ohmelads

A bleak assessment but one which rings true if you look at the continent. Wealthy or major cities dominate football, from Milan to Rome, from Madrid to Barcelona. Other clubs such as Juventus and Liverpool are from smaller cities but nevertheless much bigger cities than Newcastle, and are firmly established over decades as top clubs dating back to a previous era. Any buyer knows that in a city like that he has potentially millions of fans within distance of his stadium and club shops, as well as the money coming in from fans around the globe, TV revenue and all the rest of it. In a city like Newcastle, about the 20th biggest in England with a limited catchment area around it and a long way from any major metropolis, perhaps people think our potential for growth is limited. Having said that, as Mike says Portsmouth has a lot of the same issues and has been sold twice this season. As you said at the start of your post, the most likely explanation is that he wasn't intent on selling yet. There were offers, he just didn't accept them.

Yeah, let's go into the second half of the season without a single winger at the club.

Is it any coincidence that these "sources" are always bollocks PR stories? Look at those two quotes above, they're a desperate attempt at spin to show Ashley in a good light. But they're absolute bollocks, if the club is in such a sound financial state then why does he want to sell the stadium's name? No mention at all of the 40,000+ fans who continue to finance the club week in week out. Apparently being sat in the Championship and losing to Scunthorpe is a "better state" than playing in the Premier League because our running costs are cheaper now. F*ck me it's absolute drivel. People get paid to write this stuff?

Don't get why so many people think a boycott wouldn't work. Done properly, he'd have to sell up. We're getting attendances over 40,000 every week, this is massive for a Championship club. You take away 20,000 or 30,000 of those fans and it'll hurt the club and it'll hurt the man who has to finance it. You do this week in, week out, and the pressure builds. He's got to put his own money in to fund it, and knows that if the club accumulates too much debt the asking price will have to come down. This of course hits him where it hurts. Debt put onto the club is money that'll come off his asking price, it affects him directly. He'll have the dilemma, sell up now or keep financing a club with tiny gate receipts. Potential buyers like Moat would use this opportunity and come in with an offer that'll tempt him to end this mess. He's complacent because he's getting massive crowds. I don't believe it would ever happen unless we go on a pretty bad run which saw us drop to midtable, and if that happened he'd be thinking of selling up anyway. While we're top of the league, everything will stay as is because noone wants to rock the boat. A quick look at the league table and our performances shows that could all change very quickly.

If the last year or so has shown anything it's shown that for the most part Newcastle supporters are either unwilling or too apathetic to do anything to effectively express their anger at how the club is being run. Sure, there'll be people who ring in irately to phone ins, write angry letters to papers, or stand outside the ground and complain to any TV cameras present, but that's as far as it goes. Very little has been done which would actually affect Ashley in a tangible way and make him think twice about what he does or how he runs the club (don't fool yourself that the limited Keegan protests made Ashley decide to sell the club, with hindsight it's obvious that there was plenty of truth in the numerous rumours that he'd been trying to flog it from the minute Keegan was appointed). The fact that Sports Direct shops are still healthily trading in the centre of a city where the majority of the population are supposed to be mad supporters of the club shows that saving a couple of quid on a pair of trackie bottoms is more important to most than making a stand against the destruction of the club. If anything the people or groups who have actually tried to do something or organise things to try and get Ashley to even acknowledge the supporter's views have come in for more criticism and even blame from a lot of people than the owner and his cronies themselves - don't rock the boat sailing into the iceberg, or it's your fault if it sinks. Welcome to <your name here>FC. s*** all over us and we'll keep on giving you our cash. I think part of the apathy comes from the fact that the only tangible way to affect Ashley would be a mass boycott, and most people are simply unwilling to do that. I think a boycott could do more harm than good right now, seeing as we're top of the table and are forced to think of our immediate short-term future. Our position is precarious, but while promotion looks a possibility noone will want to rock the boat and those who do get shouted down as you say. I don't subscribe to the pessimistic view that boycotting the club won't hurt Ashley - it will. His motivation for what he's doing is money and possibly spite. I honestly think if 20,000 fans f*cked off overnight, and Barry Moat came in offering him 80M, he'd have to seriously look at his options and would probably sell up. But the only thing that could trigger such a boycott would be a major dip in league form.

But it doesn't have to happen at all. Having a sponsor on your shirt has become an industry standard, a fact of life, and who knows, in time selling the stadium's name may become the norm. But right now it isn't, respectable clubs just don't do it and never have. We would not be following the trend on this one, and supporters of any major club would be up in arms if it were them too. I agree with you that people might get used to the idea after a while and the anger will die down, but I honestly think Ashley would be pushing his luck too far this time. People say he owns the club but it's financed by our money and he's screwed without that. As ever, a lot would depend on performances on the pitch - when you're winning games it's easier to pacify the fans, but I think for many their patience has run out with this guy.

I know that, but it's not just small clubs who sell the rights. Ohmelads point seemed to be he didn't like the tackiness of it and that it was a small club thing, but much bigger clubs than us do it. Would Arsenal or Bayern ever have even considered selling the naming rights to their original stadium? The one they'd proudly called home for a century. If some new owner came in and sold off Highbury's name there'd have been an uproar. Same with Bayern. I don't know of any big club that's done it.

Imagine it. "And after the break we will have Newcastle vs sunderland live at the Sports Direct Arena". I have always cringed when I see teams like Bolton. Once you go down that path, how long before you have cheerleaders and music when you score goals? We're a proper club, we may be run like a farce but we are still respected as a proper club up and down the land, a famous club steeped in tradition, a famous name in British football. Changing the name of our stadium would throw a lot of that into question, clubs are built on tradition and that's what brings thousands of fans to feel a sense of loyalty passed down through generations. Look at the tacky teams and they don't have that, not on the same level anyway. We can't let this happen.

I spent most of the season trying to convince my mates (Spurs, West Ham, Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal fans etc) that we were in a relegation dogfight. Each of them kept telling me to relax, that the toon were too good to go down and it would all be fine. And when we got relegated? They said "you lot thought you were too good"! The only ones who knew even at christmas we could go down was us, and we were the only ones saying it as well. Funny how people rewrite history. Having said that, they seem to realise now that Ashley is extremely bad news - I haven't met anyone who would stick up for the guy now.

The BBC are the same sometimes mind. This is why so many people were happy to see us go down and believe we're all deluded and that we'd all rather lose 4-3 than win 1-0. Look at the 606 quote the BBC have cherry-picked: 606: DEBATE I feel sorry for Ashley, despite putting huge sums of cash into the club all he ever gets is whingeing in his ears. I understand this was probably posted by some 13-year old Liverpool or Man United fan but to post it as the fan's quote and slap it on an article on the main page is just embarrassing.

Pray for promotion and pray for a quick sale next summer is about all we can do. Both are far from assured, but not impossible. There might come a time that we have to shoot ourselves in the foot (by boycotting the club) to force him out, but it's a last resort and not a realistic suggestion while we're top of the league. Right now it'd do more damage than good. The comparison to Liverpool fans doesn't make any sense. There is a massive difference between protesting (which we did last year, remember) and actually mass boycotting your own games.

I agree that it does look like a deliberate attempt at a diversion. Many (maybe most) of us knew a sale wasn't going to happen any time soon, and had been a convenient excuse to spend nothing all summer. Nevertheless, confirmation of this was never going to go down well. Drop this bombshell and then later say "we have considered fans views and won't rename the stadium" is a handy way of covering up the whole non-sale and the mess, uncertainty and lack of squad numbers it has created. Saying that, anything is possible with a cumhead like Ashley.

Yeah because apparently we're the only football club that has operated at a loss and loaned money from the bank. Big Mike saved us. That's why players are sold for profit and the first team lacks any investment - it's all about balancing the books so we can be like all those Premier League big boys, cos they're all totally sustainable. Until Big Mike came in it was just us operating like that - he sorted the books out and even put us in an easier division so the youth players could get a chance. It's all about a youth system you see, that'll make us successful. Who knows maybe we can be like Southampton or Ipswich and have a famous youth academy. That's why he's putting 20m in - the first team doesn't need it because a youth system will get us out of this mess. west ham and portsmouth aswell as ourselves and leeds prove unsustainability is real. just watch liverpool if they fail to make the champs league. as has been pointed out once or twice on here it's not so much having debt but having debt whilst continually making losses and adding to it....sooner or later those lending are going to question the ability to of the lender to finance more lending.. all well and good, but if you stop spending on the first team you will crash rapidly. we are a perfect example of that. sometimes you have to take a hit financially to get yourself out of a viscious cycle - if we keep "balancing the books" like this and neglecting the first team we will plummet. everything revolves around the first team - they are what make the club its money. attendances, TV money, sponsorship deals, they are all dependent on the first team. it is the absolute last thing you neglect. the cost of not getting promoted this season, with ashley taking us into the next one, just doesn't bear thinking about. mort and ashley spouted about a youth system and so did Glenn Roeder before them, but there are clubs out there with great youth systems who spent many years building them up only to see it wasted. joe cole, carrick, ferdinand, lampard, none of them ply their trade at west ham. dyer, bramble, bent, none of them ply their trade at ipswich. walcott, bale, even shearer, all left southampton at a young age. if our ambition is to be a feeder club for the big buys, it may make us sustainable but i'd remind you that two of those clubs are in the lower divisions and the other also got relegated. excluding the billionaires, how many top flight teams have balanced books? i'd hazard a guess that a good few of them are in a ton of debt. and so are we - the only difference is we now owe ashley the money and not the banks. the debt has not been paid off, and we're now a division lower.

Yeah because apparently we're the only football club that has operated at a loss and loaned money from the bank. Big Mike saved us. That's why players are sold for profit and the first team lacks any investment - it's all about balancing the books so we can be like all those Premier League big boys, cos they're all totally sustainable. Until Big Mike came in it was just us operating like that - he sorted the books out and even put us in an easier division so the youth players could get a chance. It's all about a youth system you see, that'll make us successful. Who knows maybe we can be like Southampton or Ipswich and have a famous youth academy. That's why he's putting 20m in - the first team doesn't need it because a youth system will get us out of this mess.

Has he or has he not invested about £120m in NUFC since taking over? Seriosly yes or no will do, i assume any answer involving no will mean you can prove he signed off fraudulent accounts in June 2008? Like tim has said its all a PR exercise to announce it, thats not my concern i merely pointed out that he had done it and it didnt go to buy players. Still if you feel like being arsey i guess its your right as the boss. Wasn't that my whole point? Whatever Ashley says about money going into the club, it never turns into new players. Ever. The statement is very ambiguous and usually when you make ambiguous statements it is to hide something. It reads "Mike (yes our pal Mike) will put a further £20m into the Club this week." Will this money simply be added to the club's debt, which will be paid back to Ashley when he sells the club? I won't be holding my breath come January.

The club have admitted to lying to fans and the press in the past. And none of us were at all surprised. Suddenly he mentions 20M quid and people are talking about him actually signing players. I'll believe it when I see it. All this money he has talked about in the past, how much of it has filtered through into actual player deals? That weren't funded by player sales? As far as I can see we've made a profit in most of his transfer windows, he has spent almost nothing net on players and that is one of the main reasons we are now in the Championship. So forgive me for not giving a shit when Ashley talks about putting money into the club - because since he arrived the first team has got weaker and weaker.

Well yeah you're right there, which is why I believe Shearer didn't get the job. After the Villa defeat he came out and said the club needs massive changes. He would have insisted on funding and rightly so, but ultimately Hughton landed the job and 0 funds were put forward. It's no coincidence. The only way out of this mess is the end of Ashley's reign, and anything that suggests he's sticking around longer and signing contracts with people that new owners won't want is most definitely not good news.

Only a week ago Ashley said he would have the final say on players and in the same breath he said he knew nowt about football - sums up his trust in Hughton. In the summer he backed him with 0 transfer funds. Hughton has been appointed after his worst run of results, a most unusual decision but easily explained by the fact he feels privileged to be where he is. A manager of pedigree would be insisting upon the funds necessary to address the major squad shortages, a popular manager with major backing from the fans could use this as leverage but Hughton isn't in a position to rock the boat and Ashley knows this. Ashley had his fingers burnt with fan favourite Keegan and in Hughton he has someone who will do as he's told. He's a yes man and a cheap one at that. There's nothing encouraging about this from what I can see - not a lot has changed other than the fact that any owner coming in next summer will have to compensate Hughton in order to replace him. I don't believe it'll give Hughton any extra authority over his players and it may even allow some of them to get complacent and take their foot off the gas. He's clearly seen as a soft touch by many people and I agree with nufc.com that he had an awful lot of the player's backing so early in the season. With an owner like Ashley we need someone who will rock the boat, ask awkward questions and keep the fat man accountable. A yes man operating under Ashley is a disaster waiting to happen, the guy even said himself he doesn't really know what he's doing.

It's amazing he is still at the club but I don't think many would tolerate this. It's obvious the money will not be reinvested in the club - the fans are wise to what Ashley is about and wouldn't stand for this. If anything could trigger protests and even a mass boycott this would be it.

In which case why do it?

Thing is, as limited as Hughton is, where can we turn if we get rid of him? Noone will work under Mike Ashley, noone with any credibility anyway. It'd be a sideways and possibly backwards step to replace him with another nobody. While Ashley is here we are f*cked. I still don't believe giving him the title of manager is a smart move at all. People say it gives more stability but it doesn't. We all know the club will be in limbo til Ashley's gone, we all know there'll be no transfers coming in and it just makes the end of season more complicated, whether we go up or stay down. Making him manager doesn't fool anyone - he's not a permanent appointment and the players know it. We are caught between a rock and a hard place but sometimes it is better the devil you know. Things are bad but they could still get a lot worse.

You could well be right there... Well given that it's taught in school these days, to be a homosexual according to Nick Griffin, I am not surprised. GM, can you handle this? I don't think you can handle this. Wullie can you handle this? I don't think you can handle this I don't think im ready for some berrys my Hughton too bootylicious for ya

This is a surprisingly decent article considering it's the Daily Mail. He at least raises question marks a lot of us have over Hughton which is his character, or should I say strength of character. A caretaker will always be cut more slack than a manager and that's what the article is getting at. Once he takes that job he knows what he's getting himself into. He needs to be more assertive and use the added authority he'll be given, it may seem a tentative link but even in his interviews he comes across a bit shy and far from a leader of men. At a time when complacency has set in and the squad needs a kick up its arse, there are major doubts over Hughton's capacity to rally the troops. NUFC.com touched on this when they pointed out that he seems to be a popular choice among players who seem to be living in the comfort zone. Having said that, if it wasn't Hughton it'd be another cheap yes man. Ashley wouldn't go for anything else. So in that sense it's probably better the devil you know - while Ashley's here Hughton will have to do and I'll give him my full support (Hughton, that is). It doesn't remove my doubts, though.

You sound surprised by the negativity of fans. We have suffered appalling mismanagement, been insulted by two successive owners who have made a total pig's ear of the club, have seen a popular manager forced out and have recently seen our team relegated. Our owner is now recognised as one of the worst in the business (if not THE worst) and I doubt there is any set of fans in the land who envies our position right now. How exactly are people supposed to feel? I think it's absurd to suggest Newcastle fans are spoilt. In all my time following the club I have seen nothing but false dawns, poor management, money squandered, players who didn't care, but there was always hope. Yes there were highs but to see the club languishing where it is when we know and have seen its potential is what hurts most. We weren't spoilt, we were just shown a glimpse of what could be achieved, and football fans live on hope. That's all we've ever had and our situation has never felt as hopeless as it does now.

I agree with the sentiments of the original post but our loyalty (and I mean all of us) is to the club and it is hard to support a system which is failing the club I believe in. I haven't given Hughton any stick simply because I expected this. I always maintained that his true test will come when the chips are down, when we lose a couple of games on the bounce, when we are hit by injuries. I always knew it'd be a hard task and I always doubted his ability to handle it. He's trying his best and doesn't deserve stick, but the situation is a joke. He is simply being caught in the cross-fire between fans who are seriously worried about their club and the man leading the club into oblivion. Nobody is bigger than the club. It's all well and good being loyal to a manager but my loyalty will always lie with the club. I support Hughton who is trying his best but the situation as it stands is our club is in big trouble and what's happening to it is nothing short of a disgrace. The blame doesn't lie with Hughton I agree, but people have every right to feel angry at the situation the club is in.