Chris_R

Here we go again with the mythical "pay as you play deal" - has anyone got any credible source that shows such a deal has ever existed? Paul McGrath for Villa?

Free transfer.

Just kill me now.

What exactly is exciting about "profits down by 6%"

This is glorious. Doubtless he'll weedle his way out of it but right now I'm sat here nursing a semi.

Fill it full of liquid chocolate. Though having seen the price of Belgian chocolate, that'll probably cost about €674m.

Also if this tax bill allegedly only arrived yesterday, then surely it doesn't matter for these accounts? Surely that goes on next year's and they've got 12 months to have a think about it? I mean aside from anything else like the sheer logic that there's a cutoff point and it isn't the day of release because that'd be mental, the accounts were supposed to be released a while ago and were delayed anyway. They can't have delayed them a week ago because someone gave them a tax bill yesterday.

Oh my god, €674m tax bill?

Of course if fucking is, you thieving cunt.

He enjoys shafting us. He's already doing what he enjoys. It's the only explanation.

Can't understand anyone watching those kind of videos. You realise they likely get ad revenue based on views? You're literally paying them when you click this shit. Stop it.

Because he'll possibly regress under Bruce and look shit. Many players will be at their maximin value right now.

How old are you and are you disabled? Well the bit between his ears isn't working.

I'd be furious, if only I gave a shit.

"greatest spending spree in the club’s history" Give over. That's like me saying I've had the greatest outbreak of charity in my life because I put 50p in a collection box*. You've got to compare it to most people's benchmarks if your own is so abhorrently low. (*That's a joke, obviously. I'd never put 50p in a collection box)

You're missing my point. I'm saying that coming from a scientific background, my default standpoint when confronted with new information is to think I might NOT be correct. To question my own thoughts, and the new information, and to see which holds most weight. I'm always 100% happy to be wrong and to change my views accordingly if shown something which I find outweighs my existing world view. The frustrating thing is when other people do the opposite and won't even accept that another point of view could possibly carry any weight whatsoever. It's why the whole world is in a f***ing mess at the moment with Trump, Brexit, climate change deniers, and indeed radicals of any kind on any part of a political or religious spectrum. If we all critically evaluated information put in front of us and were more flexible in our outlooks, the world would be an infinitely better place. So I'm about as far as anyone ever could be from saying that I think that because of my background I'm always right. Anyway. Yes, we've had individual years in which Ashley made a loss. You say you don't think that means Ashley will be more likely to sell. Do you remember when we were relegated to the Championship and he dropped the club's asking price? Because that's what happened very publicly in 2009. What you're suggesting won't happen has already happened in the past, under Mike Ashley, under the situation you describe. The problem is we went straight back up again so he got the TV money back. If we go down and stay down, history suggests he'll sell and sell cheap. Did he drop his asking price though? And if he did, he still didn't sell the club Yes. He reduced the asking price to £80m if Moat would pay up front. As for him not selling, no he didn't. No doubt most of that was on Moat, who nobody thinks was serious now. But he DID reduce his asking price on something he'd paid over £130m for just a couple of years previously because, as he said to lots of Newcastle staff and as reported by Paul Ferris in his book.... So he absolutely can and will want to sell if we're causing him trouble. He absolutely WILL take a loss. He will not sit here and lose money hand over foot, year on year, and just tack that all onto the asking price because that has never been the way to sell a business that's making a loss at any point in history, ever. What won't get him out is if we're making him a profit every year, and as already demonstrated with numbers, season ticket revenues are the difference between profit and loss. It is demonstrably the difference between him staying and going. You stated earlier that if you thought boycotting would make Ashley leave you'd cancel your ticket immediately. Well the number for the box office is 0344 372 1892 or you can email them at boxofficeNUFC[/member].co.uk

You're missing my point. I'm saying that coming from a scientific background, my default standpoint when confronted with new information is to think I might NOT be correct. To question my own thoughts, and the new information, and to see which holds most weight. I'm always 100% happy to be wrong and to change my views accordingly if shown something which I find outweighs my existing world view. The frustrating thing is when other people do the opposite and won't even accept that another point of view could possibly carry any weight whatsoever. It's why the whole world is in a fucking mess at the moment with Trump, Brexit, climate change deniers, and indeed radicals of any kind on any part of a political or religious spectrum. If we all critically evaluated information put in front of us and were more flexible in our outlooks, the world would be an infinitely better place. So I'm about as far as anyone ever could be from saying that I think that because of my background I'm always right. Anyway. Yes, we've had individual years in which Ashley made a loss. You say you don't think that means Ashley will be more likely to sell. Do you remember when we were relegated to the Championship and he dropped the club's asking price? Because that's what happened very publicly in 2009. What you're suggesting won't happen has already happened in the past, under Mike Ashley, under the situation you describe. The problem is we went straight back up again so he got the TV money back. If we go down and stay down, history suggests he'll sell and sell cheap.

The thing is though the ticket sales alone ARE enough to tip us from profit to loss. It doesn't even need anything else, though obviously there'll be a domino effect and other things will take a hit too, exacerbating the issue further.

Our net transfer spend is fucking zero. He can't reduce it and survive in the PL. If he reduces the transfer budget, our chances of staying up drop dramatically. And then we crash out the PL and then he looses a hundred million a year. Can you see where this is going yet?

Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense. He's already asking for an unreasonable amount and the club is in over a 100m in debt... You remind me of the arguments I have with my parents about Brexit or global warming. There is no level of proof which is high enough to convince them that they might be wrong. No matter how much actual evidence I put in front of them, from experts and peer-reviewed sources, they just go "Nah, that's not right" and show me some Daily Mail article about how forrins are ruining the country. It's about as rewarding as trying to kick water up a hill. You're the same. Not saying you're a Brexiteer or climate change denier, of course, but you're so deeply entrenched that where this is concerned there's no level of evidence which is satisfactory for you to question your standpoint. You just dismiss everything anyone puts as if none of it carries any weight whatsoever, no matter how backed in facts, figures, or historical evidence. I don't want to be rude to you, because you've not been rude to me or indeed anyone on here and for that at least I respect you. But I come from a scientific background and believe strongly in the scientific method. I like to think I'm very open to new ideas and reassessing my viewpoint in light of new information as that's how we grow as people and how we expand our horizons. But you don't have this in your DNA and when I can see that only one side is putting out a compelling case there's no way of getting around that discussing anything with you is just a complete waste of time.

Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense.

But if that "less revenue" is enough to mean the club makes him a loss rather than a profit, his whole reason for owning us disappears. It doesn't have to reduce his income to zero. Just enough to make us a millstone around his neck rather than a cash cow for him. Saying "but other revenue is more" is completely missing the point. Ticket revenue wouldn't be the difference between profit and loss How can you type that with a straight face? According to the latest released figures for 2017/18, we made an operating profit of £17.6m Ticket revenues were £24m So yes, on its own and without looking at anything else, ticket revenue absolutely is the difference between profit and loss for Mike Ashley. A further £28m was brought in through sponsorship, and trust me if you've got an empty stadium and nobody buying shirts then that takes a hit too. Add in further that if we go down, he looses the TV money and we'd all agree that a full stadium decreases the likelihood of relegation but to be honest to get shot of him it's a price I'd accept in a heartbeat to have my club back. In summary: Don't talk utter rot.

Mckeag had a willing buyer/consortium that fought for years buying shares. Who's doing that now? Well 3 parties have tried. Kenyon, Stavely and now BZG But willing buyers are irrelevant because we don't have a willing seller. And we don't have a willing seller because he's making a profit out of the club/your season ticket money. Stop that, and he will become a willing seller. Then the buyers have a fighting chance.

But if that "less revenue" is enough to mean the club makes him a loss rather than a profit, his whole reason for owning us disappears. It doesn't have to reduce his income to zero. Just enough to make us a millstone around his neck rather than a cash cow for him. Saying "but other revenue is more" is completely missing the point.

I mean it's ridiculous. We've literally got rid of one bad owner in our lifetimes by acting together. And now people are saying that there's no point trying to act together to get rid of a bad owner.