Mike Ashley - Newcastle's best ever chairman/owner.

[Belfast Boy]

Keith Harris, of Seymour Pierce, just been on Talksport talking about football in general. Says he is good friends with Ashley and said how he had cleared the debt at Newcastle. He then went on to say "Newcastle still have debt, but now they owe it to Ashley". He went on to talk about the same situation with Abramovich at Chelsea and didn't go into details. But to me it sounded like all this talk of clearing £100m debt would appear to be nonsense as once (if?) the club is taken over he gets every penny back. The question is, does this money come out of the asking price bandied around or is he looking to make even bigger profits?

[NE5]

Keith Harris, of Seymour Pierce, just been on Talksport talking about football in general. Says he is good friends with Ashley and said how he had cleared the debt at Newcastle. He then went on to say "Newcastle still have debt, but now they owe it to Ashley". He went on to talk about the same situation with Abramovich at Chelsea and didn't go into details. But to me it sounded like all this talk of clearing £100m debt would appear to be nonsense as once (if?) the club is taken over he gets every penny back. The question is, does this money come out of the asking price bandied around or is he looking to make even bigger profits?

 

a point that was made to me a while back by an accountant friend of mine, but we waited to see what would happen. What do the financial whizzkids like macbeth etc, and others [not the accountants] think of this particular angle on it ?

 

 

[NE5]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was. 

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

My idea of success in the current context is not being second from bottom.  Did this long term 'plan' include relegation in the first year, while we wait for all these hot shot kids to come good?

 

 

if

 

 

 

[NE5]

continue demeaning the one man blah blah blah

 

Aw! Did the nasty man say bad things about Uncle Freddie? Poor baby!

 

Here's a new dummy. See how long you can keep this one inside the pram.

 

Is Freddy NE5's uncle? I know theres some link between the 2 somewhere....

 

He's clearly talking about Keegan there like.

 

One track minds some people 

 

indeed I was. Pretty amazing that anybody didn't realise. New heights of dumbness..........

 

I think Ozzie Mandiarse needs serious help to be honest. How old is he ?

 

 

 

So whats your relation to Shepherd out of interest? Im genuinely interested , no worries if you dont want to say.

 

oh dear.

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly ne5, it was a genuine question, if you dont want to answer it then thats fine. Judging by this one man onslaught, i take it you're back from the pub?!

 

yep, I've been to the pub. And ?

 

You have asked me this before BTW, and sorry to say, the answer is the same as the last time.

 

Why do you think that anybody who says anything positive about the old board is their guardian angels or something ? Honestly fredbob, I'm staggered you are still going down this route, after recent events

 

Sorry, something Ozzie said reminded me about your relation with Shepherd, i was just curious, no agenda behind it, i just remmeber not getting an answer out of you last time.

 

I genuinely no longer have an issue with you defending the old board, hence the reason i no longer have long drawn out debates with you anymore- well less frequented anyway. I actually probably feel the same about the current board as you do about the old board - crazy isnt it?

 

Im open to people criticising my viewpoint but i want to see one more season from the current lot before i let the vocal majority speak for me and force them out.

 

I wouldn't take any notice of what Ozzie says like, I don't anyway. Do you think the new owner will seel this season then, or rather he didn't ?

 

 

[UV]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

[Kitman]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

 

 

[madras]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

that i suppose we'll have to wait and see (and hope not). i still feel we were closer to relegation under allardyce than we are now.

[NJS]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

that i suppose we'll have to wait and see (and hope not). i still feel we were closer to relegation under allardyce than we are now.

 

For largely the same reason - lack of investment in the squad.

 

(Though I never wanted Allardyce and think he would never have succeeded).

 

 

 

[TRon]

Keith Harris, of Seymour Pierce, just been on Talksport talking about football in general. Says he is good friends with Ashley and said how he had cleared the debt at Newcastle. He then went on to say "Newcastle still have debt, but now they owe it to Ashley". He went on to talk about the same situation with Abramovich at Chelsea and didn't go into details. But to me it sounded like all this talk of clearing £100m debt would appear to be nonsense as once (if?) the club is taken over he gets every penny back. The question is, does this money come out of the asking price bandied around or is he looking to make even bigger profits?

 

Hardly breaking news is it? Just about everyone has already factored the £100m into the price anyway. Did anyone seriously think he was going to be hounded out of Newcastle but leave behind a £100m present to the new owner as a token of his thanks?

[madras]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

that i suppose we'll have to wait and see (and hope not). i still feel we were closer to relegation under allardyce than we are now.

 

For largely the same reason - lack of investment in the squad.

 

(Though I never wanted Allardyce and think he would never have succeeded).

 

 

 

alan smith and joey barton were a canny price. there may have been a lack of investment but nothing compared to the abysmal managing.

 

i've said before along the lines of "i'd rather give a good manager £10million than a s**** one £50million.

[themanupstairs]

Keith Harris, of Seymour Pierce, just been on Talksport talking about football in general. Says he is good friends with Ashley and said how he had cleared the debt at Newcastle. He then went on to say "Newcastle still have debt, but now they owe it to Ashley". He went on to talk about the same situation with Abramovich at Chelsea and didn't go into details. But to me it sounded like all this talk of clearing £100m debt would appear to be nonsense as once (if?) the club is taken over he gets every penny back. The question is, does this money come out of the asking price bandied around or is he looking to make even bigger profits?

 

Hardly breaking news is it? Just about everyone has already factored the £100m into the price anyway. Did anyone seriously think he was going to be hounded out of Newcastle but leave behind a £100m present to the new owner as a token of his thanks?

 

Exactly!! It's not a fucking charity!! but then I think that even Shepherd's staunchest supporters will admit that no chairman would plough money into the club expecting nothing in return

[Lotus]

Thought the thing with the debt was that by Ashley taking it over we reduced the interest payments. We all know he'll want that money back.

[Benwell Lad]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

 

Any relegation type form (and it certainly was recently) is more down to a lack of leadership (manager walkout) and a woefully under strength team due to injuries and suspensions, and not as you attempt to imply due to any structure or plan.

But I'm sure you really knew that anyway.

[Guest Edd]

Keith Harris, of Seymour Pierce, just been on Talksport talking about football in general. Says he is good friends with Ashley and said how he had cleared the debt at Newcastle. He then went on to say "Newcastle still have debt, but now they owe it to Ashley". He went on to talk about the same situation with Abramovich at Chelsea and didn't go into details. But to me it sounded like all this talk of clearing £100m debt would appear to be nonsense as once (if?) the club is taken over he gets every penny back. The question is, does this money come out of the asking price bandied around or is he looking to make even bigger profits?

 

It's funny but I listened to that interview too and that "quote" you posted from Keith Harris is almost the exact opposite of what he actually said which was:

 

Mike Ashley... cleaned up Newcastle. He paid off all the debt.  But actually on the balance sheet it says they own money.  Now they do, they owe it to him, but that's not debt, it's another form of equity.

 

Maybe if you're going to "quote" people in future you should print what they really said and not some bastardisation of it that fits your argument. 

[UV]

i've said before along the lines of "i'd rather give a good manager £10million than a s**** one £50million.

 

It's a shame Ashley's mantra is I'd rather give a Director of Football £0 than a good manager £0

[madras]

i've said before along the lines of "i'd rather give a good manager £10million than a s**** one £50million.

 

It's a shame Ashley's mantra is I'd rather give a Director of Football £0 than a good manager £0

and yet it's known that he had a club record bid accepted for a player and paid a club record for a defender.

 

aren't we getting back into the area where we don't actually know what happened.

[OzzieMandias]

i've said before along the lines of "i'd rather give a good manager £10million than a s**** one £50million.

 

It's a shame Ashley's mantra is I'd rather give a Director of Football £0 than a good manager £0

and yet it's known that he had a club record bid accepted for a player and paid a club record for a defender.

 

aren't we getting back into the area where we don't actually know what happened.

 

That's never stopped UV before.

[Kitman]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

 

Any relegation type form (and it certainly was recently) is more down to a lack of leadership (manager walkout) and a woefully under strength team due to injuries and suspensions, and not as you attempt to imply due to any structure or plan.

But I'm sure you really knew that anyway.

 

Injuries and suspensions are part and parcel of football and no excuse.  The team is woefully under strength imo because the squad is woefully under strength.  What use is having a 'structure' if you don't sign the players you need?  I don't know whose fault that is and I don't really care, it's where we've ended up that galls me.  If that where the 'plan' leads us, then the plan's shite as far as I'm concerned.

[UV]

For me the structure hasn't delivered, doesn't matter whose fault it was.

 

Aye, as a mechanism for supplying instant success it has proved sadly deficient.

 

As a mechanism for supplying almost instant relegation though, it's proving worryingly efficient.

 

Any relegation type form (and it certainly was recently) is more down to a lack of leadership (manager walkout) and a woefully under strength team due to injuries and suspensions, and not as you attempt to imply due to any structure or plan.

But I'm sure you really knew that anyway.

 

Does the plan not have any contingency for injuries and suspensions then? Bit poor if so.

 

I expect a club with our resources to be able to deal with a reasonable level of injuries and suspensions. If they are to key players over a long period, then a drop in achievement to mid table should be expected, but not unless pretty much the whole first team is out for a decent part of the season should we be facing relegation.

 

If 2 of Owen, Martins and Viduka had been injured in the last 2 months of last season do you think we'd be in the premiership now? I don't.

 

[OzzieMandias]

Aye, what use is a "structure" if it doesn't solve all our problems in one transfer window?

[Kitman]

Aye, what use is a "structure" if it doesn't solve all our problems in one transfer window?

 

Who said that? 

[UV]

i've said before along the lines of "i'd rather give a good manager £10million than a s**** one £50million.

 

It's a shame Ashley's mantra is I'd rather give a Director of Football £0 than a good manager £0

and yet it's known that he had a club record bid accepted for a player and paid a club record for a defender.

 

aren't we getting back into the area where we don't actually know what happened.

 

That's never stopped UV before.

 

I know we've had a net spend of around £10m under Ashley in 3 transfer windows. If you missed it, that's what's happened.

 

Edit: Which club record bid was accepted? I hope we're not getting back into the area where we don't actually know what happened.

[NJS]

Aye, what use is a "structure" if it doesn't solve all our problems in one transfer window?

 

People expect to see progress - maybe not all the problems sorted but I judge a window by how much better the squad is at the end of it. Summer 2008 brought a slight improvement which I found unsatisfactory which makes me doubt the commitment to progress over a longer period.

 

To go from 13th to push for 6th/7th/8th which I would have been happy with needed a lot more improvement than we got - this is ultimately why I'm "anti-Ashley".

 

The slow and steady approach also neglects other teams ambition - see Man City or Sunderland as examples of factors which affect that approach and should prompt a response.  I'm not saying he should have bankrupted himself going stupid but a range from -£2m to £20m is not enough.

 

 

[Guest Howaythetoon]

In light of the global financial crash, the situation overspending West Ham now find themselves in, unsustainable Premier league wage bills and football's general level of debt,  Mike Ashley's structured plan for the club and it's finances looks quite visionary.

 

Ashley's 'structured' plan as you put it was designed to raise the sell-on value of the club, nothing more. Clubs with debt are less attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. Clubs without debt are very attractive options, even more so in a credit crunch. He will find this out very soon despite the on-field mess as he gets himself a healthy profit for his initial investment. That has been his intention all along. I'm not surprised you see it another way though, given your absurd claims in the opening post.

 

A shame that Keegan's walkout and the sub primes demonstration blew such a hole in what now looks like it was a very astute longer term plan for NUFC's prosperity and success.

 

More like KK blew a hole in your hopes that Ashley was the real deal, that's what this is all about. You don't want to admit he isn't and never was the real deal. Instead you'd rather denigrate a man who has done far more for this club than the man you laughingly claim as the best ever chairman or owner we've ever had.

 

When the football world is criticising the English game for selling it's soul to any foreign billionaire who fancies buying a club, you and the angry rabble have got what you wanted by forcing out Ashley. You will soon find out who your protests have brought to the club. I hope you are happy with the new owners.

 

Ah, so it my fault and fellow fans' fault.

 

1st of all I never protested and I never wanted Ashley out much less forced him out. This is all of his own doing.

 

You're just upset because he's not really the man your title claims him to be despite you and everyone else, myself included, hoping he would be. Face up to that reality (I have) and stop kidding yourself, you'll feel much better for it and will start to see things more clearly.

[madras]

i've said before along the lines of "i'd rather give a good manager £10million than a s**** one £50million.

 

It's a shame Ashley's mantra is I'd rather give a Director of Football £0 than a good manager £0

and yet it's known that he had a club record bid accepted for a player and paid a club record for a defender.

 

aren't we getting back into the area where we don't actually know what happened.

 

That's never stopped UV before.

 

I know we've had a net spend of around £10m under Ashley in 3 transfer windows. If you missed it, that's what's happened.

 

Edit: Which club record bid was accepted? I hope we're not getting back into the area where we don't actually know what happened.

modric. even keegan said they had accepted the bid.