Shepherd Legacy

[GM]

Why did the NUFC Finances website just come to a "natural end" when Ashley took over?

 

I think we should be told.

[Parky]

Why did the NUFC Finances website just come to a "natural end" when Ashley took over?

 

I think we should be told.

 

 

[macbeth]

 

These sort of "debates" with macbeth are old hat, they've been done before. I'm not interested. He refused to answer a point blank question when asked would he prefer a good balance sheet to being relegated. This is going back to when we bought Micheal Owen, because we were going into the season with only an ex world class striker and a Spanish player nobody knew anything about.

 

Okay I would love to have both a "good balance sheet" and not to be relegated. I wanted to know how NUFC could be worth over £100m in 1998, be run for ten years by H&S and then have debts of £70m, and teetering on the brink of relegation.That the club had been run to such a bad extent financially, and so bad on the pitch that we had to choose between borrowing money we couldn't afford to or relegation.

 

 

Pity Ashley didn't speculate too in the window just ended, we may well pay the price. You can't deny that supporters are unhappy ? What does that do for the balance sheets ? What will happen if we are relegated ?

 

It isn't speculation. It is just borrowing money from seasons ahead, gambling on the very future of the club. Shepherd last put any money in to the club before 1998. With debts of £70m and annual losses of £32m with no one left to borrow money from who was going to pay the players? We had £19m in the bank from season ticket sales, and no money form anywhere else. This would have lasted for about 4 months, then what, then who was going to pay them? The only way would have been to sell off the salable players last January. Leeds style.

 

I'm asking you. I'm not arsed with macbeth or one or two others, because we have been there before. I find it amazing that after the events of the last few weeks, and losing the manager pretty much all of us wanted to keep and have lost for all of the reasons I'm stating ie lack of support and backing, that you can defend Ashleys actions or those who appear to still think he was doing it right.

 

Ashley got it wrong, but that doesn't mean he didn't buy a crock of shit from his predecessors.  I haven't seen (doesn't mean he hasn't done it!!) Ashley taking out £34m form the club the way the H&S families did, but Ashely hasn't had as long to do it.

[kirkwdavis2001]

if you remove player trading and amortisation, ie look at the sheer numbers going in and out to run a club, it was basically breaking even. even the money we owe on past transfers is a short-term expense that will all but vanish soon. with the £6m or so saved on loan repayments and the increase in tv money of £18m we're in decent financial health. also as shepherd says, the majority of the paid off debt was held against the consecutive stadium improvements of the shepherd-hall era, plus land owned in and around SJP. this land has since remained undeveloped (leazes carpark, old barrack road shop site, gallowgate carpark) but shepherd had a plan to develop it which wouldve given us a further cash injection and maybe even contributed towards further stadium expansion.

 

im not sure whether ashley was caught unawares about the debt needing to be repaid in a certain time, even i knew about that.

 

the one thing id criticse shepherd for was receiving sponsorship money in a lump sum rather than as staggered payments. not so much because it reduces the cash flow later on (in some ways it is better to get it in one go in order to invest it into the club) but because, with increased tv coverage, sponsorship values have subsequently risen as the rock deal isn't really great for us. look at spurs deal with mansion, their previous deal was a fraction of ours yet now theirs is far, far more lucrative.

 

Excellent someone is joining while using facts rather than just "nah nah nah"

 

The problem with removing amortisation and player trading is that the club need to invets in players, and that cost will never go away. The club need to have players, and will need to buy some of them to actually allow their business to run.

 

It would be like XL pointing to how well their business is run while asking us to ignore the cost of planes. Their fuel bill being the equivalent of NUFC's wage bill.

 

For the last three years the net amount the club paid on players was between £10 and £11m. That was the figure that Shepherd felt the business could, or had, to run at. At the same time  the amortisation was running at roughly £16m per year. This was higher players are sodl before the end of their contracts to try and rescue some cash before they are sold off.

 

The stadium debt which hit Ashley by surprise came to £45m, which had been costing the club £6.2m per year under the Hall ownership. That he didn't know was very poor.

The other loans taken out by Shepherd, not as part of the stadium expansion were

£13.1m borrowed form Northern Rock at 8.55%, to be completely paid off by July 2010 (this was the sponsorship money), paid off by Ashley

£4.5m loan taken out in 2002 guaranteed against the training ground. This was at 2.25% over the base rate, and had £1.8m left to be paid off when Ashley took over.

£8m loan taken out in August 2007, under Ashley , this one is interesting for anyone who can be bothered. It was used to take the Sky money early, rather than having to wait until they gave at the season end. The interest on this loan was at 11.7% !!

£4m loan taken out in 2007 at 8.8% interest, paid off by Ashley

£2.4m worth of loans taken out to buy "assets", to be paid off by August 2009.

£1.5m interest free loan, linked to a "commercial agreement". There is no explanation of who or what thsi was about, but a similar deal was in place in the 1990s when S&N lent the club money at no interest whiel they had the pouring rights at teh ground.

 

The land owed around the ground is included in the assets of the club. It isn't clear how much for exactly. The land IS an asset if you plan to do something with it, otherwise it is just land. Overall the club has liabilities of £16m rather than assets, as it actually owes more than the value of the ground and all the players put together. So the spare land is actually helping to make the figures look good at £16m !!

The other issue aroudn the land is that to build on it would require to borrow money first. The size of the debt meant there was nothing left to borrow against. The ground, the training ground, the pouring rights, the future Sky money had already been used as back up. By the end the interest rates being charged were nearly 12%, even the banks knew how risky a lend it was and charged more.

 

I wasn't sure getting the sponsorship money up front was a bad thing. The club was in such a desperate position they had to spend to avoid going down. What I hadn't realised until the last set of accounts form Shepherd was that the money was borrowed from Northern Rock. So on the surface it seemed we were getting money every yera from NR, and really we had got £13.1m loan and were paying them £2.5m a year

 

I have a record of all the club accounts, if you want a copy then let me know. All I want is the information to be out there, so that some of us can ask questions

 

 

 

 

 

I've also seen similar figures from the accounts I used to be sent as a shareholder (before Ashley bought out). I am also in agreement that the accounts since are in the public domain via companies house as are the accounts of any other limited company in this country. You can't argue with the facts.

[Mick]

 

So you're happy you got your wish then 

 

I don't know, I'll have to ask you.

[Mick]

 

I hope Mike Ashley's lack of investment and support to his manager which has resulted in a threadbare squad very short of quality players doesn't lead to relegation in return for your obsessive infatuation with balance sheets. No doubt you would be happy with this.

 

Have you paid a 3 year season ticket, or are you not planning on being part of the 52,000 watching possible championship football

in your dreamworld.

 

Maybe you will come back on here next May if by some miracle the result of having a squad of unhappy players that have lost heart in the management of the club, somehow manages to stay up and say that you were right ?

 

 

 

Is the current squad any thinner now than it was before Ashley took over?

[levelsevenlee]

Why did the NUFC Finances website just come to a "natural end" when Ashley took over?

 

I think we should be told.

 

 

 

Because Ashley took the club into private ownership, so the accounts wouldn't be in the public domain (at Companies House) anymore?

[kirkwdavis2001]

Ltd. companies accounts are available via companies house, but much more abridged and the AGM reports are not any longer required to be published as they are with PLC's.

[macbeth]

The site came to a natural end as I thought there would be no more company accounts to look at. I was surprised when Ashley published the last accounts in as much detail as he did. At the time I felt that he didn't make enough PR about the mess, it makes his moans now less powerful.

 

If the NUFC accounts are easy to get to them the NUFC site will keep going. I don't for a moment doubt that Shepherd has a monolpoly on financial incompetence

 

I also moved on to doing the same thing for other clubs. So I've done all but two of the SPL clubs.

 

 

[macbeth]

 

I hope Mike Ashley's lack of investment and support to his manager which has resulted in a threadbare squad very short of quality players doesn't lead to relegation in return for your obsessive infatuation with balance sheets. No doubt you would be happy with this.

 

Have you paid a 3 year season ticket, or are you not planning on being part of the 52,000 watching possible championship football

in your dreamworld.

 

Maybe you will come back on here next May if by some miracle the result of having a squad of unhappy players that have lost heart in the management of the club, somehow manages to stay up and say that you were right ?

 

 

 

Is the current squad any thinner now than it was before Ashley took over?

 

Viduka hasn't played yet so it is difficult to tell

[Colos Short and Curlies]

 

errm, club accounts or Companies House records doesn't constitute factual information?

 

 

If they are not factual then Shepherd has been lying to everyone, which I cannot believe for one second.

 

If they are not factual then he has opened himslef up to prosecution. The Financial Services would have him for fraud.

 

The other reason to not doubt them is that they are appalling results. If he had been making them up they would look okay

 

 

 

The figures in the accounts show A true and fair view, not THE true and fair view.

 

There is a lot of subjective and biased reporting in figures based on where the directors want them to go - as long as the Auditor agrees with them which they would as long as there is a business rationale behind the numbers and it does not contravene accounting standards. For example, after one season Luque would be valued at £8m (give or take a million). Was he worth that in reality after his first season?

 

So yes the numbers may be 'factual' but the context and actual meaning of them is as subjective as me saying you are wearing nice y-fronts tonight (memo to all - I have never met the guy, never mind shifted through his smalls).

 

 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

if you remove player trading and amortisation, ie look at the sheer numbers going in and out to run a club, it was basically breaking even. even the money we owe on past transfers is a short-term expense that will all but vanish soon. with the £6m or so saved on loan repayments and the increase in tv money of £18m we're in decent financial health. also as shepherd says, the majority of the paid off debt was held against the consecutive stadium improvements of the shepherd-hall era, plus land owned in and around SJP. this land has since remained undeveloped (leazes carpark, old barrack road shop site, gallowgate carpark) but shepherd had a plan to develop it which wouldve given us a further cash injection and maybe even contributed towards further stadium expansion.

 

im not sure whether ashley was caught unawares about the debt needing to be repaid in a certain time, even i knew about that.

 

the one thing id criticse shepherd for was receiving sponsorship money in a lump sum rather than as staggered payments. not so much because it reduces the cash flow later on (in some ways it is better to get it in one go in order to invest it into the club) but because, with increased tv coverage, sponsorship values have subsequently risen as the rock deal isn't really great for us. look at spurs deal with mansion, their previous deal was a fraction of ours yet now theirs is far, far more lucrative.

 

Excellent someone is joining while using facts rather than just "nah nah nah"

 

The problem with removing amortisation and player trading is that the club need to invets in players, and that cost will never go away. The club need to have players, and will need to buy some of them to actually allow their business to run.

 

It would be like XL pointing to how well their business is run while asking us to ignore the cost of planes. Their fuel bill being the equivalent of NUFC's wage bill.

 

For the last three years the net amount the club paid on players was between £10 and £11m. That was the figure that Shepherd felt the business could, or had, to run at. At the same time  the amortisation was running at roughly £16m per year. This was higher players are sodl before the end of their contracts to try and rescue some cash before they are sold off.

 

The stadium debt which hit Ashley by surprise came to £45m, which had been costing the club £6.2m per year under the Hall ownership. That he didn't know was very poor.

The other loans taken out by Shepherd, not as part of the stadium expansion were

£13.1m borrowed form Northern Rock at 8.55%, to be completely paid off by July 2010 (this was the sponsorship money), paid off by Ashley

£4.5m loan taken out in 2002 guaranteed against the training ground. This was at 2.25% over the base rate, and had £1.8m left to be paid off when Ashley took over.

£8m loan taken out in August 2007, under Ashley , this one is interesting for anyone who can be bothered. It was used to take the Sky money early, rather than having to wait until they gave at the season end. The interest on this loan was at 11.7% !!

£4m loan taken out in 2007 at 8.8% interest, paid off by Ashley

£2.4m worth of loans taken out to buy "assets", to be paid off by August 2009.

£1.5m interest free loan, linked to a "commercial agreement". There is no explanation of who or what thsi was about, but a similar deal was in place in the 1990s when S&N lent the club money at no interest whiel they had the pouring rights at teh ground.

 

The land owed around the ground is included in the assets of the club. It isn't clear how much for exactly. The land IS an asset if you plan to do something with it, otherwise it is just land. Overall the club has liabilities of £16m rather than assets, as it actually owes more than the value of the ground and all the players put together. So the spare land is actually helping to make the figures look good at £16m !!

The other issue aroudn the land is that to build on it would require to borrow money first. The size of the debt meant there was nothing left to borrow against. The ground, the training ground, the pouring rights, the future Sky money had already been used as back up. By the end the interest rates being charged were nearly 12%, even the banks knew how risky a lend it was and charged more.

 

I wasn't sure getting the sponsorship money up front was a bad thing. The club was in such a desperate position they had to spend to avoid going down. What I hadn't realised until the last set of accounts form Shepherd was that the money was borrowed from Northern Rock. So on the surface it seemed we were getting money every yera from NR, and really we had got £13.1m loan and were paying them £2.5m a year

 

I have a record of all the club accounts, if you want a copy then let me know. All I want is the information to be out there, so that some of us can ask questions

 

 

 

 

 

I've often championed profit before ammortisation as it shows the annual performance rather than taking the past transfer fees into account. But if we were breaking even before this figure then we had zero cash to spend on players. Not a good situation to be in!

 

And as for the XL point, why shouldn't they show the cost of running the business excluding the cost of buying a plane.

 

If they bought a plane 5 years ago, the actual cost of it has no bearing on the current years trading which has led to its faliure.

[macbeth]

 

The figures in the accounts show A true and fair view, not THE true and fair view.

 

There is a lot of subjective and biased reporting in figures based on where the directors want them to go - as long as the Auditor agrees with them which they would as long as there is a business rationale behind the numbers and it does not contravene accounting standards.

 

So yes the numbers may be 'factual' but the context and actual meaning of them is as subjective as me saying you are wearing nice y-fronts tonight (memo to all - I have never met the guy, never mind shifted through his smalls).

 

 

 

I don't really see H&S making up a bad view of the accounts for ten years in a row ! I can imagine Ashley trying to put them in a bad light when it was reporting the last year of Freddie, but those last accounts just look like a natural progression form previous years.

[macbeth]

And as for the XL point, why shouldn't they show the cost of running the business excluding the cost of buying a plane.

 

If they bought a plane 5 years ago, the actual cost of it has no bearing on the current years trading which has led to its faliure.

 

I'm not up to keeping the analogy going    

 

The alternate way of accounting for players which was in place up to the late 90s was to write off the cost of a player in the year he was bought. This would have meant the £16m for Owen would have been one year and not spread across his contract. I'm pretty sure this would have caused financial problems far more quickly than the amortisation route. The amortisation way means you only get a 20% or 25% hit each year.

 

If all the transfer fees were in the year concerned then we would have had roughly £40m more costs across the last four years. (I'm guessing, by looking at the book values of the players). That would have closed us down before now

[ChezGiven]

Macbeth just pulls figures out of his arse, always has done.

 

Just because he then runs those figures through Chart Wizard doesnt mean the original figures are correct.

 

I will happily take down any of the figures I have quoted if you can show me where they are wrong. If any of those numbers are wrong then Shepherd will not be allowed to be a company director as he signed the accounts and gave them to Companies House. They don't like being lied to.

 

Over to you, find me one, and I'll happily apologise, otherwsie I'll assume that really you accept them, and were just making your comment for a laugh.

 

I was being jovial tbf but i will make some serious points for you.

 

The rest of the premiership is run the same way and the data in 2007 showed most other clubs were making bigger losses than us (the data was posted on this forum and debated at length). You always made it sound like we were the only club with financial issues, whereas in fact we were / are just typical.

 

Debt is not a big issue when you have a certain income stream. If you sell shirts for a living, you cant hold that much debt as shirts can go out of fashion. Football clubs are for life not just for christmas. Hence Arsenal's debt is astronomical but manageable etc etc etc Top 4 blah blah blah.

 

More importantly, where have you been for the last 2 weeks? Surely your time had come when the fans started the Ashley out stuff, surely you should have been supporting him as he saved the club from extinction?

 

You've come back when Shepherd was mentioned but not when the man who saved the club from Shepherd needed your support. Strange that.

 

 

 

[GM]

Macbeth just pulls figures out of his arse, always has done.

 

Just because he then runs those figures through Chart Wizard doesnt mean the original figures are correct.

 

I will happily take down any of the figures I have quoted if you can show me where they are wrong. If any of those numbers are wrong then Shepherd will not be allowed to be a company director as he signed the accounts and gave them to Companies House. They don't like being lied to.

 

Over to you, find me one, and I'll happily apologise, otherwsie I'll assume that really you accept them, and were just making your comment for a laugh.

 

I was being jovial tbf but i will make some serious points for you.

 

The rest of the premiership is run the same way and the data in 2007 showed most other clubs were making bigger losses than us (the data was posted on this forum and debated at length). You always made it sound like we were the only club with financial issues, whereas in fact we were / are just typical.

 

Debt is not a big issue when you have a certain income stream. If you sell shirts for a living, you cant hold that much debt as shirts can go out of fashion. Football clubs are for life not just for christmas. Hence Arsenal's debt is astronomical but manageable etc etc etc Top 4 blah blah blah.

 

More importantly, where have you been for the last 2 weeks? Surely your time had come when the fans started the Ashley out stuff, surely you should have been supporting him as he saved the club from extinction?

 

You've come back when Shepherd was mentioned but not when the man who saved the club from Shepherd needed your support. Strange that.

 

 

 

 

Has probably been a bit busy with other work at Freshfields, Chex.

[NE5]

 

you've re-appeared too

 

Happy you have what you wished for ?

 

 

 

What did I wish for?

 

wish I'd put a bet on that you'd say that  mackems.gif

 

You now have a club without a fat b****** in charge that doesn't embarrass you.

 

A few mediocre teams might embarrass you instead though. Just like your good old days. 

 

 

As much as I disagree with you on this point, why do you have to come across as such an abrasive, arrogant tosser when you reply?

 

Try to answer that question only.

 

you mean that I'm right and you can't see it or bring yourself to admit it ?

 

I think those who can't see the blatantly obvious, and ignore factual information that doesn't suit their "opinion", are tossers.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the club hasn't embarrassed you in the last 2 weeks ?

 

It's embarrassed me, more than for many years. I wouldn't really be arsed, but the sad thing is, the only way they are going on the field is headlong into a relegation fight that may be lost unless the soopa new owner abandons his so called "plan" or buggers off and sells to someone who knows something about football. And that DOES bother me.

 

 

 

 

No, I mean that you come across as an over excited, abrasive, arrogant, tosspot when you've replied to the posts on this thread.  After reading it, you have pissed me off far more with your attitude than your actual viewpoint.

 

Every now and then, someone new comes along and makes this discovery. It's a shame, really.

 

it's more of a shame, in my opinion, that people continue to have their heads in the sand, despite the events of the last 2 weeks and the clubs future prospects when put against the fat bastard of the old regime.

 

Basically speaking, if anybody think we are better off now than we were 18 months ago, they need their head examined.

 

 

[NE5]

 

So you're happy you got your wish then 

 

I don't know, I'll have to ask you.

 

you are more pathetic than I ever thought.

 

You have your wish.

 

I hope you are happy 

 

You would have some credibility if you came out and admitted you 've been made to look like a complete buffoon........in fact your  post here and the last time you posted such childish nonsense only serves to confirm the fact

 

 

[Mick]

 

you are more pathetic than I ever thought.

 

You have your wish.

 

I hope you are happy 

 

You would have some credibility if you came out and admitted you 've been made to look like a complete buffoon........in fact your  post here and the last time you posted such childish nonsense only serves to confirm the fact

 

 

 

 

What are you on about now?

[GM]

 

So you're happy you got your wish then 

 

I don't know, I'll have to ask you.

 

you are more pathetic than I ever thought.

 

You have your wish.

 

I hope you are happy 

 

You would have some credibility if you came out and admitted you 've been made to look like a complete buffoon........in fact your  post here and the last time you posted such childish nonsense only serves to confirm the fact

 

 

 

I'm not buying this charade anymore. I'm more convinced than ever than NE5 is Mick's brother-in-law from a previous marriage, and this ongoing spat has more to do with 25 year old grudges over stolen toys from Christmas crackers than it has anything to do with football.

[Syrette]

NE5 has just been down his local again for a few hours is all.

[Mick]

 

I'm not buying this charade anymore. I'm more convinced than ever than NE5 is Mick's brother-in-law from a previous marriage, and this ongoing spat has more to do with 25 year old grudges over stolen toys from Christmas crackers than it has anything to do with football.

 

Don't even joke about it, remember, I know who you are big lad.  

[GM]

 

I'm not buying this charade anymore. I'm more convinced than ever than NE5 is Mick's brother-in-law from a previous marriage, and this ongoing spat has more to do with 25 year old grudges over stolen toys from Christmas crackers than it has anything to do with football.

 

Don't even joke about it, remember, I know who you are big lad.  

 

Oh bugger bollocks, so you do. Slight flaw in the plan there, then.

[Guest elbee909]

 

you've re-appeared too

 

Happy you have what you wished for ?

 

 

 

What did I wish for?

 

wish I'd put a bet on that you'd say that  mackems.gif

 

You now have a club without a fat b****** in charge that doesn't embarrass you.

 

A few mediocre teams might embarrass you instead though. Just like your good old days. 

 

 

As much as I disagree with you on this point, why do you have to come across as such an abrasive, arrogant tosser when you reply?

 

Try to answer that question only.

 

you mean that I'm right and you can't see it or bring yourself to admit it ?

 

I think those who can't see the blatantly obvious, and ignore factual information that doesn't suit their "opinion", are tossers.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the club hasn't embarrassed you in the last 2 weeks ?

 

It's embarrassed me, more than for many years. I wouldn't really be arsed, but the sad thing is, the only way they are going on the field is headlong into a relegation fight that may be lost unless the soopa new owner abandons his so called "plan" or buggers off and sells to someone who knows something about football. And that DOES bother me.

 

 

 

 

No, I mean that you come across as an over excited, abrasive, arrogant, tosspot when you've replied to the posts on this thread.  After reading it, you have pissed me off far more with your attitude than your actual viewpoint.

 

Every now and then, someone new comes along and makes this discovery. It's a shame, really.

 

it's more of a shame, in my opinion, that people continue to have their heads in the sand, despite the events of the last 2 weeks and the clubs future prospects when put against the fat bastard of the old regime.

 

Basically speaking, if anybody think we are better off now than we were 18 months ago, they need their head examined.

 

 

I think you'll have a job finding anyone who thinks we're better off now.  But again, keep battling against the nasty hordes that you seem to think all completely disagree with you, all the time.  I'm not ashamed to admit that recent events are shit, as shit as they've been in recent memory.  But then, we weren't going anywhere good with the last lot, otherwise we wouldn't be here, where we are, would we? 

 

We can agree or disagree on this without you having to personally attack or attribute assumed views to me, Mick, Macbeth, Ozziemandias, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy etc.  Ultimately your idea of discussion and debate always ends up with defaming your opponents.  That's _the_ shame here because you've obviously got a lot of experience of following NUFC but you're all too ready to disappear up your own arse.  It's a football forum, not Question Time.

 

If you want me or anyone lse to bow down and worship your almighty foresight, borne of years of experience, and how we should OBVIOUSLY have kept your favourite chairman in the world ever - which is apparently what you want everyone to do?  Then you can kindly fuck off with that sanctimonious bollocks.

 

OK.  This is the bit where you reply by taking a few choice phrases from my post, re-using them and then prattling on about something else that shows how wrong I, and everyone else, always is.

 

[madras]

 

you've re-appeared too

 

Happy you have what you wished for ?

 

 

 

What did I wish for?

 

wish I'd put a bet on that you'd say that  mackems.gif

 

You now have a club without a fat b****** in charge that doesn't embarrass you.

 

A few mediocre teams might embarrass you instead though. Just like your good old days. 

 

 

As much as I disagree with you on this point, why do you have to come across as such an abrasive, arrogant tosser when you reply?

 

Try to answer that question only.

 

you mean that I'm right and you can't see it or bring yourself to admit it ?

 

I think those who can't see the blatantly obvious, and ignore factual information that doesn't suit their "opinion", are tossers.

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the club hasn't embarrassed you in the last 2 weeks ?

 

It's embarrassed me, more than for many years. I wouldn't really be arsed, but the sad thing is, the only way they are going on the field is headlong into a relegation fight that may be lost unless the soopa new owner abandons his so called "plan" or buggers off and sells to someone who knows something about football. And that DOES bother me.

 

 

 

 

No, I mean that you come across as an over excited, abrasive, arrogant, tosspot when you've replied to the posts on this thread.  After reading it, you have pissed me off far more with your attitude than your actual viewpoint.

 

Every now and then, someone new comes along and makes this discovery. It's a shame, really.

 

it's more of a shame, in my opinion, that people continue to have their heads in the sand, despite the events of the last 2 weeks and the clubs future prospects when put against the fat b****** of the old regime.

 

Basically speaking, if anybody think we are better off now than we were 18 months ago, they need their head examined.

 

 

I think you'll have a job finding anyone who thinks we're better off now.  But again, keep battling against the nasty hordes that you seem to think all completely disagree with you, all the time.  I'm not ashamed to admit that recent events are s***, as s*** as they've been in recent memory.  But then, we weren't going anywhere good with the last lot, otherwise we wouldn't be here, where we are, would we? 

 

We can agree or disagree on this without you having to personally attack or attribute assumed views to me, Mick, Macbeth, Ozziemandias, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy etc.  Ultimately your idea of discussion and debate always ends up with defaming your opponents.  That's _the_ shame here because you've obviously got a lot of experience of following NUFC but you're all too ready to disappear up your own arse.  It's a football forum, not Question Time.

 

If you want me or anyone lse to bow down and worship your almighty foresight, borne of years of experience, and how we should OBVIOUSLY have kept your favourite chairman in the world ever - which is apparently what you want everyone to do?  Then you can kindly f*** off with that sanctimonious bollocks.

 

OK.  This is the bit where you reply by taking a few choice phrases from my post, re-using them and then prattling on about something else that shows how wrong I, and everyone else, always is.

 

i think we are in a better position than when ashley took over. better first team squad,no allardyce (i for one think it's a distinct possibilty we'd have been in the championship had he stayed) and an owner who wants to sell. if the current situation drags on too long we could well end up in  a situation where i'd say the ashley takeover was worse for us than sticking with the previous.as of right now though i'd still take what happened over what i think (as it is purely hypothetical) would have happened otherwise.