So who's going to buy the club?

[NE5]

 

I don't think that, I don't know nor care.  Its irrelivant to me how good Mike Ashley is at picking winners at the bookies.  My only problem with it is that he's got no problem with gambling (real gambling not making a solid investment like NUFC) hundred of millions of pounds yet he's not willing to take the same kind of risk with even a quarter of the money at NUFC.

 

He said he'd put £20 million a year in, that's more than anybody else has done before.

 

its also more than anybody has "said" they would. Shame it stopped at "said" though - so what is your point exactly ?

 

Its not like you to ignore cold hard facts ie he hasn't put in this money, any more than the clubs league positions before the board you slate weren't massively superior to their predecessors

 

Its quite amusing the way this thread has changed. From people still making out that he put his own money in out of the goodness of his heart  he's looking for a return alright - nowt wrong with that - but stop making it out to be an act of charity.

 

As Teasy says, if he walks away with a big profit overall what will you say then ? Surely you and the others can't be that blind ?

 

On the other hand 

 

Simple fact, is that the club is in its biggest crisis since 1991, and unless Joe Kinnear does a damn good job, the most dissafected bunch of players since 1977.

 

I take it 1991 doesn't ring any bells ? Think owners.

 

 

did fred make a profit out the club ? not just on sale but year in year out.

 

if he hasn't put money in then neither did fred and bearing in mind his one and only league position was level to fred's last one it must mean you haven't grasped the point you were attempting to make. (or was the one season under ashley a better finish than the previous one ?)

 

once again, you miss the point. I don't have a problem with people making a profit out of the football club, so long as they compete with the other big clubs and give it their best shot at challenging.

 

It's you, and others, who keep harping on about the last board making money out of the club and denying point blank that investments Ashley has made into the club, is for exactly the same purpose.

 

Meanwhile, on the field, which is presumably where your emotions and desire for success lies, he has got nowhere near matching his predecessors. So who got it right and who got it wrong ?

 

 

[Teasy]

 

Those are just words Teasy and they could have been assembled the way you wrote them or randomly by a monkey and the statement in bold above would still be nonsense.

 

I can post exactly what you just posted in reference to your words and we can both go on indefinately discounted what the other person says as just words that mean nothing, sound fun?  Or you could get past the childish behaviour and actually enter into a discussion.

 

The point I was making is that I did not say it was impossible for a club to lose value.  Just that the risk of something that would drop the value (relegation) was insignificant when Ashley arrived (yes what I said was mainly in reference to NUFC, not all of Football).

[Mick]

in the midst of the biggest banking crisis for how long ? based on what. financial people knowing what they were doing.

 

 

nowt to do with the debate,just couldn't resist.

 

You don't know how close I was to adding that to my original post. 

[Teasy]

 

I didn't say anything about what they know or don't know about business finance.  Unlike them I'm willing to actually argue my point rather then posting such pearls as "you don't know what you're talking about", wow you've changed my mind then

 

My view is that Ashley seems like quite a risk taker at times, but when it came to NUFC he really wasn't willing to take anything but the minimum of risk.  You know if someone disagrees with that then I'd really appreciate them posting there views on Ashley's time here.  That would be for more constructive and interesting then cheap insults or throw away lines about who does or doesn't know what they're talking about.  You seem to be the only person able to discuss something.

 

I think the two of them have had the same argument with others and have probably just get sick of repeating themselves, I don't think you're the problem, it's probably just the number of times they've said it.

 

Yeah ok that's probably it, still, wish they could just have discussed it.  They could even have changed my mind then as I'm perfectly open to a reasonable argument. Anyway I'm sorry I even brought it up now!   I won't continue it anyway, I'm still interested to hear there views on Ashley's time here, but I'm not going to even entertain any more bickering.

[madras]

 

I don't think that, I don't know nor care.  Its irrelivant to me how good Mike Ashley is at picking winners at the bookies.  My only problem with it is that he's got no problem with gambling (real gambling not making a solid investment like NUFC) hundred of millions of pounds yet he's not willing to take the same kind of risk with even a quarter of the money at NUFC.

 

He said he'd put £20 million a year in, that's more than anybody else has done before.

 

its also more than anybody has "said" they would. Shame it stopped at "said" though - so what is your point exactly ?

 

Its not like you to ignore cold hard facts ie he hasn't put in this money, any more than the clubs league positions before the board you slate weren't massively superior to their predecessors

 

Its quite amusing the way this thread has changed. From people still making out that he put his own money in out of the goodness of his heart  he's looking for a return alright - nowt wrong with that - but stop making it out to be an act of charity.

 

As Teasy says, if he walks away with a big profit overall what will you say then ? Surely you and the others can't be that blind ?

 

On the other hand 

 

Simple fact, is that the club is in its biggest crisis since 1991, and unless Joe Kinnear does a damn good job, the most dissafected bunch of players since 1977.

 

I take it 1991 doesn't ring any bells ? Think owners.

 

 

did fred make a profit out the club ? not just on sale but year in year out.

 

if he hasn't put money in then neither did fred and bearing in mind his one and only league position was level to fred's last one it must mean you haven't grasped the point you were attempting to make. (or was the one season under ashley a better finish than the previous one ?)

 

once again, you miss the point. I don't have a problem with people making a profit out of the football club, so long as they compete with the other big clubs and give it their best shot at challenging.

 

It's you, and others, who keep harping on about the last board making money out of the club and denying point blank that investments Ashley has made into the club, is for exactly the same purpose.

 

Meanwhile, on the field, which is presumably where your emotions and desire for success lies, he has got nowhere near matching his predecessors. So who got it right and who got it wrong ?

 

 

we competed in transfer fees whislt not competing in competition (ie we were crap)

 

on the field, from euro champs lge to 13th in the prem. who presided over this dramatic fall from grace ?

 

 

[Mick]

 

Yeah ok maybe that's it, still, wish they could just have discussed it.  They could even have changed my mind then as I'm perfectly open to a reasonable argument   Anyway I'm sorry I even brought it up now!

 

I'm glad you brought it up, the forum was dead before you did.

[NE5]

 

I don't think that, I don't know nor care.  Its irrelivant to me how good Mike Ashley is at picking winners at the bookies.  My only problem with it is that he's got no problem with gambling (real gambling not making a solid investment like NUFC) hundred of millions of pounds yet he's not willing to take the same kind of risk with even a quarter of the money at NUFC.

 

He said he'd put £20 million a year in, that's more than anybody else has done before.

 

its also more than anybody has "said" they would. Shame it stopped at "said" though - so what is your point exactly ?

 

Its not like you to ignore cold hard facts ie he hasn't put in this money, any more than the clubs league positions before the board you slate weren't massively superior to their predecessors

 

Its quite amusing the way this thread has changed. From people still making out that he put his own money in out of the goodness of his heart  he's looking for a return alright - nowt wrong with that - but stop making it out to be an act of charity.

 

As Teasy says, if he walks away with a big profit overall what will you say then ? Surely you and the others can't be that blind ?

 

On the other hand 

 

Simple fact, is that the club is in its biggest crisis since 1991, and unless Joe Kinnear does a damn good job, the most dissafected bunch of players since 1977.

 

I take it 1991 doesn't ring any bells ? Think owners.

 

 

did fred make a profit out the club ? not just on sale but year in year out.

 

if he hasn't put money in then neither did fred and bearing in mind his one and only league position was level to fred's last one it must mean you haven't grasped the point you were attempting to make. (or was the one season under ashley a better finish than the previous one ?)

 

once again, you miss the point. I don't have a problem with people making a profit out of the football club, so long as they compete with the other big clubs and give it their best shot at challenging.

 

It's you, and others, who keep harping on about the last board making money out of the club and denying point blank that investments Ashley has made into the club, is for exactly the same purpose.

 

Meanwhile, on the field, which is presumably where your emotions and desire for success lies, he has got nowhere near matching his predecessors. So who got it right and who got it wrong ?

 

 

we competed in transfer fees whislt not competing in competition (ie we were crap)

 

on the field, from euro champs lge to 13th in the prem. who presided over this dramatic fall from grace ?

 

 

 

no, you see you're wrong. It was from one foot in the 3rd division,  a club that even its own supporters couldn't stump up 2.5m quid for never mind with the assistance of all the businesses in the city, into a club with one of the best grounds in the country, and expectations of european football to a degree that finishing 5th and not making the Champions League warranted booing from all the morons who hadn't a clue

 

Whats your opinion on the successor to the board you slate, heading for putting the club back to where their predecessors found it ?

 

 

[Syrette]

Don't you get bored of repeating yourself?

[madras]

 

I don't think that, I don't know nor care.  Its irrelivant to me how good Mike Ashley is at picking winners at the bookies.  My only problem with it is that he's got no problem with gambling (real gambling not making a solid investment like NUFC) hundred of millions of pounds yet he's not willing to take the same kind of risk with even a quarter of the money at NUFC.

 

He said he'd put £20 million a year in, that's more than anybody else has done before.

 

its also more than anybody has "said" they would. Shame it stopped at "said" though - so what is your point exactly ?

 

Its not like you to ignore cold hard facts ie he hasn't put in this money, any more than the clubs league positions before the board you slate weren't massively superior to their predecessors

 

Its quite amusing the way this thread has changed. From people still making out that he put his own money in out of the goodness of his heart  he's looking for a return alright - nowt wrong with that - but stop making it out to be an act of charity.

 

As Teasy says, if he walks away with a big profit overall what will you say then ? Surely you and the others can't be that blind ?

 

On the other hand 

 

Simple fact, is that the club is in its biggest crisis since 1991, and unless Joe Kinnear does a damn good job, the most dissafected bunch of players since 1977.

 

I take it 1991 doesn't ring any bells ? Think owners.

 

 

did fred make a profit out the club ? not just on sale but year in year out.

 

if he hasn't put money in then neither did fred and bearing in mind his one and only league position was level to fred's last one it must mean you haven't grasped the point you were attempting to make. (or was the one season under ashley a better finish than the previous one ?)

 

once again, you miss the point. I don't have a problem with people making a profit out of the football club, so long as they compete with the other big clubs and give it their best shot at challenging.

 

It's you, and others, who keep harping on about the last board making money out of the club and denying point blank that investments Ashley has made into the club, is for exactly the same purpose.

 

Meanwhile, on the field, which is presumably where your emotions and desire for success lies, he has got nowhere near matching his predecessors. So who got it right and who got it wrong ?

 

 

we competed in transfer fees whislt not competing in competition (ie we were crap)

 

on the field, from euro champs lge to 13th in the prem. who presided over this dramatic fall from grace ?

 

 

 

no, you see you're wrong. It was from one foot in the 3rd division,  a club that even its own supporters couldn't stump up 2.5m quid for never mind with the assistance of all the businesses in the city, into a club with one of the best grounds in the country, and expectations of european football to a degree that finishing 5th and not making the Champions League warranted booing from all the morons who hadn't a clue

 

 

i've never denied where we were and i've congratulated that board for how far they took us....................now tell me about about going backwards from 2004,lets talk souness,roeder,allardyce and spiralling debt. lets talk about freds more recent past

[thomas]

Whats your opinion on the successor to the board you slate, heading for putting the club back to where their predecessors found it ?

  I don't, I really, really don't, understand why you can't separate peoples criticism of the last days of the Shepherd era from the whole. 

 

 

[madras]

Whats your opinion on the successor to the board you slate, heading for putting the club back to where their predecessors found it ?

  I don't, I really, really don't, understand why you can't separate peoples criticism of the last days of the Shepherd era from the whole. 

 

 

you liar. you understand full well.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

2 seperate commentators on Talksport today suggesting that if Ashley dropped the price back to £230m-£250m then the club would be sold to a Middle Eastern party in 2 hours.

 

As the price stands no one from that neck of the woods is interested

[biggs]

2 seperate commentators on Talksport today suggesting that if Ashley dropped the price back to £230m-£250m then the club would be sold to a Middle Eastern party in 2 hours.

 

As the price stands no one from that neck of the woods is interested

We dont know the true price that Cashley is asking for the club its pure media speculation so dont believe everything you read and here tbh.

[Elbel1]

2 seperate commentators on Talksport today suggesting that if Ashley dropped the price back to £230m-£250m then the club would be sold to a Middle Eastern party in 2 hours.

 

As the price stands no one from that neck of the woods is interested

 

If its on talksport then it must be true

[plenum]

Stock markets crash and so does the value of Mikeys shares. I think the cnut is lucky if he gets 200 m for the club.

[Guest Chubby Jason]

From .com;

 

Club sale:

Silent running

 

You may have noticed that various press claims have been made both locally and nationally about figures who may or may not be involved in bids to buy Newcastle United.

 

You may also have noticed that no mention of these people has been made on this site. Quite simply it is our understanding that any serious bidders have signed non- disclosure agreements in return for access to the club's financial details.

 

Therefore anyone who makes public their intentions is at best engaged on a fishing expedition to try and flush out potential new investors to join them - or at worst, using the current situation at NUFC to get themselves noticed.

[ikri]

From .com;

 

Club sale:

Silent running

 

You may have noticed that various press claims have been made both locally and nationally about figures who may or may not be involved in bids to buy Newcastle United.

 

You may also have noticed that no mention of these people has been made on this site. Quite simply it is our understanding that any serious bidders have signed non- disclosure agreements in return for access to the club's financial details.

 

Therefore anyone who makes public their intentions is at best engaged on a fishing expedition to try and flush out potential new investors to join them - or at worst, using the current situation at NUFC to get themselves noticed.

 

I doubt that the NDA is an all-binding gagging order to stop any potential buyer from talking about their bid.  The NDA will just be there to make sure that any potential bidders don't go running to the press with the club's financial records.

 

I've agreed to NDAs for games where I've been involved in beta testing, I've not had to deny the existence of the game or my involvement in the testing, I've just had to agree not to disclose any unpublished details about the game.

[thomas]

I would expect NDA's governing the purchasing of an asset valued at a couple hundred million pounds would be a little more binding than those of a video game.

[OzzieMandias]

I think ikri is right. An NDA would cover the contents of the document about the club's finances. Even if it wanted to, I don't see how it could cover anyone's interest in making a bid.

[Guest Stubbs]

Irrespective of the transcaction or information shared, an NDA is not a legally binding document and is not easily enforcible.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I would expect NDA's governing the purchasing of an asset valued at a couple hundred million pounds would be a little more binding than those of a video game.

 

How much do you think PES brings in Konami a year? or Fifa for EA?

 

£200m / £30 per game = 6.6 million units to be shipped over the course of a year across the world.

 

(Fifa 08 shipped 1 million units in the UK in eight weeks)

[thomas]

I would expect NDA's governing the purchasing of an asset valued at a couple hundred million pounds would be a little more binding than those of a video game.

 

How much do you think PES brings in Konami a year? or Fifa for EA?

 

£200m / £30 per game = 6.6 million units to be shipped over the course of a year across the world.

 

(Fifa 08 shipped 1 million units in the UK in eight weeks)

They could sell 40 billion units and it wouldn't change the fact that beta testing a game and the negotiations of purchasing a football club are carried out with vastly differing levels of candor, privacy and implied decorum, with vastly differing impacts resulting from leaks. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

I would expect NDA's governing the purchasing of an asset valued at a couple hundred million pounds would be a little more binding than those of a video game.

 

How much do you think PES brings in Konami a year? or Fifa for EA?

 

£200m / £30 per game = 6.6 million units to be shipped over the course of a year across the world.

 

(Fifa 08 shipped 1 million units in the UK in eight weeks)

They could sell 40 billion units and it wouldn't change the fact that beta testing a game and the negotiations of purchasing a football club are carried out with vastly differing levels of candor, privacy and implied decorum, with vastly differing impacts resulting from leaks. 

 

So you don't think that the value of the PES/Fifa Asset to Konami/EA isn't worth a couple of hundred million?

 

If you agree that they are then why should leaks be any less serious - also bear in mind that leaks re the accounts relate to past performance, leaks to the design/features of a game relate to future events which a competitor would love to counter-act.

[thomas]

I would expect NDA's governing the purchasing of an asset valued at a couple hundred million pounds would be a little more binding than those of a video game.

 

How much do you think PES brings in Konami a year? or Fifa for EA?

 

£200m / £30 per game = 6.6 million units to be shipped over the course of a year across the world.

 

(Fifa 08 shipped 1 million units in the UK in eight weeks)

They could sell 40 billion units and it wouldn't change the fact that beta testing a game and the negotiations of purchasing a football club are carried out with vastly differing levels of candor, privacy and implied decorum, with vastly differing impacts resulting from leaks. 

 

So you don't think that the value of the PES/Fifa Asset to Konami/EA isn't worth a couple of hundred million?

 

If you agree that they are then why should leaks be any less serious - also bear in mind that leaks re the accounts relate to past performance, leaks to the design/features of a game relate to future events which a competitor would love to counter-act.

I think I just realized the problem here.  We're talking about different kinds of betas. 

 

What you're talking about is a private beta - internal testing of pre-alpha builds. No or extremely little public release.  NDA, non-compete and other enforcing legalities there.  Almost all of hte people involved are testers who work closely with devs and who probably have access to trade secrets or competitive information that other companies would like.    In that respect we would agree that the restrictions surrounding beta testing would be as tight as club purchasing.

 

What I'm talking about and what I took ikri to mean and you to be defending, was a public beta - external test of a nearly RTM build to identify bugs on platforms that were unavailable for testing internally.  NDAs are still required.  However at this stage, there is nothing getting into the hands of competitors (and it will -- leaks will happen here, screenshots and videos, etc) that will matter. 

[ikri]

I would expect NDA's governing the purchasing of an asset valued at a couple hundred million pounds would be a little more binding than those of a video game.

 

How much do you think PES brings in Konami a year? or Fifa for EA?

 

£200m / £30 per game = 6.6 million units to be shipped over the course of a year across the world.

 

(Fifa 08 shipped 1 million units in the UK in eight weeks)

They could sell 40 billion units and it wouldn't change the fact that beta testing a game and the negotiations of purchasing a football club are carried out with vastly differing levels of candor, privacy and implied decorum, with vastly differing impacts resulting from leaks. 

 

So you don't think that the value of the PES/Fifa Asset to Konami/EA isn't worth a couple of hundred million?

 

If you agree that they are then why should leaks be any less serious - also bear in mind that leaks re the accounts relate to past performance, leaks to the design/features of a game relate to future events which a competitor would love to counter-act.

I think I just realized the problem here.  We're talking about different kinds of betas. 

 

What you're talking about is a private beta - internal testing of pre-alpha builds. No or extremely little public release.  NDA, non-compete and other enforcing legalities there.  Almost all of hte people involved are testers who work closely with devs and who probably have access to trade secrets or competitive information that other companies would like.    In that respect we would agree that the restrictions surrounding beta testing would be as tight as club purchasing.

 

What I'm talking about and what I took ikri to mean and you to be defending, was a public beta - external test of a nearly RTM build to identify bugs on platforms that were unavailable for testing internally.  NDAs are still required.  However at this stage, there is nothing getting into the hands of competitors (and it will -- leaks will happen here, screenshots and videos, etc) that will matter. 

 

You're right, I meant the near-release betas.

 

However, the point remains the same.  The NDA will not likely prevent anyone from discussing their bids, it will only prevent them from discussing the club's finances.

 

If those people who have talked about their bids have broken an all-covering NDA then they'll likely never do business again since any future companies they deal with will know that they'll break NDAs & can't be trusted.

 

If the people talking about their bids haven't made bids they'll look like utter twats to everyone.

 

Or, more likely, those people who have made perhaps weaker bids are talking themselves up in the media to either get a piece of the action when the club is sold or an offer from a cheaper club to come & invest.