Newcastle Fan Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Aye, he doesn't exactly seem to be covering himself in glory..... Ashley’s fruitless trip to Dubai is ridiculed . The Newcastle owner was photographed in a bar during the Holy month of Ramadan – something that has not gone down well in Islamic circles – and has been ridiculed for his unsuccessful attempts to secure a one-to-one meeting with some of the most powerful business figures in the world. http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/football/newcastle/3686440.Ashley___s_fruitless_trip_to_Dubai_is_ridiculed/ Yes, there was outrage, protests on the street, people calling for Ashley's head, Banners with "Ashley out !" and apperently two guys beat the fuck out of a guy who turned out to be his look alike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I just cannot work out what is going on - it is like he is messing with our heads. Everything that is said or done contradicts something said or done earlier. If he wants to sell the club, then the way he has gone about it is bizarre. I am sure, that it could all have been done discreetly. Whatever his intentions are, they need to sort it out quickly because it is affecting everyone and especially the players. A few of them may well want to be off in January and probably the better ones and if we are struggling, it will be difficult to attract players to the club. I think the last few weeks have caused untold damage. And they need to find a good manager urgently. I am sure if the club was sold, that if the manager was doing well, he would be kept on. Way better put than my waffle, exactly my thoughts too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Been saying n it for days, the t*** is just taking the piss. To think that bloke in your avatar flew into England to try and buy Newcastle...what is he the 6th richest man in the world? Ashley doesn't want to sell unless he gets an offer he can't refuse. Aye, he bought us and realized he was out of his depth, promised Keegan the earth then had to try and find investors to be able to give KK the money he promised him. Now he needs to sell as the fans hate him but he is looking for a massive profit he will never get, he will have to sell at some point but I cans ee him dragging this out for a long time yet. Anil Ambani was very interested in buying us but did not want just to invest, we missed the boat with him as now he is considering Everton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I think it is perfectly obvious that the asking price makes it perfectly clear Ashley has no intention of selling NUFC, at least not for the time being. However, what really worries me is that he said in his letter that he was no longer prepared to continue subsidising NUFC. That means he will no longer be prepared to buy players for the club or stump up exorbitant wages for the likes of Owen, Martins, Barton, Given, Duff, and Smith. I fear he may have decided to asset strip the club before dropping the asking price to what he originally paid. If he can sell off our better players in January he could possible rake in around £50m in transfer fees and saved wages. If he then accepts what he paid for the club and sells in February he has made a cool £50m profit on his 16 month investment. Not a bad days work if you ask me. Of course our new owner won't be able to buy new players until the summer by which time we may be so short of decent first team players that we end up getting relegated. As the saying goes revenge is a dish best served up cold. Ashley will have made a substantial profit on his initial investment and will have the added satisfaction of seeing us all crying in our beer as we go down. I imagine he will consider that sufficient recompense for some fans suggesting it would not be safe for him or his family to attend the NUFC games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I've heard about 4 different amounts now The guy paid the debt off to maximise saleability. The debt we had was stable, like most of the other top premier league clubs who are in large amounts of debt (Arsenal, liverpool, manu). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I've heard about 4 different amounts now The guy paid the debt off to maximise saleability. The debt we had was stable, like most of the other top premier league clubs who are in large amounts of debt (Arsenal, liverpool, manu). Whatever your theory on why he did it he still did it, therefore ipso facto he subsidised the motherfucking club!! How many more times, does this have to be explained!?! It's a really simple concept, if you pay off someone or something's debts for them you are subsidising them. It doesn't matter why, and apart from anything you don't know why he did it anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewJerseyMag Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I thought he bough for 100 odd million and paid of 110 million. Therefore the sale price should be around 200-250 million.... not 400 odd million Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! The only one who's bought anything is you Chris, hook line and sinker, it's written all over the forum and is there for anyone to see. Has he or has he not paid of a significant slice of the club debt? He has. Is that or is that not a subsidy? It is a subsidy. Are you denying this because it's untrue or simply because it doesn't fit with your Mike-Ashley-is-evil-incarnate-and-I'm-going-to-slag-him-off-for-everything-and-anything-even-if-it-means-saying-things-that-aren't-true-and-being-totally-unable-to-back-up-90%-of-the-guff-I'm-spouting vendetta? Well it certainly isn't because it's untrue. Reality doesn't bend to what you want or don't want to be true, you know? And the reality is he has subsidised the club like no-one ever before. If you don't like it tough shit, it's still true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I've heard about 4 different amounts now The guy paid the debt off to maximise saleability. The debt we had was stable, like most of the other top premier league clubs who are in large amounts of debt (Arsenal, liverpool, manu). That's untrue. Fat Fred himself said that SJH selling up triggered a clause that meant a large sum off money (millions) had to be paid on the SJP mortgage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! The only one who's bought anything is you Chris, hook line and sinker, it's written all over the forum and is there for anyone to see. Has he or has he not paid of a significant slice of the club debt? He has. Is that or is that not a subsidy? It is a subsidy. Are you denying this because it's untrue or simply because it doesn't fit with your Mike-Ashley-is-evil-incarnate-and-I'm-going-to-slag-him-off-for-everything-and-anything-even-if-it-means-saying-things-that-aren't-true-and-being-totally-unable-to-back-up-90%-of-the-guff-I'm-spouting vendetta? Well it certainly isn't because it's untrue. Reality doesn't bend to what you want or don't want to be true, you know? And the reality is he has subsidised the club like no-one ever before. If you don't like it tough s***, it's still true. Read my post, I considered his subsidization comments as transfer budget, that 20m he talks of and not the debt which of course means he has indeed subsidised the club if you want to be pedantic, I understand that and that's not what I'm arguing about. Why would he say, if he has paid the debt off like he likes to tell everyone, would he need to therefore subsidise it further, i.e. keep paying debts he's paid off? He wouldn't, so he's either talking absolute crap or perhaps you've got it wrong and by ceasing subsidization what he really means is transfer money, that promised 20m which is probably closer to the truth as he will know full well how many fans want him to spend money and want the club to buy new players. If you're trying to fend off the booing and protests you don't so "well I won't pay off any more debt then" you say "I'll just not buy any new players". Oh and you are very right, I did buy it and what a mug I was, what a mug we all were. No more though. I can't believe how this one statement has pulled the wool over peoples eyes. I read it and I was honestly disgusted by it. I mean fuck me, does the whole timing and reason behind it not make you suspicious of it all and indeed him and his intentions? KK gets stick for spitting the dummy, for walking away, and Ashley pulls the same stunt and its "ah, bless" And using his kids, a mate of mine who sits near him at away games said "what kids?" because he can't recall seeing any, just big burly blokes and other hangers on. He's a calculating conniving charlatan and I'll be damned if I apologise for my views just because they sit uneasy with some or don't agree with your views or whoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sicko2ndbest Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I've heard about 4 different amounts now The guy paid the debt off to maximise saleability. The debt we had was stable, like most of the other top premier league clubs who are in large amounts of debt (Arsenal, liverpool, manu). That's untrue. Fat Fred himself said that SJH selling up triggered a clause that meant a large sum off money (millions) had to be paid on the SJP mortgage. You are missing the point. The debt was managable with shepherd and hall at the helm. The mortgage debt was irrelevant as it was inactive as long as they were on board Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 You are missing the point. The debt was managable with shepherd and hall at the helm. The mortgage debt was irrelevant as it was inactive as long as they were on board The debt (mortgage) was managable as long as we filled the ground and brought in the cash to finance the loan. I'm sure that we were told that the ticket revenue from the extra 16,000 seats paid off that loan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! The only one who's bought anything is you Chris, hook line and sinker, it's written all over the forum and is there for anyone to see. Has he or has he not paid of a significant slice of the club debt? He has. Is that or is that not a subsidy? It is a subsidy. Are you denying this because it's untrue or simply because it doesn't fit with your Mike-Ashley-is-evil-incarnate-and-I'm-going-to-slag-him-off-for-everything-and-anything-even-if-it-means-saying-things-that-aren't-true-and-being-totally-unable-to-back-up-90%-of-the-guff-I'm-spouting vendetta? Well it certainly isn't because it's untrue. Reality doesn't bend to what you want or don't want to be true, you know? And the reality is he has subsidised the club like no-one ever before. If you don't like it tough s***, it's still true. That's one long vendetta. This is HTT we're talking about remember, he doesn't do concise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! was he fuck talking about transfer budgets. he said he'd invest 20mill in the club per season, where do you get "on players" from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! was he f*** talking about transfer budgets. he said he'd invest 20mill in the club per season, where do you get "on players" from. "I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. It has to be realised that if I put £100 million into the club year in year out then it would not be too long before I was cleaned out and a debt ridden Newcastle United would find itself in the position that faced Leeds United." Quite clearly he says he was prepared to put in up to £20mill of his own money into the club per season. That could have been to reduce the finance costs each season, subsidise additional player wages, transfers, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I thought Ashley was referring to transfer budgets, i.e. this mysterious £20m per season? If he's paid off the debt as he likes to keep stating, then there would be no need for him to keep subsidizing paying the debt anyway, no? Scare tactics, emotional blackmail, toys out the pram, peddling the we owe him a favour line, reads like "love me, sob for me, don't boo me, if you don't and do boo screw yous" And you've bought it! was he f*** talking about transfer budgets. he said he'd invest 20mill in the club per season, where do you get "on players" from. "I knew that the club would cost me money every year after I had bought it. I have backed the club with money. You can see that from the fact that Newcastle has the fifth highest wage bill in the Premier League. I was always prepared to bank roll Newcastle up to the tune of £20 million per year but no more. That was my bargain. I would make the club solvent. I would make it a going concern. I would pour up to £20 million a year into the club and not expect anything back. It has to be realised that if I put £100 million into the club year in year out then it would not be too long before I was cleaned out and a debt ridden Newcastle United would find itself in the position that faced Leeds United." Quite clearly he says he was prepared to put in up to £20mill of his own money into the club per season. That could have been to reduce the finance costs each season, subsidise additional player wages, transfers, etc. Exactly. And fairly obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 ... The only one who's bought anything is you Chris, hook line and sinker, it's written all over the forum and is there for anyone to see. Has he or has he not paid of a significant slice of the club debt? He has. Is that or is that not a subsidy? It is a subsidy. Are you denying this because it's untrue or simply because it doesn't fit with your Mike-Ashley-is-evil-incarnate-and-I'm-going-to-slag-him-off-for-everything-and-anything-even-if-it-means-saying-things-that-aren't-true-and-being-totally-unable-to-back-up-90%-of-the-guff-I'm-spouting vendetta? Well it certainly isn't because it's untrue. Reality doesn't bend to what you want or don't want to be true, you know? And the reality is he has subsidised the club like no-one ever before. If you don't like it tough s***, it's still true. Read my post, I considered his subsidization comments as transfer budget, that 20m he talks of and not the debt which of course means he has indeed subsidised the club if you want to be pedantic, I understand that and that's not what I'm arguing about. Why would he say, if he has paid the debt off like he likes to tell everyone, would he need to therefore subsidise it further, i.e. keep paying debts he's paid off? He wouldn't, so he's either talking absolute crap or perhaps you've got it wrong and by ceasing subsidization what he really means is transfer money, that promised 20m which is probably closer to the truth as he will know full well how many fans want him to spend money and want the club to buy new players. If you're trying to fend off the booing and protests you don't so "well I won't pay off any more debt then" you say "I'll just not buy any new players". Oh and you are very right, I did buy it and what a mug I was, what a mug we all were. No more though. I can't believe how this one statement has pulled the wool over peoples eyes. I read it and I was honestly disgusted by it. I mean fuck me, does the whole timing and reason behind it not make you suspicious of it all and indeed him and his intentions? KK gets stick for spitting the dummy, for walking away, and Ashley pulls the same stunt and its "ah, bless" And using his kids, a mate of mine who sits near him at away games said "what kids?" because he can't recall seeing any, just big burly blokes and other hangers on. He's a calculating conniving charlatan and I'll be damned if I apologise for my views just because they sit uneasy with some or don't agree with your views or whoever. It was quite clear what he meant about the £20m thing, and that was; that he'd be willing to chip in up to £20m per season of his own money for transfers, or whatever, over and above what eh club could produce itself. The thing you don't seem to realise is that if the club is making a loss that means that the transfer budget would be less than £20m and as the club has been consistently making a loss, it would have taken a while to reverse that, and it certainly wouldn't have been done by this season. Ashley had said all along that the club needed to be ran on a more sustainable model than what it had been under Shepherd and he is right. As I've now said a number of times Shepherd was subsidising the club with money loaned from banks which at some point would have to be paid back with interest. Ashley had stopped that and was going to replace that subsidy with a subsidy drawn from his own money. Also as I've said to you a number of times now, he'd clearly shown his commitment and willingness to subsidise the club with his own money by paying off £110 million pounds of debt with.... ...wait for it.... ...his own money!!!! That's £110m more that Ashley's put into this club in one year, than Shepherd and Hall put in during 15 years and in fact it's pretty much £110m more than any owner has put into NUFC, ever!! So you're basically slagging off and doubting the willingness of the only person ever, other than the fans, to put any of their own money into the club in it's entire history, and you say he's pulled the wool over my eyes!!! The wool appears to be growing out of your skin mate, but it's nowhere near my eyes. It's not pedantic to mention the debt repayment, because that actually happened and it shows that the bloke was prepared to put his hand in his pocket for the club, therefore my opinion is based on something that really happened in the real world. Whereas, your view is based upon what exactly? That he sacked... oh hang on a minute, no he didn't actually did he... he "made" Keegan quit, awwwww what a nasty man he must be, it's not like that's ever happened before is it? Face it, your view is based upon a whole load of irrational supposition and what's generally termed "bollocks" and you have absolutely nothing to back it up with, do you? Do you!?! Keegan gets stick for spitting the dummy because that's exactly what he did, Ashley is going because that's what you and those like you wanted and you set about letting him know in no uncertain terms, he's doing what you wanted and you're still having a go at him for it, make your fucking mind up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 Subsidize a club making a profit by spending nothing. mackems.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 He wasn't subsidizing the club anyway - another lie or false statement he's peddled and I know he said it but even now I can't believe he did, that's tantamount to emotional blackmail that. Care to explain how paying off £110m of debt, isn't subsidising the club? I've heard about 4 different amounts now The guy paid the debt off to maximise saleability. The debt we had was stable, like most of the other top premier league clubs who are in large amounts of debt (Arsenal, liverpool, manu). He paid that debt only because when he bought the club that action triggered the debt to be paid, as you say it was a perfectly stable extremely long term debt, like a mortgage on a house. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 I thought he bough for 100 odd million and paid of 110 million. Therefore the sale price should be around 200-250 million.... not 400 odd million It doesn't work like that unfortunately. A club with next to know debt could increase dramatically in value (beyond the value of the debt that has been paid off). In theory, our value could come close to Man Utd and Arsenal because although we don;t have as much going for us on the playing side, when people invest or buy a business they normally look at the financial side first and foremost. Paying off £110 of debt cannot raise the price of a business by £300 million, our value is nowhere near Manures or Arsenals mate, being free of debt isn't that important.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 All we know for sure is that he paid off 57mil on the ground because he had no choice in the matter, he says hes paid 110mil we dont know he has, and as for the 20mil a year, Ive used that tactic myself with the kids 'I was gonna buy you some sweets but seeing as youve played up Im not going to now' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Toon Posted September 20, 2008 Share Posted September 20, 2008 All we know for sure is that he paid off 57mil on the ground because he had no choice in the matter, he says hes paid 110mil we dont know he has, and as for the 20mil a year, Ive used that tactic myself with the kids 'I was gonna buy you some sweets but seeing as youve played up Im not going to now' I hope you don't extend the rest of his tactics to your kids: "In fact, now you've pissed me off I'm putting you up for adoption..." or maybe: "If you think your Uncle Kevin's so fucking perfect, why don't you go and live with him..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now