johnnypd Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Had Ashley of spent some money in this transfer window he wouldn't be getting half the stick that he does and I don't think this boycott would have taken place. The lack of investment and childish/unprofessional attitude (You don't like me so now I'm going to sell it...) are my main rankles with this management/owner. P.S. I also don't think the boycott is the right answer, it will just antagonise the current owners and bring us into the media glare again. If NUSC are able to manipulate the press then it might not look so bad but I don't think that will happen. It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I agree that investors (if they can be found) who can provide funds for team strengthening would be a good way forward. I don't think the NUSC approach will help in bringing any of those investors forward, and I think they are doing more harm than good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzza Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Had Ashley of spent some money in this transfer window he wouldn't be getting half the stick that he does and I don't think this boycott would have taken place. The lack of investment and childish/unprofessional attitude (You don't like me so now I'm going to sell it...) are my main rankles with this management/owner. P.S. I also don't think the boycott is the right answer, it will just antagonise the current owners and bring us into the media glare again. If NUSC are able to manipulate the press then it might not look so bad but I don't think that will happen. It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? I think that most people would agree with NUSC soundbytes on the current mangement & ownership, BUT most people would disagree with their way of presenting these worries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Had Ashley of spent some money in this transfer window he wouldn't be getting half the stick that he does and I don't think this boycott would have taken place. The lack of investment and childish/unprofessional attitude (You don't like me so now I'm going to sell it...) are my main rankles with this management/owner. P.S. I also don't think the boycott is the right answer, it will just antagonise the current owners and bring us into the media glare again. If NUSC are able to manipulate the press then it might not look so bad but I don't think that will happen. It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? This forum is VERY pro-Ashley. Or at least too forgiving (in my opinion) of his string of mistakes. I think it stems from previously being the most voiciferously anti-Shepherd forum and lots of posters still clinging onto the hope that the "anyone but Shepherd" view will be proved right...or at least not wanting to admit to NE5 he might have been on to something. But then, as I've said, Pro-NUSC <> Anti-Ashley. So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Irrespective of people agreeing with the actions, aims or motives of the NUSC, I think at least 90% of fans would say they aren't happy with the direction of the club in the last 2 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirge Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I won't be going and I not pro Ashley but I am pro NUFC and a rally/protest its not going to change a single thing. Jsut go towards getting the club more negitive press it gives SSN more amo to make us look like fools and go on about how poor the relationship is between the club and the fans. All that may have one effect and thats a negitive effect on the team, lets just tunr up and get behind the lads on the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Had Ashley of spent some money in this transfer window he wouldn't be getting half the stick that he does and I don't think this boycott would have taken place. The lack of investment and childish/unprofessional attitude (You don't like me so now I'm going to sell it...) are my main rankles with this management/owner. P.S. I also don't think the boycott is the right answer, it will just antagonise the current owners and bring us into the media glare again. If NUSC are able to manipulate the press then it might not look so bad but I don't think that will happen. It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? This forum is VERY pro-Ashley. Or at least too forgiving (in my opinion) of his string of mistakes. I think it stems from previously being the most voiciferously anti-Shepherd forum and lots of posters still clinging onto the hope that the "anyone but Shepherd" view will be proved right...or at least not wanting to admit to NE5 he might have been on to something. But then, as I've said, Pro-NUSC <> Anti-Ashley. So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Irrespective of people agreeing with the actions, aims or motives of the NUSC, I think at least 90% of fans would say they aren't happy with the direction of the club in the last 2 years. Happy Face, I've always thought of you as one of the better posters on here, but that line is just looking for bites; you know full well that's not true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Had Ashley of spent some money in this transfer window he wouldn't be getting half the stick that he does and I don't think this boycott would have taken place. The lack of investment and childish/unprofessional attitude (You don't like me so now I'm going to sell it...) are my main rankles with this management/owner. P.S. I also don't think the boycott is the right answer, it will just antagonise the current owners and bring us into the media glare again. If NUSC are able to manipulate the press then it might not look so bad but I don't think that will happen. It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? This forum is VERY pro-Ashley. Or at least too forgiving (in my opinion) of his string of mistakes. I think it stems from previously being the most voiciferously anti-Shepherd forum and lots of posters still clinging onto the hope that the "anyone but Shepherd" view will be proved right...or at least not wanting to admit to NE5 he might have been on to something. But then, as I've said, Pro-NUSC <> Anti-Ashley. So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Irrespective of people agreeing with the actions, aims or motives of the NUSC, I think at least 90% of fans would say they aren't happy with the direction of the club in the last 2 years. Well I was a critic of Shepherd and I stand by that because I believe a lot of our current problems are down to his reckless mistakes in the past. Even back then I would never have joined a rally protesting his running of the club that's the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Bollocks. The NUSC is undeniably perceived as being "anti-Ashley" and little else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in Is the primary concern of a businessman: a) popularity b) profit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? probably a mistake in hindsight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 c) it doesn't matter either way, the result is the same and the only way to achieve profit is success. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. Fair point Although obviously it's only an opportunity for an investor if they can get the current owner to sell at a knock-down price, and they never plan to make any difficult decisions that the fans might disagree with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It would be interesting to come back to this thread if we are relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Had Ashley of spent some money in this transfer window he wouldn't be getting half the stick that he does and I don't think this boycott would have taken place. The lack of investment and childish/unprofessional attitude (You don't like me so now I'm going to sell it...) are my main rankles with this management/owner. P.S. I also don't think the boycott is the right answer, it will just antagonise the current owners and bring us into the media glare again. If NUSC are able to manipulate the press then it might not look so bad but I don't think that will happen. It's not a boycott. It's a rally. A rally for what ? NUSC So if there are people there chanting for Ashley to leave they are not there for NUSC is that what your saying ? Serious question. I'm not saying anything like that. Many people want Ashley to go and many don't. Many are NUSC members and many aren't. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, so I'm sure you will get some of those chants. But then you get those chants away from NUSC organised rallys too. I've chanted it myself in the stadium without a committee telling me it was ok. But in an organised rally stuff surely has to be organised therefore the leaflets should be all join NUSC, banners saying the same and people in charge of what happens. Thats the whole point of an organised committee and an organised rally. What I predict will happen is you will have an overruling over people chanting for Ashley to go and for cockneys this and that and that is my whole problem with the current set up of NUSC. It appears from the outside to be a solely anti Ashley protest group. I'm sorry but that is how it looks and how it sounds from their meetings. The NUSC can't prohibit members of the public from voicing their own opinions in a public place though. They've taken the precaution of organising their rally away from the stadium so in the event that it does turn into an anti-Ashley gathering it doesn't affect those who disagree, or the players on the pitch. I think 90% of fans are anti-ashley, so on the whole I'd think the NUSC are. But i think they are (for the most part) taking level headed action that doesn't have a negative impact on the team. Even though I do think a couple of their statements have been heavy handed. Poll on this forum shows only 20 percent think the NUSC represent their views. Do you reckon 70 percent of people on here are even more "anti-Ashley" than they are? This forum is VERY pro-Ashley. Or at least too forgiving (in my opinion) of his string of mistakes. I think it stems from previously being the most voiciferously anti-Shepherd forum and lots of posters still clinging onto the hope that the "anyone but Shepherd" view will be proved right...or at least not wanting to admit to NE5 he might have been on to something. But then, as I've said, Pro-NUSC <> Anti-Ashley. So that poll is unrelated to my estimate. Irrespective of people agreeing with the actions, aims or motives of the NUSC, I think at least 90% of fans would say they aren't happy with the direction of the club in the last 2 years. Although your reasoning logic and argumentation skill is sound, you're ultimate babbling on about nothing. It takes time for any kind of change in authority/leadership to make its mark, hence you don't see presidents elected for 1 or 2 year terms. We are suffering under Ashley for several reasons, one of which is the pure and decadent incompetence of the previous board. It's not about pro-Ashley or anti-Ashley, pro-NUSC or anti-NUSC, and where this forum lies on that spectrum. Just the mere suggestion by an idiotic opening-post made in another thread (agents provocateurs) that people who gave Ashley a chance are club moles shows that there is a certain element among the club's support that has lost complete sight of what really matters here, and that is NUFC. I couldn't give a f*** about NUSC as from day one, there was not a single notion that pointed toward supporting the name of the club and the players that run out onto the pitch in its colors, in order to achieve the highest placed finish possible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." alternatively you could employ basic comprehension skills - "I dont think it has any real effect either way", "we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership." it is actually you who thinks that a small protest at the monument will have this big effect on any potential change in ownership - "An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors to the fact that a sizeable and vocal minority of their core market is not easily satisfied even by substantial investment in the club." as i said, rather childish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. Fair point Although obviously it's only an opportunity for an investor if they can get the current owner to sell at a knock-down price, and they never plan to make any difficult decisions that the fans might disagree with. Which limits potential investors to those cash-rich enough to develop the club without first having to get expenditure under control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It would be interesting to come back to this thread if we are relegated. Would that vindicate everyone who is anti-Ashley though? So the end result is always the only thing to be judged, regardless of the intentions and what was tried? Then we may as well just shut down this forum and post up the league table instead. There's nothing I've argued that I won't stand by even if we are relegated, I've never said Ashley is perfect. In football the end result is down to a load of factors, only one of which is what your owner does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." alternatively you could employ basic comprehension skills - "I dont think it has any real effect either way", "we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership." it is actually you who thinks that a small protest at the monument will have this big effect on any potential change in ownership - "An air of discontent among the fans also alerts such investors to the fact that a sizeable and vocal minority of their core market is not easily satisfied even by substantial investment in the club." as i said, rather childish. Well done for ignoring my point, which was a response to something Happy Face said about investors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 c) it doesn't matter either way, the result is the same and the only way to achieve profit is success. Two words. Thaskin Shinawatra. Paid £100M Spent £30M Sold for £200M £70M profit in one mid-table season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 It would be interesting to come back to this thread if we are relegated. Would that vindicate everyone who is anti-Ashley though? So the end result is always the only thing to be judged, regardless of the intentions and what was tried? Then we may as well just shut down this forum and post up the league table instead. In football the end result is down to a load of factors, only one of which is what your owner does. It could equally vindicate the view that unfocussed protests right now are as likely to do harm as good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 an investor is just as likely to see discontent as an opening and opportunity, for instance say someone from buckinghamshire bought out an unpopular chairman they could quickly institute a PR campaign - chats with fans, rubbishing the previous regime, wearing the replica top in the away end and so on, something that will blind the less intelligent fans to any subsequent incompentence or lack of ambition. The investor needs to have enough money to buy out the previous owner for that to happen like it did then. Our previous owner for example took his swag and is now trying to buy some piddling club in Spain for £10million. In the same way we need a considerably richer investor than the current owner to come in and there aren't that many about. i dont agree that we need a richer owner, just one who is more likely to release funds. that person or even consortium can have less personal wealth than ashley like lerner at villa or the irish who used to own sunderland. personally i dont think we should be concentrating on pushing ashley out as he has shown he doesnt want to leave and there's nothing we can do to change that. keep the pressure on for the next few years by all means but we have to try and effect change within the club rather than an unrealistic change in ownership. i was just countering ozzie's childish notion that by protesting we turn away potential investors. i dont think it has any real effect either way, tho an underperforming club with precedent and potential for greater income is probably more likely to have investors alerted. I guess the "grown-up" view is that a potential sugar daddy will look at all the protests and boycotts and unfocussed hatred directed towards someone who has so far put about £130 million into the club on top of the purchase price, and think "Yeah, I'll have some of that." How do you think Ashley views the £248M he's spent on the club so far? a) An investment b) An altruistic act of charity c) A black hole for what's left of his spare cash When it comes to selling the club, What will Ashley get? a) More than he put in b) Less than he put in c) Lucky to get his money back Is the primary concern of a businessmen: a) popularity b) profit c) do something interesting and fun with what initially seems like a manageable portion of a recent windfall How naive are you? Bless 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