AyeDubbleYoo

All they did was to prove those fans where bang on the money, let alone right. But more - it shows what British justice is nowadays - the cause of the removal of freedom of speech, the friend of islamic terrorists, the accomplice of criminals, teen thugs, druggies and their dealers, benefit immigrants, asylum seekers and every negative in this country ruined by the party I USED to vote for. Not sure I'd go that far, it's the people who exploit the law rather than the system itself that is to blame here. As Ericz says, it was more likely a scare tactic used by the club's lawyers that they never thought they would see any resistance to. I'm fairly sure if it had made court then the fans would have been the winners.

True, isn't one of the keys to defamation that the difference between things stated to be taken as 'fact' versus 'opinion'? Also the defence of a statement being 'in good faith' might run as well.

Sometimes people enter into the most stupid legal battles. What did the club hope to achieve from that, just alienate more fans?

How is it stupid to actually want to try to compete though? Yes there are only a certain number of Champions League places, there are only a certain number for Liverpool and Chelsea as well, only those same places for Man City to go for as well, but you don't see any of them saying "why bother?, we might not make it". I'd rather be in a position of finishing 5th and actually having the chance of finishing top four or better then languish in no mans land with no chance of going anywhere, wouldn't you? 'Course, just not at any cost that's all. You've got to assess whether it's possible and/or realistic, and what sort of timescales we might be talking about. We were in the position to compete a few years ago weren't we, but it all went tits up rather quickly. That's why I think stability and consistency is what we need, before we look for dramatic progress. Like the article says, if eventually all premiership clubs will have mega-rich owners, then 1 wins the title, 3 qualify for the champions league, and the rest have 'failed'.

Revenue doesn't stay static, for instance our revenue will have increased quite a lot recently with the extra TV money. Also any board, not just the likes of Shepherd or Ashley, can go out and do things to bring extra money in, which then increased revenue. We were spending more then we were bringing in because we were spending quite a lot on transfers, our revenue covered our wages, operating costs, repayments on loans with money left over. I agree about the transfers, which is why I think more sensible spending was a very good idea. I know we have more TV money, but at the same time we've missed out on Europe regularly now, where before we were in Champs League/UEFA every year. That must have an impact, not only on prize money also on worldwide exposure and thus merchandise revenue and things. I'm sure if it was as easy as just going out and increasing revenue, then everyone would have done it. I don't think it is though, especially in the current economic climate.

That Martin Samuel article is spot on to be honest, completely agree with most of it. Especially that it is stupid to hope we get bought out by a mega-rich owner prepared to buy Robinho, because there are only so many Champions League places anyway, and we'll quickly get to the point where 5th is a failure and we're sacking good managers for finishing there again. Then the whole circus starts again. I'm very disappointed that Ashley couldn't have shown some bollocks and just rode out these protests. They would have died down soon enough, he could have appointed a manager that fitted the system and we would have continued to progress. Sadly he needed more than anything to be popular with the fans, and to have a beer with them at away games. That means he was never going to be able to make tough decisions against public opinion - and therefore his (correct) policy of gradual rebuilding could never work.

But if loan repayments only came out of revenue, then the debt would increase indefinitely wouldn't it? Because the club was spending more than it was bringing in, hence the need for finance in the first place. At some point someone would need to raise additional money to start clearing some debt, or pay it off out of their own pocket (i.e. as Ashley did). Especially risky if income forecasts are based on regular European football etc, as ours probably were.

Can't believe anyone thinks that Smith being injured actually affects the club in any way at all.

In any event , there's no way he would have put staff members in place who would have to vote for their own sacking. He would never give them the security of a traditional board of directors in a PLC.

Burnham to London? Yeah. About an hour by car. Quicker to walk then surely? Is he from Burnham near Slough? If so he's about as Cockney as Alan Shearer, that's out west of London.

Which was kind of my point Mine too.

Do we even have a 'board' in the traditional sense? Yes we have senior staff but we don't have any shareholders to answer to, surely the owner can do what he wants, within the law and the contracts people have with him.

I still think it's mental that he didn't know the full financial picture when he bought the club. I mean, he's obviously rich but chucking around 100s of millions without doing your homework doesn't seem to make sense.

I suppose the legacy of the whole Hall/Shepherd regime is - did great things for the club, got carried away, shot for the big time and over reached to do it. Thus we're left in the current situation where a lot of steady rebuilding/progress is required, non of which we have the patience for because of our memories of flirting with the elite.

For once I agree with Hitler! (Edit: Wish the page hadn't split there, that looks a bit dodgy without the video! )

That's a quality post, everyone has to be able to compromise and work together, no manager is all-powerful. I loved it when Keegan came back, but I always had the factors you mention nagging at the back of my mind. It was easy to ignore them when the euphoria was at its height.

Hope it will represent a balanced point of view and not just the 'Ashley is satan' brigade.

Fuck, that makes it a lot less funny, if I was Fagan I would be fuming

Not 6 or 7 tho I thought he always slammed in 4?

I agree, the thing is, there's only so many Champions League places so any other mega-rich owners will have to be content with a constant drain on their finances and not much in return. Even if you pump money in like Man City are planning to do, there are only so many Robinhos and Ronaldos you can buy - and even then you'll probably finish 5th.

I honestly don't think he'll hang around. If he feels as strongly about it as the statement makes out, he'll be desperately trying to flog the club before the next home game. I hope he cares enough about the club to sell it to the right people. He is a business man, he will be looking to sell to whoever gives him the best offer... I couldn't blame him for not caring about the club the way he's been treated by the fans.

We were never in danger of relegation this season. We flirted with it through Big Sam's non-football, but the squad stronger and with Keegan's brand of football we would have been fine.

I hope that George Caulkin article is meant to be sarcastic, because if not it's a load of bollocks.

To be fair, 'interested in the football side' is exactly what Ashley is, that's why I find it so baffling that people have turned against him. He just wasn't prepared to bankrupt himself or the club trying to buy success (which most likely wouldn't work anyway).

Well, fair enough maybe 10th would be average, but anything 8th or better would be excellent progress. And people would have every reason to be pleased. The summer was in no way 'very poor', and the only reason we are even contemplating relegation is the manager walking out.