• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

NUFC thread 2021.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grumpy Old Man said:
There was no reason why they would fail as individuals (ie evidence of insolvency or certain criminal offences, which is all the test covers). Apart from that, there is a review of the business plan proposed. The financial structure of a deal is not part of the test, except where there it might invalidate the business plan.
Click to expand...
You've made my point exactly - a review of the business plan - a leveraged buyout, is not in the best interest of the club in any way.
 

Exile 1968 said:
Why has Mike Ashley GOT to be purposely trying to relegate them. Why can't they accept this is their place and the fact is they're the worst team in the PL by a country mile.

If they go down its because they're shit, not through a vindictive plan by Ashley

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
They had a few seasons of nearly, almost rans. Won nothing. They are now back to their natural status. It’s really that simple but they cant accept it.
I was going to say they can’t accept they aren’t special, but they are very special, not in a complimentary way 🤣🤣
 
Exile 1968 said:
Why has Mike Ashley GOT to be purposely trying to relegate them. Why can't they accept this is their place and the fact is they're the worst team in the PL by a country mile.

If they go down its because they're shit, not through a vindictive plan by Ashley

You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Steve Thickey.
 
skullmeister said:
I'm surprised at how many people are convinced they will be fine. They've just been taken apart by a team that has only won 1 home game all season. They don't look capable of winning a game, draws at best the way they are set up and have infighting behind the scenes. It's all going one way for me.
Click to expand...

yet if it was us in the mags' position, the majority on here would have us as certainty for relegation
 
nessen said:
2 wins out of the last 20 games. It just goes to show how shit it is being a fan of a mediocre premier league team.
Click to expand...
Aye 18 games in the league and 2 games in the cup defeats. This is the table of points picked up since the Mags last had a 'winning' spell after beating WBA on Dec 12th :lol::lol: Fulham unbeaten away from home in 8 matches getting 12 points! :confused: Though looking at the home games, it was Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, Leicester, Spurs and Leeds who beat them

You must be logged on to see external links


Logon or register to see this image
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thier stock answer to any sort of criticism on Twitter has changed from “Net Spend” via “investment in the region” to “effecting my mental health”
 
What A Waster said:
All the local journalists have now said his time is up tonight. The club have, in the past, banned the local media for negative stories. But tonight they've all said time is up. Even the correspondents for the nationals have said the same. The club will have to ban all written media at this rate.
Click to expand...

Well they seem to have banned management competency, future planning, efficient training and positive football. So why not ban the press too?
 
Cloughie said:
You've made my point exactly - a review of the business plan - a leveraged buyout, is not in the best interest of the club in any way.
Click to expand...

The PL and EFL clearly feel their business plans are/were sustainable. Bear in mind these plans are subject to auditors' reviews on their credibility; the buyers' numbers aren't just waved through.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The PL and EFL clearly feel their business plans are/were sustainable. Bear in mind these plans are subject to auditors' reviews on their credibility; the buyers' numbers aren't just waved through.
Click to expand...
I'm aware, and I think this is an instance of the PL being on the right side of the law, the wrong side of the argument. The Burnley one is a particularly egregious instance, and I believe there are conflicts of interest aplenty with that one.

I've already stated my objection to the Saudi takeover, no argument from me on rejecting that one. Where I do take issue is the fact an Ashley, an Oyston, a Donald, can bleed a club and face no consequences. If you can't catch them coming through the gate then you should at least be able to do something thereafter. They have mechanisms like this in US Sports, but that's a different situation.
Norma Stitz said:
I know Bruce has a lot of friends in the media that will back him no matter what happens. But I honestly can't recall any players who have played under him come out and say what a good manager he is.
Click to expand...
Rowan Vine -no great shakes, I know- is the latest one. He really is a coward of a man.
 
Cloughie said:
I'm aware, and I think this is an instance of the PL being on the right side of the law, the wrong side of the argument. The Burnley one is a particularly egregious instance, and I believe there are conflicts of interest aplenty with that one.

I've already stated my objection to the Saudi takeover, no argument from me on rejecting that one. Where I do take issue is the fact an Ashley, an Oyston, a Donald, can bleed a club and face no consequences. If you can't catch them coming through the gate then you should at least be able to do something thereafter. They have mechanisms like this in US Sports, but that's a different situation.

Rowan Vine -no great shakes, I know- is the latest one. He really is a coward of a man.
Click to expand...
Egregious! Definitely Fish! Just use your old username as we know where we stood with that one.
 
Cloughie said:
I'm aware, and I think this is an instance of the PL being on the right side of the law, the wrong side of the argument. The Burnley one is a particularly egregious instance, and I believe there are conflicts of interest aplenty with that one.

I've already stated my objection to the Saudi takeover, no argument from me on rejecting that one. Where I do take issue is the fact an Ashley, an Oyston, a Donald, can bleed a club and face no consequences. If you can't catch them coming through the gate then you should at least be able to do something thereafter. They have mechanisms like this in US Sports, but that's a different situation.

Rowan Vine -no great shakes, I know- is the latest one. He really is a coward of a man.
Click to expand...

Define bleed. There is no evidence that either Ashley or Donald have withdrawn funds from either club for their personal enrichment. They don't even take salaries. Any contracts with Sports Direct have to be at arms length value by law, and Sports Direct and Ashley are different persons in law anyway. I'll give you the Oystons.
 
jlaws said:
Egregious! Definitely Fish! Just use your old username as we know where we stood with that one.
Click to expand...
I'll happily bet you any sum I'm not.
Grumpy Old Man said:
Define bleed. There is no evidence that either Ashley or Donald have withdrawn funds from either club for their personal enrichment. They don't even take salaries. Any contracts with Sports Direct have to be at arms length value by law, and Sports Direct and Ashley are different persons in law anyway. I'll give you the Oystons.
Click to expand...
Well that's the beauty of the grift, it's not like a corner shop where you dip your hand directly in the till.

It's things like taking on the club knowing you can't fund it, and when your plan to go up fails you start selling off the assets (academy lads) to keep the fire going. Running a skeleton academy set-up etc.

With Ashley, it's a more subtle one. It's not paying us across numerous years for advertising that would usually pocket the club millions. When he did finally contribute something he refused to say what it was. There is also a very murky understanding between our club's retail arm and how that relates to Sports Direct/Ashley.

Cast in point, the Puma kit deal:
You must be logged on to see external links


I will concede, Ashley falls more into the good faith category of bad owner, but the notion he's anything but a bad owner doesn't pass the smell test. Even at our worst, we were a stable Premier League club. Now we're a yo-yo side.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top