manorpark Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Free. booze. Yeah because paying about £5m for a box he would end up paying for pints too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedudeabides Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? I would imagine he'll do what most other clubs do and borrow it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. How? We have spent next to fuck all in the time ashley's been here. So much for this billionare bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 the phoney handshakes and generic backslapping. Fuck the lot of em Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? I would imagine he'll do what most other clubs do and borrow it. Exactly. I don't know why people are still clinging to this thought that whoever buys us has to have a shitload of cash. Shepherd never had a shitload of cash (yes, I know he went overboard at the end). Ashley still does have a shitload of cash. It means nothing. It's about the ambition to move the club forward, not their bank balance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GM Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Exactly. I don't know why people are still clinging to this thought that whoever buys us has to have a shitload of cash. Shepherd never had a shitload of cash (yes, I know he went overboard at the end). Ashley still does have a shitload of cash. It means nothing. It's about the ambition to move the club forward, not their bank balance. And in that regard I'm still rather worried that Moat is a bit...flakey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BONTEMPI Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Who's to say once Moat gains control he can't be on the search for investors in the club? I suppose if Ashley wants the full whack back for the club his best interests would be to let Moat buy a % of the club off Ashley now and they both try to move it back to the prem where then Moat could buy the remainder. Give Moat position of Chairman and let him choose his managment team. Either way I can see this dragging on for another 2-3 weeks easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. If the club has no debt when he takes over I guess all the money the club brings in the club can use to buy players etc. When we were in the Premiership our turnover was £100m I think so theres a pretty large wod of cash to spend on wages and transfers. I know that's a very simplistic way of looking at things but it does mean the club could run itself. Especially with the new income from the foreign tv rights which starts next season I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macca888 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. I actually woke up with that thought this morning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. If the club has no debt when he takes over I guess all the money the club brings in the club can use to buy players etc. When we were in the Premiership our turnover was £100m I think so theres a pretty large wod of cash to spend on wages and transfers. I know that's a very simplistic way of looking at things but it does mean the club could run itself. Especially with the new income from the foreign tv rights which starts next season I think. Yes, we have always been (until last year) one of the clear "big five" earners amongst UK football clubs and in the top 10/15 in the world. So, we should (if we get back in the Prem) very soon become 'self-sufficient' for transfers, again. That is one (of many) things about "Billionaire Ashley" that confuses me. Having made the initial investment (to buy the club) as a billionaire you would have expected he would have (desperately) 'wanted to' add some of his own money to our own large earned income (whether we were making 'net' profits or losses, in any given year) which would have made us 'awash' with transfer money. But, it didn't happen. Quite the reverse. Endlessly, Sir John Hall stressed how important it was for us to 'speculate to accumulate' and to invest to make sure we were at or near the very top of the Premier League, all of the time, so that we were in position when the inevitable European Leagues were set up. This subject has (yet again) re-emerged this week, with Wenger sounding very liike SJH, as he talks about the 'inevitability' of the arrival of a European League. Ashley? Now, our 'ambitions' (and those of supporters, particularly young-uns who have arrived on the scene in the last 5 or 10 years) are . . er . . . somewhat less grand . . . (and NO, "somewhat less grand" does not mean the same thing as "more realistic", it just means "somewhat less grand"!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmymag Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I wouldn't get your hopes up lads. And he's talking from experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. If the club has no debt when he takes over I guess all the money the club brings in the club can use to buy players etc. When we were in the Premiership our turnover was £100m I think so theres a pretty large wod of cash to spend on wages and transfers. I know that's a very simplistic way of looking at things but it does mean the club could run itself. Especially with the new income from the foreign tv rights which starts next season I think. Yes, we have always been (until last year) one of the clear "big five" earners amongst UK football clubs and in the top 10/15 in the world. So, we should (if we get back in the Prem) very soon become 'self-sufficient' for transfers, again. That is one (of many) things about "Billionaire Ashley" that confuses me. Having made the initial investment (to buy the club) as a billionaire you would have expected he would have (desperately) 'wanted to' add some of his own money to our own large earned income (whether we were making 'net' profits or losses, in any given year) which would have made us 'awash' with transfer money. But, it didn't happen. Quite the reverse. Endlessly, Sir John Hall stressed how important it was for us to 'speculate to accumulate' and to invest to make sure we were at or near the very top of the Premier League, all of the time, so that we were in position when the inevitable European Leagues were set up. This subject has (yet again) re-emerged this week, with Wenger sounding very liike SJH, as he talks about the 'inevitability' of the arrival of a European League. Ashley? Now, our 'ambitions' (and those of supporters, particularly young-uns who have arrived on the scene in the last 5 or 10 years) are . . er . . . somewhat less grand . . . (and NO, "somewhat less grand" does not mean the same thing as "more realistic", it just means "somewhat less grand"!) Put it this way. If Ashley had left the debt and had paid off the £4m a year as we had been doing and instead put the £200m he's now lost into player buys we'd probably be looking at Champions League football again rather than Championship football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmymag Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. It seems inevitable to me that if Moat buys the club Shepherd will be involved somewhere along the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. It seems inevitable to me that if Moat buys the club Shepherd will be involved somewhere along the line. So Moat is a Shepherd 'Trojan Horse'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. It seems inevitable to me that if Moat buys the club Shepherd will be involved somewhere along the line. So Moat is a Shepherd 'Trojan Horse'? Shudder, Moat is Shepherds condom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Libertine Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 What about this as a possible scenario? Moat pays the deposit, Ashley guarantees the loan and once Moat takes over, Shepherd comes in with his investment and the money goes straight to Ashley. We all know Ashley would not sell to Shepherd directly, but who is to know if FS isnt going to support Ashley indirectly once Ashley turns the club over to Moat. Stranger things have happened. No more news from my friends regarding what I relayed earlier this week. I guess we just have to wait and see and be even more patient. It seems inevitable to me that if Moat buys the club Shepherd will be involved somewhere along the line. So Moat is a Shepherd 'Trojan Horse'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. If the club has no debt when he takes over I guess all the money the club brings in the club can use to buy players etc. When we were in the Premiership our turnover was £100m I think so theres a pretty large wod of cash to spend on wages and transfers. I know that's a very simplistic way of looking at things but it does mean the club could run itself. Especially with the new income from the foreign tv rights which starts next season I think. Yes, we have always been (until last year) one of the clear "big five" earners amongst UK football clubs and in the top 10/15 in the world. So, we should (if we get back in the Prem) very soon become 'self-sufficient' for transfers, again. That is one (of many) things about "Billionaire Ashley" that confuses me. Having made the initial investment (to buy the club) as a billionaire you would have expected he would have (desperately) 'wanted to' add some of his own money to our own large earned income (whether we were making 'net' profits or losses, in any given year) which would have made us 'awash' with transfer money. But, it didn't happen. Quite the reverse. Endlessly, Sir John Hall stressed how important it was for us to 'speculate to accumulate' and to invest to make sure we were at or near the very top of the Premier League, all of the time, so that we were in position when the inevitable European Leagues were set up. This subject has (yet again) re-emerged this week, with Wenger sounding very liike SJH, as he talks about the 'inevitability' of the arrival of a European League. Ashley? Now, our 'ambitions' (and those of supporters, particularly young-uns who have arrived on the scene in the last 5 or 10 years) are . . er . . . somewhat less grand . . . (and NO, "somewhat less grand" does not mean the same thing as "more realistic", it just means "somewhat less grand"!) Put it this way. If Ashley had left the debt and had paid off the £4m a year as we had been doing and instead put the £200m he's now lost into player buys we'd probably be looking at Champions League football again rather than Championship football. Yes, that is very very probable. What a thought!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 bah, thats depressing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nige_S4 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Why is it that anyones suggestion quickly gets taken as gospel/fact within half a page? It seems to be "fact" that Fat Fred in behind Moat....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Thought they were meeting Llambias not Ashley ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/sp/empics/20090819/19/138059714-19082009191058.jpg Is that a smile? Dave, you didn't tell us that Barry Moat was your dad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Its worrying if Moat is struggling to get £100m together, where the f***s the money for transfers? We may be happy to get Moat now (or "to get RID of Ashley", more like) but THIS (a lack of real big money) is something we are very likely to very soon find to be very frustrating. If the club has no debt when he takes over I guess all the money the club brings in the club can use to buy players etc. When we were in the Premiership our turnover was £100m I think so theres a pretty large wod of cash to spend on wages and transfers. I know that's a very simplistic way of looking at things but it does mean the club could run itself. Especially with the new income from the foreign tv rights which starts next season I think. Yes, we have always been (until last year) one of the clear "big five" earners amongst UK football clubs and in the top 10/15 in the world. So, we should (if we get back in the Prem) very soon become 'self-sufficient' for transfers, again. That is one (of many) things about "Billionaire Ashley" that confuses me. Having made the initial investment (to buy the club) as a billionaire you would have expected he would have (desperately) 'wanted to' add some of his own money to our own large earned income (whether we were making 'net' profits or losses, in any given year) which would have made us 'awash' with transfer money. But, it didn't happen. Quite the reverse. Endlessly, Sir John Hall stressed how important it was for us to 'speculate to accumulate' and to invest to make sure we were at or near the very top of the Premier League, all of the time, so that we were in position when the inevitable European Leagues were set up. This subject has (yet again) re-emerged this week, with Wenger sounding very liike SJH, as he talks about the 'inevitability' of the arrival of a European League. Ashley? Now, our 'ambitions' (and those of supporters, particularly young-uns who have arrived on the scene in the last 5 or 10 years) are . . er . . . somewhat less grand . . . (and NO, "somewhat less grand" does not mean the same thing as "more realistic", it just means "somewhat less grand"!) Put it this way. If Ashley had left the debt and had paid off the £4m a year as we had been doing and instead put the £200m he's now lost into player buys we'd probably be looking at Champions League football again rather than Championship football. Yes, that is very very probable. What a thought!! Upon the sale of the club, there was the 100m loan that had to be repaid back to the halls/banks, cant remember which it was, if it wasnt for his incompetence maybe he could have refinanced that loan as the liverpool owners have down (obviously nowhere near that scale) and possibly the same as what Moat is looking at now with the overdraft just because the money had to be paid back upon sale of the club, as with when any other property/business changes hands, this doesnt mean you can't refinance it, instead he went and put 100m more of his own money in other than just borrowing it (but then again we dont know the exact levels of debt as it has been said that the levels we had were unserviceable) i would imagine that was his intention when he bought it at first, buy the club, pay the repayments and invest 20m per year, but when he did buy it without due dilligence he got some nasty shocks... for all he's an idiot and shown to be totally incompetent, i dont believe he bought us to ruin us, it's just been one nightmare after another, unfortunately, throw the fact that he's known to be a totally stubborn twat and horrible to deal with has made everything so much worse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 i really think the fanbase thing will come to nothing...I'm waiting for news on Moat's bid Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts