Happy Face

It's a marvellous world where a twat can take the piss out of his customers year after year and they worry about upsetting him if they complain.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall How naive are you? Bless You're the one who believes in the Fairy Godmother. I can see you goose stepping along the Kurfuerstendamm berating the resistence with "what's the alternative?". Dearie me. So because I disagree with you about the sense in having a protest right now, I'm a childish, naive, deluded Nazi? Yes that's right. You're no better than Hitler in your voiciferous attempts to quash freedom of speech and kill off minorities. beh...wah...uh... Footballs an emotional sport man. That's why we love it. The businessmen ruin it by rationailsing everthing. An economist would ask who gives a fuck whether it's Mike Ashley's fault or not? We're all mad for paying £500 to watch the drivell served up the past 3 years irrespective. Nothing rational about it whatsoever. You've got me wondering if you're Llambarse with questions like that

nil-nil draw. Nailed on.

It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? This forum is VERY pro-Ashley. Or at least too forgiving (in my opinion) of his string of mistakes. I think it stems from previously being the most voiciferously anti-Shepherd forum and lots of posters still clinging onto the hope that the "anyone but Shepherd" view will be proved right...or at least not wanting to admit to NE5 he might have been on to something. But then, as I've said, Pro-NUSC <> Anti-Ashley. So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Irrespective of people agreeing with the actions, aims or motives of the NUSC, I think at least 90% of fans would say they aren't happy with the direction of the club in the last 2 years. Happy Face, I've always thought of you as one of the better posters on here, but that line is just looking for bites; you know full well that's not true. I know Canny crap how he takes it as complete vindication of everything Shepherd did.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall How naive are you? Bless You're the one who believes in the Fairy Godmother. I can see you goose stepping along the Kurfuerstendamm berating the resistence with "what's the alternative?".

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall How naive are you? Bless

Two words. Thaskin Shinawatra. Paid £100M Spent £30M Sold for £200M £70M profit in one mid-table season.

The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in Is the primary concern of a businessman: a) popularity b) profit

It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? This forum is VERY pro-Ashley. Or at least too forgiving (in my opinion) of his string of mistakes. I think it stems from previously being the most voiciferously anti-Shepherd forum and lots of posters still clinging onto the hope that the "anyone but Shepherd" view will be proved right...or at least not wanting to admit to NE5 he might have been on to something. But then, as I've said, Pro-NUSC <> Anti-Ashley. So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Irrespective of people agreeing with the actions, aims or motives of the NUSC, I think at least 90% of fans would say they aren't happy with the direction of the club in the last 2 years.

It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed.

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. So now the time limit to be a great manager is under 1 year and to be a great owner is 2 years!!! Potentially getting us relegated within 2 seasons after 16 years in the top flight? I don't want anyone great, competent would do. I'm sure we were having problems before these guys came............... Yeah, and I seem to remember a lot of complaints about it then too. Why lap it up now? I also remember the complaints on here that it was only disorganised radgies banging on Shepherds car, and kids outside the reception singing. There was loads of people saying we needed to be organised and together in insisting that Shepherd go....but no-one actually gave their time and effort to do it....now some people have, and they get nowt but s***. I'm not lapping it up I just understand we have plenty of money problems and it takes more than 2 years to turn it around. The one thing that I don't agree with about the current board is their choice of manager but then the last board got plenty wrong there. If they can turn the funds round and start giving money to the manager and we start progressing as I expect we will over the next 5 years I'll be happy. I'm not worried about relegation this season. After the Man U game at the start of the season people were saying how good our team was and we just needed to add a few faces. Well we're starting to get those players back now so I have no doubts we won't get relegated and then it's a case of getting rid of some dead wood in the summer and bringing one or two good players in to the team. I don't feel the need to protest just yet thanks I'm happy to let them have a go for a few years yet. I wish I could share your confidence. With 0% Hughton back in charge and Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U visiting next month, I'll maybe ask you about it again at the start of April.

It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok.

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. So now the time limit to be a great manager is under 1 year and to be a great owner is 2 years!!! Potentially getting us relegated within 2 seasons after 16 years in the top flight? I don't want anyone great, competent would do. I'm sure we were having problems before these guys came............... Yeah, and I seem to remember a lot of complaints about it then too. Why lap it up now? I also remember the complaints on here that it was only disorganised radgies banging on Shepherds car, and kids outside the reception singing. There was loads of people saying we needed to be organised and together in insisting that Shepherd go....but no-one actually gave their time and effort to do it....now some people have, and they get nowt but shit.

It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors to the fact that a sizeable and vocal minority of their core market is not easily satisfied even by substantial investment in the club. It's the same with any set of fans. Investors in Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal have had no end of flak from fans even when they're winning shit, because fans are only happy if their manager is given money to spend on players. The idea that an investor is put off the money making opportunities of buying...and then selling a top flight club by noisy fans...who still show up and pump in £2M per home game is preposterous.

It's not a boycott. It's a rally.

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. So now the time limit to be a great manager is under 1 year and to be a great owner is 2 years!!! Potentially getting us relegated within 2 seasons after 16 years in the top flight? I don't want anyone great, competent would do.

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys. How do you know the new owners will be any better? Doesn't it occur to you that if they didn't want to pay the going rate for the club when it was for sale, they aren't going to have enough money to do things much differently to Ashley even if they did somehow get the finance together? I don't know anything about investment, finances, the cost of the club, offers made, refused, or the asking price. All I've heard is what people with a vested interest have said. I only know we currently have our worst February points total in 20 odd years. I'm discontent with it and there's no excuse.

And remember when Shay Given said... http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/make+the+right+noises

There was mate. I was in it and it had thousands of members, I've still got the lapel badge. You may remember the Magpie pub/club if you've been going to the match for a few years ? I'd join another one if it had credibility and actually did what it said on the tin (key words Newcastle United - Support ?) and didn't advocate boycotts which has to be the opposite of "support". No this is not a supporters club, this is a parochial political movement who want Ashley out and hi-jacked the term "supporters club" for their own purposes. It would raise their credibility if they actually said who or what they actually want to replace the men they so despise, but typically they are full of protest but never come up with any realistic alternatives. Remember the late 80's early 90's when chants of "sack the board" were popular, along with sit down protests? They ushered in a new era of success under John Hall. I understand the key difference you refer to, in that Sir John Hall had publicised his interest in taking full control at that time. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I think constant pressure should be put on an underperforming owner whether there's a saviour in the wings or not, or you're inviting them to continue ruining the club. An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors of an opportunity to come into a club as the good guys, unlike the Glazers and Hicks of the world who come in as bad guys.

Oh, the evil mendacity of it all! Mind you, Happy Face will probably claim this proves Ashley turned down investment or something. Silly picking that one out. Sillier posting it in the first place as if it proved something. I originally came up with that one as a bit of black humour. It never rains but it pours for NUFC. I do believe that it raises a valid point (however small) of concern about the professionality of those in charge though. As an aged manager at Newcastle, Bobby Robson would have regular health checks and impart the results to the fans, constantly reassuring us he was still as much of a full shilling as he'd ever been (about 4p ). To have complained of feeling a bit unwell on the Saturday and undergone bypass surgery within less than a week, I've assumed that Kinnear was not being monitored in the same way or his condition would have been flagged. I don't know if Kinnear was purposely avoiding such checks and misleading his employer, I don't know if his employer took him on without requiring regular checks, I don't know for certain if such checks would have identified the problem. But as he gave his breathless answers, pausing after every 3 words yet still unable to expurgate himself enough in interviews to avoid FA charges, and given his history, I worried about about his state of health long before the West Brom game. Did his employers?

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come. Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill. We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen. It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager. For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it. Is that true? Don't think I've seen it before. According to Mike Ashley it is... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/08/08/mike-ashley-exclusive-chronicle-interview-72703-21492315/ But he's been known to talk bollocks....which is exactly ther point. And where does he turn down offers of investment, exactly? The context of that quote was him announcing that he was looking for investors! "I'd tell them we'd look at it at the end of the season as there was no rush" Exactly. No refusal there at all. When you asked that tart out and she said "some other time" that was a knock back mate. I know you don't like to think so, but it was. Feeble. "There are some great people who come to our matches who sit in the corporate areas, and wouldn?t it be great to have local backing for what we are doing? ?Some of them would talk to me last season and say, ?Mike, is there an opportunity for us to come into the club again because we were shareholders in the plc previously??. Either they've invested since or he's knocked them back or he was making it up at the time. Which is it? Whatever it is, it's clearly not a refusal. In fact, it seems more like an invitation. He's inventing imaginary questions for himself in an attempt to attract people to the club? That reminds me of someone... So now you're saying it's lie. So it's still not a refusal. I'm asking you what it is. I still call it a refusal....if it happened. Do you believe anyone asked the question? Why would Ashley make up a story about looking for partners to invest in the club if he didn't want to do it? I have no doubt he was looking for investment. But he claims he's had former shareholders offering to invest. If he has, why has he not taken them up on it? If he hasn't, why's he telling porky pies? Something to do with the timeline and current financial climate? What was the situation when he was looking for investors? Before the financial meltdown there were probably people who were wiling to invest, afterwards probably a lot less. I'm sure if there were people queuing up to invest but had been knocked back we'd have heard about it by now. Ok then. We'll call it incompetence as he told them there was plenty of time to discuss that sort of thing at the end of the season.

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come. Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill. We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen. It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager. For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it. Is that true? Don't think I've seen it before. According to Mike Ashley it is... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/08/08/mike-ashley-exclusive-chronicle-interview-72703-21492315/ But he's been known to talk bollocks....which is exactly ther point. And where does he turn down offers of investment, exactly? The context of that quote was him announcing that he was looking for investors! "I'd tell them we'd look at it at the end of the season as there was no rush" Exactly. No refusal there at all. When you asked that tart out and she said "some other time" that was a knock back mate. I know you don't like to think so, but it was. Feeble. "There are some great people who come to our matches who sit in the corporate areas, and wouldn?t it be great to have local backing for what we are doing? ?Some of them would talk to me last season and say, ?Mike, is there an opportunity for us to come into the club again because we were shareholders in the plc previously??. Either they've invested since or he's knocked them back or he was making it up at the time. Which is it? Whatever it is, it's clearly not a refusal. In fact, it seems more like an invitation. He's inventing imaginary questions for himself in an attempt to attract people to the club? That reminds me of someone... So now you're saying it's lie. So it's still not a refusal. I'm asking you what it is. I still call it a refusal....if it happened. Leaving aside your obvious difficulties with the English language, if you doubt that it even happened, how can you cite it as proof of something? Or do normal rules of logic and debate simply get suspending when it comes to sticking the boot into Ashley? I'm sorry? Ignoring the fact your still refusing to say what you think of it, I only cite it as proof (among many other examples) that he's a liar. Now, did he: a) get an offer of investment and refuse, even while asking for investment. b) not get an offer of investment and say he did.

I'm not prepared to boycott the club either. And NUSC haven't suggested it. A boycott of food/drink/programs was in place at the consensus of most places (TF, The Mag etc.) which the NUSC endorsed once it was set up. Your confidence that the money we invest in the club will be re-invested in players is confusing though, considering Ashley has had four windows to spend some of that money and we're still in credit in the transfer market. He's only really managed to spend anything in one window...his first. you realise money going into the club pays for other stuff too? Yeah. But I was asking what made Blefuscu think it would be spent on transfers....since he expressed that hope, despite there being no indication it would in the past. She actually.... The thing I do see is that money will have to be paid for the day to day running of the club. If we are not putting money into the club through merchandising etc then the cost of the day to day running of the club has to come from somewhere. I didn't express any hope, it is just a reality. Ashley will have to put more money in to cover day to day costs (wages of non-playing staff ~ you know the ordinary folks of the north-east who do the shop work, office work, cleaning etc) and other costs involved leaving less to go towards players. Its just common sense that something has to give if we stop supporting the club financially and the transfers in of players will probably be it. We've still got one of the highest gates in the league, best selling strips, and fattest beer, guzzling pie eaters in any stadium. Do you believe the 50 people still boycotting are the reason for our lack of transfer investment and decrepit manager? I am saying I do not agree with NUSC's stance for promoting this boycott. That's all. Neither do I. I have a pint at every game. You're clearly a single issue voter. You might hate the war in Iraq, the shitty health care, the crime, the failing economy etc. but you'd vote for Bush because of the stem cell thing.

We've paid off all our debt, but we've still got loads of debt with more to come. Our wage bill is too high, but Ashley has increased the wage bill. We need investment, but Ashley turns down offers of investment from local businessmen. It's cheaper to pay a DOF to bring in players than let the manager do it, but the DOF is paid 150% more than the manager. For all the tales of woe, they don't actually seem to be that worried about it or doing much to sort it. Is that true? Don't think I've seen it before. According to Mike Ashley it is... http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2008/08/08/mike-ashley-exclusive-chronicle-interview-72703-21492315/ But he's been known to talk bollocks....which is exactly ther point. And where does he turn down offers of investment, exactly? The context of that quote was him announcing that he was looking for investors! "I'd tell them we'd look at it at the end of the season as there was no rush" Exactly. No refusal there at all. When you asked that tart out and she said "some other time" that was a knock back mate. I know you don't like to think so, but it was. Feeble. "There are some great people who come to our matches who sit in the corporate areas, and wouldn?t it be great to have local backing for what we are doing? ?Some of them would talk to me last season and say, ?Mike, is there an opportunity for us to come into the club again because we were shareholders in the plc previously??. Either they've invested since or he's knocked them back or he was making it up at the time. Which is it? Whatever it is, it's clearly not a refusal. In fact, it seems more like an invitation. He's inventing imaginary questions for himself in an attempt to attract people to the club? That reminds me of someone... So now you're saying it's lie. So it's still not a refusal. I'm asking you what it is. I still call it a refusal....if it happened. Do you believe anyone asked the question? Why would Ashley make up a story about looking for partners to invest in the club if he didn't want to do it? I have no doubt he was looking for investment. But he claims he's had former shareholders offering to invest. If he has, why has he not taken them up on it? If he hasn't, why's he telling porky pies?