Financial meltdown?

[TRon]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you dont shoot you cant score - Johan Cruyff

 

absolutely. You are talking to the biggest hindsight queen on the internet now though

 

 

 

In hindsight, using terms like hindsight and cherry-picking all the time after hearing them for the first time just looks like hindsight...and cherry-picking.

[NE5]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

 

absolutely. You are talking to the biggest hindsight queen on the internet now though

 

 

 

In hindsight, using terms like hindsight and cherry-picking all the time after hearing them for the first time just looks like hindsight...and cherry-picking.

 

no. You're wrong. Mandy has been using hindsight for years.

 

 

[madras]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

[mrmojorisin75]

having trawled through the last few pages of this shit i thought i'd go back to page one and see if i could work out what the fuck this was all about

 

turns out it was from an article by the NOTW

 

and i still have no idea what the fuck anyone is on about anymore

[Guest fading star]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

[madras]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

[NE5]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

 

you're determined to stick to this aren't you, madras ? You'll still be harping on about it and supporting this lack of investment, all the way down to the 3rd division/whatever its called these days.

 

 

[Guest toonlass]

Is money and credit infinite?

[Guest fading star]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

[madras]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

 

you're determined to stick to this aren't you, madras ? You'll still be harping on about it and supporting this lack of investment, all the way down to the 3rd division/whatever its called these days.

 

 

i've said plenty of times that ashley should have invested some of his money.......i've also said that the only investment the club would have got withj fred in charge was through the banks and i'm not sure they'd have given him any more. maybe enough to keep going day to day but certainly not enough for the type on investment you want.

[madras]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

[Guest fading star]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

[madras]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

[Guest fading star]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

[Dave]

It's nice to get some sensible posts btw.

[madras]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under the Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when we left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

how many can........50,000 etc ? but how many of those clubs are so far from making a profit or being best in a position not to risk it's cash and that has to be a one with it's finances in order. think of all the times we've been in the rich list based purely on turnover ?

 

no-one denies what SJH and even fred done for the club but unfortunatly fred couldn't keep it going and ended like a gambler in a casino chasing his losses, we all know how that ends.

 

SJH had vision (many would say it actually doug and fred) and his gambles (mainly keegan, who didn't need much bankrolling to really get us moving) paid off, freds didn't (souness,roeder and big spending leading to poorer returns on the pitch). now we are reaping those failed gambles.

[Guest toonlass]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

 

With people chosing to cancel their season tickets because they are "boycoutting" Ashley how do you see a way forward. I am not saying that everyone who cancels their season ticket is in that position, but every single season ticket holder who has chosen to cancel because of Ashley is causing the financial ruin of Newcastle United.

 

There are day to day bills to pay, which we are struggling to already. By cancelling Direct Debits and season tickets fans are adding to that problem. I have no problem with anyone stopping buying products from Sports Direct (as that is not directly linked to Newcastle United), but cannot support the boycotting of our own club. Unless you want to see Newcastle United go down the pan that is.

 

Money is not a finite thing, Newcastle United under Shepherd, Hall or Ashley could not keep remortgaging to keep itself going despite what people think. Again this doesn't absolve Ashley from his mistakes but the foundations of the problem had already been laid by Shepherd and Hall.

[dcmk]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

 

With people chosing to cancel their season tickets because they are "boycoutting" Ashley how do you see a way forward. I am not saying that everyone who cancels their season ticket is in that position, but every single season ticket holder who has chosen to cancel because of Ashley is causing the financial ruin of Newcastle United.

 

There are day to day bills to pay, which we are struggling to already. By cancelling Direct Debits and season tickets fans are adding to that problem. I have no problem with anyone stopping buying products from Sports Direct (as that is not directly linked to Newcastle United), but cannot support the boycotting of our own club. Unless you want to see Newcastle United go down the pan that is.

 

Money is not a finite thing, Newcastle United under Shepherd, Hall or Ashley could not keep remortgaging to keep itself going despite what people think. Again this doesn't absolve Ashley from his mistakes but the foundations of the problem had already been laid by Shepherd and Hall.

 

You said earlier you would gladly see fans walk away from the club, canceling their season tickets and play in a half empty stadium with true supporters.  Now you say it would add to them problems...

[Guest toonlass]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

 

With people chosing to cancel their season tickets because they are "boycoutting" Ashley how do you see a way forward. I am not saying that everyone who cancels their season ticket is in that position, but every single season ticket holder who has chosen to cancel because of Ashley is causing the financial ruin of Newcastle United.

 

There are day to day bills to pay, which we are struggling to already. By cancelling Direct Debits and season tickets fans are adding to that problem. I have no problem with anyone stopping buying products from Sports Direct (as that is not directly linked to Newcastle United), but cannot support the boycotting of our own club. Unless you want to see Newcastle United go down the pan that is.

 

Money is not a finite thing, Newcastle United under Shepherd, Hall or Ashley could not keep remortgaging to keep itself going despite what people think. Again this doesn't absolve Ashley from his mistakes but the foundations of the problem had already been laid by Shepherd and Hall.

 

You said earlier you would gladly see fans walk away from the club, canceling their season tickets and play in a half empty stadium with true supporters.  Now you say it would add to them problems...

 

Aye, I am a female, I am allowed to be fickle.

 

The thing is, the fans who are chosing to cancel because of Ashley might as well get themselves away. They cannot see that boycotting the club will damage it even more through their petty actions. I don't support their actions at all, but I am not going to waste my time trying to convince them to stay either.

 

If it was possible I would love to see 50,000 hardcore, noisy, passionate fans in St James' every game, but the price of tickets has caused a lot of fans to be priced out of the game.

[biggs]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

 

With people chosing to cancel their season tickets because they are "boycoutting" Ashley how do you see a way forward. I am not saying that everyone who cancels their season ticket is in that position, but every single season ticket holder who has chosen to cancel because of Ashley is causing the financial ruin of Newcastle United.

 

There are day to day bills to pay, which we are struggling to already. By cancelling Direct Debits and season tickets fans are adding to that problem. I have no problem with anyone stopping buying products from Sports Direct (as that is not directly linked to Newcastle United), but cannot support the boycotting of our own club. Unless you want to see Newcastle United go down the pan that is.

 

Money is not a finite thing, Newcastle United under Shepherd, Hall or Ashley could not keep remortgaging to keep itself going despite what people think. Again this doesn't absolve Ashley from his mistakes but the foundations of the problem had already been laid by Shepherd and Hall.

 

You said earlier you would gladly see fans walk away from the club, canceling their season tickets and play in a half empty stadium with true supporters.  Now you say it would add to them problems...

 

Aye, I am a female, I am allowed to be fickle.

 

The thing is, the fans who are chosing to cancel because of Ashley might as well get themselves away. They cannot see that boycotting the club will damage it even more through their petty actions. I don't support their actions at all, but I am not going to waste my time trying to convince them to stay either.

 

If it was possible I would love to see 50,000 hardcore, noisy, passionate fans in St James' every game, but the price of tickets has caused a lot of fans to be priced out of the game.

That includes me im afraid ,28 year season ticket holder but no way of paying for it due to family etc i miss it like crazy but if other fans have the same problem and are not sure about renewing i would never call them not fans anymore but waiting for circumstances to change with a clear vision and message from the owner and his management team ,they were poked with a stick to come out and be more open and have now gone back to type so anyone not renewing has my full backing.

[NE5]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

 

With people chosing to cancel their season tickets because they are "boycoutting" Ashley how do you see a way forward. I am not saying that everyone who cancels their season ticket is in that position, but every single season ticket holder who has chosen to cancel because of Ashley is causing the financial ruin of Newcastle United.

 

There are day to day bills to pay, which we are struggling to already. By cancelling Direct Debits and season tickets fans are adding to that problem. I have no problem with anyone stopping buying products from Sports Direct (as that is not directly linked to Newcastle United), but cannot support the boycotting of our own club. Unless you want to see Newcastle United go down the pan that is.

 

Money is not a finite thing, Newcastle United under Shepherd, Hall or Ashley could not keep remortgaging to keep itself going despite what people think. Again this doesn't absolve Ashley from his mistakes but the foundations of the problem had already been laid by Shepherd and Hall.

 

I wonder how many people slated the old board for what they did to fill the very stadium for 15 years.....now you are saying if those who came back want to bugger off again, we'll be better off without them

 

 

[NE5]

It's nice to get some sensible posts btw.

 

aye, its canny to see people realising - at last - the true merits of the old board.

 

 

[Dave]

[NE5]

 

most of the correct points are relevant, but have been said before by me and a small handful of others Dave.

 

Its just that fewer people are disagreeing with them now.

 

 

[Guest fading star]

What's ambition got to do with it? I thought it was all supposed to be down to blind luck.

If you don’t shoot you can’t score - Johan Cruyff

was it not malcolm macdonald that said that ?

 

and the truth is that they didn't shoot every time, they took what they thought was the best option.

 

i'd still love to know where this money was going to come from ?

 

i've covered the debts of others and shown that some clubs,because of the financial position they are in are better able to accumulate and carry debt,so just saying borrow more is,at best naive, at worst,stupid. i'm open to any sensible ideas.

I’d imagine quite a few people have said it over the years.

 

The money could have come from a number of places. A share issue for example. However I think the Barclay’s would have been the most likely place. They have a vested interest in seeing the club prosper and would probably have provided a bit more funding, probably on certain conditions. As I understand it they had already insisted on board representation in exchange for a loan extension a year or two before Ashley took over.

a share issue ? possible but with what happened with the previous shares....unlikely.

 

barclays........they might have gave us a loan to keep us going (what has the shortfall been the last few years ?) but unlikely they'd have given more to "invest" when we can't come close to making ends meet as it is. (agreed barclays have a vested interest to in us doing well but they also have similar interests in lots of other companies they aren't backing right now in better financial positions)

Right not, but it was different two years ago. We’ll never know what position we’d be in now if Hall and Shepherd still owned the club, there’s just no way of knowing. However we do know the club wouldn’t have had to find £45m to pay off the redevelopment loan in one go if they’d stayed, which would surely have eased the financial pressure. 

 

IMO Hall & Shepherd did a lot more good than bad. Establishing NUFC in the PL and building a stadium worthy of the support for a debt of £70m is pretty good going. They understood the club. They knew if they provided  a decent team 50,000 would fill the ground. Ashley was banking on 50,000 turning up to watch total crap.

 

Criticism of the previous owners may be valid but trying to pin the current disaster on them is way off the mark. 

2 years ago was after the wages ratio started getting taking off. ask yourself, mounting debts,dodgy business plan (re outgoings in particular wages),poor on the field performance. in my opinion the banks would help keep the club going (day to day financing) but wouldn't stump up for major investment. can't actually think of a decent reason why they would.

How about,  if NUFC got relegated the banks would probably never get any of their money back?

 

Didn’t Ashley extend the club’s overdraft by £10m recently?

that goes for every club in relegation trouble. should the banks pay for all of them to buy more players to help them avoid relegation ? what about all those clubs who have gone under ? why didn't the banks bail them out to avoid losing their money ? more of a question is why ashley didn't spend some of his money to protect his investment as he stands to lose more than the banks would have ?

 

if ashley did extend the overdraft it was as likely to be as a way of paying the day to day costs.

How many of those clubs can guarantee 50,000 every week if the home team is half decent?

 

This debate is one that will never be resolved, as both sides are right. There can be no doubt Shepherd faced difficulties on the money front,  but no evidence that can prove the club was up s*** creek without a paddle. There’s also no doubt the club made significant progress under Hall/Shepherd.

 

When SJH took over he made his objectives clear.  NUFC should be one of the foremost clubs in the first division, playing in one of the best stadia in the country,  and should make a successful return to European football. He delivered all three, and when he left we were only three decent players away from getting back into Europe.

 

SJH had vision. Ashley doesn’t.

 

With people chosing to cancel their season tickets because they are "boycoutting" Ashley how do you see a way forward. I am not saying that everyone who cancels their season ticket is in that position, but every single season ticket holder who has chosen to cancel because of Ashley is causing the financial ruin of Newcastle United.

 

There are day to day bills to pay, which we are struggling to already. By cancelling Direct Debits and season tickets fans are adding to that problem. I have no problem with anyone stopping buying products from Sports Direct (as that is not directly linked to Newcastle United), but cannot support the boycotting of our own club. Unless you want to see Newcastle United go down the pan that is.

 

Money is not a finite thing, Newcastle United under Shepherd, Hall or Ashley could not keep remortgaging to keep itself going despite what people think. Again this doesn't absolve Ashley from his mistakes but the foundations of the problem had already been laid by Shepherd and Hall.

 

You said earlier you would gladly see fans walk away from the club, canceling their season tickets and play in a half empty stadium with true supporters.  Now you say it would add to them problems...

 

Aye, I am a female, I am allowed to be fickle.

 

The thing is, the fans who are chosing to cancel because of Ashley might as well get themselves away. They cannot see that boycotting the club will damage it even more through their petty actions. I don't support their actions at all, but I am not going to waste my time trying to convince them to stay either.

 

If it was possible I would love to see 50,000 hardcore, noisy, passionate fans in St James' every game, but the price of tickets has caused a lot of fans to be priced out of the game.

Who said anything about boycotting the club?

 

There’s will be no problem getting tickets next season, and not buying a season ticket is the best way of saying to Ashley shape up or ship out. Not buying a ST gives supporters some instant clout, an ability to respond to events - get it right we turn up, carry on treating us like s**** and we don’t.

 

If supporters want to trust Ashley with £600 that’s fine, but it’s possible to support a football club without having a ST as well. The people on here slagging off those who aren’t renewing need to take a good, long at themselves. They’re not better than everybody else. In fact it could be argued they’re just lazy unthinking sheep, too interested in proviing how loyal they are, and too eager to shout about it.