Colos Short and Curlies

I'm pretty sure that legally, it is how the comment was taken that is the issue. Thereore if Evra didn't take the comment to be one of endearment (unlikely on a football field lets be honest) then Suarez should face some punishment. Is it as bad as Terry's appears to be? No. But is it ungentlemany comduct at best? Yes

I know this is digging up old bones, but i've struggled to really ascertain where you're at with the board, Stu. To pluck out one of their many horrendous decisions: slinging Keegan and Wise into a melting pot. Would you class that as a 'superficial and emotive error'? Or, like me and many others, would you rank it as one of the worst decisions in the club's history? And, in my lifetime, probably the single worst? You say some fans gloss over the good things they have done. I can admit to that. But i'm genuinely interested to know if you're surprised by that, or if you can even understand why. My immediate reaction to anything the board do well is: "well, it's the least they can do." The sentimental heartache caused, the attempts to diminish the club's heritage, and the potentially catastrophic relegation... all those things leave them forever in our debt as far as i am concerned. And i am sure it's the same for many others. So until they bring us genuine success (and by that i mean surpassing the Bobby era and bringing us silverware), any positive move will be met with cautious approval at best. We might be third and stable now, but they haven't even began the U-turn for me to start lavishing them with praise, or forgiving them for incidents such as this one. I haven't followed the thread all the way through, this is directed more at you and your stance on the board. Because i think defining your stance towards them as "less militant" doesn't quite cut it. You seem quick to pick people out who speak out against the board simply cos they "made their mind up ages ago". Well, there's more to it than that. Interested to hear your response. I know not directed at me but.... I think there are fans who are just that, they want to enjoy 90 minutes each weekend and maybe the transfer gossip - nothing else matters to them There are also fans (of which I'm one) who want to enjoy the football, but also appreciate the business side of football (neithers wrong - just a distinction) I personally can detatch myself from the passion of the first set of fans and appreciate the sense in some decisions - naming the stadium, appointing a DoF to support a damn fine coach etc, and this is why I don't get so caught up in the anti MA hysteria. That's not to say I can't see the poor execution of these decisions, but it does mean I'm not going to slate someone for doing something that in theory makes sense from a business perspective. To be honest I cringe at the reactions of some about some decisions, but people are wired differently and if thats the level of passion they bring to supporting then great - can't have a go at someone for that. It would be nice however for some people (not confined to this board) to think through things from a non-supporters eyes before venting their frustrations at the ground, whilst no one could say that the post KK demos took us down, it's also fair to say that it had an effect on the Hull result. It would be a crying shame if the supporters actions against this weeks events impacted our good start in any negative way.

I never knew that Freeway Park was actually named after a real estate company. Guess even some of the more traditional things begin with comercialisation.

So now he's getting pelters for buying players and paying them decent money? Do you think his actions, such as our five manager season which got us relegated, have cost the club more than the £100m he loaned us? Relegation cost the club £35m in turnover directly. Would Northern Rock or Puma paid us £65m more in sponsorship if we hadn't gone down? If so then yes it cost us more than £100m, if not then no

Personally I don't agree with diggin up individuals posts from a by gone era to prove or dis-prove a point. There were plenty of people against Smith coming in, but there were also plenty who saw it as a decent move. Thats my point really, its easy to sit here now and say it was a shit move

So now he's getting pelters for buying players and paying them decent money? Players may not have worked out, but from where we were when he bought out SJH and FF, the likes of Rosenthal, Cacapa, Smith and Barton were on paper pretty good buys. Not to mention Enrique, Colo, Jonas. Of course there's been shite bought that were never going to work out, personally I wouldn't lump Smith in there at the time we bought him - there was a player in Smith at one point. I'd love to know what players we bought/loaned that we didn't need. OK the players may have been shit, but the positions needed filling somehow. Then onto managers, Fat Sam wasn't his choice and to be honest having him in place started off the whole KK, JFK, Shearer farce. Again though, you can't put the blame at MA's door for needing to pay of Fat Sam

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club' He has taken money out. I don't believe so, unless you can state when and how much ?? Nearly £30m over the last 2 years was the plan. We'll see in the 2011 & 2012 accounts if this happened, but I certainly wouldn't bet against it. Would you? Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out" Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out) Worth pointing out that just because he had the right to call in parts of the loan in 2011 doesn't mean he has. Its perfectly OK for MA to waive this right and roll the loan over indefinitely

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club' He has taken money out. He can't just take money out of the club. That's called extortion and is illegal. Or as its his business he can draw funds out in a comletely legal fashion. He could pay himself a salary (he doesn't) He could pay himself dividends (he doesn't) He could pay back some of the loan he has given the club (he has put more in than he has taken out - we don't know how much of the 2011 player slaes have gone to him yet, if any) He could use the assets of the club to advertise his other interests and not pay anything for it (this he has done) All ways of effectively taking money away from a business.

A quick Google and I couldn't see anything, but I'd guess that the lease will be for a decent length of time still - certainly too long for it to have any impact on the naming now

Footballs soul was sold the minute Sky bought the rights. You can't just expect a piece of your soul to be sold, it's all or nothing. Every single chance to create revenue (no matter how contentious) will be expoited (or attempted to be expoilted) to the absolute maximum and not just at NUFC It was sold way before Sky came in. Sponsor on a shirt Players advertising non sport related goods Stadia being named Branded football boots (meaning things like 'Predator' not 'Adidas') Sky buying rights A bank sponsoring the main league in the country Having names printed on shirts The Champions League Taking the World Cup to places like South Africa and USA, The Euros to Ukraine etc Players having image rights built into contracts Thats a very quick list of the top of my head since the 80's. Lets be honest, we've all bought into some of the above and most of the comercial aspects of the game have improved the game (at least initially before the momentum of change took it too far). Its not just football though, the whole world continues to change and commercialism is one of the main drivers of this. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but you can either adapt to the change and use it to your advantage or try and fight it and miss out on the good it can bring. People and Companies who can find the ideal middle ground are lucky.

Why is everyone so fixated on how bad a red and blue away kit would be? Go have a look at our 95 away shirt - its damn near enough red and blue and was fucking lush

Not a penny. Would you rather he repaid £10m a year from the loan he has with the club? The free sponsorship is his way of getting his money's worth - weather cash comes in and goes back to MA or no money moves, same end result

Surely it's not as simple as that though? There are a load of ways to raise money and cut costs. Every club in Europe hasn't renamed its stadium for a corporate sponsor. Has it? Its going that way though (and yes some of these are for differing reasons) - Bayern, PSV, Man City, Arsenal off the top of my head - massive clubs with sponsored stadia. Spurs are going to do it, as will Chelsea. Liverpool wont as they want to move stadium, Man Utd wont as the whole Man U brand is worth more than renaming the Stadium. I bet PSG will rename soon I am willing to put money down that Man United will rename their stadium within a decade in the biggest sponsorship deal ever. I'm willing to bet they don't. The Man Utd brand is so powerful that renaming a stadium would do more harm than good. Training ground yes, Old Trafford no Slab of beer on it happening mate As long as its not that shit Fosters slop you're on!

Surely it's not as simple as that though? There are a load of ways to raise money and cut costs. Every club in Europe hasn't renamed its stadium for a corporate sponsor. Has it? Its going that way though (and yes some of these are for differing reasons) - Bayern, PSV, Man City, Arsenal off the top of my head - massive clubs with sponsored stadia. Spurs are going to do it, as will Chelsea. Liverpool wont as they want to move stadium, Man Utd wont as the whole Man U brand is worth more than renaming the Stadium. I bet PSG will rename soon I am willing to put money down that Man United will rename their stadium within a decade in the biggest sponsorship deal ever. I'm willing to bet they don't. The Man Utd brand is so powerful that renaming a stadium would do more harm than good. Training ground yes, Old Trafford no

I was a bit young at the time to fuly understand the proposed stadium move, but for those who were 20+ at the time - what was the general mood about losing SJP to a new ground? I just remember the lush mock ups they did and then a threat to relocate to Gateshead

Surely it's not as simple as that though? There are a load of ways to raise money and cut costs. Every club in Europe hasn't renamed its stadium for a corporate sponsor. Has it? Its going that way though (and yes some of these are for differing reasons) - Bayern, PSV, Man City, Arsenal off the top of my head - massive clubs with sponsored stadia. Spurs are going to do it, as will Chelsea. Liverpool wont as they want to move stadium, Man Utd wont as the whole Man U brand is worth more than renaming the Stadium. I bet PSG will rename soon

Wonder if Red Bull fancy getting in on the Premier League Bandwagon?

Heard on the grape vine that Ashley wants to rebrand our players and this is why the contract is an issue. Simpson is unhappy with being asked to change his name to Donnay Simpson

Apologies in advance for going over old gorund no doubt - but my 2 penneth on this. (1) I don't really give a shit what the official name is - to all football fans it will be SJP (2) The club own the land around the gorund do they not? It would be a nice touch for this ground to be called St James Park - heck I'd even taks 'home of the SD Arena' under it (3) We do actually get money from SD indirectly for all the advertising - its in the form of the money Ashley has put in over the past 2 years (obviously this comment is null and void if the next accounts show that he's taken money out this year after the AC sale) (4) 'Our next away strip will be blue and red' - One of our best Away shirts I can remember was pretty much Blue and Red so don't see the problem (5) Would love GE to buy the rights for the naming/sponsorship as i work for them and might get free tickets. (6) Would people prefer for Ashely to recover his money by doing this or by actually taking cash out of the club? (7) llambias is still a buffoon

Even better. I did Spanish GCSE in 1999. Pretty sure I can still ask for a cheese sandwich. Give me a cattle class ticket to Argentina, a ticket for a River Plate game and a copy of the contract. It will be signed in days

always comes down to this in the end doesn't it, all or nothing? as i said earlier on for me loosening the purse strings could mean spending 2m net in january to strengthen the squad to push on into europe this season (i.e. pay a fee for someone coming out of contract or whatever instead of waiting 'til July) i don't see that's living in cloud cuckoo land at all, as you said yourself businessmen should be looking beyond 12 month periods so to use madras's figures from the 5m "profit" you could invest 1m in new players on the assumption that recouping your monies can be a gradual process that goes hand in hand with team building and success on the pitch - 4m paid off against the losses with modest investment might see you make 10m "profit" the following season partially as a result of the 1m spent Sorry should have been an 'all' in there

David Pleat 'He's a happy man'. Could have fooled me. Cracking hit though Ryan lad

cheers teach wasn't one of the published aims to get the club breaking even? it's very clear what you're getting at but what it implies is that the club can/should only outlay a net financial loss on transfer fees once (a) MA has recouped all the money he's spent over and above the purchase price and (b) there is little or no chance that the club will once again make a loss in any future season within a reasonable time frame that's not living in the real world man You have to remember that MA is a business man, and business men don't look at 12 month periods. If we've made losses in 5 successive years, one year with a windfall won't automatically mean that we're now breaking even or making profits, it simply means we got 'lucky'one year with a windfall. This money may go back to MA, it may go on infrastructure such as the training ground or support staff, it may go to rewarding our better performes with a better contract, it may go on new players or it may sit in a bank waiting for the right time to spend it / defend against a bad year. I'm pretty sure that once we are breaking even before player trading/ammortisation then all recouped fees will go back into the squad over time, but anyone thinking the £35m + 5m + 6m received for AC, KN and JE would go into the first team this year is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Have to say, this was a brilliant start to the thread - don't think it would be allowed these days, definitely nwoat!

Demba, Demba, Demba. Demba Ba - goal! (To the Thundercats beginning)