quayside

The Spurs comment was either a ploy to gain popularity (file in same place as wearing a shirt and standing with the fans) or a piss take on his his mates like Kemsley. To me the main message is that he can't or won't fund this club to take it to where we want it to be.

Open minded on the whole situation. There's still plenty of time and there will be a lot happening behind the scenes right now. I'm with the people on here who don't feel they've seen enough of Ashley yet to know what ambition he has for the club. He can easily put that right in the coming weeks.

So was there anything to stop him from, you know, taking out another loan with someone else if paying it off himself was going to scupper his plans? He had plenty of legitimate excuses last Summer - new to the business, Alardyce not his man, etc without having to invent new ones for him. If I remember correctly, the most popular one was that the "strategic review" must be completed before any signings can be made. I don't know how easily it would have been for the club to borrow that sort of sum again in a hurry. The balance sheet, by this time, had £90 million of accumulated losses in it and was showing a technically insolvent position. I would guess that Ashley might have had to personally guarantee any loan the club took out. And if he had to do that he might as well pay it off himself. The strategic review was a sort of due diligence after the deal had been done I think and yes it was cited as a reason for caution. If your overall point is that there can't be any excuses for some real progress to be made on strengthening the first team squad this summer then I agree.

Good point well put. However playing devils advocate here, I have to say for him to not discover the size of the debt until he had already bought the club lock stock and barrell, smacks of poor reaserch. He obvously skimped on his due diligence before making the purchase. Those debts must have been apparent to the other suitors that came, saw and didn't bid. TBH, the debt shouldn't have been a surprise to him if he had gone through the books carefully enough. I don't think the point was that Ashley didn't realise the debt was there - it was more that he didn't realise the loan document contained a "poison pill" clause. This was that if the club changed ownership then the debt became repayable immediately, so he got stuck with shelling out an unexpected £70 million within days of the takeover. But your point about due diligence is valid. He can't have done much investigation on the detail because Shepherd would have known about it. And as I understand it the first time Fred knew the Halls had sold was after the event - when he was in hospital iirc.

Probably because they are a better team... 2 points better. Anyway he said it was because he didnt want to move to the midlands didnt he? He hasn't said anything. Oliver said it was because he didn't want to move to the midlands. Anal bang on the money as usual

I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... the mutu case (he has to pay chelsea for their losses on him) could be worth a look to see if it could be used here. It's probably beeing looked at by the clubs legal people. But as someone above said Mutu's actions put himself out of action for a whole season whereas Barton's Mcdonaldgate incident could see him miss only a few matches. surely it's the principal rather than the timescale ? I honestly don't know - I can't claim to have any detailed knowledge on the subject. But it seems to me that its a question of quantum .i.e how much the players breach has contributed to the loss in value. I would have thought that if you are attempting to base an action on a drop in value the fact that a player misses a whole season because of his wrong doing has a greater impact on the value of the loss than a wrong doing that results in only a handful of games missed.

I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really... the mutu case (he has to pay chelsea for their losses on him) could be worth a look to see if it could be used here. It's probably beeing looked at by the clubs legal people. But as someone above said Mutu's actions put himself out of action for a whole season whereas Barton's Mcdonaldgate incident could see him miss only a few matches.

I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract. but his present incarceration clearly is a breach of contract. I would have thought so. I don't know what the contract says but, as I said, I find it hard to believe that getting imprisoned doesn't give the club the right to rip up the contract. Trouble is it would mean writing off an asset valued at several million and financial considerations are never ignored in any business let alone a football club. So the club are trying to keep him on the books but use the imprisonment as a lever to get his cost of employment down. Bit of a mess really...

I think he could and would, I also think he'd have a good chance of winning his case. I agree, we knew what we were signing when we did, and we proceeded to play him in our first team AFTER the Liverpool incident. If the club had have taken the moral high ground they would not have used him in the later games in the season. As we have played him and nothing has changed since then other than a judge has passed ruling Newcastle probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on. but he hadn't been found guilty then nor had the finer details of the case been made public. Exactly - innocent until proven guilty. Those who accuse the fans who applauded Barton of hypocrisy should remember this. He was still legally innocent at the time and for all anyone knew about the case he might have been in line for a fine, doing some community service or even been acquitted. When the facts became known I don't mind admitting my attitude changed. I find it hard to believe he has a defence if the club want to rip up his contract for the Liverpool incident. If they then want to offer him a new one at half the wages its up to him whether he takes it or not. It doesn't strike me as a great idea by the club though because if he does end up accepting it's unlikely to do much for his motivation. The Dabo case is potentially more serious and he could get sent down for even longer. But as someone above said it was a known risk when he signed so unless something was specifically written into the contract I can't see how the club could claim it to be a breach of contract.

Never saw him as anything other than doing the job on a temporary basis - he continued to be named as a Freshfields partner all through his time with us. He did the job during a pivotal year. He is a very clever and very professional operator and my concern is that some of the important lessons he will have learned from the experience could walk out the door when he does. I have no idea whatsoever about what his replacement will bring to the party (assuming it's Llambias).

No comments on the fact that the new chairman gets twice as much as the old chairman got criticised for taking despite presiding over the club's worst season in the premiership, sacking a manager mid season without a replacement lined up, and failing to land any of the new manager's transfer targets (all things the old chairman would surely have been crucified for)? Well er yes He was working as a partner at Freshfields and £1 million a year was probably about what he would have been on there, so I guess Ashley had to match it to get him to do the job as a short term secondment. The cause of the poor season can and has been debated at length. Whether Keegan rescued us from something worse or whether we would have finished higher if we'd stuck with BSA is the subject of a few multi page threads on here. What is certainly true is that there wasn't a replacement for BSA lined up and that smacks of incompetence, especially as it was a mid season sacking and we were far from safe from relegation. Our pulling power for players of the calibre KK is targetting isn't that great due to our performances in the past few years so I don't know whether Mort can be blamed for that.

Indeed. Watched the live coverage of our last European assault (2006) in some truly shocking places tbh. Good times

FYP

He has played 37 time this season and has only recently been dropped following this alleged 'strop' so I don't think he can complain too much about not getting enough playing time. If you were Keegan and you have a potential relegation fight on your hands do you play someone who has openly told you that he wants to go? Or do you pick players who will put in a shift. Whatever people may think about Enrique, Barton and Geremi their efforts/contributions were an important part of the turnround that kept us up. And I am not saying that they all played amazingly btw - just that they did their bit.

Good player but he's a Londoner and left Wigan because he thought it was too far north. He might have some issues with us on that front tbh.

For some reason we've not done well against Fulham in recent years. They've got a few players who need watching. McBride is a very good header of a ball. Bullard is a better midfielder than anyone we currently have and Simon Davies is also lively. If we can contain those 3 the job will be easier. Christ I sound like Sam Allardyce......

Was shocked when I realised that Ashley/Mort had sacked Sam without having a replacement lined up. Bearing in mind the timing of the sacking and the fact that mathematically we were far from safe from relegation this seemed to be a recipe for a rerun of previous nightmares. Plus I had really thought that they were smarter operators than that. Then when it became apparent that plan A was to try and lure Redknapp away from his comfortable life on the south coast I despaired. It always seemed unlikely that Arry at the age of 61 would leave his Sandbanks home, the club where he is worshipped and the wealthy owner who backs him. And was Redknapp the choice of someone with a vision for the future? He's not the new Arsene Wenger is he? And then when plan B was Keegan, who hasn't managed for 3 years, it seemed obvious to me that Ashley/Mort didn't have a clue what they were doing. Kneejerk reactions had lead them to make what they thought was a populist decision that could put the club in genuine risk of relegation. And I don't happen to think that relegation would be an "ok" thing to happen. But with time we all mellow a bit and you start to remember that one of the great things about our club is its sheer unpredictability. I mean back in December if someone had said that by the end of January the club would have Keegan as manager and Dennis Wise as director of football....... :bng: As others have said you've got to love KK and he will get more time than others might have done. And just because the club does things that you don't agree with you don't stop supporting them do you? He's here and he's our manager and, whatever misgivings I have, I want him to succeed. Ashley will get a lot of flak if it all goes wrong and, as far as he is concerned, the jury is still out for me - I'll feel more comfortable if we see him backing his manager properly in the summer, assuming we stay up of course.....

Uncanny thread I'm in Barca on Saturday in Las Ramblas area. It never occurred to me that the match might be on Spanish tv. If it is on there will be some tricky negotiating with wifey on the menu on Friday night.

Oooo, kneejerk tastic. He's had one poor game ffs. Agree. Faye is the best central defender we've had since Woodgate imo. faye has been diabolical the last few games, mistake after mistake and he now cant clear a ball. he was our best defender BEFORE african cup of nations, now beye or enrique can be classed as our 'best' defenders Faye had an excellent game against Blackburn and I wouldn't single him out for special mention over anyone else against Liverpool. My point was about central defenders not defenders in general btw. Beye has been our best defender all season. But he isn't a central defender or at least hasn't been used as one here. It looks like Enrique is starting to settle.

Oooo, kneejerk tastic. He's had one poor game ffs. Agree. Faye is the best central defender we've had since Woodgate imo.

Thought Sam would do much better than he did. Thought Luque would be awesome. Thought Barton would at least play as well for us as he did for Citeh. Thought Viduka would contribute a lot more than Sibierski. Thought replacing Moore, Bramble, Huntington, Gooch and Bernard with Cacapa, Faye, Beye, Rozenal and Enrique was an outstanding piece of work in the transfer market. Still find it hard to believe that some of it wasn't tbh. :-[

I thinkj Butt will play, can't see him in that line up. If anything he may start Butt ahead of Barton, can see that being the only change to that starting 11 though.. Butt ahead of Zoggy in that 11 is quite possible tbh.

Outstanding post, agreed with almost every word. Someone said it earlier, how many supporters of leading clubs would be happy if he was appointed at their club? Man U? Spurs? Liverpool? Arsenal? I've just fed the figures into a computer and my opta stats indicate 98% of them would tell him to fu... ...er furget about it. It was a great post. But the real issue is not how crap Sam was, and yes he was very disappointing - it's whether we've risked our Premiership status by replacing him with someone who is worse. Waiting for evidence that we haven't tbh, and will be very relieved when I see it.

And play who instead? I can only remember 2 passes all season from central midfield that have ripped the opposition apart. Both came from Barton against Blackburn and Owen didn't convert either sadly. There may have been others but if so they have passed me by.

You don't get paid off if you resign and we were told at the time that he'd resigned, the club website even confirmed that he'd resigned. he got 1.1m for it. most likely shepherd said we'll give you this amount to resign, or we'll sack you and you can take your chances in court about having your contract paid out. You resign so it doesn't count as a sacking (for both club and manager) and we'll pay you off without hassle. A sacking to all intents and purposes though.