• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

MP takes on Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley over his 'exploitation' of the club

Status
Not open for further replies.
What A Waster said:
Why are you embarrassed by it?

I'm not embarrassed by the behaviour of other people, but I think being so reactionary and living in only peaks or troughs doesn't help.
However, this behaviour under Ashley's ownership of always doing just enough, the bare minimum to get by is counter productive. Always gambling on 'just enough' paying off.
Click to expand...
Why should he do anything else?

You lot turn up regardless and he uses your turd of a club as a massive advertising hording.

Win win for the big fella.
 

Ashley In!! said:
You really don't understand it do you? The wages thing is called a "provision" which is putting it in as an amount owed in the future. The cash and loans are facts.

You're throwing accusations about at an owner when you don't even understand the basics.
Click to expand...

Why put it in if it hasn't been budgeted for? Is there going to be a hole in next year's accounts for these contracts if the players have moved on (one of which already has)? The provision is already there on an annual basis via the length of the contracts and can be tied to cash flow that way.

It's been put as a full cost in this years accounts, you can't do that without it affecting your end of year balance (cash at bank).
 
Last edited:
What A Waster said:
Why are you embarrassed by it?

I'm not embarrassed by the behaviour of other people, but I think being so reactionary and living in only peaks or troughs doesn't help.
However, this behaviour under Ashley's ownership of always doing just enough, the bare minimum to get by is counter productive. Always gambling on 'just enough' paying off.
Click to expand...
You want him to gamble with your club really take a risk ? If that backfires how will you protest against that ?
 
Here's her latest tweet.

@ChiOnwurah: One funny point, the Journal Office who reviews petitions asked me if I had any interest to declare. I said I was a united fan myself. They said that didn't count as I didn't derive any material benefit from it.
You must be logged on to see external links
 
Secret Visage said:
Why should he do anything else?

You lot turn up regardless and he uses your turd of a club as a massive advertising hording.

Win win for the big fella.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. He knows that.

When we played spurs in april or may 2015 and there was a boycott of the game, probably only 20k attended despite an official attendance of 47k, the final home game of that season against west ham was where he spoke in public for the first time, then sanctioned £80m of spending for McClaren. Clearly that didn't work out, but i think the protests had an effect or else why seek out an interview with Sky? Why change your whole M.O. the following summer
 
What A Waster said:
Completely agree. He knows that.

When we played spurs in april or may 2015 and there was a boycott of the game, probably only 20k attended despite an official attendance of 47k, the final home game of that season against west ham was where he spoke in public for the first time, then sanctioned £80m of spending for McClaren. Clearly that didn't work out, but i think the protests had an effect or else why seek out an interview with Sky? Why change your whole M.O. the following summer
Click to expand...

But, but, but nothing affects him whatsoever. He doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks about him.

You only need to see his panic when he put his wallet down in the view of cameras to see how he doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks...
 
What A Waster said:
Completely agree. He knows that.

When we played spurs in april or may 2015 and there was a boycott of the game, probably only 20k attended despite an official attendance of 47k, the final home game of that season against west ham was where he spoke in public for the first time, then sanctioned £80m of spending for McClaren. Clearly that didn't work out, but i think the protests had an effect or else why seek out an interview with Sky? Why change your whole M.O. the following summer
Click to expand...

So he did as you wanted him too and splashed the cash, it didn't work (your words) and you're still twisting on, why on earth should he spend any more of HIS money.

He's invested over a quarter of a billion pounds on you and can do what he wishes.
 
Tin Soldier said:
You want him to gamble with your club really take a risk ? If that backfires how will you protest against that ?
Click to expand...

He gambles with it all the time. Sometimes he's lucky sometimes not.
Here's some examples.

Not strengthening in summer 2012 was a gamble especially with European games added in(6 players out, one in). After being in a relegation battle players were signed in January 2013. Safety confirmed at game 37.

Another gamble-
14/15 After Pardew left at xmas in mid table, no signings made in the January, Carver given til the end of the season, safety assured game 38.

15/16 McClaren appointed, a gamble in itself, around £60m spent. Bottom 3 from the end of august apart from 2 weeks in December. Does he sack him? Gambles on him turning it round, more money in January on Shelvey, Townsend, Saivet and Doumbia on loan. Results don't improve. 3 week break between games for fa cup 5th round weekend, league cup final and international break. Return from the break, get humped at home to Bournemouth, then sacks him in March. Relegation follows.

There's no plan to it, its all a roll of the dice year after year hoping things will work out.
 
Sima said:
Why put it in if it hasn't been budgeted for? Is there going to be a hole in next year's accounts for these contracts if the players have moved on (one of which already has)? The provision is already there on an annual basis via the length of the contracts and can be tied to cash flow that way.

It's been put as a full cost in this years accounts, you can't do that without it affecting your end of year balance (cash at bank).
Click to expand...


Wrong again. I've already explained why.
 
Secret Visage said:
So he did as you wanted him too and splashed the cash, it didn't work (your words) and you're still twisting on, why on earth should he spend any more of HIS money.

He's invested over a quarter of a billion pounds on you and can do what he wishes.
Click to expand...

Yes he can do what he wants, does that mean fans just accept it?
Why would Sunderland fans criticise Short when he can do what he wants? Blackpool fans and Oyston, Charlton fans, Villa fans and Lerner, Villa fans and Ellis, Liverpool and Hicks and Gillette, Sunderland and Murray, Man City and Peter Swales, Leeds and Ridsdale, Blackburn and the Venkys, Portsmouth a procession of shite owners....

Just because they own it doesn't mean fans have to accept it. Fans just want what they think is best for their club
 
If I lived in Newcastle I would be more concerned that my MP had a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism, economics and the purpose of the executive and more specfically the House Of Commons of which she is a member.
Enacting laws so that business owners invest money in a way deemed fit by a bunch of no nowt meddlers?
Why not do online polls to determine which players to invest in and enshrine this in law?
And if someone tries to charge too much for a player we can have another law saying they cant.
And a law that says a football club owner needs to say nice things about the local population, because they will be upset if he doesnt.
All these things and more eh because its all so unfair.
 
What A Waster said:
He gambles with it all the time. Sometimes he's lucky sometimes not.
Here's some examples.

Not strengthening in summer 2012 was a gamble especially with European games added in(6 players out, one in). After being in a relegation battle players were signed in January 2013. Safety confirmed at game 37.

Another gamble-
14/15 After Pardew left at xmas in mid table, no signings made in the January, Carver given til the end of the season, safety assured game 38.

15/16 McClaren appointed, a gamble in itself, around £60m spent. Bottom 3 from the end of august apart from 2 weeks in December. Does he sack him? Gambles on him turning it round, more money in January on Shelvey, Townsend, Saivet and Doumbia on loan. Results don't improve. 3 week break between games for fa cup 5th round weekend, league cup final and international break. Return from the break, get humped at home to Bournemouth, then sacks him in March. Relegation follows.

There's no plan to it, its all a roll of the dice year after year hoping things will work out.
Click to expand...
What you mean is he isn't giving Benitez £M's to spend on world class players like London , Manchester and Liverpool teams. You're not in their league man just accept it
 
What A Waster said:
He gambles with it all the time. Sometimes he's lucky sometimes not.
Here's some examples.

Not strengthening in summer 2012 was a gamble especially with European games added in(6 players out, one in). After being in a relegation battle players were signed in January 2013. Safety confirmed at game 37.

Another gamble-
14/15 After Pardew left at xmas in mid table, no signings made in the January, Carver given til the end of the season, safety assured game 38.

15/16 McClaren appointed, a gamble in itself, around £60m spent. Bottom 3 from the end of august apart from 2 weeks in December. Does he sack him? Gambles on him turning it round, more money in January on Shelvey, Townsend, Saivet and Doumbia on loan. Results don't improve. 3 week break between games for fa cup 5th round weekend, league cup final and international break. Return from the break, get humped at home to Bournemouth, then sacks him in March. Relegation follows.

There's no plan to it, its all a roll of the dice year after year hoping things will work out.
Click to expand...

Of course there is, full house every game, barcode shirts sold by the lorry load along with all the other club / sports direct tat.
False hope and still you all turn up.

You lot are the architects of your own misery, Ashley provides the funds for you to do this.
 
Tin Soldier said:
What you mean is he isn't giving Benitez £M's to spend on world class players like London , Manchester and Liverpool teams. You're not in their league man just accept it
Click to expand...

Absolutely not that at all. Sure, all fans dream of that. But being realistic, trying to just improve on the previous season or be as good as you can. A bit of ambition.
As i said earlier and you agreed, a few tweaks. Just to try and do well and improve on the previous year,if you fail so be it, but better to try.
Not wanting to be pulling out £100m on transfer fees, just being able to compete in the transfer market with the likes of Bournemouth would be a start.
Just accepting that today's prices are bigger than they were several years ago and to protect the tv income and the free advertising, you've gotta speculate to accumulate
 
What A Waster said:
Yes he can do what he wants, does that mean fans just accept it?
Why would Sunderland fans criticise Short when he can do what he wants? Blackpool fans and Oyston, Charlton fans, Villa fans and Lerner, Villa fans and Ellis, Liverpool and Hicks and Gillette, Sunderland and Murray, Man City and Peter Swales, Leeds and Ridsdale, Blackburn and the Venkys, Portsmouth a procession of shite owners....

Just because they own it doesn't mean fans have to accept it. Fans just want what they think is best for their club
Click to expand...
Logon or register to see this image


Won't be lang...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top