Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else. How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts havent been paid off theyve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. Im not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. Im sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but its important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If hes as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. You're quick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. You're quick. I started to elaborate & then thought fuck it. If he really had any idea what he was talking about he'd realise what a stupid question he's just asked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. You're quick. LLLO - you're almost as slow as fading star Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 No. I’m saying they wouldn’t foreclose a loan to a football club of Newcastle’s importance. Liverpool is under thread of that exact scenario. They are, to the tune of £500m I believe. Do you expect LFC to go out of business? Of course no-one expects Liverpool to go out of business (even if many find the prospect quite delicious, but that's besides the point)...but then again, it remains entirely possible. What makes you think it's so completely inconceivable? Do the words...Lehman Brothers...Barings...mean anything to you? Football clubs are an integral part of their local communities history and culture, political expediency protects them from the crass disregard people like Ashley have for such things. Real Madrid for example are basically kept afloat by the local government, Sunderland City council subbed SAFC’s stadium redevelopment to the tune of £20m. All through this thread NUFC has been talked about as if it was a normal business, when it is anything but. However if the club slips down the leagues its kudos will fall and it will become far more vulnerable than it is now. Ashley has gambled the clubs future on staying up without investing in the most important part of his business. It’s lunacy. You're right, football clubs aren't normal businesses and there will nearly always be someone come along who's prepared to pour their own - or someone else's - money into them, this leads the banks to delay foreclosure, but it's only a delay; if they don't believe there's anyone out there who'll take them on, then they will do it. No, they’ll only foreclose if they think the brand loyalty has gone. That’s the difference, football supporters will stick with the same supplier through thick and thin and this allows banks to cut football clubs an almost infinite amount of slack. Until Ashley came along NUFC’s brand loyalty was second to none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 LLLO - you're almost as slow as fading star You forget, I've seen you. Edit, I'm as slow as LLO, I read that wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else. How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. I’m not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. I’m sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but it’s important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If he’s as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. explain yourself cockbrain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else. How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts havent been paid off theyve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. Im not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. Im sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but its important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If hes as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. explain yourself cockbrain Ok. Presumably you're talking about him making an equity investment by issuing more shares in the company rather than doing it via a loan(I know I've lost you already) If he did that he'd be exposing himself to massive risk if it all went wrong as in the event of a winding up shareholders are bottom of the list of beneficiaries when whatever is left is dished out. By funding the company via a loan he has in part protected his investment at no cost to himself, because as a creditor rather than an equity investor he falls further up the food chain. Your point about setting the agreement up as a loan just so he has the ability to charge interest is utterly stupid as he could just as easily extract dividends as the sole shareholder in the company, without giving the club any tax benefit, which they would get on the interest payments, but wouldn't get on dividend extraction. Now run along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else. How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. I’m not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. I’m sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but it’s important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If he’s as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. explain yourself cockbrain Ok. Presumably you're talking about him making an equity investment by issuing more shares in the company rather than doing it via a loan(I know I've lost you already) If he did that he'd be exposing himself to massive risk if it all went wrong as in the event of a winding up shareholders are bottom of the list of beneficiaries when whatever is left is dished out. By funding the company via a loan he has in part protected his investment at no cost to himself, because as a creditor rather than an equity investor he falls further up the food chain. Your point about setting the agreement up as a loan just so he has the ability to charge interest is utterly stupid as he could just as easily extract dividends as the sole shareholder in the company, without giving the club any tax benefit, which they would get on the interest payments, but wouldn't get on dividend extraction. Now run along. Take that, bitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else. How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. I’m not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. I’m sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but it’s important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If he’s as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Cheers, you've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. explain yourself cockbrain Ok. Presumably you're talking about him making an equity investment by issuing more shares in the company rather than doing it via a loan(I know I've lost you already) If he did that he'd be exposing himself to massive risk if it all went wrong as in the event of a winding up shareholders are bottom of the list of beneficiaries when whatever is left is dished out. By funding the company via a loan he has in part protected his investment at no cost to himself, because as a creditor rather than an equity investor he falls further up the food chain. Your point about setting the agreement up as a loan just so he has the ability to charge interest is utterly stupid as he could just as easily extract dividends as the sole shareholder in the company, without giving the club any tax benefit, which they would get on the interest payments, but wouldn't get on dividend extraction. Now run along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 No. I’m saying they wouldn’t foreclose a loan to a football club of Newcastle’s importance. Liverpool is under thread of that exact scenario. They are, to the tune of £500m I believe. Do you expect LFC to go out of business? Of course no-one expects Liverpool to go out of business (even if many find the prospect quite delicious, but that's besides the point)...but then again, it remains entirely possible. What makes you think it's so completely inconceivable? Do the words...Lehman Brothers...Barings...mean anything to you? Football clubs are an integral part of their local communities history and culture, political expediency protects them from the crass disregard people like Ashley have for such things. Real Madrid for example are basically kept afloat by the local government, Sunderland City council subbed SAFC’s stadium redevelopment to the tune of £20m. All through this thread NUFC has been talked about as if it was a normal business, when it is anything but. However if the club slips down the leagues its kudos will fall and it will become far more vulnerable than it is now. Ashley has gambled the clubs future on staying up without investing in the most important part of his business. It’s lunacy. You're right, football clubs aren't normal businesses and there will nearly always be someone come along who's prepared to pour their own - or someone else's - money into them, this leads the banks to delay foreclosure, but it's only a delay; if they don't believe there's anyone out there who'll take them on, then they will do it. No, they’ll only foreclose if they think the brand loyalty has gone. That’s the difference, football supporters will stick with the same supplier through thick and thin and this allows banks to cut football clubs an almost infinite amount of slack. Until Ashley came along NUFC’s brand loyalty was second to none. Nah. If "brand loyalty" - as you term it - was all it took, then we'd be near the top of the league and making record profits. It isn't and we aren't. Do you think that the clubs who've brought the administrators in have no brand loyalty from their fans? Of course they do! If the banks see no financial future in a business, any business, that owes them money then they will try and get back as much of their money as they can, if that means shutting it down and liquidating its assets then their attitude will be: So be it. Yes, they seem to give football clubs longer than other businesses, but that will be a business decision, not a compassionate one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 No. I’m saying they wouldn’t foreclose a loan to a football club of Newcastle’s importance. Liverpool is under thread of that exact scenario. They are, to the tune of £500m I believe. Do you expect LFC to go out of business? Of course no-one expects Liverpool to go out of business (even if many find the prospect quite delicious, but that's besides the point)...but then again, it remains entirely possible. What makes you think it's so completely inconceivable? Do the words...Lehman Brothers...Barings...mean anything to you? Football clubs are an integral part of their local communities history and culture, political expediency protects them from the crass disregard people like Ashley have for such things. Real Madrid for example are basically kept afloat by the local government, Sunderland City council subbed SAFC’s stadium redevelopment to the tune of £20m. All through this thread NUFC has been talked about as if it was a normal business, when it is anything but. However if the club slips down the leagues its kudos will fall and it will become far more vulnerable than it is now. Ashley has gambled the clubs future on staying up without investing in the most important part of his business. It’s lunacy. You're right, football clubs aren't normal businesses and there will nearly always be someone come along who's prepared to pour their own - or someone else's - money into them, this leads the banks to delay foreclosure, but it's only a delay; if they don't believe there's anyone out there who'll take them on, then they will do it. No, they’ll only foreclose if they think the brand loyalty has gone. That’s the difference, football supporters will stick with the same supplier through thick and thin and this allows banks to cut football clubs an almost infinite amount of slack. Until Ashley came along NUFC’s brand loyalty was second to none. Nah. If "brand loyalty" - as you term it - was all it took, then we'd be near the top of the league and making record profits. It isn't and we aren't. Do you think that the clubs who've brought the administrators in have no brand loyalty from their fans? Of course they do! If the banks see no financial future in a business, any business, that owes them money then they will try and get back as much of their money as they can, if that means shutting it down and liquidating its assets then their attitude will be: So be it. Yes, they seem to give football clubs longer than other businesses, but that will be a business decision, not a compassionate one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Ok. Presumably you're talking about him making an equity investment by issuing more shares in the company rather than doing it via a loan(I know I've lost you already) If he did that he'd be exposing himself to massive risk if it all went wrong as in the event of a winding up shareholders are bottom of the list of beneficiaries when whatever is left is dished out. By funding the company via a loan he has in part protected his investment at no cost to himself, because as a creditor rather than an equity investor he falls further up the food chain. Your point about setting the agreement up as a loan just so he has the ability to charge interest is utterly stupid as he could just as easily extract dividends as the sole shareholder in the company, without giving the club any tax benefit, which they would get on the interest payments, but wouldn't get on dividend extraction. Now run along. Nah. If "brand loyalty" - as you term it - was all it took, then we'd be near the top of the league and making record profits. It isn't and we aren't. Do you think that the clubs who've brought the administrators in have no brand loyalty from their fans? Of course they do! If the banks see no financial future in a business, any business, that owes them money then they will try and get back as much of their money as they can, if that means shutting it down and liquidating its assets then their attitude will be: So be it. Yes, they seem to give football clubs longer than other businesses, but that will be a business decision, not a compassionate one. Someone know's they're beaten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Someone know's they're beaten He's clearly not as daft as some people think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Ok. Presumably you're talking about him making an equity investment by issuing more shares in the company rather than doing it via a loan(I know I've lost you already) If he did that he'd be exposing himself to massive risk if it all went wrong as in the event of a winding up shareholders are bottom of the list of beneficiaries when whatever is left is dished out. By funding the company via a loan he has in part protected his investment at no cost to himself, because as a creditor rather than an equity investor he falls further up the food chain. Your point about setting the agreement up as a loan just so he has the ability to charge interest is utterly stupid as he could just as easily extract dividends as the sole shareholder in the company, without giving the club any tax benefit, which they would get on the interest payments, but wouldn't get on dividend extraction. Now run along. Nah. If "brand loyalty" - as you term it - was all it took, then we'd be near the top of the league and making record profits. It isn't and we aren't. Do you think that the clubs who've brought the administrators in have no brand loyalty from their fans? Of course they do! If the banks see no financial future in a business, any business, that owes them money then they will try and get back as much of their money as they can, if that means shutting it down and liquidating its assets then their attitude will be: So be it. Yes, they seem to give football clubs longer than other businesses, but that will be a business decision, not a compassionate one. Someone know's they're beaten aye, you and your giggly chums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Someone know's they're beaten He's clearly not as daft as some people think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 No. I’m saying they wouldn’t foreclose a loan to a football club of Newcastle’s importance. Liverpool is under thread of that exact scenario. They are, to the tune of £500m I believe. Do you expect LFC to go out of business? Of course no-one expects Liverpool to go out of business (even if many find the prospect quite delicious, but that's besides the point)...but then again, it remains entirely possible. What makes you think it's so completely inconceivable? Do the words...Lehman Brothers...Barings...mean anything to you? Football clubs are an integral part of their local communities history and culture, political expediency protects them from the crass disregard people like Ashley have for such things. Real Madrid for example are basically kept afloat by the local government, Sunderland City council subbed SAFC’s stadium redevelopment to the tune of £20m. All through this thread NUFC has been talked about as if it was a normal business, when it is anything but. However if the club slips down the leagues its kudos will fall and it will become far more vulnerable than it is now. Ashley has gambled the clubs future on staying up without investing in the most important part of his business. It’s lunacy. You're right, football clubs aren't normal businesses and there will nearly always be someone come along who's prepared to pour their own - or someone else's - money into them, this leads the banks to delay foreclosure, but it's only a delay; if they don't believe there's anyone out there who'll take them on, then they will do it. No, they’ll only foreclose if they think the brand loyalty has gone. That’s the difference, football supporters will stick with the same supplier through thick and thin and this allows banks to cut football clubs an almost infinite amount of slack. Until Ashley came along NUFC’s brand loyalty was second to none. Nah. If "brand loyalty" - as you term it - was all it took, then we'd be near the top of the league and making record profits. It isn't and we aren't. Do you think that the clubs who've brought the administrators in have no brand loyalty from their fans? Of course they do! If the banks see no financial future in a business, any business, that owes them money then they will try and get back as much of their money as they can, if that means shutting it down and liquidating its assets then their attitude will be: So be it. Yes, they seem to give football clubs longer than other businesses, but that will be a business decision, not a compassionate one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I was wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I was wrong. Why change the habit of lifetime Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I was wrong. Why change the habit of lifetime From having all the answers to having nothing but shitty one liners in ten minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Why change the habit of lifetime You're obviously not going to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I'll wait and see what 2008-09 accounts are like. The timing of this is fantastic too. A ready made excuse for not spending any money in the transfer window. Just give us some honesty man and be up front from the off. If the club is financially in the s***, say so, instead of saying the club is debt free, money is available for this and that player, talking about the top 6 etc. They are there own worst enemies and all this anger, frustration and poison stems directly from their dishonesty more than anything else. How do you get the impression that they've not been honest about this!?! Everything they've said about the financial side of the club has been proved to be honest. They said that the club was in danger of going out of business when they took over. True. They said that the debts had been paid off. True. All that can be true and there can still be money available to the manager for transfers. Ashley can be prepared to provide the money himself if the manager identifies a player that fits with the club's strategy (Young, value for money both in terms of wages and transfer fee, future potential, etc), that player is available (ie his club is willing to sell), and they want to come here and the club can still be financially in the s*** at the moment. Unfortunately, that strategy is going to restrict the number of players available to us, especially within the confines of the ridiculous January transfer window - which surely needs to go, if FIFA/UEFA are serious about encouraging an element of financial realism in football - but that doesn't mean it's wrong. If we're needing to get in a few fire-fighters to see us through until the end of the season, then fine, but we should try and make them loan signings if they don't fit with the sensible, neigh essential, transfer strategy. The anger comes from people's desire for there to be a hero and a villain in all of this and their subsequent inability to see both sides of the story. People have simply refused to accept that Ashley has had legitimate reasons behind doing what he's done - whether you think he's made mistakes or not - preferring to see him as some kind of evil super-villain whose taken us over simply to destroy the club. That's simply f***ing ridiculous and it's about time reality bit for many people, hopefully this is the start of that. The debts haven’t been paid off they’ve been restructured. In fact NUFC owe more money now than they did when Ashley took over. Do you suggest he shouldn't have put the money in to save that being the case then? Idiot. I’m not suggesting anything. NUFC does owe more money now than it did when the new owner took over. I’m sorry if the facts intrude on your childishly naïve Ashley fantasy but it’s important to establish the facts. How do you suggest he paid them off without the company owing him money for doing it? Bump He could have invested £100m in his business, instead of lending it the money with an option to charge interest. If he’s as committed to club as he says why go for the loan option? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 fading star Pretty much everything Mick has said (with regards to the finances, I have no time for petty swipes at LLLO ) in this thread is spot on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 fading star Pretty much everything Mick has said (with regards to the finances, I have no time for petty swipes at LLLO ) in this thread is spot on. The petty swipes are only joking. I think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fading star Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I was wrong. Why change the habit of lifetime From having all the answers to having nothing but shitty one liners in ten minutes. When in Rome. 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