quayside

Asking me? As a manager not really. Like the guy though, loved our Championship season but he had arguably the best squad that has ever played Championship football. Under him in the Premiership we relied a lot on long balls from the likes of Barton into Andy Carroll and then Nolan being in the right place. It was no better football than the stuff people have been unhappy with under Pardew. When Pardew came in he had no Carroll, and he got some results with people like Best and Lovenkrands in the side, I'm not at all sure Hughton would have done that tbh. Rightly or wrongly I feel Pardew is a better man manager as well. We don't know all that goes on behind the scenes so I freely admit that's speculation.

Sorry can't see that at all. Hughton was backed in our championship season, look at the players we kept in that squad and look how much it cost Ashley to keep them. Of course Ashley had no choice in the circumstances. Genuine question as I haven't looked it up: who did Hughton lose? If there were bids for the good players that stayed they'd have gone too. We lost probably £25million worth of players and replaced them with about £4millions worth that season. The summer we came back up he was given Tiote, Gosling, Campbell, Perch and Ben Arfa (on loan) totalling about £4.5 million. Your first sentence is just an opinion and is not based on anything much. We kept a fantastic squad by Championship standards and added to it in the January so I think Hughton was backed. Have had a look, are we talking Owen, Duff, Beye, Bassong, Martins, Viduka leaving- anyone else? At that stage of their careers Owen, Viduka and Beye had little value and (much as I liked them all - at times) good riddance imo. We got good money for Martins and Bassong neither have proven to be worth it. Arguably Duff has actually proved to have some value as he's played Premiership football ever since. I don't think we lost anyone of any significance under Hughton. By the way I understand you like him, he's a decent professional and man. He was treated badly. But I don't think he's as good a manager as Pardew, and that's based on nothing other than it being my opinion.

Sorry can't see that at all. Hughton was backed in our championship season, look at the players we kept in that squad and look how much it cost Ashley to keep them. Of course Ashley had no choice in the circumstances. Genuine question as I haven't looked it up: who did Hughton lose?

Boomshit, holy f*** If you read what Krul said in the programme there's a fair chance he's taking the p1ss out of Taylor imo possibly in response to being called thick

Fair enough - I'll go first

The problem is some time down the road those of us who aren't in the "Pardew must die" camp will get tarred with the stuff Brett has been spouting on here.

Undoubtedly. But I think the question here is whether a traditional source of the clubs revenue/profit is being syphoned off into SD's coffers. There has never been mention in the club accounts that the retailing revenues/profits of the club have been handed over to SD - so we have no idea what arrangement is in place. True Faith are right to raise it as an issue.

Brett man it's great to have some variety in the views on here, every forum needs that - but Jesus Christ....

I know you aren't a fan of Pardew and never have been I think there have been suggestions on here (maybe not from you) that his ineptitude had squashed or killed the ability in the players he has at his disposal. I think yesterday showed that, for the most part, they can still play, and whatever he did allowed them to play in a way that suits their talents. And fwiw I thought we never stoped trying to win the game rather than attempt to play it out for a draw (which away at Villa is a result most would take tbh). I'd concede that the season has barely started and we didn't have Cabaye or Remy available early on - but we've played 4 games so far and surely you would agree that (from a horrible start admittedly) we've got better each time. Maybe he should at least get some small amount of credit for that?

Another fantastic piece by Caulkin.

most will want to see it proven before being accused of turning a blind eye to it. Much is already proven, the free advertising for example. i was meaning the possibly illegal siphoning off from the tills. Illegal? Do you mean to suggest it would be fine by you if the merchandising/retail revenue no longer went to the club as long as it was f***ing legal? Are there any related party disclosures in the latest set of accounts? Slow day: http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2149/xzka.jpg Yup that's the note - free advertising but no merchandising arrangement

most will want to see it proven before being accused of turning a blind eye to it. Much is already proven, the free advertising for example. i was meaning the possibly illegal siphoning off from the tills. Illegal? Do you mean to suggest it would be fine by you if the merchandising/retail revenue no longer went to the club as long as it was f***ing legal? Are there any related party disclosures in the latest set of accounts? Nothing disclosed to do with merchandising.

Don't think he created the situation which led to KK leaving the first time mind, or appointed Gullit or Souness or Fat Sam or sacked SBR in the way it was done, or refused to talk about hiring Mourhino because he'd never heard of him or got caught in a brothel, or refused to pay £135K for Steve Bruce (when Norwich did) or sold Gazza/Waddle etc etc etc etc NUFC is an unrelenting story of suicidal decisions. His post did include the words "some of"

Yes - you're right and we do have to accept that he will not give a single sh*t about who it is either, as long they are good for his wedge.

You are right. I said earlier that if there is any merchandising arrangement between Sports Direct and the club it has to be disclosed and values of any transactions also have to be disclosed in the accounts. If anyone does ever look at the latest accounts these arrangements come under Related Party transactions and the last lot were in note 22, and there was nothing about any such agreement or arrangement. It could be that the arrangement started after June 2012 but, as it stands, there isn't much to go on.

It can't be anything other than a related party transaction. Would us getting nothing for it make any difference? After all, it's only a link on a website. To be honest I can't see how it couldn't be a related party transaction whether we get anything from it or not. Although as I said it could have started after June2012.

The 2012 accoiunts disclose nothing about any relationship between Sports Direct and the club with regard to merchandising. The club would have to disclose that as it would be what is known as a Related Party transaction. The only 2 Related Party transactions in the accounts are the free advertising SD get at SJP and the loan provided by Ashley. Unless maybe it did not start until after june 2012?

£17m from merchandising and sponsorship in 2011/2012 http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/mike-ashley-want-prices-low-1361584 Eh, that doesn't make sense to me, is he saying we bring in £5m on retail but retail costs are £4.8m-4.9m? Appears so. No way that is true like. It can't be, they'd be the worst business people ever. Oh, hang on. In all seriousness, they might as well shut them down if the profit margin is that s***. Like you say it sounds like f***ing bullshit, as ever. Unless it is outsourced and the club gets the £100,000 - £200,000 as a commission or fee on the £5 million of sales. If you see what I mean.

You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. I have quoted your paragraph above, as I'm not so sure about it. Clearly Spurs have done something like that over the years but they are an exception rather than a rule. There is a bit of Everton about it. I'm not sure the supporter base would be too receptive to a new ownership regime creating another Everton. Maybe I'm wrong. It is a club that lives within its means but a lot of the fan base criticise the board for lacking ambition (ambition = money). Haing ambition does not equal operating beyond your means. It means having the will and determination to improve and grow. Mix that with some ability and we have the potential to improve and grow in stature both on and off the field. As there is a total lack of will or determination the talent that could help realise it will keep well away. Naturally. The able and the apathetic are not natural bedfellows. Fair enough. I think Everton is as ambitious as it can be given it's finances. They do their best to attract the best manager and players they can, and they never have the comedy show routines that we are adept at providing. But, despite that, there is still some supporter unrest as I understand it from a good mate of mine who is a lifelong Evertonian.

You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. Also, not just the question of repayment of existing debt, but the availability of new debt to finance our continued significant losses. Was it going to be easy to keep borrowing? I don't think so, there was nothing left to offer as security.

You are right about the loan notes, they were structured. Given that the club lost £32 million in 2007 and was technically insolvent it must be possible that would have consituted a breach of covenant? Incidentally apart from the stadium loan notes the club also had a further chunk of about £25 million (from memory) of debt outstanding in the summer of 2007. I have quoted your paragraph above, as I'm not so sure about it. Clearly Spurs have done something like that over the years but they are an exception rather than a rule. There is a bit of Everton about it. I'm not sure the supporter base would be too receptive to a new ownership regime creating another Everton. Maybe I'm wrong. It is a club that lives within its means but a lot of the fan base criticise the board for lacking ambition (ambition = money).

A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". No, I did. I have posted a differently worded response. You need to separate finances from the decisions he has made and the action he has taken. Even if you are saying money is the root cause, the end result is inexcusable irrespective of what caused it. Well I disagree with your main point. Although, of course, I won't argue that the end result has been inexcusable. Ironically, my main point. Ah well, I saw your main point as advising me to look at Ashley's decisions without considering that many of them are financially motivated. And I struggle to do that as I think it is his main driver tbh.

A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused". No, I did. I have posted a differently worded response. You need to separate finances from the decisions he has made and the action he has taken. Even if you are saying money is the root cause, the end result is inexcusable irrespective of what caused it. Well I disagree with your main point. Although, of course, I won't argue that the end result has been inexcusable.

There's some cracking questions in there.

A lot of those things are to do with money in one way or another. Unfortunately the point where finance was not the major driver in football passed some years ago. what a load of twaddle. So you don't think that any of Ashley's actions are motivated by money then? No. I don't think any of the things I have listed can be excused by financial considerations at the time. You said 'A lot of those things are to do with money one way or another' Yes, in the same way that absolutely everything is something to do with money. I think the root cause of a lot of those things was/is financial constraints imposed by Ashley and or his posse. You obviously disagree. And I did not use the word "excused".