Cronky

At the moment, it feels like we're being sold a dream, not a concrete plan. We're being told that the people with the real expertise are going to be unveiled in due course, so whilst a number of us are getting quite excited at the moment, the more difficult questions have yet to be answered.

What position, if any, do you occupy within NUST? Are you some kind of designated spokesman? What I'm getting at is whether the various bits of advice and information that you're giving carries any kind of official weight, or whether you're an ordinary member of NUST just giving your own personal perspective. Im an original member of the committee, as is Shellshock and Tom_NUFC, both members on here. So can I take it that you're still on the committee, and your statements therefore represent the current views and aims of that committee? Yes I am still on the committee and the details Im giving here are those of the scheme, personal views however are my own not those of the committee. Thank you.

What position, if any, do you occupy within NUST? Are you some kind of designated spokesman? What I'm getting at is whether the various bits of advice and information that you're giving carries any kind of official weight, or whether you're an ordinary member of NUST just giving your own personal perspective. Im an original member of the committee, as is Shellshock and Tom_NUFC, both members on here. So can I take it that you're still on the committee, and your statements therefore represent the current views and aims of that committee?

What position, if any, do you occupy within NUST? Are you some kind of designated spokesman? What I'm getting at is whether the various bits of advice and information that you're giving carries any kind of official weight, or whether you're an ordinary member of NUST just giving your own personal perspective.

I find suicide terribly sad. Life isn't that much, but it's all we've got. Losing your 2 year old child must be an awful experience. I can't imagine that you're in the right frame of mind to adopt another child so soon afterwards. It can only remind you.

Well, seeing as you revealed in a previous post that you didn't actually know who these backers are, you'll forgive me if I remain a little sceptical.

No offence here but you're trying to find fault with this and using the lack of in depth information on day 1 to beat us with. As I said earlier, weve issued the important information to let people see what is involved and what sort of figures we're talking about. Nobody is asking anyone to part with cash at this stage all we've asked for is the name, email and Date of Birth of those that are interested, you dont even have to commit that much at this stage. In return we've stated that we'll send additional information out to those interested so they can see whats what. No doubt we'll be putting that info into the public domain as well but frankly coming across with the whole "this is meant to be a new era of openness and accountability" is a bit crap tbh. We're the only people talking because its day 1, lets see what happens in days 2, 3, 4....14...30..etc before ripping us apart eh? Why don't you publish the 'additional information' now? What is it that's so secret?

To be more exact, they're attempting to do something with other people's money, including big chunks of people's pension funds. In that position, you have to know what you're doing, and to convince people that you know what you're doing. Not exactly true, a chunk of my pension will be tied up in this as well. I wouldnt ask anyone to do something I wasnt willing to do myself. You are right though. When doing something of this magnitude with other peoples money you do need to know exactly what you're doing, which we dont. We do however have the backing of a shedload of people who do this day in day out and are willing to put their businesses names to it, if its not worked out properly then theres a hell of a lot more at stake for them than just personal pride. They believe its doable, theyve worked out the finer points and they are the ones that will be promoting this to their customers and the rest of the world. You have to remember that you're not sending your money to a paypal account for the NUST, its not going to sit in our bank account while we try raising it. Funds will be paid to a top solicitors, regulated by the FSA and audited by relevant authorities. We are merely the group that have put this in place. In that case, I'd suggest that the people who do know what they're doing, start talking, and fast. If this is supposed to be a new era of openness and accountability, it doesn't look good that so much information is apparently being held back at this point. If you have all this financial backing and / or professional expertise on board with you at this point, then let's hear about it. The more detail you can give, the more confident people can be that this is a viable plan and not a dream. You say that you are 'merely the group that has put this in place', but you're the only people that are talking at the moment.

To be more exact, they're attempting to do something with other people's money, including big chunks of people's pension funds. In that position, you have to know what you're doing, and to convince people that you know what you're doing.

Personally, I'd say he lacked the X factor. Too nice a bloke, basically.

That kind of confuses me too. I must be missing something ?? They want investors of £1500 minimum, but any size of investment equals only one vote, so why would I invest more that £1500 unless I'm going to see a return on my investment as I would in a PLC. This should not be confused with the model in Germany/Spain where you are a club member for a small (possibly 10 annual subscription) and much like a working men's club you get to vote for a committee and on certain issues. This seems more akin to what happened a few years ago when a flotation took place and we all bought shares in the belief we'd live happily ever after, except this time it won't be floated. I don't think you're missing anything. I think this problem is the reason they're so vague about the structure. It seems like they're trying to have it every which way - empowering the small investor whilst still attracting the large investor. Unfortunately he who pays the piper etc etc

Cloughie used to wear an old squash shirt with a green sweatshirt and track-suit bottoms. It was all part of the mystique of 'I'm Brian Clough and I can do what I want'. However, I don't think Chris could bring that off. Needs to win the league a couple of times maybe.

Loaning money in what way ? Because it's pensionable you mean ? I don't think the smaller £1500 investors will be lending money. The model seems to be that they would be the owners, and either pay themselves some kind of dividend or not, depending on the democratic vote. The lenders would be the larger financial institutions. I've classified them in a different way because I can't see that they would want to own an institution and therefore be liable for its debts if they could be easily outvoted by smaller investors. That's the whole reason why PLCs work the way they do - the more you invest, the more say you have. The NUST blurb is very vague in this area. Obviously, the larger the amount that they can obtain from fans chipping in £1500, the less dependent they are on outside investment. But they really would have to raise a lot from fans to attract any serious outside investment, as far as I can see.

All right, all right. The Queen video wasn't that clear, and neither was the online dictionary I tried.

It sounds like there would be two categories of investor – the £1500 ones who would get a vote, and the large investors from big city institutions who I would assume would be effectively lending the money at a rate of interest. As others have pointed out, the second type of investor wouldn’t be prepared to invest a large amount of money if they were going to be outvoted by two people who’d invested £1500 each. They would need to be getting something else for their money, in the form of interest payments. In which case, we’d be at a Glazer-type model where the owners of the club (ie the fans) are borrowing money at interest in order to finance the purchase and / or investment in the playing staff. In which case who would be liable for any debt? And would any major lender take the risk on what looks like a very amateur set-up? The model that they seem to be wanting to avoid is the PLC, presumably because smaller investors would not get much of a say in decision-making, and they’re trying to hook people in on a democratic model. This is all aside from the equally important issue of whether any of the people at NUST have any kind of senior experience in big business or financial management. It feels to me like they’re way out of their depth.

It sounds pretty clear from the blurb that nobody's actually pledged any funds yet. They're waiting to see what response there is from the fans first. The whole thing couldn't be more vague if it tried.

Junior Stanislas at West Ham. John Bostock at Spurs. Like others, I'm a bit mystified at the way Taarabt's career seems to have stalled. He's got great skill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hMrY8jysdg So... a bamp is a cross-dresser?

I suppose he has to be himself. He still looks like a coach rather than a manager, but it would have looked odd if he'd instantly suited up the minute he became a caretaker, and if he was to change now it would feel a bit too late. And..er.. what's a bamp?

A bit topical, but Premiership referees. The standard is generally high and I'm more struck by how many difficult decisions they get right rather than wrong. I wish managers would be a little less childish and stop moaning whenever an important decision goes against them. They're supposed to be a role model.

he wouldn't have if he'd done due dilligence. in fact if that was the reson he'd have been better off putting together a 50mill package with fred for shirt-ground sponsorship and marketing rites. Possibly not, but he must have had a reason to buy it. So what was it? Youre quick to suggest he bought it to promote sportsdirect is utter s*** - presumably you have a better suggestion for why he bought the club? my guess is that he bought the club because with the crowds and money coming into prem football he thought that if he could get shot of the massivly under performing huge fucking earners he could make a go of it and with an iproved off the field position could probably sell us on for a tidy profit. unfortunatly he didn't do due diligence which eant he didn't know the sponsor money had already been done in or that the change of ownesrhip menat a surprise assivly outlay from the off. thats my guess. seems more likely than him paying close on 250mill in order to advertise his company......no ? Ashley has said that the main reason why he bought into the club was that he was a football fan and he thought it would be fun. He'd already made a killing by selling a large share of his company so he had cash to spend. The fact that he didn't research the financial position of the club, and came into it all very unprepared in terms of specialist management expertise does suggest that it really was an impulse buy, like he said. Of course, he's found out since then that balancing the books and running a major football club is a difficult enterprise and certainly isn't fun. In fact, you have to put up with a lot of hassle and unpopularity. He didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart, and he didn't do it to make money either. Things have gone tits up because he wasn't prepared for the real task in hand.

I doubt it was a retreat. The plan was almost certainly to rename the ground after Mr Ashleys other business all along, and you can be sure he never had any intention of sportsdirect paying proper money for the privilege. Obviously he couldnt just come straight out and say St James Park will be reamned The Sportsdirect Arena and the club will receive no money as that would have resulted in even great anger than there was when supporters thought we might end up playing at the Adidas Arena. His plan was to spread the bad news over a period of time to reduce the potential of a full scale riot. Mr Ashley clearly bought NUFC to use it to promote his sports retail empire. He doesnt care what happens to our club as long as it makes money for his other business. This is the classic cock-up v conspiracy debate. For me, it has all the hallmarks of a cock-up. Like so much of what has happened over the last two years.

Diving is okay providing you really are being fouled. The sad fact is that if you're being hacked, the ref is far more inclined to give you a pen or a free kick if you go over. Everyone knows this. So in certain situations, strikers will go down even though they're strong enough to stagger to their feet. It's only sensible to get the free kick rather than try to keep going and lose the ball. Strikers get good at this through lots of practice. Sympathy goes to the midfielder Darren Fletcher, who was blatantly fouled in the area on Tuesday but who added far too much theatre when he went over, kicking his heels up in the air. He got a yellow card, effectively for bad acting.

The whole renaming business wasn't the world's worst idea, and could have really benefited the club. What annoys me is that they announce it and then, at the first sign of trouble, they retreat and come up with a really daft idea that isn't going to satisfy anyone. They should have waited to see if people were going to get used to the idea. Instead they've made one unholy mess of it. The whole point of renaming the stadium is product placement ie Jeff Stelling says 'Let's see what's going on at the Reebok stadium'. He's not going to say, 'Let's hear what's going on at the sportsdirect.com@stjamespark stadium'. FFS, GET A GRIP!

His touch on the ball was terrible, but a player of that strength and pace is always going to be useful at a certain level and in certain situations. I don't think he made the best of himself though. In his head, he was Pele.