madras

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley cant be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along. Pretty much everyone must realise by now what a catastrophic dimwit Ashley is. as regards nufc ...yes does it mean fred left us on the up or in the s*** ? When MA took over he had access to capital within the region of at least 700m to 1bl. How the f*** did he manage to get us relegated? because he didn't want to spend all his money on the football club. much like you and I. Well to be fair he might as well have instead off pissing it up the wall. i very much doubt the ammount he spent on drinks would have made a difference. No but getting pissed and putting 250k on a roulette whell, or gambling hundreds of millions that the recession would end in a few months despite financial experts saying it would go on for years. are you saying he should just have made nufc his focus and forgot about his other financial interests ? don't even think fred done that. No I'm just saying he might as well have, he would be richer now. I think he's no the great businessman that most would be to be a Billionaire, I think he was just lucky and now thats ran out. i wouldn't say he was a great businessman, but to put it down to luck is silly.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley cant be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along. Pretty much everyone must realise by now what a catastrophic dimwit Ashley is. as regards nufc ...yes does it mean fred left us on the up or in the s*** ? When MA took over he had access to capital within the region of at least 700m to 1bl. How the f*** did he manage to get us relegated? because he didn't want to spend all his money on the football club. much like you and I. Well to be fair he might as well have instead off pissing it up the wall. i very much doubt the ammount he spent on drinks would have made a difference. No but getting pissed and putting 250k on a roulette whell, or gambling hundreds of millions that the recession would end in a few months despite financial experts saying it would go on for years. are you saying he should just have made nufc his focus and forgot about his other financial interests ? don't even think fred done that.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley cant be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along. Pretty much everyone must realise by now what a catastrophic dimwit Ashley is. as regards nufc ...yes does it mean fred left us on the up or in the s*** ? When MA took over he had access to capital within the region of at least 700m to 1bl. How the f*** did he manage to get us relegated? because he didn't want to spend all his money on the football club. much like you and I. Well to be fair he might as well have instead off pissing it up the wall. i very much doubt the ammount he spent on drinks would have made a difference.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley can’t be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying “I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along”. Pretty much everyone must realise by now what a catastrophic dimwit Ashley is. as regards nufc ...yes does it mean fred left us on the up or in the s*** ? When MA took over he had access to capital within the region of at least 700m to 1bl. How the f*** did he manage to get us relegated? because he didn't want to spend all his money on the football club. much like you and I.

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ? This is the question you really need to ask Mike Ashley as he thought it was a good buy at the time. and he got it wrong ? still doesn't mean fred didn't leave us in a financial shitheap. So do you think after Ashley bought the club, he should blame the problems on Shepherd? some. if the halls/fred had the club at heart they would have warned ashley as to the hidden stuff they knew he didn't check (which he only has himself to blame for)...they found a sucker, very,very lucky for them. You know very well the deal was done behind Shepherd's back (or hospital bed). More bullshit Madras? do you think fred would have come clean for thew sake of the club ?....now thats bullshit. I think he most certainly would have as he didn't want to sell. Probably why Hall did it behind his back. so you think fred spelled out all the hidden stuff to ashley (again his fault that he didn't get it checked) ? He didn't have a chance to before Ashley was already committed. It would have been in his interest to try and put Ashley off. Do you think he would have intentionally tried to hide stuff from Ashley that he could find out just by reading the published accounts? To what purpose? to push up the price....like he did. an extra penny a share wasn't it after the halls had sold up ? stuff like the nature of the debt ie the expansion loan that had to be paid back immediatly (or close) on the sale of the club wouldn't be in the accounts, nor would be the structure of the debts remaining on transfer fees from previous years.

especially for stouter lads like ourselves....err i mean yourself.

And then what? Do you suggest racking up more and more debt to remain competitive? yip. he does

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ? This is the question you really need to ask Mike Ashley as he thought it was a good buy at the time. and he got it wrong ? still doesn't mean fred didn't leave us in a financial shitheap. So do you think after Ashley bought the club, he should blame the problems on Shepherd? some. if the halls/fred had the club at heart they would have warned ashley as to the hidden stuff they knew he didn't check (which he only has himself to blame for)...they found a sucker, very,very lucky for them. You know very well the deal was done behind Shepherd's back (or hospital bed). More bullshit Madras? do you think fred would have come clean for thew sake of the club ?....now thats bullshit. I think he most certainly would have as he didn't want to sell. Probably why Hall did it behind his back. so you think fred spelled out all the hidden stuff to ashley (again his fault that he didn't get it checked) ?

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ? This is the question you really need to ask Mike Ashley as he thought it was a good buy at the time. and he got it wrong ? still doesn't mean fred didn't leave us in a financial shitheap. So do you think after Ashley bought the club, he should blame the problems on Shepherd? some. if the halls/fred had the club at heart they would have warned ashley as to the hidden stuff they knew he didn't check (which he only has himself to blame for)...they found a sucker, very,very lucky for them. You know very well the deal was done behind Shepherd's back (or hospital bed). More bullshit Madras? do you think fred would have come clean for thew sake of the club ?....now thats bullshit. IIRC correctly Shepherd didn't want to sell the club and was bullish about Ashley buying up shares. He actually worked with Ashley for about a a fortnight after the takeover. honestly have no reccollection of that. edit...i remember him working with ashley after the takeover but not about him being bullish about ashley buying in the first place.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley can’t be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying “I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along”. so where was the money going to come from when we had everything hocked and were having to find 30mill to make ends meet ? ashley f***ed up on many things. doesn't mean fred didn't end upo being s*** for us aswell. Except during the stadium expansion when did we ever spend £30m more in a year than we brought in under Shepherd? Or is that just more bullshit? i thought the club made a net loss of £33mill in 2006-07....add that to what we already owed. things were certainly looking up eh ?

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ? This is the question you really need to ask Mike Ashley as he thought it was a good buy at the time. and he got it wrong ? still doesn't mean fred didn't leave us in a financial shitheap. So do you think after Ashley bought the club, he should blame the problems on Shepherd? some. if the halls/fred had the club at heart they would have warned ashley as to the hidden stuff they knew he didn't check (which he only has himself to blame for)...they found a sucker, very,very lucky for them. You know very well the deal was done behind Shepherd's back (or hospital bed). More bullshit Madras? do you think fred would have come clean for thew sake of the club ?....now thats bullshit.

How would you describe the rate we’ll be running out of cash this season? undoubtdly worse. as we did last year aswell, lucky at the time we had someone who'd cover it eh ?

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ? This is the question you really need to ask Mike Ashley as he thought it was a good buy at the time. and he got it wrong ? still doesn't mean fred didn't leave us in a financial shitheap. So do you think after Ashley bought the club, he should blame the problems on Shepherd? some. if the halls/fred had the club at heart they would have warned ashley as to the hidden stuff they knew he didn't check (which he only has himself to blame for)...they found a sucker, very,very lucky for them.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley can’t be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying “I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along”. Pretty much everyone must realise by now what a catastrophic dimwit Ashley is. as regards nufc ...yes does it mean fred left us on the up or in the shit ?

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ? This is the question you really need to ask Mike Ashley as he thought it was a good buy at the time. and he got it wrong ? still doesn't mean fred didn't leave us in a financial shitheap.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... Ashley can’t be defended on his record, so comparing him to his predecessor is the only way of avoiding saying “I got it wrong. I was blaming Keegan and Shepherd and people with cockney mafia out banners for our problems, when it was down to Ashley all along”. so where was the money going to come from when we had everything hocked and were having to find 30mill to make ends meet ? ashley fucked up on many things. doesn't mean fred didn't end upo being shit for us aswell.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) There's absolutely nothing 'financially stable' about being relegated with our wage bill. If his gamble had paid off and we'd managed to stay up you might have had a case. Disagree entirely, we were staring down financial suicide under Shepherd, the guy had totally misread the economic climate (ok, he wasn't the only one) but it's not as though he'd given the club any financial cushion with which to manouvere. We'll never be able to prove this as (thankfully, IMO) Ashley came along and bailed Shepherd out. For all the paper talk of Shepherd feeling 'betrayed' and 'forced out' - Ashley's done more for his reputation in the NE than Shepherd ever could have. EDIT: As for relegation...the last 12 months have been a shambles tbh, no-one is without blame, no-one escapes the shithole that was 2008-09, including me! How is running a debt widely reported around 70m with a turnover of 100m financial suicide? If that kind of gearing was the norm half of the businesses in London would be in trouble. what was the operating profit from the turnover ? It's not about profit and very few football clubs make a profit as you well know, it's about competing (or getting relegated) and for that there has to be debt structuring or you might as well stay in CCC forever. do you agree that you can only pile up debt for so long before the lenders get jittery and don't give you anymore ? HOw the f*** do you think capitalism survives? ha ha... not really an answer to my question though is it ? It's not the ans to your piddling little question, I admit. It's the ans to the world and everything in it. Happy? if it's the answer why do companies go under ? why not just borrow more ?

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) There's absolutely nothing 'financially stable' about being relegated with our wage bill. If his gamble had paid off and we'd managed to stay up you might have had a case. Disagree entirely, we were staring down financial suicide under Shepherd, the guy had totally misread the economic climate (ok, he wasn't the only one) but it's not as though he'd given the club any financial cushion with which to manouvere. We'll never be able to prove this as (thankfully, IMO) Ashley came along and bailed Shepherd out. For all the paper talk of Shepherd feeling 'betrayed' and 'forced out' - Ashley's done more for his reputation in the NE than Shepherd ever could have. EDIT: As for relegation...the last 12 months have been a shambles tbh, no-one is without blame, no-one escapes the shithole that was 2008-09, including me! How is running a debt widely reported around 70m with a turnover of 100m financial suicide? If that kind of gearing was the norm half of the businesses in London would be in trouble. what was the operating profit from the turnover ? It's not about profit and very few football clubs make a profit as you well know, it's about competing (or getting relegated) and for that there has to be debt structuring or you might as well stay in CCC forever. do you agree that you can only pile up debt for so long before the lenders get jittery and don't give you anymore ? HOw the f*** do you think capitalism survives? ha ha... not really an answer to my question though is it ?

what if the people before you got all the funds ? You'd probably walk away and sue the club for false promises. i'd still like it to go to court to find out.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) There's absolutely nothing 'financially stable' about being relegated with our wage bill. If his gamble had paid off and we'd managed to stay up you might have had a case. Disagree entirely, we were staring down financial suicide under Shepherd, the guy had totally misread the economic climate (ok, he wasn't the only one) but it's not as though he'd given the club any financial cushion with which to manouvere. We'll never be able to prove this as (thankfully, IMO) Ashley came along and bailed Shepherd out. For all the paper talk of Shepherd feeling 'betrayed' and 'forced out' - Ashley's done more for his reputation in the NE than Shepherd ever could have. EDIT: As for relegation...the last 12 months have been a shambles tbh, no-one is without blame, no-one escapes the shithole that was 2008-09, including me! How is running a debt widely reported around 70m with a turnover of 100m financial suicide? If that kind of gearing was the norm half of the businesses in London would be in trouble. what was the operating profit from the turnover ? It's not about profit and very few football clubs make a profit as you well know, it's about competing (or getting relegated) and for that there has to be debt structuring or you might as well stay in CCC forever. do you agree that you can only pile up debt for so long before the lenders get jittery and don't give you anymore ?

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yet still Fat Fred managed to sell the club for a tidy sum taking the banks out of the equation. Was that his fault as well? and what position were we in when he left ? what position had we been headed for 2 or 3 years priior ?

did i say it was ? whos fault was it that we hocked everything we had and still made losses. do you think in that situation the banks would fall over themselves to loan us more to invest ? Yes “we were heasded here both ways,ashley could have done something about it, fred got us to the position where there was little he cou;ld have done“ and where do i say it was shepherds fault ? even if i think he would have taken us there.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) There's absolutely nothing 'financially stable' about being relegated with our wage bill. If his gamble had paid off and we'd managed to stay up you might have had a case. Disagree entirely, we were staring down financial suicide under Shepherd, the guy had totally misread the economic climate (ok, he wasn't the only one) but it's not as though he'd given the club any financial cushion with which to manouvere. We'll never be able to prove this as (thankfully, IMO) Ashley came along and bailed Shepherd out. For all the paper talk of Shepherd feeling 'betrayed' and 'forced out' - Ashley's done more for his reputation in the NE than Shepherd ever could have. EDIT: As for relegation...the last 12 months have been a shambles tbh, no-one is without blame, no-one escapes the shithole that was 2008-09, including me! How is running a debt widely reported around 70m with a turnover of 100m financial suicide? If that kind of gearing was the norm half of the businesses in London would be in trouble. what was the operating profit from the turnover ? you should know the size of the turnover is pointless if you are still making losses.

The correct answer is.... he loses credibilty by stating Ashley has us on a stable footing. Christ, I miss out the word 'financial' and look what happens...the Shepherd apologists out in force (not aimed at you Cp40, I know you're just a Keegan fan) Does thinking MA is a clueless c*** immediately make one a Shep apologist? Explain...... it does work that way for a few. same as thinking fred played his part in fucking us over makes one an ashley apologist.

what if the people before you got all the funds ?