• 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.

NUFC/Sportwashing

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Fish said:
Fair enough on the Leicester front, didn't know it was that bad. Re: Brentford, they owe less to their owner than we do to ours and we've had 12 years of PL money coming into the club.

They both shown more ambition than we have.
Click to expand...
and 25 years of paying premier league wages that they havent. thats where your money went. its not all just income you know. ambition based on overspending, like you did in the 90s.
 

The Fish said:
If Mike Ashley pumped £40m of the club's money into the training ground and academy there'd be a collective heart attack across Tyneside. Might not scan with your invented caricature of Newcastle fans, but it's true.

Yes they f***ing do, Arsenal, Man Utd, West Ham, Chelsea, Liverpool, have all had protests and cry-arsing about how their clubs are run. Villa fans were livid when they went down and how their club was run. There are a few fanbases who went down with barely a whimper, just a glum acceptance of their fate. You don't seem to see that whatever Burnley fans feel about how they're run, doesn't impact how Newcastle fans about how we're run.



Academy sees no significant investment for 14yrs, and you think that's fine? Also, the "really successful" part of your caveat is doing a fuck ton of heavy lifting. What % of youth products go on to have a "really successful" career?


Pardew was sacked by League 1 Southampton. You cannot sit there with a straight face and say that wasn't a massive gamble for a newly promoted Premier League club? Hughton had never managed before and was given the charge of winning immediate promotion back to the Premier League. That's a massive gamble. Benitez, with his impressive CV was less of a gamble.

Look at the styles of football we've lurched between, this isn't the application of a considered strategy. Even under the previous owners we went from cavalier Keegan to Dour Dalglish, Robson's flowing attacking football, to Souness' shite, Allardyce to Keegan, Keegan to Kinnear, pragmatic Hughton to attacking Pardew, whatever the fuck McClaren was aiming for to pragmatic Benitez, now to 'front foot Bruce'. Where's the long term planning? How can you have long term recruitment plans when the managers play significantly differing styles of coaching, of playing?


He's been here 14 years, he could easily have ring fenced £2m a year from the tv deals, or perhaps paid for the advertising space his companies have enjoyed for nowt. £2m a year upgrading and maintaining the facilities beyond a lick of paint, so that the club isn't a decade behind other PL clubs in this regard.
Click to expand...
You have continued to ignore the questions I have asked and again flipped everything on its head to basically assasinate anything Ashley has potentially done well, to how its a negative, regardless of whatever it is.

At the end of the day, I have my opinion and you have yours. I can’t be arsed to sit and read through any more of your posts when there is zero reasoning or understanding whatsoever, so a debate becomes pointless.

You come across as the absolute epitomy of the stereotypical Mag that people take the piss out of.
Exile 1968 said:
Your 1st reply mate. Didn't Keegan scrap the Reserves and didn't bring anyone through? They were spending and winning and not a thing was said.
Click to expand...
It doesnt matter, It wasn’t under Ashley remember.
 
Read this twitter thread and tell me Ashley has any ambitions for the club beyond survival in the PL.

You must be logged on to see media items
Squat said:
if you'd spent an extra 100m on the infrastructure, you'd just owe ashley another 100m that he'd want back on the sale. thats 450m he'd want.
Click to expand...
What? Why would the club owe Mike Ashley money if the club is using the club's money to invest in the club?
 
The Fish said:
Read this twitter thread and tell me Ashley has any ambitions for the club beyond survival in the PL.

You must be logged on to see media items

What? Why would the club owe Mike Ashley money if the club is using the club's money to invest in the club?
Click to expand...

Where is the 100m coming from? The club doesn't generate 100m surplus so it either has to come as debt or equity. Ashley own's 100% already so that rules an equity injection out so it leaves debt.
 
The Fish said:
Shepherd didn't want to sell, so why would he pull the wool over Ashley's eyes?

by the by, I am fascinated by the perceived wisdom on here that Mike Ashley was the only way the club would have survived financially post Hall & Shepherd.
Click to expand...

Point 1 - Freddie & Dougie had gambled massively whilst rewarding themselves handsomely and the coffers were empty.

Point 2 - It was known within financial sector but very hush hush that NUFC were in deep, deep trouble at that time should they not find a buyer very soon...enter Mike Ashley.
 
The Shepherd said:
Point 1 - Freddie & Dougie had gambled massively whilst rewarding themselves handsomely and the coffers were empty.

Point 2 - It was known within financial sector but very hush hush that NUFC were in deep, deep trouble at that time should they not find a buyer very soon...enter Mike Ashley.
Click to expand...
Excellent article on Shepherd and Hall reign -
You must be logged on to see external links
 
jlaws said:
Where is the 100m coming from? The club doesn't generate 100m surplus so it either has to come as debt or equity. Ashley own's 100% already so that rules an equity injection out so it leaves debt.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. NUFC can issue new shares. The equity injection comes from an increase in share capital. In fact, that's the only form of injection, other than an outright gift, that counts towards FFP limits.
 
Exile 1968 said:
Keith doesn't like anything negative being said about the Saudi Scum as he loves "the Culture"

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Those mags are a friendly bunch and seem to welcome.any healthy debate...should get on well with PIF, great bunch of lads too!

Embarrassing that they can shut their eyes and ears to everything critical and just say "we want out money, we want our money...!!"

Pathetic and whilst I also don't agree with the Chelsea and Man City ownership, the rules were different then...to anyone with a passing interest in this, watch The Dissident on Amazon Prime, google PIF or see Scott Wilson's in piece in the Northern Echo on them to see who they really are and then make a comment.

If the B&W's are so keen on this takeover then the above is a better way to spend a couple of hours this weekend rather than thrapping themselves into a frenzy over a podcast or two....they may then come up with some real answers.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
It doesn't. NUFC can issue new shares. The equity injection comes from an increase in share capital. In fact, that's the only form of injection, other than an outright gift, that counts towards FFP limits.
Click to expand...

But why would he dilute his own ownership? He definitely wouldn't want another shareholder on board muddying the waters.
 
jlaws said:
But why would he dilute his own ownership? He definitely wouldn't want another shareholder on board muddying the waters.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. He buys the new shares. Short did this three times during his ownership of Sunderland. In fairness, it increases his asking price on a sale, just the same as a loan, but there are many valid reason to do so.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
It doesn't. He buys the new shares. Short did this three times during his ownership of Sunderland. In fairness, it increases his asking price on a sale, just the same as a loan, but there are many valid reason to do so.
Click to expand...

The club is roughly valued at a multiple of earnings and him putting 100m into "infrastructure" is not going to increase the short term value. Short was a benevolent owner...Ashley isn't.
 
Mackem2017 said:
Best fans in the world

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Chronicle making a big thing of it (and the Mag fans) yet in reality it wasn't 33,000 watching it all day at the same time. At most there was 4,000 people watching it at the same time.

"There were approximately 33000 views from over 50 countries with an approx. peak of over 4000 concurrent viewers.

I wonder if that is 33,000 views as in people possibly closing the stream and going back later so 2 views or was it 33,000 unique IP addresses? Given the lowish 4,000 concurrent views and higher view number, I'm not sure it will be unique. Surely you'd expect the highest viewing to be near the start to see what it was all about but then people got bored with all the legal jargon so switched off, possibly going back later. Plus how many clicked it just to see WTF it was and then quickly switched off and never went back (I did! :lol:)
 
MackemX said:
Chronicle making a big thing of it (and the Mag fans) yet in reality it wasn't 33,000 watching it all day at the same time. At most there was 4,000 people watching it at the same time.

"There were approximately 33000 views from over 50 countries with an approx. peak of over 4000 concurrent viewers.

I wonder if that is 33,000 views as in people possibly closing the stream and going back later so 2 views or was it 33,000 unique IP addresses? Given the lowish 4,000 concurrent views and higher view number, I'm not sure it will be unique. Surely you'd expect the highest viewing to be near the start to see what it was all about but then people got bored with all the legal jargon so switched off, possibly going back later. Plus how many clicked it just to see WTF it was and then quickly switched off and never went back (I did! :lol:)
Click to expand...
Give it a few years and every single one of them will claim to have been part of the thirty three thoosand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top