NJS

I'd add Harris to the people I have no reason to believe. One day we're told there are interested parties either via SP or via Kinnear via Ashley, the next day nobody is interested. This is the problem which has plagued this whole affair - the lack of clear, unambiguous statements of truth. I don't expect "We're talking to x who will pay £287m and 23p and it will be done by Wednesday" but I do expect information. Harris did issue a statement you refer to which just added to the confusion - I would say by his use of "the debt has been paid off" is a classic.

I've been assuming, as I posted yesterday, that the debt has been converted into equity in the club as explained by Chez which explains the £250m starting point. If he wants £300m and wants to continue to hold the debt and expect the new owners to repay it then he should be shot and I don't see how even his most rabid supporter could continue to defend him.

That's my worry - if people like Martins say that they aren't happy, I wouldn't be surprised if Ashley just said okay well off you go then.

8000 people didn't bother going against Blackburn - I think that speaks more loudly than 83% of a few dozen people on a message board, a lot of whom don't go to matches. And 6000 didn't go against Bolton with KK in charge, no pressure groups or boycott and on the back of one of our best results in years. The macums are 10,000 down and Boro the same - are they unhappy with Quinn and Gibson - not really. Don't read too much into number stats mate, football demographics are impacted by many factors right now and to blame any downturn on a single very misleading. In fact so misleading I'm sure that NUSC will be using it as ammo soon. Fair enough there are other factors - which is why Ashley staying in the present climate will only hurt the club as those factors are added to by dissatisfaction imo.

8000 people didn't bother going against Blackburn - I think that speaks more loudly than 83% of a few dozen people on a message board, a lot of whom don't go to matches.

Around the NE I speak to a lot of supporters who I think will subscribe to the popular press view that Ashley and Wise are the axis of evil and should be hounded out but I'm surprised how many are sympathetic to Ashley and think he would have meant progress. Most of these people are long time fans, getting on (mainly 40+) and attend matches. The degree of hostility seems to be much higher in the press and among the small NUSC mob than it is at street level, notwithstanding the staged for TV protests by charvers (most of whom never enter SJP) in the wake of Keegans walkout. I was asking because I do think that the best hope for the club is for Joe Kinnear to make a success of his interim spell (which I think is entirely possible) and for the hostile mood to die down sufficiently to encourage Ashley to stay on. It seems that he'll have genuine difficulty in selling at the present time anyway. Perhaps that's all a folorn hope, because Ashley is probably thoroughly pissed off. He doesn't want to be a nominal owner. He wanted to sit in the stands and have a drink in the town afterwards, and that experience is probably closed to him now. If Ashley decides to stay how many season tickets do you honestly think will be sold next summer? What level will our crowds drop to when more players leave in January? Is "success" 17th place for you now? Like many I think the last statement was crass but overall I have no problem with them keeping the pressure up on Ashley - we've seen that "putting the club up for sale" and asking a price which people would pay (without him losing out) are two different things.

How the fuck would we know the difference between that and the last 3?

No. Same inadequate squad, same reluctance to spend ambitiously, same half-arsed structure which makes people who have no day to day input into the club to have power over squad acquisitions and disposals. My "calmed down" opinion is that it doesn't matter who the manager is/was under this regime - it's fatally flawed and that's why I want to see the back of it.

I like Joe, but rarely has someone been as cuntish on a football pitch as Ashley was when he turned his back on the ref (can't remember which one..) last season. The quarter final a couple of years ago summed up Joe for me - half a dozen swan dives and then the look on his face when someone did actually kick him and he got nowt was fantastic.

I'm ashamed to say I admire Ryan Giggs - a non-wanker among a complete set imo.

Ashley or Joe Cole (coin toss) - odious, cheating shitbags. Kenny Burns - complete cunt.

There can be a difference between where you're from as per the title and where do you live as per the question. S. Shields/Chelmsford

How is the price irrelevant? - my whole point is that whether its debt or equity as MV of the club, the price reflects that amount. Using "Ashley has paid off the debt" as a positive statement to the level it is being pushed is crap to me. If they kept saying "Ashley has expedited the debt situation by including it in the club as equity which is advantageous from a business pov" then it would be a lot more true. The way most people read "Ashely has paid off the debt" as it being the equivalent of someone paying up the remainder of a personal loan after getting a bit of cash in is the bit I find objectionable.

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/nufc/United-scout-39could-see-no.4579945.jp It's understandable though - Wise's role was defined on a different basis when he joined and most people seem to think that there was a bit of redfinition on all sides near the end of the window.

The Journal article mentions the debt now being equity as explained by Chez - Equity which Ashley has made part of the sale price. Yes and equity is not debt whether it's part of the sale price or not. As I said it could be described as semantics - if there was no debt/equity the price would be approx £100m less - so an owner has to find that amount anyway - although I accept from Chez's explanation that equity is prefereable. The "he has cleared the debt" statement is being sold as if Ashley got his wallet out and handed over the cash which means it's "gone" forever - that is clearly NOT the case and I'm sick of people talking as if it was an altrustic act on his part. If he was to remain as owner then the debt not being on the clubs book would be good - but even if he stays for 5 years he'd still want that back. I'd also argue that given the choice between finishing 13th every year and being debt free and taking on a serviceable level of debt and showing some ambition. I'd take the latter.

The Journal article mentions the debt now being equity as explained by Chez - Equity which Ashley has made part of the sale price.

I share the concern but hope it may force him to lower the price - especially if other areas of his business are short of cash.

I can't remember reading the reasons but its fair to say it was a cunt's trick by the Halls.

But surely it makes the club a more viable option - especially in these times. Say the debt was £100m and he hadn't paid it off - the price could then be £200m with the new owneres knowing that they needed another £100m. As it is the price is £300m - no difference. In fact if the debt did still exist a new owner would have the option of servicing the debt instead of paying it off which you could argue would make it more attractive. This is compliacted by Ashley being forced to pay a lot of it off but the point stands - being debt free would only be an advantage if Ashley was staying.

Can someone explain what "He has invested a lot in the academy" actually means? Also wiping out the debt as a bragging point is pointless if it's included in the price.

Going by comments I've read in the past, Keegan used more of a charisma/charm approach rather than a "do you know who I am" angle.

Where's the evidence that this guy knew what he was doing? The man was brought in to do the job he's been doing for years, to get us contact with clubs around the world for players around the world and get them signed. It was a well known fact before he came to us he had the names of all the important people in football and could call upon most. He was a powerful agent. Yeah he's no scout and wouldn't be able to pick out a player but I've no doubt he could get them to sign and sign for a decent deal. It's what agents do best. Pretty poor last week of the window in terms of the money spent and players promised from the Milner sale then. I've said before this structure failed to use a major weapon - Keegan as a "salesman" for the club in negotiations.

In his defence he isn't the first player who we have treated with a rest/injection only for an op to be needed. See Shearer, Bellamy and Ameobi as examples. I also think Martins is injured too often but I guess he doesn't fit the fat, lazy Aussie role very well.

People expect to see progress - maybe not all the problems sorted but I judge a window by how much better the squad is at the end of it. Summer 2008 brought a slight improvement which I found unsatisfactory which makes me doubt the commitment to progress over a longer period. To go from 13th to push for 6th/7th/8th which I would have been happy with needed a lot more improvement than we got - this is ultimately why I'm "anti-Ashley". The slow and steady approach also neglects other teams ambition - see Man City or Sunderland as examples of factors which affect that approach and should prompt a response. I'm not saying he should have bankrupted himself going stupid but a range from -£2m to £20m is not enough.

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient. As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient. that i suppose we'll have to wait and see (and hope not). i still feel we were closer to relegation under allardyce than we are now. For largely the same reason - lack of investment in the squad. (Though I never wanted Allardyce and think he would never have succeeded).