It's Sunday, it's half twelve, it's number one... it's ASHLEY TO SELL UP!

[S.S.R.]

If I was a betting man, I'd say Ashley would sell if he received an offer he considered attractive. A football club is an expensive toy these days if you want to compete rather than exist and he may have stretched himself. He's rich but not mega rich.

 

Bit of a circular argument.

[bobbydazzla]

quick question about the wider footballing world: are the money men also buying up European clubs or is it just the premiership they're focusing their sights on ?

 

Only the EPL clubs as it the richest league & has the most exposure. Libya has a stake in Juventus though.

 

surprised they've not targetted the Spanish league. Although the Barca ownership situation means one of the crown jewels isn't up for grabs.

 

on the other point about brand development etc. I couldn't give a shit who owns or sponsors a club when making purchasing decisions. I've got no money in Northern Rock, I never shop at Sports Direct, I never drink Brown Ale, I only had NTL cos I didn't have the option for a Sky dish.

 

 

 

 

[Thespence]

quick question about the wider footballing world: are the money men also buying up European clubs or is it just the premiership they're focusing their sights on ?

 

Only the EPL clubs as it the richest league & has the most exposure. Libya has a stake in Juventus though.

 

surprised they've not targetted the Spanish league. Although the Barca ownership situation means one of the crown jewels isn't up for grabs.

 

A English lad has just beaten Fred Shepherd to purchasing Real Magaulf

[bobbydazzla]

quick question about the wider footballing world: are the money men also buying up European clubs or is it just the premiership they're focusing their sights on ?

 

Only the EPL clubs as it the richest league & has the most exposure. Libya has a stake in Juventus though.

 

surprised they've not targetted the Spanish league. Although the Barca ownership situation means one of the crown jewels isn't up for grabs.

 

A English lad has just beaten Fred Shepherd to purchasing Real Magaulf

 

yeah I read about that. Although my original point was more about the "real" moneymen (Abramovic, Lerner, Glazer, Thaksin etc etc etc)

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

 

I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club.

 

Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers..  

 

I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part.

 

Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop.

 

Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans.

 

Broadly agree.

 

Ownership of a relative 'idea' however is the holy grail of branding...Because it supeceeds time and the moment, it goes beyond an attention span and it goes beyond simply generating an interest. Vigin for instance is not a brand it is an 'idea'. SwissAir for instance has been very well re-branded, but it will never be an idea or a vision like Virgin is. That transcendence is cause Richard understood early that an idea or a cause (the fight against BA) embeds in a way glossy visuls doesn't.

 

Virgin was an idea, it is now a brand all the same. You can't own an idea Parky. No-one owns pop music, they may own a pop group, but not the idea. That's why it's the holy grail. Same in football. Someone might own the brand to a league (Sky), but who owns the clubs, the ideas? The fans. Companies of course get in on the act by way of sponsorship, advertising and partnership schemes but to own a football club lock stock, for a brand or multi-national? It's just not a cost effective answer to any goal of a company, be it expansion, market leadership, more market share, or whatever else. Hence why they've stayed clear in that regard and always will.

[Rob W]

Thaksin's money is all locked up by the Thai Govt

 

The Yanks are hurting due to the credit crunch

 

Abramovich is totally dependent on his "friends" in power

 

Just having a zillionaire backer doesn't mean it';s always going to be there when you want it

 

[bobbydazzla]

Thaksin's money is all locked up by the Thai Govt

 

The Yanks are hurting due to the credit crunch

 

Abramovich is totally dependent on his "friends" in power

 

Just having a zillionaire backer doesn't mean it';s always going to be there when you want it

 

 

very true. with NUFC being a prime example. Spending less under the stewardship of a billionairre than we did when a mere millionaire was in charge.

 

 

[Guest Sniffer]

If I was a betting man, I'd say Ashley would sell if he received an offer he considered attractive. A football club is an expensive toy these days if you want to compete rather than exist and he may have stretched himself. He's rich but not mega rich.

 

Bit of a circular argument.

Not at all. IMO, Ashley is the type who doesn't want to be seen to make a mistake. I think he might fancy selling but only if the offer is one that he can walk away with a decent enough profit that he can come out of it having made it look like a smart, relatively short term investment.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I think the long-term answer is fan ownership. I think the powers that be need to make it easier for fans to own their own football clubs and should set in motion legal laws that prohibit the selling and buying of football clubs willy nilly. For what its worth I'd rather have Ashley the owner who runs NUFC properly in accordance with conventional football and indeed business ways than some mega rich bloke buying us as a plaything and buying success.

[Guest Sniffer]

Right. Who the fuck wants success. Not us.

[wrightstuff83]

Anyone hear rob shepard on talksport there?

 

Jus caught the end of it and he was saying the stories today are factual and well researched, and threw in that he wouldnt be surprized if MA winds up buying spurs!

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Right. Who the f*** wants success. Not us.

 

Me but not at any cost. Call me stupid but I still believe success can be achieved via normal practice with the right men at the helm both in the boardroom and in the dugout. I'd hate to sacrifice what our club stands for or rather the reasons why I support the club for some lets face it, meaningless silverware. I say meaningless because I don't follow NUFC or go to the match for that reason, I go because I enjoy the match day experience, I go because this is my local club, its a call of duty and pride. I go because I have a good time through the match day experience, with mates at the pub before and after, or during the week when discussing Toon matters. That's why I go. At 2.55 the last thought on my mind is silverware. In fact I don't even think about it at all and that's not because my default is silverware and NUFC = ha. It's just not what NUFC or football represents to me.

 

My ultimate goal for NUFC is to support a team that I can respect, admire and be extremely proud of, win lose or draw. This is why I am delighted KK is here, not because he's the best manager in the world, but because I respect, trust and have faith in the man.  The low points of following Newcastle for me haven't been those FA Cup final defeats, semi-final defeats or mid-table finishes, but seeing countless players wearing our badge who for whatever reason haven't been good enough, players who wore the shirt in disgrace, players who couldn't give a fuck. Those limp performances where we haven't even tried, or given it a good go.

 

Silverware? That is reward for the players and the club I say, my reward is beating Man Utd 5-0, playing great football, seeing players like Shearer, Ginola, Beardsley and co wear our shirt with distinction, enjoying the match and club with mates, the away days (although those are few these days).

 

No-one ever talks about the Fairs Cup win, they talk about the performances that got us there, the players of that era, their feats, not the team and club's feat of winning silverware. Take our FA Cup wins in the 50s, talk about that era to fans of those days and they just want to talk about Wor Jackie, individual games, Len White et al.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

PS Don't get me wrong, I'd love us to win the league cup, I'd cry my eyes out if we went to Wembley in may and lifted that cup which many regard as a nothing cup, but that's not why we all follow this club or what football is all about, is it? Maybe at Old Trafford, Anfield and Stamford Bridge... not with me, not Newcastle. Trophies couldn't possibly encapsulate what the club and footy means to me. Who here would swap the KK years first time around for 1 solitary Premier League title? Not me.

[Guest Sniffer]

HTT, you are Lord Westwood's wet dream.

 

Somebody who follows the Toon and is happy with the leftovers. I'm just about done in with this type of opinion as I hate fucking losing.

[Thespence]

Thaksin's money is all locked up by the Thai Govt

 

The Yanks are hurting due to the credit crunch

 

Abramovich is totally dependent on his "friends" in power

 

Just having a zillionaire backer doesn't mean it';s always going to be there when you want it

 

 

Some of Thaksin's money is locked up.

 

Which Yanks are hurting, not the billionaires as most of Americans listed in the Forbes 100 wealthiest people wealth has  increased. I don't think many of them took a sub-prime mortgage out on buying there latest property, need a credit card or use a overdraft.

 

How is Roman dependent on his "friends" in  power? He gave up being a governor because he doesn't need diplomatic immunity anymore. He sold off Sibneft to the Russian state, which  shows his standing back home as some Oilgarths lost there businesses & ended up in the clink.

[Dave]

Anyone hear rob shepard on talksport there?

 

Jus caught the end of it and he was saying the stories today are factual and well researched, and threw in that he wouldnt be surprized if MA winds up buying spurs!

 

That old chestnut. Again.

[dustynrg]

Anyone hear rob shepard on talksport there?

 

Jus caught the end of it and he was saying the stories today are factual and well researched, and threw in that he wouldnt be surprized if MA winds up buying spurs!

 

 

And we're supposed to believe that from the NOTW?

 

Anyone ask him about his opinion of Joey Barton/Jail/People getting a second chance?

 

MA buying Spurs? He's definitely been drinking all day.

[wrightstuff83]

I know, its embarressing to hear him say how well researched todays stories were!

 

Only caught the end so didnt hear too much, only that the MA buying spuds is his opinion, however the takeover stories were factual! (as has already been said, pure embarressment to lin notw with facts!)

[Parky]

 

If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

 

I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club.

 

Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers..  

 

I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part.

 

Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop.

 

Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans.

 

Broadly agree.

 

Ownership of a relative 'idea' however is the holy grail of branding...Because it supeceeds time and the moment, it goes beyond an attention span and it goes beyond simply generating an interest. Vigin for instance is not a brand it is an 'idea'. SwissAir for instance has been very well re-branded, but it will never be an idea or a vision like Virgin is. That transcendence is cause Richard understood early that an idea or a cause (the fight against BA) embeds in a way glossy visuls doesn't.

 

Virgin was an idea, it is now a brand all the same. You can't own an idea Parky. No-one owns pop music, they may own a pop group, but not the idea. That's why it's the holy grail. Same in football. Someone might own the brand to a league (Sky), but who owns the clubs, the ideas? The fans. Companies of course get in on the act by way of sponsorship, advertising and partnership schemes but to own a football club lock stock, for a brand or multi-national? It's just not a cost effective answer to any goal of a company, be it expansion, market leadership, more market share, or whatever else. Hence why they've stayed clear in that regard and always will.

 

Didn't say he owned 'an idea'.

 

I'm saying Virgin has transcended mere 'brand' to become lodged in the publics consciousness.

 

I can't remember how much fiat put into Juve...It might be intersting to see how much Gazprom have put into Zenit.

 

There are good reasons why big companies have resisted completely buying a club and you've mentioned them and right now to an extent I agree with all those reasons, but I think it will happen....Especially with European football now having such a global following. Infact half the Italian clubs would have been bankrupt by now without their sponsors/investors/banks.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

HTT, you are Lord Westwood's wet dream.

 

Somebody who follows the Toon and is happy with the leftovers. I'm just about done in with this type of opinion as I hate f***ing losing.

 

And I'm just about done with fans like yourself. Fans who are never happy. Fans who damn the club if they do and damn the club if they don't.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

 

If I was a multi-national and had control of the board I would buy a football club, rather than spend 500m every 4 years on the Olympics. I would buy a club like Newcastle. The growth in identifying with my company and product spreads out easily (as long as their is sucess) from the fanbase, to the city, to the area and across Eurpe as you develop. And you get so much airtime and column inches for free.

 

Coca Cola sponsor the Olympics because they are targeting a mass demographic in a none offensive way, buying a football club is not targeting a mass demographic and will offend some. Spending such sums sponsoring the Olympics is a better way to spend money for Coca Cola than buying a football club. United Emirates would never buy Arsenal, and why? No self respecting Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Spurs fans et al would fly with them if they owned Arsenal. Now sponsorship... people don't care about that. Although some get in a pickle over that. mackems and sugar puffs?

 

If owning football clubs were such a cost effective way to promote ideas and a message, all your big companies would be getting on the act. In truth football is one of the most complicated, financially taxing and insecure forms of business there is. Business likes to deal with peoples wallets, not their lives and football clubs represent peoples lives.

 

It is purely for the mega rich (Abramovic), local men turned good (Jack Walker), the mega vain (Simon Jordon), Venture Capitalists & portfolio investers (Dic, Enic) or the deluded (every other chairman or owner).

 

If I were a multi-national, I'd stay well clear of a football club other than through safe forms such as advertising, sponsorship, partnerships etc. Owning a football club would be a bad idea because for one, you're going to create anamosity from rival fans, secondly you're going to have to spend vast sums and lastly the returns are none existant almost.

 

I explained everything in your first para earlier in the thread as to why they don't get too invloved with football clubs. The post you quote was if I WAS a multi-national and of course your analysis applies in many ways. But YES if I WAS a big player, like this Indian telecom bloke I would buy into the club. Of course global brands such as Coke have to be at the olympics and Mastercard support the CL, because the global theme is bigger than any one club.

 

Listen big companies have diversifyied portfolios hence Barton and Nike, Barton is clearly NOT a Nike type, but somewhere in their research, his typeage needed addressing, there is only so much you can do with bland Amercan golfers..  

 

I don't honestly think fans from other clubs neglecting the product is an issue, because the portolio would be diversifyied to cover such exposure and the public is way more sophisticated now than saying I ain't flying Emirates or Virgin or whatever cause who they give their money to.. So I would disagree with that part.

 

Footbal as a vehicle can be complex if you've got idots running the shop.

 

Ownership and association are two different things, companies will bend over backwards to associate themselves with products and brands in the sporting world from clubs to players via boot deals but stop short of full ownership and for all the reasons I've outlined and more. One of the major reasons why big companies stay clear of football clubs is because they can't be owned, sold and bought, stripped and raised in the conventional business way, a football club is an idea, not a product or brand, it can only ever be owned by the spirit of fans.

 

Broadly agree.

 

Ownership of a relative 'idea' however is the holy grail of branding...Because it supeceeds time and the moment, it goes beyond an attention span and it goes beyond simply generating an interest. Vigin for instance is not a brand it is an 'idea'. SwissAir for instance has been very well re-branded, but it will never be an idea or a vision like Virgin is. That transcendence is cause Richard understood early that an idea or a cause (the fight against BA) embeds in a way glossy visuls doesn't.

 

Virgin was an idea, it is now a brand all the same. You can't own an idea Parky. No-one owns pop music, they may own a pop group, but not the idea. That's why it's the holy grail. Same in football. Someone might own the brand to a league (Sky), but who owns the clubs, the ideas? The fans. Companies of course get in on the act by way of sponsorship, advertising and partnership schemes but to own a football club lock stock, for a brand or multi-national? It's just not a cost effective answer to any goal of a company, be it expansion, market leadership, more market share, or whatever else. Hence why they've stayed clear in that regard and always will.

 

Didn't say he owned 'an idea'.

 

I'm saying Virgin has transcended mere 'brand' to become lodged in the publics consciousness.

 

I can't remember how much fiat put into Juve...It might be intersting to see how much Gazprom have put into Zenit.

 

There are good reasons why big companies have resisted completely buying a club and you've mentioned them and right now to an extent I agree with all those reasons, but I think it will happen....Especially with European football now having such a global following. Infact half the Italian clubs would have been bankrupt by now without their sponsors/investors/banks.

 

Parky I have to disagree where Virgin is concerned, it is just another brand. If anything Richard Branson is actually the idea just as Steve Jobs is the idea with Apple which is another brand all the same. For me an idea is something that is very much real but something which isn't solid, i.e. Newcastle United Football Club. Or .mp3 Those are ideas brands or big business can never own, same with the Internet. They can associate and buy into the ideas, like Ashley has done with Newcastle (football), Apple has done via the iPod (mp3) or Virgin has (pop music) but they can never truly own these things because ideas are open source to use internet terminology.

 

I remember when BT tried to trademark the hyperlink, i,e, claim ownership of it.

 

They rightly got laughed out of court.

 

I don't think big business will ever own football clubs lock stock, in fact I think there is more chance of fans becoming owners of football clubs than big business in the coming future.

 

Football as a business has reached it's zenith, I liken it to the internet bubble of the 90s which of course inevitably burst and so will football, big time.

 

If I was an investor looking to increase my wealth or assets I'd stay well clear of football. If I was a rich fan I'd stay well clear. There isn't much money in the game despite the sums being spent as most of it is speculative and based on potential. It is very much a big con, the only profiteers are Sky, the players, agents and the controlling bodies i.e. the FA, UEFA, FIFA etc. How much has Ashley spent? How much could he realistically get back tomorrow? He would make more by investing his money into solid brands and products or buying solid enterprises and not ideas and I think he knows it, hence perhaps just why he wants out or is looking at exit strategies.

 

Your line on the Italian clubs could apply to almost every league, especially the Premier League.

 

One day, those money men are going to pull out or their funds will dry up. Then what?

 

POP goes that bubble.

 

I'll ask you again, what benefits in terms of profit vs expenditure vs man hours vs commitment could a big company gain from acquiring a football club that it couldn't achieve using other conventional business avenues?

[bobbydazzla]

I know fuck all about ice hockey other than a load of radge bastards play it. But a big business actually set up a major sports club - Disney and the Mighty Ducks.

 

And I'm sure I saw on some highlights show that Red Bull have a team in the US footy league

 

Personally I think it's a shite concept that has marketing men spunking into their crusty spunk rags but is almost certainly not intended to benefit the fans....

 

 

[Syrette]

Red Bull bought out the clubs whose names they're part of. They didn't set them (Red Bull New York and Red Bull Salzburg) up.

[bobbydazzla]

Red Bull should stick to F1. The corporate team ownership approach works in that sort of sponsorship gone mental environment.

 

I'll never understand the "sports fanchise" concept that you see in the US and Australia. Something about it just seems so empty and devoid of any soul.

 

 

 

 

[BONTEMPI]

I could well see him selling tbh.

 

Yes he maybe has been using the "INVESTOR" bollocks as a smokescreen to sell the club

 

The guy is cheap and tacky just like his stores