NJS

The current alternative is relegation. I'd also point out that nearly all of the "wasters" on high wages were signed under his ownership.

The possibilities are there - a Jack Walker/Steve Gibson type philanthropic injection for one. Many people sort of expected that of Ashley including me to some extent - of course you could argue it from an investment pov rather than pure philanthropy as well. If you buy a run down house you will put money into it with a view to a later return.

No - see my other posts

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale. I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it. What scenarios do you envisage being a problem? This is why I admit to being irrational - I'm not clear in my own mind how it could be used but my mistrust of the man makes me believe there must be a way. Say a consortium of NE businesses expressed an interest but were unwilling to pay the full asking price. However there was considerable public backing for the bid which went beyond mafia banners. Ashley decides to take say £150m for the club to save the hassle but keeps the loan. That could then become a millstone around the clubs neck. Whereas if as mentioned above the loan did not exist any leeway in the price negotiations would be completely free from complications. To be clear I recognise that at present it is better for the club that it owes money to Ashley rather than the bank - I'm just not completely worry free.

My concern isn't about the "present" as it were in him calling it in - I just feel uneasy about it being used as a bargaining chip as part of a future sale. I know I'm being irrational to an extent which is why if there is something like a good tax reason for it I'd be happy to hear it.

That's raising the possibility of something that would never happen though, even if the ground loan hadn't been subject to the clearance clause, why would NR, Barclays or any of the other owed parties have suddenly called them in? Hall raised this same possibility when he took over about the Barclays overdraft and I didn't believe him then either. Of course I accept the point about saved interest.

Being honest, if the proposed plans for Chelsea moving to Battersea and selling Stamford bridge come off, £660m would be far too low a figure. I hate to sound like a capitalist but a business is worth what people are willing to pay for it which is why I've argued in the past for him taking a hit on his £250m. This why valuations based on the stadium, the squad and what has been put in, in whatever form become a bit moot imo - that's why I'd prefer less "confusion" (even if its only mine) on things like the debt.

Again "paid off" in that context implies what you or I would do if we were given what we owed on our houses - no debt would remain - here it does. edit: the "appears happy" is my point of concern as mentioned in my other post.

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free. Well, then Im stumped, i dont see what you're critical point is then? By the same logic Roman deserve slander not credit. There are two reasons why I highlight it - one "petty" and one which worries me. Firstly it shows the lack of clarity - we've heard the phrase "don't owe a penny to anyone" thrown about and general confusion over things like the outstanding transfer fees - I see it as another communication failure. Secondly unless an accountant can give me a good reason for it to be a loan I don't "trust" why it exists. I don't think the price he wants is a good enough reason to justify it being on the books. If he had truly paid the debt off ie as a "gift" then he could still demand his £250m with the simple explanation of getting his money back which most people accept. I worry that he could change the terms of the loan "on a whim" as part of any proposed deal. I admit to not being sure what he could do but simply mistrust him short of good reasons for its presence.

Its perfectly legitimate but the club owes him the money nontheless - the club is not debt free.

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally. NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity. Is that a ltd company, meaning it had issued shares, which were owned by a number of different people/organisations, or were you the sole share-holder? Because unless you owned it in its entirety despite what you say being absolutely correct, it's not really the same thing, is it. It was a standard limited company that contractors use - it had one share which I owned. I could both lend money to and borrow from the company and charge any interest rate I liked (obviously zero). If Mike Ashley owns 100% of SJH Limited which owns the club then there is no difference as far as I can see.

When I was a contractor and director of a ltd company there was a completely legitimate notion of "the company" and the "director" ie me personally. NUFC and Mike Ashley are not the same entity.

I recognise that but still think he has made numerous mistakes, has a fundamental lack of understanding about football in general and NUFC in particular, think the reasons he has done things is wrong, think that he lacks any kind of ambition aimed in the right direction and don't trust anything the man says or does.

£7m for Bergkamp, £3.5m for Viera, £11m for Henry, £500k for Anelka. Thats the model we're after now. That was when 11m was a lot of money though - I thought Anelka cost more - fair enough.

I see what you're getting at but remember what Arsenal paid for Bergkamp, Henry, Anelka and Vieira. They were always quite big spenders before Wenger as well.

Enlighten me, why haven?t we splashed the cash? There isn't any cash. I'm sure other teams like Hull haven't had a few million sitting there waiting to be spent - they've taken a modest gamble to try and ensure safety - something Ashley could do.

Arsenal's team aren't exactly North Londoners are they so all they've done is recruit earlier - I don't see what the difference is overall. I can't think of any successful team that you could argue was truly "home made" - either in terms of locals or even in youth team players. Man U had an extraordinary crop with Giggs etc but that was a one-off.

I don't get that at all - Wise was spending money on Xisco on Gonzales when all Keegan wanted was a left back. We made a £3m net profit that window. Its a moot point trying to guess who Keegan wanted but if i was to guesd id say Dunne represented a good guess, compare him to Bassong and you see the importance of Wise and the system. Dunne would of been on high wages, would have cost a fee and was 28 with no sell on value. Bassong , is on lower wages, cost a smaller fee and is a lot younger with a potnetially larger sell on value. Its blantently obvious that Bassong makes more sense to the club. With the account sheet on hand, you can cleary see the importance of choosing Bassong over Dunne and credit has to go for Wise and co for finding him becasue im pretty confiddent that if Keegan had free reign we;d have Dunne here. Im not trying to smear Keegans name (although it does seem that way) all i doing is highlighting the importance of the policy. EDIT: just noticed you meant the team over keegan, its just that Wise is the one thats been villified by many on these boards so i assumed thats what you meant. What you say makes sense but my view is has an element of hindsight in Bassong's obvious promise versus Dunne's proven experience - I think its an argument you can have over individual players but I don't like the suggestion that it's an all one way or the other situation. Guthrie is normally described as a "Keegan signing" but shares attributes with which you describe Bassong.

That's the one thing in these accounts I'm prepared to fully admit I was wrong on. (Though his statement was written in hindsight to cover that rather than being part of his original plan imo)

I wanted an attacking midfielder as well but felt and still feel that the jury is still out on Enrique and Zog is a stop gap.

I don't get that at all - Wise was spending money on Xisco on Gonzales when all Keegan wanted was a left back. Wise or Jimenez? I don't really get where this opinion that Ashley backed Wise over Keegan anyway. Agreed - his team vs Keegan is probably more accurate but I still think there was a shift making Wise more central as the summer went on - just my obviously biased reading of it of course - just like everyone elses.

I don't get that at all - Wise was spending money on Xisco on Gonzales when all Keegan wanted was a left back.

I can see him being in a quandary at the moment - if the club was still officially for sale then nobody would have expected any investment but after having come out with statement last month he's put the pressure of expectation back on himself. I also think Kinnear has told one truth in all of this - they honestly have not realised what danger we are in of going down.

I've made a few posts where I've said that his lack of ambition/speculation is much more of an issue for me than the Keegan thing - though I do think he got that badly wrong. I agree that improvement is a better measure than "money out" but then if so fundamental to the business why appoint a very inexperienced team?

Link? Come on Dave, we all remember it. I remember him appointing Kevin Keegan and saying money was there 'if Kevin wanted' a player. Seems a bit at odds with the pretty straightforward explanation that we're skint as fuck. Theres still no suggestion that he wouldnt puthis and in his pocket when keegan was signed - hence the bid for AModric amongst others. We knew that finances were tight at the point that mort said "we were close to collapsing like a house of cards". I dont understand, though at which point did you think we were ever flushed after the owner having to put £100m into the club to keep us afloat? I didn't expect £100m budgets but I did expect a realisation that the only way to any success was through moderate speculation - a view I still take even in light of these figures.