manorpark

BUT - he doesn't want (or intend) to sell - unless a 'silly' offer comes in. He is hell-bent on revenge against us . . . and he knows EXACTLY how to do that. Just watch. yeah, us getting relegated and looking a farce like this is really in his interests, as the value of the club will soar that way. oh wait.... Aye, i agree that us getting relegated is surely not in his best intrests. But by asking for silly money that he's never going to get, not much chance of getting a decent manager in under the present circumstances, and not strengthening the already thin squad when he could doesn't look like a recipe for success either though. So i can see where a lot of people are coming from. Ashley is not trying very hard to sell, or to appoint a new manager, nor will he buy good quality players in the next window. He is not doing anything at all.

BUT - he doesn't want (or intend) to sell - unless a 'silly' offer comes in. He is hell-bent on revenge against us . . . and he knows EXACTLY how to do that. Just watch. yeah, us getting relegated and looking a farce like this is really in his interests, as the value of the club will soar that way. oh wait.... I'm not sure how many times I have to say this, but here goes again. The club is an asset that is worth a certain amount of money. There will be almost no difference at all in its sale-value between what it would have been if we had 'worked hard and well' with our fairly poor team (and small squad) and had achieved upper-mid table status this season, compared to (what IS going to happen) if Ashley "does nothing" and lets us rot into a very low-mid table position. He is going to let us rot, because it makes no difference to him - but he KNOWS it does to us. He will try (at least) to ensure that we do not get relegated, for financial reasons only ('his' financial reasons). We are going to be SWAMPED with inactivity . . .

BUT - he doesn't want (or intend) to sell - unless a 'silly' offer comes in. He is hell-bent on revenge against us . . . and he knows EXACTLY how to do that. Just watch.

In suggesting this laudible idea, you are making the same assumption that a lot of people are unable to stop themselves doing - that the current ownership might try something like this, because they ARE TRYING to improve things. They are not. They intend to pretend to be doing that, while letting us and the club (but principally us) ROT - in revenge for what they feel we have done to them. They are NOT trying to put things right, or to sell (in any great hurry) or anything like that at all. Wait and see.

So if he is at fault which to be honest i can agree with ( he shouldnt of employed keegan in the first place, naiveity, etc,etc), does that mean that it is still right to try and force him out after one mistake - albeit a massive one, which wouldnt of affected the club massively had he follwed up with a good appointment which was perfectly viable? the protests just seemed so disproportionate to the issue in the grand scheme of things. Keegan is replaceable there are better managers out there and there are managers out there who have achieved more than him who would of been interested in the job. and which 'one' was that? humour me..... I appreciate you want me to do your work for you . . .

As I said, he isn't going to write off a penny. Not a penny. Letting us rot (wasting our season) will not lose him a penny. What makes you think it would? It will like, Owen leaving will drop the value of the club by 10-15 million on its own. Then what happens if we get relegated, not that I think for a second we would, but lets say we're left managerless all season and the injuries stay bad, its possible and would quarter the price of the club, or worse. The club is an asset that has a certain value. That value will not be affected by (as I say) letting us rot for a season or two or three. I agree, if we were relegated it would, but I am sure that they will do enough (just enough) to ensure that does not happen.

So if he is at fault which to be honest i can agree with ( he shouldnt of employed keegan in the first place, naiveity, etc,etc), does that mean that it is still right to try and force him out after one mistake - albeit a massive one, which wouldnt of affected the club massively had he follwed up with a good appointment which was perfectly viable? the protests just seemed so disproportionate to the issue in the grand scheme of things. Keegan is replaceable there are better managers out there and there are managers out there who have achieved more than him who would of been interested in the job. and which 'one' was that?

The ultimate responsibility should always lie with those at the top. After all, it's their job. However, im a tad curious about something. What happened to "mistakes happen" and "forgive and forget"? Ashley made a mistake and it resulted in someone as stubborn as they are important to the club in walking out. A mistake made by an owner new to the game itself, an owner with good intentions for the club, with money ready to subsidise the club, with a good policy and plan for the long term running of the club, unlike those before him who had amassed serious debts and an awful playing squad contrary to their dillusional statements. So what do our fans do? We run around screaming for his head. Some of the above appears to involve the use of large rose-coloured spectacles.

Agreed!! The W Ham situation has 'similarities' to ours, but it is not the same. Also (as said above) who gives a (flying) s*** about them.

The responsibility for what happened is spread around quite a few people/groups, including the fans. But 99.99% of the responsibility lies with the owner. He made the decisions, at various stages, that caused this to happen in the way that it did. The buck stops with the owner.

Thats Bollox . . . (better spelling!)

Your favourite word tonight!!

As I said, he isn't going to write off a penny. Not a penny. Letting us rot (wasting our season) will not lose him a penny. What makes you think it would?

Ha Ha - I really SO wish you were right.

All we actually know is that Ashley SAID he intended to sell the club. I think he actually intends just to let us rot, as payback for what he feels we did to him and his 'little toy' football club. He knows the value of the club will not dramatically fall from what it is now, if he simply punishes us by letting the club (and us) ROT. That is human nature, for people of his sort. To those who say "source?" and "how do you know?" - I say, just wait and see and judge by the 'silence' and lack of action.

My interpretation of Ashley's actions so far, is that he has NO intention of selling us in the near future (unless he gets a 'silly' offer) and is fully intending to get his own back on us by LETTING US ROT . . . It seems like this season is probably over for us, so soon (it being only September) but it seems likely that we can already say that.

We are all individuals with our own wildly differing views and opinions and standards of behaviour, on this planet, and I accept that. It is difficult at times (and I often wonder if some of us ARE on the same planet!) but I accept it and the bizarre views on many aspects of life (football included) that some people have. The above (in bold) though, makes me wonder afresh, whether we should seriously consider setting up 'secure compounds' for some people . . . I really do. It sounds like the 'compounds' remark is directed at me, but I'm not 100% sure. Can you confirm? If it is, and it reads like it is, you'll have to do what all people with a valid, sensible opinion that differs from the masses have to do - put up with ridicule because there's no real counter arguement, just a differing opinion, to throw back. Hence, the "youre a NUTTER" replies. That's an interesting (not) comment. The masses seem to have it in for Michael Owen, and this poster is just one of them. It is even more interesting (even more not) how this obsession of the masses, as articulated by bobyule, is then cited as 'differing' from the masses by someone else. Planet totall boll*x must be a pretty busy place these days, but I do not intend to visit.

We are all individuals with our own wildly differing views and opinions and standards of behaviour, on this planet, and I accept that. It is difficult at times (and I often wonder if some of us ARE on the same planet!) but I accept it and the bizarre views on many aspects of life (football included) that some people have. The above (in bold) though, makes me wonder afresh, whether we should seriously consider setting up 'secure compounds' for some people . . . I really do.

In fact, the entire thread is something of a complete waste of time (in a 'nice' way) How it's got to 3 pages is beyond me. Hmmm...maybe replying wasn't a good idea Aye, true - but I just felt the 'need' to . . .

In fact, the entire thread is something of a complete waste of time (in a 'nice' way)

Sums it up (again!)

A few did, but you just came back with... "It is a possibility" It may be unlikely, but it's still very possible, and by the looks of things quite common (granted more-so in smaller Private companies). I'd counter that with a view that is LESS likely in smaller private companies. In my experience (and as an auditor for 4 and a bit years I worked with a different company every couple of weeks of all sizes) the smaller the company the more direct control the owner has. Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership and the more delegated the control So what are your views on my original post, that he may have stripped himself of some of the say on matters regarding the day to day running of the club, with the employment of a Managing Director and Executive Directors. Bearing in mind that I'm basing this on A level economics so I don't, neither do I profess, to know the ins and outs. I'm just working off the way I understood it. The key information is (from the above that you quote) - Conversly, the larger the company the more diluted the ownership In this case, the ownership is NOT diluted at all. Whatever duties and powers and authorities Ashley gave to (say) Wise in his contract - Ashley sets ALL the overall policies, which Wise must obey, or face dismissal having breached his contract. A simple example. Ashley employs Wise as a senior manager to buy players. Thats his job. He has freedom to buy who he wants without interference from Ashley, within budget. However, Ashley can still insist that his "overall policy" is that Wise only buys two-legged players for HIS club. If Wise doesn't do this (and insists on buying three-legged players) then he gets the sack. Ashley has total ultimate authority - end of!!! Im not wanting to be rude, but what is so difficult about grasping that fact?

Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. He would have to give a damn better reason than "because they disagreed with me". I don't know the ins and outs, but in that case their "titles" are very misleading. A Board of Directors, running a company in which they own shares is one thing, working as an employee for Mike Ashley (albeit as a 'senior' employee) is quite another. They do as he tells them to do, in the final analysis.

Not if he releases control of the day to day running to board members. If he has done that, then it is illegal for him to make decisions without a majority vote. Nonsense. In simple terms, he can of course get rid of anyone on the board who disagrees with him. "The Board" as we are calling it, is not a board of directors, it is just a grouping of senior managers that Ashley has employed to run his business for him, as he can't be everywhere at once. They are just 'employees' in the very traditional sense (no matter what their titles) and they will 'advise him', but at the end of the day have to do what he wants them to - or get sacked!

Yes, but we should try to bring them - everyone - into the group.