NJS

I don't usually agree with the NUSC view but the only reason Liverpool are sought after is because of their sustained success over the decades. Otherwise it was just an ordinairy club in an ordinairy city before Shankly. Not sure that KK would make much difference though. Fair enough but what about the interest in Chelsea who would cost a lot more and I would argue are less prestigious than us historically?

I don't see that as a problem though - surely its a "test of willpower" for the person rather than anything to do with the provider. You could also argue if we do go back to sell out crowds then it would all be extra revenue which would otherwise be untapped.

That was based on assuming transfer investment which I think owners of this type would guarantee. As a bonus I assume we'd get a proper manager as well.

Somebody else is looking at Chelsea. Funny that - I keep getting told that theres absolutlely no way anyone in the world can even contemplate buying a football club. Of course perceived success makes a difference - maybe if we'd had a better squad and kept KK and been higher we could have been sold.

Which I don't get - are they really saying that an appreciable number of people would watch a 3pm KO on TV that they would otherwise have gone to? - if thats the case why are the crowds for televised games not that badly affected. Even worse is the notion that someone would stop in and watch a team other than their own rather than go to a game.

I've been expecting internet rights to be a part of at least the last two tv deals - the fact that they haven't shows that as others have said the PL has its head up its arse when it comes to this. I can see the argument on copyright but I honestly can't see the argument on reducing income - most PL grounds are pretty full and I can't see streams making anything but a negligible difference. Having said that I suppose they could argue that people wouldn't have to get sky but thats an issue for sky not the PL. I honestly think the future is for the clubs to sell "e-tickets" for all their matches and this is what I can't believe they haven't got around to yet.

My thoughts: So as I thought he hasn't cleared the debts - he's just shifted it to a loan owned by himself - I see the difference as being that he can have control of that debt in the future. If these accounts are to June 30th then why was there transfer activity after that if we were penniless? - Was he willing to fund transfers then and if so why not now? It would be interesting from my pov to compare these accounts in general terms with those of other clubs - especially those outside the top 4 who do continue to spend money in the transfer market. Of course some of these other clubs might not have as many players on Viduka/Geremi type wages but they may have more players in larger squads.

Once Owen, Viduka and their like are off the wagebill the club will start generating a profit allowing us to consolidate slowly. Theoretically, after a few years of that we can just pick a moment to take a bit of financial risk to pull us up the table. (The "Villa model" so to speak) Until we get all the wasters off the wagebill though, it does indeed look like we're just going to have to struggle to keep our head above the water and stay in the Premiership. One thing's for sure: the age of "ambitious/insane" Shepherd-level spending is over. Forever. All of the players brought in will have to be on "sensible" wages therefore won't be top notch. This again puts pressure on the scouting/recruitment to find Bassongs more often than not. Again I'd advocate a mixed approach - if we stay up we shouldn't give up the idea of having a couple/a few well paid players.

True - as I've also said before the problem is now that people have seen good times.

Football was different then though - it was a lot cheaper to watch and to travel to and there was also more passion in the crowds imo - which being honest was provided by the extra "hatred" I've talked about before. The funny thing is if we do go down I will definitely go to more away games.

What's wrong with a mixture? Keeping Keegan instead of Wise and spending another £10-15m would probably have seen us qualify for Europe this year - how much will relegation cost?

Not this again. How did it help us? Bar scare off any potential successor? Of all the shit that is spouted on this board this is still the best one. I fucking love the idea that people who would spend hundreds of millions on a business would be put off by what were after all completely peaceful protests.

There may have been a foreclosure - though Barclays would have been mad to do it - but he actually said the club would no longer exist which is the bit that got me. All that would have happened is that we would have done exactly what Boro did - start a new club. I agree about the ground though - I wish he had had the strength to see that through - having the head NIMBY shot would have been a good start.

Number one in a series: "The other team were fired up by Sam" "Kaka was making his debut" "Derbies can always go either way" "West Brom are down there and scrapping and were at home" "Everton are an excellent away side" "Bolton are always hard to play against" "Fuck - good teams"

Exactly - which is why I doubt he could have done anything else with NUFC. When I referred to his return I meant as a figurehead rather than as a prime mover.

I still don't understand the stick Sir John Hall gets. I don't dislike him for what he did - more so because I don't think he was completely honest. I disliked his claim that the club would have gone bust without his intervention and I dislike the way he underplayed how much money he made out of the club despite frequently claiming otherwise. I also found his "Geordie nation" stuff patronising (though not to the same degree as Shepherd's).

Yet Ashley has put more of his own money into the club than either of them, or do you mean the old lot appeased you by spending money in the transfer market, even if we couldn't afford it? As I've said before it isn't fair to "count" the money Ashley has put in until he leaves as he still think of that money as his asset that he wants back. The money that was spent up until probably the last couple of years under Shepherd was affordable - the money to fund Keegan/Dalglish certainly was.

Can I ask why you state that so assuredly? I got the impression he did try but realised it was too much. He owned more than enough of the asset already to put in as security to purchase the rest. I'm not criticising him for getting out, but to say he couldn't have raised the finance if he'd wanted to is naive in the extreme. It would have depended on how determined Ashley was though. If FS wanted to purchase the 70% at £x per share then Ashley could have refused to sell his 40% or entered a bidding war for the remaining shares. I do think his illness was a factor as well in him thinking sod it but I also think if he'd wanted to do what you suggest, there had been nothing stopping him doing it at any time since the Halls took a back seat. Why didn't Shepherd buy out Hall before Ashley could, that's what I can't understand? Couldn't he have put together a consortium with like-minded partners if he didn't have the money alone? Greggs? the Irish Bar? Peter Lee? HTT? Why can't he do it now, if you believe he is the answer? You misunderstand me - I just said if he had raised finance which included transfer money then I think we'd have been better off now - what I was questioning was how easy it would have been or would be now to do that. I honestly think if he could have bought the Halls out he would have done. As for now I would have no objection to him coming back with the right deal.

TBH I trust Hall and Shepherd as much as I trust Ashley when it comes to telling the truth - the only difference was the ambition.

Can I ask why you state that so assuredly? I got the impression he did try but realised it was too much. He owned more than enough of the asset already to put in as security to purchase the rest. I'm not criticising him for getting out, but to say he couldn't have raised the finance if he'd wanted to is naive in the extreme. It would have depended on how determined Ashley was though. If FS wanted to purchase the 70% at £x per share then Ashley could have refused to sell his 40% or entered a bidding war for the remaining shares. I do think his illness was a factor as well in him thinking sod it but I also think if he'd wanted to do what you suggest, there had been nothing stopping him doing it at any time since the Halls took a back seat.

Can I ask why you state that so assuredly? I got the impression he did try but realised it was too much.

Being fair, Shepherd didn't want to sell - I had no time for the Halls (or indeed FS) on a personal level but I know they wanted success. Now I always said the reason they wanted success was to make money and I saw no objection to that because everybody was still happy. Now we have an owner who just wants money. Shepherd didn't have to sell. His only way out was to raise the money to buy more shares once Ashley had made the offer for the rest of the shares - his hand was effectively forced by Ashley/Hall He could have raised the finance. He would have struggled I think. Then again in hindsight if he had taken out a "Man Utd" style restructuring loan to pay for it I think we'd be better off on the pitch than we are now.

Being fair, Shepherd didn't want to sell - I had no time for the Halls (or indeed FS) on a personal level but I know they wanted success. Now I always said the reason they wanted success was to make money and I saw no objection to that because everybody was still happy. Now we have an owner who just wants money. Shepherd didn't have to sell. His only way out was to raise the money to buy more shares once Ashley had made the offer for the rest of the shares - his hand was effectively forced by Ashley/Hall

Being fair, Shepherd didn't want to sell - I had no time for the Halls (or indeed FS) on a personal level but I know they wanted success. Now I always said the reason they wanted success was to make money and I saw no objection to that because everybody was still happy. Now we have an owner who just wants money.

It's too late to cancel next month You misunderstand me - I'm cancelling the direct debit. I don't care about getting a renewal form in the summer as I'm not buying another ST. You need to cancel it this month & repay your discount then. How long have you had a season ticket for? I might do that but don't really care either way. 26 years. You can't just cancel the direct debit (as I'm sure you know). And if this is the worst you think you've seen it in 26 years you have a very short memory. Sunderland will be my last home game anyway - if the lad who usually takes my ticket wants to go to any more games after than he can pay the £50. It's not the worst but its the most hopeless - also when we were shit I still enjoyed going to the games - I don't now - probably an age thing or to do with in the past no matter what kind of shitbags were running the club it still felt like my club - it doesn't now.