Mike Ashley: "I've loved owning Newcastle"

[indi]

He's still not the big, bad villain that people are painting him out to be. I was as angry with him as anyone for the way the Keegan thing unfolded, but after taking a few steps back from the situation it has been hard to completely change my opinion of him after one single event like a lot seem to have done.

 

Aye he's made a huge mistake that has been massively detrimental since it happened to the football club and to the lives of all the fans that follow it with a passion, but I hardly think he's sitting around somewhere smiling about how things have gone wrong - and not just because he could potentially lose money because of it.

 

I suppose we'll see if he stays in how he does things or we'll see with the price he sells the club at, but even before this interview I've been hesitant to paint him 100% as the villain. I don't think there's any excuse for the silence before now though, but I am glad he's finally spoken in public about the current situation (even if it's just a little bit.)

 

More can be read outside of the quotes, to be honest, and this Dunn bloke has obviously had a face-to-face chat with him so it can't all be idle speculation.

 

Good post Rich.

 

Regardless of what people's views are regarding the Keegan situation, the fact is it's happened and as a club we need to move on from it now. Whoever was at fault, Keegan's gone and isn't coming back, the club is still here, the fans are still here and Ashley's still here and it looks like he will remain so for the foreseeable future, given the current economic situation. For the club to progress, perhaps even survive, there now needs to be some kind of rapprochement between the fans and the club's management, people need to let bygones be bygones and leave some things in the past where they belong. You don't have to forget, you don't even have to forgive, but people do now need to start thinking about what's best for the club and start trying to form some sort of working relationship with each other. If this piece is the first step towards that from Ashley and co, then I think the fans need to try and accept it as such. One thing's for certain the current cold-war situation between the club and the supporters is doing neither any good. Glasnost is what's required now.

 

I know that there are a lot of people with pretty hardline views on this who may never change their opinions on this subject and I'm not going to allow myself to get into an argument with them (I've learned my lesson ), nut the rest of us need to get on with it now. The club's future is at stake and that's what we're supposed to care about, the club, not individuals, not players, not managers, not directors of football, not owners, but NUFC: the be all and end all.

[johnnypd]

The bids for Modric, Woodgate, Schweinsteiger, Aimar (?) as well... all of which were for substantial sums.

 

I think if anyone cocked up massively in the transfer window it was Keegan, Wise and Jimenez (and potentially Llambias) for the way that communication seemed to break down/lies were told/things didn't go to plan. I'm very hesitant to blame KK though as I know he would want the best for NUFC.

 

Of course you can go back to another Ashley "mistake" if you believe Wise/Jimenez should never have been brought in anyway, and you can blame him for it due to that too.

 

The whole thing has been a catastrophe, but none of us know exactly where to apportion the blame or what exactly happened - it's infuriating.

 

but woodgate wouldve been INSTEAD of colo, it wouldve been modric OR scweinsteiger OR aimar (or nothing, as iti turned out in acuality) rather than all of them. and you never know how the rest of the budget and spending wouldve been restructured as a result. all we have to go on is what happened and what was spent, the rest of speculative and some of it nonsense. in reality he;s spent virtually nothing at a time when the rest of the league has been spending loads.

 

I never said we'd be signing all of them! For fuck's sake, this place drives me crackers at times.

 

Your post is as much speculation as mine was, though.

 

I still cannot understand why a bloke would spend hundreds of millions to buy a football club in order to become a "fan". Travel up and down the country to watch them and WANT the team to be shite by not spending any money on it. This is where the logic fails, for me. I do understand the reality, but as I said I can't help but wonder if it came about because of monumental failings in the system RATHER than a lack of money. I cannot make this any clearer this time, surely?

 

He made a transfer-record fee bid for Modric, he broke the transfer record for a defender with Coloccini, Schweinsteiger was apparently another very big deal... he said himself he was willing to finance us to the tune of £20m per season (provided he was being honest) out of his own money on top of what the club was making. There was definitely money there to be spent and Keegan kept telling us so and Ashley himself told us now. Kinnear is now telling us so.

 

None of us have seen the books, none of us know what state the finances were/are in and as a result are speculating and biting each other's heads off all over the shop because of it. People are ASSUMING he's been pocketing money (season tickets, TV money) but who's to say it hasn't been used up by the club already, if the books are really as bad as they might have been? People are ASSUMING he wants £450m for the club, at times, which seems insane to me. Obviously I'm assuming the other way, so nobody really can be "right" - that's why debates of this nature are so futile, ESPECIALLY when people are so fucking dogmatic and unwilling to take on another point of view.

 

It's a huge topic of discussion, but I get royally fucked off by those who just see it as black or white and blame one or the other. It's not going to be that fucking simple is it? People need to Wise up.

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day. to me it is pretty obvious, seeing the trend across the three windows, the whinging about it being an expensive seat, his statement that he wasnt willing to spend much, the focus on resale values or of generating future income through developing players for sale, his strategies at sports direct and the desire to cut costs across the board (even down to players suits) that ashley simply hasnt been willing to invest money into transfers thus far. and the facts bare witness to this, a net spend of £3m since ashley assumed power. in the same time Sunderland have spent close to £70m. even a single big signing like modric wouldnt even take us anywhere near that level of investment, which youd think a new owner would want to make for the reasons in your post.

[Optimistic Nut]

 

 

I still cannot understand why a bloke would spend hundreds of millions to buy a football club in order to become a "fan". Travel up and down the country to watch them and WANT the team to be s**** by not spending any money on it.

 

Think that's a good point.

 

 

 

[James]

Think it was Mick that asked what mistakes Ashley's made. Well, every big decision that Ashley's made has had some sort of mistake involved, with varying degrees of repercussions.

 

Big Decisions

 

Sacking Allardyce: Right idea, we were going nowhere with him. Mistake in that he sacked him at the wrong time, leaving very little opportunity to get anyone in January. Result: Fortunately we got away with it in the end.

 

Appointing Wise: Right idea, we've been begging for a scouting network for yonks. Mistake in that he brought in the wrong person. I can remember seeing somewhere that there were like three candidates for the job. Bringing in someone we've never heard of would never, ever have commanded the media speculation that it did do. And i mean, the media hogwash certainly enhanced events leading up to Keegan's sacking. Also, Wise is just a slimy cunt. Never going to work with Keegan, was he? Result: Catastrophic.

 

Appointing Keegan: Right idea, fans are downtrodden - Keegan is both a quality manager and someone who would invigorate the fans. Mistake in that he simply shouldn't have bothered really. It was the right sort of thing to do but Keegan was never, ever going to work with his blueprints of conoslidating funds, having a a DoF. He's too proud a man. Result: Catastrophic.

 

Appointing Llambias: Right idea, he needed someone to replace Mort. Mistake in that Llambias is an idiot who had no idea how to speak to the fans. Result: More turmoil within the fans, contributed quite heavily to the catastrophe.

 

Consolidating Funds: Right idea, we'd just come out of a leadership that had seen £50m given to someone like Graeme Souness; we needed to start treading carefully. Mistake in that this was never going to appease the supporters, the manager and several squad members by doing it this way. They were generally too careful with the funding and too confusing. Result: Contributed to the catastrophe.

 

(Lack of) Communication: The only time he's had the totally wrong idea imo. Can't fathom why he's kept such a low profile and there's been no explanation for anything, ever. Questionable sincerity whenever he's spoken, n'all. Result: contributed to the catastrophe.

 

That's just about everything, off the top of my head. As i've said before, his original blueprints were spot on in my opinion. He just got everything badly fucking wrong.

 

Sums up my thoughts on things pretty well.

 

Mostly agree, but don't think Llambias was the right idea as it is very clear that he has never been a football chairman/MD type.

[Optimistic Nut]

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day.

 

The club had been heading that way the season before Ashley bought the club, so it's not just him. Like I pointed out in the other post, you could say "how come the Woodgate & Huth transfers couldn't come off, and yet 4 months later bring in an American centre-back who'd never played in the top-leagues before".

[Mick]

Think it was Mick that asked what mistakes Ashley's made. Well, every big decision that Ashley's made has had some sort of mistake involved, with varying degrees of repercussions.

 

Big Decisions

 

Sacking Allardyce: Right idea, we were going nowhere with him. Mistake in that he sacked him at the wrong time, leaving very little opportunity to get anyone in January. Result: Fortunately we got away with it in the end.

 

Appointing Wise: Right idea, we've been begging for a scouting network for yonks. Mistake in that he brought in the wrong person. I can remember seeing somewhere that there were like three candidates for the job. Bringing in someone we've never heard of would never, ever have commanded the media speculation that it did do. And i mean, the media hogwash certainly enhanced events leading up to Keegan's sacking. Also, Wise is just a slimy c***. Never going to work with Keegan, was he? Result: Catastrophic.

 

Appointing Keegan: Right idea, fans are downtrodden - Keegan is both a quality manager and someone who would invigorate the fans. Mistake in that he simply shouldn't have bothered really. It was the right sort of thing to do but Keegan was never, ever going to work with his blueprints of conoslidating funds, having a a DoF. He's too proud a man. Result: Catastrophic.

 

Appointing Llambias: Right idea, he needed someone to replace Mort. Mistake in that Llambias is an idiot who had no idea how to speak to the fans. Result: More turmoil within the fans, contributed quite heavily to the catastrophe.

 

Consolidating Funds: Right idea, we'd just come out of a leadership that had seen £50m given to someone like Graeme Souness; we needed to start treading carefully. Mistake in that this was never going to appease the supporters, the manager and several squad members by doing it this way. They were generally too careful with the funding and too confusing. Result: Contributed to the catastrophe.

 

(Lack of) Communication: The only time he's had the totally wrong idea imo. Can't fathom why he's kept such a low profile and there's been no explanation for anything, ever. Questionable sincerity whenever he's spoken, n'all. Result: contributed to the catastrophe.

 

That's just about everything, off the top of my head. As i've said before, his original blueprints were spot on in my opinion. He just got everything badly f***ing wrong.

 

Thanks, I am interested where people think he's gone wrong.

[TRon]

 

 

I still cannot understand why a bloke would spend hundreds of millions to buy a football club in order to become a "fan". Travel up and down the country to watch them and WANT the team to be s**** by not spending any money on it.

 

Think that's a good point.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you'll see many clubs not playing in Europe spending too much in the current climate to be fair.

[johnnypd]

 

 

I still cannot understand why a bloke would spend hundreds of millions to buy a football club in order to become a "fan". Travel up and down the country to watch them and WANT the team to be s**** by not spending any money on it.

 

Think that's a good point.

 

 

 

 

i dont think theres a single person who even thinks this though, so its not exactly relevant. he doesnt want the team to be shit, just he thinks he can make the team good by spending very little and by developing talent. he's been proven wrong so far, for a number of reasons, 1 that not investing rarely is ever succeeds and 2 managers, whoever they are, from curbishley to redknapp, dont like interference from the board. it points to the fact that ashley doesnt really understand his own 'system' - if he wanted to make it work hed go after a continental first team 'coach' rather than an idiosyncratic, confrontational, wheeler dealer traditional old school british 'manager' (whether that be keegan, redknapp, or even venables or kinnear - all ashley choices and all woefully unsuited to his system). though even then, it caused probs at spurs when jol and ramos worked under that system and they had experience in it.

[Robster]

Thanks, I am interested where people think he's gone wrong.

Its a pity Mike himself didnt expand on his own admission

[Rich]

The bids for Modric, Woodgate, Schweinsteiger, Aimar (?) as well... all of which were for substantial sums.

 

I think if anyone cocked up massively in the transfer window it was Keegan, Wise and Jimenez (and potentially Llambias) for the way that communication seemed to break down/lies were told/things didn't go to plan. I'm very hesitant to blame KK though as I know he would want the best for NUFC.

 

Of course you can go back to another Ashley "mistake" if you believe Wise/Jimenez should never have been brought in anyway, and you can blame him for it due to that too.

 

The whole thing has been a catastrophe, but none of us know exactly where to apportion the blame or what exactly happened - it's infuriating.

 

but woodgate wouldve been INSTEAD of colo, it wouldve been modric OR scweinsteiger OR aimar (or nothing, as iti turned out in acuality) rather than all of them. and you never know how the rest of the budget and spending wouldve been restructured as a result. all we have to go on is what happened and what was spent, the rest of speculative and some of it nonsense. in reality he;s spent virtually nothing at a time when the rest of the league has been spending loads.

 

I never said we'd be signing all of them! For fuck's sake, this place drives me crackers at times.

 

Your post is as much speculation as mine was, though.

 

I still cannot understand why a bloke would spend hundreds of millions to buy a football club in order to become a "fan". Travel up and down the country to watch them and WANT the team to be shite by not spending any money on it. This is where the logic fails, for me. I do understand the reality, but as I said I can't help but wonder if it came about because of monumental failings in the system RATHER than a lack of money. I cannot make this any clearer this time, surely?

 

He made a transfer-record fee bid for Modric, he broke the transfer record for a defender with Coloccini, Schweinsteiger was apparently another very big deal... he said himself he was willing to finance us to the tune of £20m per season (provided he was being honest) out of his own money on top of what the club was making. There was definitely money there to be spent and Keegan kept telling us so and Ashley himself told us now. Kinnear is now telling us so.

 

None of us have seen the books, none of us know what state the finances were/are in and as a result are speculating and biting each other's heads off all over the shop because of it. People are ASSUMING he's been pocketing money (season tickets, TV money) but who's to say it hasn't been used up by the club already, if the books are really as bad as they might have been? People are ASSUMING he wants £450m for the club, at times, which seems insane to me. Obviously I'm assuming the other way, so nobody really can be "right" - that's why debates of this nature are so futile, ESPECIALLY when people are so fucking dogmatic and unwilling to take on another point of view.

 

It's a huge topic of discussion, but I get royally fucked off by those who just see it as black or white and blame one or the other. It's not going to be that fucking simple is it? People need to Wise up.

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day. to me it is pretty obvious, seeing the trend across the three windows, the whinging about it being an expensive seat, his statement that he wasnt willing to spend much, the focus on resale values or of generating future income through developing players for sale, his strategies at sports direct and the desire to cut costs across the board (even down to players suits) that ashley simply hasnt been willing to invest money into transfers thus far. and the facts bare witness to this, a net spend of £3m since ashley assumed power. in the same time Sunderland have spent close to £70m. even a single big signing like modric wouldnt even take us anywhere near that level of investment, which youd think a new owner would want to make for the reasons in your post.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, far from it, because all of what you have posted could be true. This is what I mean though, egomaniacs like yourself (and myself at times) seem to be more concerned about being "right" or having people conform to their points of view. It's all about fucking points scoring: "mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon things that have happened." Well done. Top marks.

 

You've completely ignored the major point in my post about the potential for it being outside of Ashley's control at the key moments (Wise/Keegan/Jimenez) and the fact that there was obviously money available because of the bids made while Keegan was here, instead doing what I suppose people would call an "NE5" now and making a post purely based on your own thoughts/feelings/observations. That's not debating, or arguing or conversing - that's just pushing your ideology over and over and over again, like many others are doing. At least try to take some things people say in opposition to you on board, please, like I'm trying to do here.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that Ashley's handled a lot of things in a very cock-eyed way since he took over here, but I think he's getting beaten with a lot of imaginary sticks at times and that's what doesn't sit right with me.

 

The facts do appear damning, I'm not going to disagree, but we don't know why that has turned out to be the case, which has been my entire point for the last 40 minutes or whatever. It's hard to believe that it's purely 100% Mike Ashley's fault and that he simply was looking to make a profit out of the club rather than actually wanting us to do well (despite what he says and despite what that Andy Dunn fellow has intimated from him). Obviously, it could be all his fault, but is it likely? Really?

 

PS: I find that Sunderland comparison fairly laughable with the amount of piss-taking that gets done about their "£70m wasted". You can't have it both ways man, you want money to be spent on quality players, not just money spent for the sake of spending it.

[johnnypd]

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day.

 

The club had been heading that way the season before Ashley bought the club, so it's not just him. Like I pointed out in the other post, you could say "how come the Woodgate & Huth transfers couldn't come off, and yet 4 months later bring in an American centre-back who'd never played in the top-leagues before".

 

is this the 'shepherd did it so ashley can as well' argument? from what i remember we all criticised shepherd and a fair few wanted him out? is it okay for ashley to do it but not shepherd? this is not a partisan game you know - ashley vs shepherd. either we hold both to the same standards or we dont. it seems far too many people are still in thrall to ashley because he got rid of the loathed shepherd. well when the pig starts acting and dressing like the farmer he deposed, you dont back the pig, you go after him as you did the farmer.

 

and anyway, shepherd had a proven track record in funding his managers, ashley doesnt. even in a climate of clubs spending more than they ever have due to extra tv revenue.

 

furthermore, im not sure what relevance the woodgate example has - both times we missed out for reasons other than finances, first time was roeder dithering over his injury record and 2nd was cos spurs got their first. what is different is that in the first summer shepherd backed his manager with almost £10m net while the other summer (and indeed that january) ashley backed his manager with around £bigfatzero net.

[Optimistic Nut]

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day.

 

The club had been heading that way the season before Ashley bought the club, so it's not just him. Like I pointed out in the other post, you could say "how come the Woodgate & Huth transfers couldn't come off, and yet 4 months later bring in an American centre-back who'd never played in the top-leagues before".

 

is this the 'shepherd did it so ashley can as well' argument? from what i remember we all criticised shepherd and a fair few wanted him out? is it okay for ashley to do it but not shepherd? this is not a partisan game you know - ashley vs shepherd. either we hold both to the same standards or we dont. it seems far too many people are still in thrall to ashley because he got rid of the loathed shepherd. well when the pig starts acting and dressing like the farmer he deposed, you dont back the pig, you go after him as you did the farmer.

 

and anyway, shepherd had a proven track record in funding his managers, ashley doesnt. even in a climate of clubs spending more than they ever have due to extra tv revenue.

 

He did until financially we were close to ruin.

[Rich]

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day.

 

The club had been heading that way the season before Ashley bought the club, so it's not just him. Like I pointed out in the other post, you could say "how come the Woodgate & Huth transfers couldn't come off, and yet 4 months later bring in an American centre-back who'd never played in the top-leagues before".

 

is this the 'shepherd did it so ashley can as well' argument? from what i remember we all criticised shepherd and a fair few wanted him out? is it okay for ashley to do it but not shepherd? this is not a partisan game you know - ashley vs shepherd. either we hold both to the same standards or we dont. it seems far too many people are still in thrall to ashley because he got rid of the loathed shepherd. well when the pig starts acting and dressing like the farmer he deposed, you dont back the pig, you go after him as you did the farmer.

 

and anyway, shepherd had a proven track record in funding his managers, ashley doesnt. even in a climate of clubs spending more than they ever have due to extra tv revenue.

 

This is a very fair point as well to be honest. We have to try and be fair and even-handed in the way that we judge the people in charge of the club.

 

Personally, I wasn't as anti-Shepherd as some, but I did have the feeling that he'd taken us as far as he could.

 

In today's climate, the same might even apply to Ashley as he doesn't appear to have the money available to him to really take us to where we want to be as quickly as we want to get there - especially when you see the money a lot of other clubs have now, we're just falling further and further behind.

 

The only answer may be a Lerner type or a Abu-Dhabhi group type to give us any sort of "quick fix".

[Optimistic Nut]

Anyway, if you do a search you'll see I was one of the few people who stuck up for him on here. But it's pretty clear that the last year in particular he wasn't covering himself with glory.

[johnnypd]

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day.

 

The club had been heading that way the season before Ashley bought the club, so it's not just him. Like I pointed out in the other post, you could say "how come the Woodgate & Huth transfers couldn't come off, and yet 4 months later bring in an American centre-back who'd never played in the top-leagues before".

 

is this the 'shepherd did it so ashley can as well' argument? from what i remember we all criticised shepherd and a fair few wanted him out? is it okay for ashley to do it but not shepherd? this is not a partisan game you know - ashley vs shepherd. either we hold both to the same standards or we dont. it seems far too many people are still in thrall to ashley because he got rid of the loathed shepherd. well when the pig starts acting and dressing like the farmer he deposed, you dont back the pig, you go after him as you did the farmer.

 

and anyway, shepherd had a proven track record in funding his managers, ashley doesnt. even in a climate of clubs spending more than they ever have due to extra tv revenue.

 

This is a very fair point as well to be honest. We have to try and be fair and even-handed in the way that we judge the people in charge of the club.

 

Personally, I wasn't as anti-Shepherd as some, but I did have the feeling that he'd taken us as far as he could.

 

In today's climate, the same might even apply to Ashley as he doesn't appear to have the money available to him to really take us to where we want to be as quickly as we want to get there - especially when you see the money a lot of other clubs have now, we're just falling further and further behind.

 

The only answer may be a Lerner type or a Abu-Dhabhi group type to give us any sort of "quick fix".

 

even though i criticise ashley, id be fine if he came out and started acting like Lerner, learned from his mistakes and backed the manager with funds. i dont have anything against him personally, just the way he has owned the club. if he changes that, then ill give him a chance and, if he proves himself, will have no further problem with him. i dont care if the owner is a fat scrap metal dealer from byker or an oil mogul from dubai, the personalities arent important, just the actions. since there;s little prospects of him selling "id love it" if he could make his time in charge a success.

[Rich]

Lerner seems to be the role model for owners in the PL these days, as far as the new ones go. I'm sure brummie could tell the story better than me, but hasn't he been actively improving all aspects of the club as well as backing O'Neill to the hilt?

 

They're getting rewards for it, too, and it's nice to see.

[Optimistic Nut]

I wonder if City fans are blaming the Abu Dhabi blokes at the minute.

 

Afterall, on the transfer deadline day they signed someone above the manager's head, and are currently just 2 points above the relegation zone.

[Dave]

even though i criticise ashley, id be fine if he came out and started acting like Lerner, learned from his mistakes and backed the manager with funds. i dont have anything against him personally, just the way he has owned the club. if he changes that, then ill give him a chance and, if he proves himself, will have no further problem with him. i dont care if the owner is a fat scrap metal dealer from byker or an oil mogul from dubai, the personalities arent important, just the actions.

 

Agreed.

 

If he was so confident in his system that he'd back it over the manager why shit himself and run at the first sign of trouble? I'd have had much more respect for him had he just come out immediately after the Keegan debacle, explained he felt the system was worth persevering with and then went and got someone to fit it. Instead his spineless [in]actions have overseen a farce of pantomime standards.

 

'We had a long-term strategy' he says. Should have stuck by it then.

[johnnypd]

yep, and youve even got to back the manager's mistakes - like paying £12m for Milner. obviously if it is your money on the line it is tough but in this sport there's really little alternative, interfere too much and you cause more problems than you seek to solve. if overall the manager does a good job than some inevitable mistakes down the line are worth it. had lerner interfered on that deal, maybe he wouldve intefered on £9.7m for ashley young, who looked nothing special back then. or maybe david dein wouldve blocked wenger signing jeffers for an obscene amount and done the same for a dodgy winger from juventus's bench. once the budget is decided youve got to back the manager's vision to use that money as he sees fit.

[Rich]

I think the only time we're going to see any real progress is when we get somebody in who has made their money and doesn't have any other business ties and who is happy to focus 100% on running the club to the best of their ability, rather than just having it as a "hobby" and allowing other people (who may not be qualified enough/capable enough) to do the dirty work for them.

 

I think he got by with Chris Mort because Mort was a clever bloke who took the time to listen to fans and implement ideas and suggestions put to him, as soon as he went, though, that side of stuff died a death. In fact, even prior to Mort going things had spiralled down from what they had been.

 

I know it's a daft thing to say, but for example if I had loads of money and wanted to buy a football club, if I got one I would barely sleep for trying to make it the best that it could possibly be. That's the sort of owner we need, really, someone who lives and breathes for the club to be successful and is clever enough to do the best for it/get the best people in on the management/coaching side as well.

 

Obviously one man can't do everything but Ashley seemed to come in and want to do nothing bar provide the money, attend the games and enjoy the spotlight. That's a fair enough analysis isn't it?

 

That's another mistake, if so.

[Optimistic Nut]

even though i criticise ashley, id be fine if he came out and started acting like Lerner, learned from his mistakes and backed the manager with funds. i dont have anything against him personally, just the way he has owned the club. if he changes that, then ill give him a chance and, if he proves himself, will have no further problem with him. i dont care if the owner is a fat scrap metal dealer from byker or an oil mogul from dubai, the personalities arent important, just the actions.

 

Agreed.

 

If he was so confident in his system that he'd back it over the manager why s*** himself and run at the first sign of trouble? I'd have had much more respect for him had he just come out immediately after the Keegan debacle, explained he felt the system was worth persevering with and then went and got someone to fit it. Instead his spineless [in]actions have overseen a farce of pantomime standards.

 

'We had a long-term strategy' he says. Should have stuck by it then.

 

Because when he's made a bad business decision in the past, I doubt he's had 50,000 people aiming abuse at him in public, etc. He's never been in that position before and over-reacted.

[Rich]

yep, and youve even got to back the manager's mistakes - like paying £12m for Milner. obviously if it is your money on the line it is tough but in this sport there's really little alternative, interfere too much and you cause more problems than you seek to solve. if overall the manager does a good job than some inevitable mistakes down the line are worth it. had lerner interfered on that deal, maybe he wouldve intefered on £9.7m for ashley young, who looked nothing special back then. or maybe david dein wouldve blocked wenger signing jeffers for an obscene amount and done the same for a dodgy winger from juventus's bench. once the budget is decided youve got to back the manager's vision to use that money as he sees fit.

 

Well aye, but nobody gets everything right 100% of the time, we're all human at the end of the day. You cannot really fault any owner for backing a manager with cash (as the manager is supposed to know more about buying players than an owner) as long as the money is their own and isn't pushing the club towards administration or whatever (not saying Shepherd did this, by the way, as I dunno what the books were like and what Fred had up his sleeve to sort things out even if it was bad.)

[johnnypd]

I wonder if City fans are blaming the Abu Dhabi blokes at the minute.

 

Afterall, on the transfer deadline day they signed someone above the manager's head, and are currently just 2 points above the relegation zone.

 

the manager didnt say "no" to robinho, and thats a crucial difference. i dont think keegan wouldve said no either. had the abu dhabi fella spenT what was left of the budget on a player hughes felt wasnt good enough then we'd hae a similar situation. though even bringing in players their way can cause problems as the manager has to assemble a team with players given to him, rather than with players he has individually pinpointed to fit into a system.

[fredbob]

The bids for Modric, Woodgate, Schweinsteiger, Aimar (?) as well... all of which were for substantial sums.

 

I think if anyone cocked up massively in the transfer window it was Keegan, Wise and Jimenez (and potentially Llambias) for the way that communication seemed to break down/lies were told/things didn't go to plan. I'm very hesitant to blame KK though as I know he would want the best for NUFC.

 

Of course you can go back to another Ashley "mistake" if you believe Wise/Jimenez should never have been brought in anyway, and you can blame him for it due to that too.

 

The whole thing has been a catastrophe, but none of us know exactly where to apportion the blame or what exactly happened - it's infuriating.

 

but woodgate wouldve been INSTEAD of colo, it wouldve been modric OR scweinsteiger OR aimar (or nothing, as iti turned out in acuality) rather than all of them. and you never know how the rest of the budget and spending wouldve been restructured as a result. all we have to go on is what happened and what was spent, the rest of speculative and some of it nonsense. in reality he;s spent virtually nothing at a time when the rest of the league has been spending loads.

 

I never said we'd be signing all of them! For fuck's sake, this place drives me crackers at times.

 

Your post is as much speculation as mine was, though.

 

I still cannot understand why a bloke would spend hundreds of millions to buy a football club in order to become a "fan". Travel up and down the country to watch them and WANT the team to be shite by not spending any money on it. This is where the logic fails, for me. I do understand the reality, but as I said I can't help but wonder if it came about because of monumental failings in the system RATHER than a lack of money. I cannot make this any clearer this time, surely?

 

He made a transfer-record fee bid for Modric, he broke the transfer record for a defender with Coloccini, Schweinsteiger was apparently another very big deal... he said himself he was willing to finance us to the tune of £20m per season (provided he was being honest) out of his own money on top of what the club was making. There was definitely money there to be spent and Keegan kept telling us so and Ashley himself told us now. Kinnear is now telling us so.

 

None of us have seen the books, none of us know what state the finances were/are in and as a result are speculating and biting each other's heads off all over the shop because of it. People are ASSUMING he's been pocketing money (season tickets, TV money) but who's to say it hasn't been used up by the club already, if the books are really as bad as they might have been? People are ASSUMING he wants £450m for the club, at times, which seems insane to me. Obviously I'm assuming the other way, so nobody really can be "right" - that's why debates of this nature are so futile, ESPECIALLY when people are so fucking dogmatic and unwilling to take on another point of view.

 

It's a huge topic of discussion, but I get royally fucked off by those who just see it as black or white and blame one or the other. It's not going to be that fucking simple is it? People need to Wise up.

 

mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon some things that have happened  - ie ending up with a loanee from uruguay rather than any of those big name expensive players - funny how none of them came off when there was a fee involved yet we can bring in an inexperienced loanee in the space of a day. to me it is pretty obvious, seeing the trend across the three windows, the whinging about it being an expensive seat, his statement that he wasnt willing to spend much, the focus on resale values or of generating future income through developing players for sale, his strategies at sports direct and the desire to cut costs across the board (even down to players suits) that ashley simply hasnt been willing to invest money into transfers thus far. and the facts bare witness to this, a net spend of £3m since ashley assumed power. in the same time Sunderland have spent close to £70m. even a single big signing like modric wouldnt even take us anywhere near that level of investment, which youd think a new owner would want to make for the reasons in your post.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, far from it, because all of what you have posted could be true. This is what I mean though, egomaniacs like yourself (and myself at times) seem to be more concerned about being "right" or having people conform to their points of view. It's all about fucking points scoring: "mine isnt as much speculation though, because i actually touch upon things that have happened." Well done. Top marks.

 

You've completely ignored the major point in my post about the potential for it being outside of Ashley's control at the key moments (Wise/Keegan/Jimenez) and the fact that there was obviously money available because of the bids made while Keegan was here, instead doing what I suppose people would call an "NE5" now and making a post purely based on your own thoughts/feelings/observations. That's not debating, or arguing or conversing - that's just pushing your ideology over and over and over again, like many others are doing. At least try to take some things people say in opposition to you on board, please, like I'm trying to do here.

 

I don't think there's any doubt that Ashley's handled a lot of things in a very cock-eyed way since he took over here, but I think he's getting beaten with a lot of imaginary sticks at times and that's what doesn't sit right with me.

 

The facts do appear damning, I'm not going to disagree, but we don't know why that has turned out to be the case, which has been my entire point for the last 40 minutes or whatever. It's hard to believe that it's purely 100% Mike Ashley's fault and that he simply was looking to make a profit out of the club rather than actually wanting us to do well (despite what he says and despite what that Andy Dunn fellow has intimated from him). Obviously, it could be all his fault, but is it likely? Really?

 

PS: I find that Sunderland comparison fairly laughable with the amount of piss-taking that gets done about their "£70m wasted". You can't have it both ways man, you want money to be spent on quality players, not just money spent for the sake of spending it.

 

Mirror my exact feelings.

 

 

[Dave]

even though i criticise ashley, id be fine if he came out and started acting like Lerner, learned from his mistakes and backed the manager with funds. i dont have anything against him personally, just the way he has owned the club. if he changes that, then ill give him a chance and, if he proves himself, will have no further problem with him. i dont care if the owner is a fat scrap metal dealer from byker or an oil mogul from dubai, the personalities arent important, just the actions.

 

Agreed.

 

If he was so confident in his system that he'd back it over the manager why s*** himself and run at the first sign of trouble? I'd have had much more respect for him had he just come out immediately after the Keegan debacle, explained he felt the system was worth persevering with and then went and got someone to fit it. Instead his spineless [in]actions have overseen a farce of pantomime standards.

 

'We had a long-term strategy' he says. Should have stuck by it then.

 

Because when he's made a bad business decision in the past, I doubt he's had 50,000 people aiming abuse at him in public, etc. He's never been in that position before and over-reacted.

 

Again though I'd say if he wasn't able or willing to see this coming (particularly when employing someone like Kevin Keegan) then he's seriously misguided. The fans were bound to be majorly pissed off about something at some point, that's what tends to happen in football.