that a player must be signed, the money appeared, the fact it later disappeared again is something else.

        • Sickandtired

          The money appeared from overdrafts and other external borrowings which were secured against club assets, including by him.

    • nevfur

      I don’t quite follow the rationale of not saddling the club with debt it can’t afford. Surely if we have £50M in sales paid at £10M per year then if we make no more than £50M in buys paid out at no more than £10M per year then all debts are covered relegation or not or am I missing something?

  • Paul Patterson

    The percentage thing would certainly explain the Carroll sale/Ba and Cisse buy, the Sissoko/Wijnaldum sales against the Diame and Ritchie buys to name a few. Sadly, this logic gets you–Joselu.

  • Wezza147

    ‘Hopefully the next ‘statement’ from the club will be when Rafa Benitez breaks the club’s 13 year old transfer record…’

    Hasn’t happened during MA’s time here nor is there any reason to assume it will.

    It doesn’t really matter about instalments or what have you as MA transfers plenty of cash into MASH Holdings never to be seen again. Infact we are still waiting for the Andy Carroll money.
    Rafa has been lied to and undermined in recent windows and again there is no reason to assume this time it will change.

    • mactoon

      Can you point me to the proof that Mashley has transferred or taken NUFC funds out of the club ‘never to be seen again’? It hasn’t happened as far as I can see and I am willing to be persuaded but throwing accusations around like that without backing it up with proof?

      But I do agree I find it highly unlikely we will break our transfer record

      • Leazes.

        They are residing in MASH account….or should I say were a year ago…..we don’t have up to date accounts as they are a season out of sync.

        • mactoon

          Newcastle united football club is a separate company with its own accounts filed at companies house. It resides as a company within mashley holdings but no money has been transferred out of the nufc accounts as Wezza suggests.

          • Wezza147

            I even read in the accounts that transactions between the two do not have to be stated. It was on the final page I just do not have the time to check. The proof is the fact that we don’t ever invest, have a net spend, Ashley lies, propaganda etc.

          • mactoon

            Yes I read that but just because they don’t have to disclose any deals within Mashley holdings doesn’t prove it is happening and ‘Ashley lies, propaganda etc’ by their very nature are not proof of wrong doing. The club does invest, it does have a net spend and I can see no proof that money is ‘disappearing into thin air’.

            Here’s my take on it all. I am not saying I know for definite that money is not being taken out but unless I see proof of it happening I won’t cast accusations by saying that it is, that would be slander.

            What I see is a club run unlike any other club in terms of trying to make it self-sufficient. He doesn’t want to put any more money into the club so will not allow spending to take it further into debt which means he will not speculate by using future income until it is in the bank. (TV money or future income from player sales for example). This results in not being able to compete with most other clubs who are happy to spend money not yet in the accounts.

            So it all comes down to income/profit generated at the time of any particular transfer window but the way deals are/have been done mean there is an imbalance. Imagine Sissoko gets sold for £30 million but it is spread over 5 years. If during this summer a player is sold for £20 million there is only £6 million coming in from the Sissoko deal so it looks as though we have no money generated by the club at that particular time. (If Sports Direct International had been paying for the advertising as they promised a few years back it would have helped but that’s another argument)

            I don’t like the way he runs the club but won’t let that cloud my judgement, I need proof that something is wrong before I believe it. I’ve read the accounts and I know a good accountant can make them say anything they want you to believe but as far as I can tell nothing major is going on. (I would have thought Staveley’s due diligence would have uncovered any major wrong doing and she would have walked away instead of leaving her last bid on the table).

  • Vodkamagpie

    Last relegation season, how much did we spend in transfers, 80mil odd?. Maybe you could slightly understand why ashley prefers not to spend everything the club has on transfers.

    • Big Hairy Man

      We made a profit on transfers

      • Paul Patterson

        And an idiot was the coach..

        • Vodkamagpie

          Oh yes, the former England manager/Dutch league winner, what was ashley thinking

          • Taz

            Lay off the vodka

          • FatParosite

            It’s a new name for one of Bishops trolls just block it whatever it is……

          • TheFatController

            Well, I’m not sure why you think being England manager gives credibility to manage a PL side ….?

            Everton sacked Allardyce, Liverpool sacked Hodgson, Boro sacked Southgate, Derby sacked McClaren.

            When guardiola or mourinho manage England, it may be an indicator of coaching ability. Until then …

          • Vodkamagpie

            Good point, maybe it’s easy for club owners making mistakes, as you proved with Liverpool and Everton

      • Vodkamagpie

        How is that?, who did we sell

        • Duh

          Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Cisse, Janmat, Thauvin, Cabella and Tonwsend

          • Vodkamagpie

            You lost, the season when they spent 80Mil, they barely sold anyone, THAT SEASON

          • Duh

            yeah I am lost, June 2016 was when the club got relegated last time and we sold of those players, what season are you referring too?

          • Vodkamagpie

            June 2015/16 season, spent 75Mil, sold 2m, got relegated that season

      • Leazes.

        Any sensible person has already blocked that one, you don’t look very sensible!

        • Vodkamagpie

          Has anyone actually worked out how much Newcastle has spent under ashley in transfers compared to the rest of the English team’s, a sh#t load

  • Monkseaton Magpies

    At the end of the last accounts we were twelve million overdrawn Ashley lent us another fifteen million and deferred income for following seasons was twenty three million. So yes we are basically skint and Ashley did give Rafa every penny does any one on this site understand accounts except for five people.

    • Steve Smith

      Do you or Ashley’s cronies?

      Why do other clubs seemingly not require their owners to be perpetually bailing them out?

      Why is the club apparently incapable of keeping its head above water long enough to actually invest in playing staff?

      • Duh

        Well one does not assume the other.

        Of course Ashley’s mismanagement of the club has meant relegation, lost money and all that. Then there is lost commercial revenue and so on. He could probably have charged more for tickets as well though you don’t see to many fans demanding Ashley put ST tickets up to better fund players.

        How hard is it to understand, he takes money over staged payments but does not purchase over staged payments.

        He has that approach because he does not want to bankrupt the club based on the fact that he mismanages it and can’t guarantee PL status and other lucrative cash flows.

        • Ram Kishore

          Despite have 50k fans turning out every week.. the ticket costs haven’t increased even gradually over 10 years

        • TheFatController

          Yes, it’s basically run on bare minimum with a view to being sold at a profit for its potential.

          Potential he hasn’t the motivation or vision to realise …

          • Come&TakeIt1836

            If you end up where several ex-player’s transfer fees are being paid in over time stacked up on top of one another, you maintain a constant inward cash flow. By setting up payments over time, the buyer ends up paying a higher price. If the club can be patient to let enough of these stack up, you don’t need the current player being sold’s cash all at once because you have 10 other ex-player’s installments coming in. It allows for a £3M player to be sold for £4M, a £10M player sell for £13M or a Sissoko sell for £30M when he is only worth £22M (or whatever) thus generating more cash than you’d otherwise have.

            The trick is getting through the build up phase without running out of cash…

          • Damon Horner

            First of all though he has to be sure the squad is strong enough to maintain PL status and the other is it implied a big assumption we’d have regular assets to sell which won’t hurt us enough if we lose them. Personally I can see the benefits of it succeeding but consider that strategy a risk if relegation is always a stronger possibility.

          • Come&TakeIt1836

            I agree. If this is his strategy, it can help insulate against times with poor cash flow but it is a risk early on. He may be counting on Rafa being able to make it succeed. The question is really if Rafa was brought into the loop on the plan and is onboard. It is a long term strategy and could be a pretty smart idea but Rafa may want a more ‘win/spend now’ approach. Certainly the fans generally want this.

          • Geordiegiants

            With that logic it’s all simple, but it’s been 11 years now, and still not a penny in the bank. In fact another 15m added to the debt.

    • Billmag

      If as you say this club is skint then I’m sorry to say that your lord and master has been raiding the piggy bank, if it is true then it is all the more reason your master has made a right pig’s ear of the last 11 years.

      • Duh

        I’ve not looked at the accounts and I don’t know if they publish a balance sheet. However, from what I gather, there are considerable assets on the books relating to debts owed to the club from player purchases by other clubs. So the cash is not in the bank, it can’t be recalled but it will be paid over time

        • Billmag

          The bottom line is we are not skint as Monkseaton suggests.

      • Monkseaton Magpies

        It is the amount of wages we pay compared to other clubs and having ten players on the books who never play on big money.
        In the Championship our wages were double of our two rivals.

        • Billmag

          Defoe age 30+ on high wages at Bournemouth with gates 10,000 how.??

      • molend

        This is the real point, isn’t it? People can argue over details, but in the end it comes down to the fact that the club has been run badly. Whatever the reasons, we’re not generating enough commercial revenue, the transfer payments policy is not appropriate, the accounts are not exactly transparent, the owner has absolutely no rapport with the fans. Given the fundamental soundness of the club in terms of fan base, the financial plight is due either to incompetence or a delibreate model unsuited to a football club. Put simply, why do we not, after 11 years, have more money?

        • Wezza147

          Because MA has pocketed hundred and of millions of pounds. What’s even more shocking is that it’s his business so he can do what he likes and does. The greed is staggering.

    • TheFatController

      Now then, what did Keegan say about Ashley…? Was it ‘he’s great!’ ?…no, not that… ‘he spends!’ ? No, still not right…

      Oh yes, I remember now. Keegan said about Ashley ‘he lies’.

      Maybe Rafa agrees? Just my shot in the dark for what it’s worth.

      • Monkseaton Magpies

        Keegan walked out on the Halls and Shepherds twice that I know of over money so it was no surprise he fell out with Ashley. In court he was only proven 8 per cent of his thirty million claim.

        • Fireman Sam

          Who do you want to believe? Why?

    • Damon Horner

      Looking away from the fact you believe only you, Clarko and Fleckman are the only ones here remotely intelligent and let’s assume you’re right. When does this sports institution try to compete for honours or strive to be the best it can be then or are we a business now?

      • Monkseaton Magpies

        It is not about intelligence but looking at the accounts and the fact that our wage bill is to high compared to our income. We also paid ten million bonuses a bit like Sports Direct who pay massive bonuses to any one who works full time.

        • Damon Horner

          Thats it though. People can see it but people cant relate to why things are the way they ate. Here is an example, looking at our players own experience and achievements, do you not question why we pay them seemingly more than our rivals?

        • Fireman Sam

          Rubbish! The wage bill is bottom half in the Premier league. In those accounts they had added nearly £40m to the wage bill that shouldn’t have been there.

          The increase to the wage bill was the equivalent of us signing 12 Jonjo Shelveys. If you believ it to be true, you are on another planet.

          • mactoon

            Player bonuses payable after the protracted negotiations between Lascelles and Ashley?

          • Monkseaton Magpies

            The wage bill was correct and included £10m of bonus payments which have to be declared in the accounts. They also had to make a provision for £15m for wages for players who are surplus to requirements like Collback..
            We pay Rafa good money.

      • Geordiegiants

        🤣😂🤣😂 Clarko and intelligence in the same sentence, give owa man!!!!!

        • Damon Horner

          Definitely said tongue in cheek! Monkseaton Mag believes that though which is why I said it.

          • Geordiegiants

            I got it, but couldn’t resist a little one myself. 👍

          • Damon Horner

            I noticed, you frequently “encourage” him. 🤣

          • Geordiegiants

            Not that he needs it 🤯, but yeah he is good fun.

    • Fireman Sam

      1) how much does NUFC generate from Sports Direct advertising?

      2) how much does NUFC get from the club shop? Baring in mind pre Ashley it was over £3m p.a.

      3) What will you say this time next year when Mike makes this seasons TV money magically dissapear ?

      • Monkseaton Magpies

        As Ashley saves us round £8m in interest payments with his interest free loan which we were paying Barclays before his arrival he is entitled to some free adverting. He does not take any money out the club except repayment of loans as the money mostly goes on wages.

  • Down Under Mag

    This is sadly the reality of how we do business…we are willing to sell on a deferred payment plan but want to pay for all of our buys upfront. If anyone thinks this is not done as a deliberate act to keep the spending low but still “every penny the club generates” then you have blinkers on. But yes, we could sell players for 50m but this will no doubt only generate a fraction of that up front that would be available to spend…the rest will be secreted away in the books behind vague terms to describe costs at the club. If the club is indeed skint then something is truly wrong with the running of the club and no wonder the tax man has been raiding the offices…

    • Clarko

      No we are not ‘willing to sell on a deferred payment plan but want to pay for all of our buys upfront’ and even if that were the case we would be receiving money from previous windows now and that would be available dummy.

      • nufcslf

        Fatty’s already pocketed that money from previous windows…..dummy, as you say. Probably the only football term you know…………

        • FatParosite

          Put the ‘Dummy’ in the ‘blocked trolls looking for thrills club’

          • Geordiegiants

            You can’t block Clarko he is the most entertaining creature on here.

          • HarryHype59

            Creature being the operative adjective.

        • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

          Has he, all the evidence says no but you know better because…….?

        • Clarko

          Accounts:

          ‘Included within trade debtors are amounts totalling £60.7m relating to the consideration receivable for the sale of player registrations, including £38.7m expected to be recovered in more than twelve months.’

          Dummy.

    • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

      No, when we were cash rich we paid up front to drive the prices down. Now we pay in installments in the same way as we receive.

      Dean, the author is just a bit simple.

      • Fireman Sam

        What aftershave do you wear? Eau de Mike ashleys toilette?

        • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

          OK brainbox, i can’t cope with your high intellect and incredible sense of humour.

    • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

      Except of course it’s not but hey ho, who needs facts

  • Whitehurst

    He gave that feckwit McClaren £80m…but he gives Rafa naff all!! The fat one doesn’t want to get burnt again. Scandalous!!

    • Geordiegiants

      He never gave that tool a penny, The chatty man “Invested” that and gave Schteve zero say on any of those signings.

      • Mark Potter

        Is there any evidence of that? I’ve not seen any that Maclaren wasn’t responsible for bringing in new players. He was appointed as a Director of the club to try to emphasise that he had a say in all aspects of the running of the business.

        • Geordiegiants

          Yes he said when he left he had no control and it was a mistake coming because of that.

          • Mark Potter

            My recollection was the opposite. When appointed he was often praised as a good coach having performed well in the Netherlands as a European style coach, but felt not to be up to the job of manager.

            Do you have a quote from him after he left?

          • Geordiegiants

            You aren’t Clarko are you? 😃

  • Vodkamagpie

    Interesting fact for all ashley haters. In the past four seasons, Newcastle have bought players for 204Mil, that’s an average of 51mil per season over the last four years. And let me add, that includes one season in the championship. How do most of you post on here , claiming ashley spends absolutely no money, we going to get free transfers, loans. And yet, 51Mil per year

    • Megatron1505

      Take a look how much money has come in from transfers out, readjust your figures, then come back and tell us how much has actually been spent.

      • Vodkamagpie

        Sold 134mil in the same period, and as we know, that’s payment plans over a long period

        • FatParosite

          More net spend amaurosis from a brand new member of the blocked trolls looking for thrills club.

        • Megatron1505

          We’ve averaged a spend of £700’000 per transfer window in the last 11 years. Hardly competing is it?

          • Vodkamagpie

            That’s impossible

          • Megatron1505

            For any other club sure, for us it’s standard. We’ve had four windows where we spent nothing, and who can forget when Pardew fluked 5th place and we strengthened by adding only “Big” Vern.

            There has been plenty written on this at The Swiss Ramble, and on this very site. Look it up and come back with what you find.

          • Vodkamagpie

            No need, I’m certain if I was stealing money from the club, I wouldn’t be spending 204Mil on players over the last 4 years

          • Megatron1505

            Although if you had recouped almost all of that over the longer term, whilst scamming free advertising and taking a large slice of commercial payments, all whilst spending only £700k per window and presiding over two relegations….you may see why people call you a crook.

            Especially when your cheer leaders applaud you for adding interest free debt to the club to pay for relegations caused by your own incompetence.

          • Vodkamagpie

            Where do you get 700k?. Free advertising is fine, benefits his other asset more than it would us. Slice of commercial pie?. Relegation happens for a number of reasons

          • Megatron1505

            From the numerous articles written on the subject which I mentioned previously and told you to go and read, Literally three comments above this one.

            Seriously, if your reading comprehension is this bad I’m not sure what else I can do to help you with this.

            Now away with you, obvious troll.

          • Vodkamagpie

            Yes, the Swiss ramble, that was so insightful, really not. Fans claim ashley doesn’t spend money on transfers, yet 204Mil in 4 years has been spent, that is a fact. For any fan claiming otherwise, is a joke

          • Megatron1505

            Ok, last try.

            If you buy something for £10, then sell something for £9 you can still claim that you spent £10. However, it is a fact with context in terms of how much money you have remaining due to the £9 sale. Honestly, it’s really not that hard.

            As for your £204m claim, I take it you are using Transfermarkts assumes amounts as most of our deals are not revealed in terms of cost. So again, information without context.

          • Vodkamagpie

            Fans claim ashley doesn’t spend money, which is incorrect. 204Mil going out, 134Mil coming in, within the last 4 years. That 134Mil coming in, is mostly installments. Now if you or I, were stealing money from the club, we wouldn’t have 204Mil going out the club, it would be a much lesser sum, especially considering 134Mil coming in, over the next few years. Can you understand my point, straightforward

          • Megatron1505

            Ok, here are the top flaws in your argument…..there are more but I’m tired and bored with this….

            1) Your time period is selective, go over the entire Ashley reign and view the real picture.

            2) You’re working with assumed information which has not been revealed. So anything said on this subject lacks facts, exactly as Ashley wants it.

            3) Ashley himself imposed the staggered payments condition, so to use it as a defence of spending is disingenuous at best.

            4) You’re arguing a straw man of theft. I haven’t posed that he does take money, I pose an argument as to why making such assumption cannot be seen as surprising.

            Should we continue?

          • Vodkamagpie

            1) it takes time to get the club out of the financial disaster it was at the time of ashleys arrival.
            2)applies to your information aswel. You would assume if the club say they sold a player for 10Mil, then they sold the player for 10Mil
            3)staggered payments are more beneficial for the club long term. Sell player x for 20Mil cash immediately , or sell player x for 30Mil over 5years.
            4)generally fans accuse ashley of lack of ambition, theft, mismanagement .
            Let’s agree to disagree

          • Mark Potter

            Staggered payments may or may not be more beneficial. Most of us find staggered payments to fund the purchase of large items to be beneficial. Such as houses and cars. But you pay less money in the long term if you pay upfront. We use financial institutions to help us stagger the payments in the form of a loan.

            If someone offered to buy your house by paying you £50k now, £50k next year and £50k the year after that, so you would have to move out, but not be able to pay off your mortgage, then you couldn’t do it. But if you are a business that owns lots of houses, and don’t have a mortgage on them, then selling a £130k house in installments that bring in £150k over three years might be attractive.

          • Vodkamagpie

            Yes, true. Don’t you believe spending 51Mil per season on new additions to the squad is a decent amount. And that average should hopefully increase with the decent results we are achieving on the field currently

          • Mark Potter

            Where did you get the “Ashley himself imposed the staggered payments condition”? Surely Liverpool and Spurs imposed the staggered payments for Wijnaldum and Sissoko. They wouldn’t (and perhaps couldn’t) pay the full amounts up front. I suspect all of the top clubs do this, spreading the costs of transfers over several years.

            Ashley had done the opposite surely? The club offering to pay upfront transfer fees for players we were buying had secured several players at reasonable amounts over the years. This was often cited as something that gave us an advantage in the transfer market.

            That seemed to have changed for the first time that we know last year. Eibar wanted Newcastle to pay upfront for Lejeune, but Rafa refused. Transfer talks went on for some weeks while this was thrashed out. We don’t know the exact terms that were agreed, and whether Newcastle did indeed stagger payments for Lejeune, or pay a (reduced) amount in one go. But briefly the lid was lifted on this issue in the media, and it seems thst Rafa wanted to use staggered payments and loans to eke out the small amount of money he had to spend last summer. No-one at the club, or the owner, were standing in his way insisting that Lejeune should be a one-off payment, as Eibar wanted.

            We can assume that Rafa did the same with other deals, as well as the two loan to buy later deals (Merino and Dubravka) to ensure the club didn’t pay upfront, but spread the payments into at least this financial year, when they have all the Sky TV money. He may also have done it the previous season when buying Gayle, Ritchie, Clarke etc. We literally have no idea whether the club paid for any of those deals upfront. Nor do we know whether Townsend and others were sold on staggered terms.

            We found out about Liverpool playing Wijnaldum in a CL Final while still having not finished paying for him, only because the Director felt on the advice of his accountants that he should specifically refer to the sale of Wijnaldum and Sissoko in the accounts. It had appeared in the media that Newcastle had income of over £50m from those two sales. The club didn’t, they had a fraction of it only. And that must have been a considerable risk that the club couldn’t pay it’s own debts last season, while other Premier League clubs owed them so much money. The Director must give an honest and fair reflection of the club’s financial position. That small note tagged on to the end of the 2016 accounts told us much about the transfer arrangements of other clubs, and the dodgy financial position of NUFC following relegation.

          • Megatron1505

            My, what a big bag of assumptions you have.

          • Mark Potter

            It’s called evidence. Something you have none of for your assertion.

          • Megatron1505

            Apart from it isn’t though is it Mark, it’s your opinion on what you think might have happened.

          • Mark Potter

            The Eibar transfer saga was revealed in the media. Not my opinion. The Wijnaldum and Sissoko transfers were revealed in the accounts. Rafa’s transfer policy was revealed in a statement from the club before the end of the 2016-17 season. Not my opinion.

            Ashley insists on staggered payments. Apparently your opinion, based on nothing you care to share with us. So far as I can tell, “popular opinion” from Mag contributors, who failed to read or understand what tbe club revealed in the 2016 accounts. The accepted narrative was that the club was swimming in money, despite relegation, and could and should have been spending £50m+ last summer. None of them stopped to think what if much of that £50m+ isn’t in the bank, but still owed by the clubs who bought Janmaat, Townsend, Wijnaldum, Sissoko etc. They preferred to tell lies, that Ashley was deliberately not “supporting” the manager, rather than admitting that the manager probably did in fact get all of the money that was available last summer.

          • Megatron1505

            Mark, your essays are very wordy. However, when something is “revealed” in the media it does not make it a fact, even children know this.

            Also, when you use the word “assume” you are admitting you don’t know the facts.

          • Vodkamagpie

            It appears I’m way out of my league discussing monies with you too guys. I’ll stick to scouting players etc lol 😁

      • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

        €35m according to Transfermkt if you include Merino.

    • Fireman Sam

      How many players have we got going to the World Cup?

      • Vodkamagpie

        Random question , not sure?, dubravka, mitrovic, think that’s it, and your point is??

  • HarryHype59

    This article reflects what I said last summer. The way Ashley conducts transfers, massively handicaps the managers ability to bring in genuine EPL quality players as part of a strategically sound recruitment policy.

    Rafa could have brought in a £24m striker last summer, if Ashley had allowed Rafa to sign players on staggered payments. That signing would have been funded by the future payments owed by Spurs for Sisoko.

    Instead the manager is constrained by what is In the kitty, resulting in signing sub standard players like the Hoss.

    Until the Fat one changes this approach, this club will be perennial EPL also fans and will be relegated again once Rafa leaves.

    • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

      Same for you Harry, bet it’s more than £10m this summer.

      • Geordiegiants

        How much more Bobbi?

        • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

          The article claims no more than £10m will be spent because of some imaginary purchase policy that Dean has made up.

          I bet that the net spend is more than £10m it could be much more, it could be a penny more but I bet £25 that the net spend is £10,000,000.01 or more.

    • Leazes.

      He didn’t need staggered payments there was money there.

      • Fireman Sam

        ‘Should’ be money there

      • HarryHype59

        True, but Phatz drip feeds the manager money on a piece meal basis, resulting in an artificial ceiling for players.

  • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

    What a wonderful article. Take some imaginary figures, ignore any facts and completely misinterperate what was actually said and come up with a scenario that looks really bad.

    Utter rubbish Dean, frustrating to read as people will believe it true.

    I offer this to anyone I disagreed with, Dean I bet to £25 that our net spend this summer is more than £10m you predict / appear to believe.

    Come on Dean, put up or shut up.

    • Fireman Sam

      Are you firmly embedded in Mike ashleys chocolate starfish?

      • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

        I’m not, I just work to facts. Would you like to take a bet with me if you believe Dean is right?

        I bet you £25 that our net spend will be a minimum of £10m as stated by Transfermkt.

        Put up or shut up.

        • Geordiegiants

          That is what Dean has just said, £10m. Then you say he making it up, then want to bet people £10m is the minimum.

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            I want people to stand by their claims. I suspect Dean does not really believe in what he’s written.

          • Geordiegiants

            I suspect we won’t have a net spend of very much more than £10m if even £10m as well.

          • Dont stop bobbi fleckman

            Want a bet?