Robster Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 "Fast-Track the Sale of the Club" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nepharite Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 In a moment of weakness, looked up those numbers at Companies House nowt there. It comes up with a company at the same address as Halliwells the lawyers representing the americans. What the f*** that means I have no idea So it does, looks like I might have been on the right lines after all! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation as ever during Ashleys regime is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashleys London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce dont regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheards consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moats bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 In a moment of weakness, looked up those numbers at Companies House nowt there. It comes up with a company at the same address as Halliwells the lawyers representing the americans. What the f*** that means I have no idea So it does, looks like I might have been on the right lines after all! HALLCO 1707 LIMITED registered company name @ companies house..... Halliwells... could this be a holding company for the funds to be deposited into? however can they not just be deposited into a lawyers account? also, this company was incorporated in June, seems a bit early Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation — as ever during Ashley’s regime — is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashley’s London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce don’t regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheard’s consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moat’s bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Oh noes...The Age Old Keegan debate is back. Joygasm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation as ever during Ashleys regime is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashleys London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce dont regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheards consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moats bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nepharite Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 In a moment of weakness, looked up those numbers at Companies House nowt there. It comes up with a company at the same address as Halliwells the lawyers representing the americans. What the f*** that means I have no idea So it does, looks like I might have been on the right lines after all! HALLCO 1707 LIMITED registered company name @ companies house..... Halliwells... could this be a holding company for the funds to be deposited into? however can they not just be deposited into a lawyers account? also, this company was incorporated in June, seems a bit early Agreed, that's why I originally discounted it. Was looking for "the holy grail" of a newly set up holding company with a cheeky Newcastle related name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation — as ever during Ashley’s regime — is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashley’s London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce don’t regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheard’s consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moat’s bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Oh, poor diddums Keegan . . . I hate Ashley as much as the next man, but Keegan's major role (and motives) in our demise, should not be ignored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Groundhog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Groundhog. GroundCAT, actually - thankyou! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzle Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation — as ever during Ashley’s regime — is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashley’s London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce don’t regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheard’s consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moat’s bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezeri Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. Or was he sacked? If he left by his own will he wouldn't be asking for compensation, right? Not just the wages but how much KK has cost the club just in compensations for terminating his contracts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation — as ever during Ashley’s regime — is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashley’s London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce don’t regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheard’s consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moat’s bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. EVERYONE knows why he left. That was just the 'last chapter' (the 'last page', even) in the story. His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally. He was, and is, complicit (strongly) in our demise, whether you like it or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Five o Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Isent there a keegan thread you can take this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Isent there a keegan thread you can take this? It was brought up on here, so it has been discussed on here as it is relevant to the sale of the club ("non-sale") now that we are a fully-fledged "nothingness" club, for which Keegan is partially responsible. If no one wants to talk about Keegans role here, I am happy to stop now. Nothing we say will change anything anyway. Nothing is happening with the sale anyway, either. Where are my Leonard Cohen records?? (don't start!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation as ever during Ashleys regime is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashleys London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce dont regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheards consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moats bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. EVERYONE knows why he left. That was just the 'last chapter' (the 'last page', even) in the story. His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally. He was, and is, complicit (strongly) in our demise, whether you like it or not. Ok then if this is defacto and you have spoken to KK himself and know the truth of why he was here for such a short period of time, could you share this with me and the rest of the folk on this forum? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation — as ever during Ashley’s regime — is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashley’s London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce don’t regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheard’s consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moat’s bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. EVERYONE knows why he left. That was just the 'last chapter' (the 'last page', even) in the story. His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally. He was, and is, complicit (strongly) in our demise, whether you like it or not. Ok then if this is defacto and you have spoken to KK himself and know the truth of why he was here for such a short period of time, could you share this with me and the rest of the folk on this forum? Have you any idea how silly that sounds? As with anything in life, you do not need to have spoken to (or even 'met') the individuals involved, to know a lot about what went on. How many people in Dallas have you spoken to about President Kennedy being shot? Yet, you know he was and that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, though (like with Keegan) you cannot know the FULL extent of his involvement. How many people in New York have you spoken to (and met) about the destruction of the World Trade centre . . and yet, you know what happened . . . Need I go on? You cannot (well, 'should' not) artificially instigate "additional proof standards" to the Keegan leaving Newcastle situation, that does not apply to any other of the ten trillion or so 'events' that occur around the world. Keegan WAS involved in our demise. I have NOT "seen the photos" . . . but he WAS involved in our demise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation as ever during Ashleys regime is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashleys London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce dont regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheards consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moats bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. EVERYONE knows why he left. That was just the 'last chapter' (the 'last page', even) in the story. His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally. He was, and is, complicit (strongly) in our demise, whether you like it or not. Ok then if this is defacto and you have spoken to KK himself and know the truth of why he was here for such a short period of time, could you share this with me and the rest of the folk on this forum? Have you any idea how silly that sounds? As with anything in life, you do not need to have spoken to (or even 'met') the individuals involved, to know a lot about what went on. How many people in Dallas have you spoken to about President Kennedy being shot? Yet, you know he was and that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, though (like with Keegan) you cannot know the FULL extent of his involvement. How many people in New York have you spoken to (and met) about the destruction of the World Trade centre . . and yet, you know what happened . . . Need I go on? You cannot (well, 'should' not) artificially instigate "additional proof standards" to the Keegan leaving Newcastle situation, that does not apply to any other of the ten trillion or so 'events' that occur around the world. Keegan WAS involved in our demise. I have NOT "seen the photos" . . . but he WAS involved in our demise. You talk so much shit my eyes bleed reading it. you said - "His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally." So you know the reason why he came back and his quick exit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 CHARLES SALE: Americans aim to scupper Barry Moat's Newcastle bid Last updated at 12:16 AM on 12th September 2009 * Comments (0) * Add to My Stories The marathon takeover saga at Newcastle took another twist on Friday night with a New York investment fund dealing direct with owner Mike Ashley in an attempt to fast-track the sale of the club. It has been claimed their negotiations had reached the stage of a sale and purchase agreement with the Americans, having satisfied Ashley they have the necessary £100million funding to complete the deal. Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley in the stands with Chairman Derek Llambias But the situation — as ever during Ashley’s regime — is by no means clear as the Americans, represented by Manchester law firm Halliwells, are bypassing the official selling agents Seymour Pierce and conducting their business with Ashley’s London legal advisers Travers Smith. The middle man in the deal is businessman Geoff Sheard, a former commercial director at Preston, who has kept in the background to avoid any publicity after an attempt to buy Sheffield Wednesday proved unsuccessful. Stockbrokers Seymour Pierce don’t regard Sheard as a serious buyer, having not been satisfied with his proof of funding. But a spokesperson for Ashley said last night that Sheard’s consortium were being treated as genuine buyers, yet had ground to make up on Newcastle businessman Barry Moat’s bid. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1212895/CHARLES-SALE-Americans-aim-scupper-Barry-Moats-Newcastle-bid.html#ixzz0QqP8XO If true, the bit about the Americans dealing direct with Ashley rather than through Seymour Pierce is interesting. Harris has said more than once that he thinks there should be a strong local presence in the ownership of the club. It's reasonable to surmise that he favours Moat. Personally, I think local ownership is a mixed blessing. You often hear that the club should be owned by someone who understands the place of the club in the region, but it's not clear exactly what decisions would be different in the case of a local owner. If anything, we need owners that can resist the pressure and not get sucked into decisions that are driven more by hope and emotion than common sense. A big problem with Shepherd was that, as a fan, he couldn't resist meddling in footballing decisions and showed favouritism to Shearer as the fans' hero. You could look at Ashley and say that he, as an outsider, hasn't done very well. My view is that his overall strategy was fine in the circumstances that the club were in, but his fatal blunder was appointing Keegan - a man whose motivation was suspect, who was unsuited to a long-term approach or working within a team, and whose chief asset was his standing with the fans. In that decision, Ashley was paying too much attention to local opinion, not too little. Of course, some may disagree. KEEGAN'S MOTIVATION, in coming back . . Yes, that is something that has bugged me quite a lot. I mean, what do you think he came back for? Certainly, events have proved that it was NOT (what we all hoped it was for) to "finish off the job he started and win us the Premier League every year" . . . NO, I think it was something altogether "less noble" than that. He certainly didn't stick around long when the going got tough, did he? Because of THAT (though it was probably Ashley's actual fault) we are now relegated and are in the Second Division ('nothingness', as someone once called it). Yes KEEGAN'S MOTIVES, are very, very, very, suspect - in MY opinion. Its KKs fault we are in the 2nd div? Lame, Not the fact that ashley would not invest money?? Thats why KK left, he could nto get Ashley to invest in any players. Jesus wept. Embarrassing isn't it? Some people still fail to understand why Keegan left. EVERYONE knows why he left. That was just the 'last chapter' (the 'last page', even) in the story. His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally. He was, and is, complicit (strongly) in our demise, whether you like it or not. Ok then if this is defacto and you have spoken to KK himself and know the truth of why he was here for such a short period of time, could you share this with me and the rest of the folk on this forum? Have you any idea how silly that sounds? As with anything in life, you do not need to have spoken to (or even 'met') the individuals involved, to know a lot about what went on. How many people in Dallas have you spoken to about President Kennedy being shot? Yet, you know he was and that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, though (like with Keegan) you cannot know the FULL extent of his involvement. How many people in New York have you spoken to (and met) about the destruction of the World Trade centre . . and yet, you know what happened . . . Need I go on? You cannot (well, 'should' not) artificially instigate "additional proof standards" to the Keegan leaving Newcastle situation, that does not apply to any other of the ten trillion or so 'events' that occur around the world. Keegan WAS involved in our demise. I have NOT "seen the photos" . . . but he WAS involved in our demise. You talk so much s*** my eyes bleed reading it. you said - "His reasons for coming back and his lack of regard for us and the club by his leaving So SOON (so bl**dy soon) should not be disregarded so totally." So you know the reason why he came back and his quick exit. See my previous post (01.35Hrs) . . . and lets keep a grip on reality please. Why are you defending the guy so much? I lived through his years as the messiah - and I loved it, and him for giving us it. BUT, he is a human being, with flaws in his character, just like you and I. Why defend him so "totally", it is ODD, to say the least! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm not claiming he hasn't got character flaws. He clearerly has like all of us but I'll defend him over the fiasco which is Mike Fucking Ashley any day of the week. I felt let down like the rest of us when he left BUT his reasons for doing so have become apparant over time. So you are saying that Keegans return to Newcastle was for other reasons and this far out weighs the mess Ashley has got us in? What proof do you have thats says KK came back with other motives in mind??? I said KK left beause he could not get Ashley to spend the clubs money on players that were seriously needed he felt he had to leave to push the situation further. he was proved right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Five o Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Just a prediction, mate. Think we may get a mention too You work at Trinity Mirror dont you! got ya! Yes/No? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm not claiming he hasn't got character flaws. He clearerly has like all of us but I'll defend him over the fiasco which is Mike f***ing Ashley any day of the week. I felt let down like the rest of us when he left BUT his reasons for doing so have become apparant over time. So you are saying that Keegans return to Newcastle was for other reasons and this far out weighs the mess Ashley has got us in? What proof do you have thats says KK came back with other motives in mind??? I said KK left beause he could not get Ashley to spend the clubs money on players that were seriously needed he felt he had to leave to push the situation further. he was proved right. What you say above is good and correct and I agree with it, as I always have. It is difficult to estimate how much of this MESS was Ashley's fault, but (as owner) he has to take by far the bulk of the blame. Now, without you having met him, or 'seen the photos', I would imagine you will agree with that. The reasons Keegan left (that you mention) are all valid, as I have always said, and are undoubtedly part of it. BUT, many people continue to rationalise and over-simplify the reason why he left, "latching on" to the Ashley-and-funds-and-choice-of-players, thing. It is most unlikely that anything as simple as that would have caused him to leave - it he came here to "finish the job" etc - with the speed with which he did. It just does not FIT. It smells. There must be more to it than just that. There is a lot more complexity in why Keegan returned and why he left so soon, that the simply-presented "reasons" of the funds and choice of players, that so many people (as said) happily latch on to as being the be-all-and-end-all of the situation. C'mon, the whole thing STINKS. I really cannot find any other way to say this now. I have described the "Ashley & Funds" bit, as the 'last chapter' and the 'last page', and I have tried many other ways to get the message across here - so I can do no more. Simply, there is more to it than that - it stinks to high heaven. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 On the subject of Keegan, I feel Keegan wasn't the right man to take over, but if we kept Keegan we would not have been relegated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'm not claiming he hasn't got character flaws. He clearerly has like all of us but I'll defend him over the fiasco which is Mike f***ing Ashley any day of the week. I felt let down like the rest of us when he left BUT his reasons for doing so have become apparant over time. So you are saying that Keegans return to Newcastle was for other reasons and this far out weighs the mess Ashley has got us in? What proof do you have thats says KK came back with other motives in mind??? I said KK left beause he could not get Ashley to spend the clubs money on players that were seriously needed he felt he had to leave to push the situation further. he was proved right. What you say above is good and correct and I agree with it, as I always have. It is difficult to estimate how much of this MESS was Ashley's fault, but (as owner) he has to take by far the bulk of the blame. Now, without you having met him, or 'seen the photos', I would imagine you will agree with that. The reasons Keegan left (that you mention) are all valid, as I have always said, and are undoubtedly part of it. BUT, many people continue to rationalise and over-simplify the reason why he left, "latching on" to the Ashley-and-funds-and-choice-of-players, thing. It is most unlikely that anything as simple as that would have caused him to leave - it he came here to "finish the job" etc - with the speed with which he did. It just does not FIT. It smells. There must be more to it than just that. There is a lot more complexity in why Keegan returned and why he left so soon, that the simply-presented "reasons" of the funds and choice of players, that so many people (as said) happily latch on to as being the be-all-and-end-all of the situation. C'mon, the whole thing STINKS. I really cannot find any other way to say this now. I have described the "Ashley & Funds" bit, as the 'last chapter' and the 'last page', and I have tried many other ways to get the message across here - so I can do no more. Simply, there is more to it than that - it stinks to high heaven. He came back as soon as the Halls and Shepherds were out of the club, he came in thinking Mike Ashley was going to at least take the club forward, it then became apparent that Ashley had no intension to spend and he was going to reduce the operating costs of the club. KK couldn't deal with Ashley, Lambias and Wise as they were fuck nuts without a clue so was either sacked or quit. I'm not sure where you get this "must be another reason" for him to return from. Are you basing your argument for KK coming back with other motives on that shitty lazy article in one of the papers sayng it was because Soccer Circus was struggling and he needed cash. The same Soccer Circus which is still going even in the recession. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts