Geordie Ahmed Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Shepherd is the lesser of two evils. If he is genuinely the only other option to Ashley, then he is the better choice. I dont see how there is anything more to the discussion on it than that. Exactly Its a non-contest if its Ashley V Shepherd Obviously an alternative rich owner in the Randy Lerner mould would be fantastic BUT if that doesnt arise then Shepherd would do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Shepherd is the lesser of two evils. If he is genuinely the only other option to Ashley, then he is the better choice. I dont see how there is anything more to the discussion on it than that. There wouldn't be, there's not a thing we could do to stop it. Doesn't mean I'd be giving my money to the new owner though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dev Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Fatshley's latest devious scheme to punish Newcastle fans - bring Shepard back into the picture so that every thread degenerates into a new board vs. old board argument. The man is a criminal mastermind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 FFS hired Ashley to ruin the club, so he could come back as our saviour and win the fans over. Im telling you! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 It has to be said that given the plight the club is in due to Ashley anyone who doesn't want to see Fred back at the helm is a nutcase. It seems some still haven't learned a thing. What is it going to take for some people to get it? Administration? What's it going to take for some people to get that we're not going to be put into administration? One more time: The point of going into administration is to protect yourself from your creditors. We have only one major creditor, his name is Mike Ashley. Why would Mike Ashley want to protect Mike Ashley from Mike Ashley? As far as I'm concerned the absolute duty of an administrator is to get as much back for the creditors as possible. So what does that mean? It means selling off the whole shebang, the players, facilities, knocking the stadium down for some other development for which money may be paid, the whole lot going into the pocket of Ashley, the bloke people wanted 'cos he was better than Fred. He could hardly just go ahead and do it off his own back with the club a going concern. Erm, did you miss the point when he bought the club outright? He could have done that from the moment he bought the club, why would he bring an administrator in to do that when he could simply have done it himself? The fact that he hasn't done anything like that, kinda suggests that he's not going to, don't you think? Also, I think you have "administrator" and "liquidator" mixed up. The first duty of an administrator is to rescue the company as a going concern, whereas the role of a liquidator is similar to what you describe. However, the question remains as to why Mike Ashley would do that and you've not answered that I notice. I'd have thought that someone who's followed the club for as long as you have would know that it doesn't own the land the stadium is built upon and therefore couldn't sell it off for redevelopment even if it wanted to. But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good rant, eh? 1. It kinda takes the pressure off him if someone else does it. It's called "passing the buck" in some circles. I'm sure you've heard of it. 2. An administrator only has to justify to the creditors why the company can't be maintained as a going concern before it is liquidated. 2a. "You've not answered that I notice" ..... Hmm, that's a rather dumb remark. Why would I answer something I haven't read? I hadn't answered earlier because I've just seen your post. I'm not joined at the hip with my laptop. Obviously. 3. Yup, fair point. However, don't get complacent about what Ashley may do to the club. People like you got complacent about regular European finishes, thinking it was shite so you wanted Ashley 'cos he could only do better. Well, it seems you're going to try to cling to the bitter end onto the idea he's better than the previous lot. You're wrong, cos he's not. This bloke might do anything to this football club and as he doesn't give a damn about it that's scary to a supporter like me. He no doubt has very clever people advising him on the economic side of things, people far cleverer than you, if there is a way for him to get rid of the club and get enough money back he'll do anything to achieve that imo. Anything. No amount of wriggling on your part is going is to change that fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I worry that history is going to be rewritten with regards to the sale of the club to Ashley and it's going to be painted as some bloodless coup which angered the fans. Fact of the matter is almost everyone was happy to be rid of that chubby mess, his embarrassing soundbites and his grubby fist which seemed to be perpetually in the coffers. Just because Fat Fred was slightly more paletable than Ashley doesn't mean we should pretend he's something which he isn't. He's did a lot of damage to this club too remember. Tripe, tbh. Can you say 'dividends'? I know Freddy could. He could also say stuff like... “I didn't want to be known as the man who shot Bambi.” “Newcastle girls are all dogs. England is full of them.” “You should only say good things when somebody leaves. Robert has gone - good!” “When we have got 52,000 fans at each home game, the last thing we are worried about is clubs in the third division." Mate, of far more importance than anything Fred has said is what Ashley has done. I answered posts like yours at the time by saying I don't give a shite what Fred says in the media, I'm only concerned with what happens on the field of play and whether or not the Board is backing the manager to attempt to build a decent team. I'd have thought others might have understood that rather basic point by now but it seems not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I'm interested, would you take Shepherd over any of the others mentioned? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 If FFS can keep out of the media spotlight and he just lets Shearer get on with the job of managing the club, he doesn't just sack him cause the fans get a bit irate after a run of 9 losses in a row which will happen at some point, then he will have learned from his mistakes and we can cope with him. He also must learn to not risk the clubs future on the back of one player like we did with Owen when it was plain to see we had to much cash going out for wages of other players. I have no problem following the ideas of Madrid etc when we eventually get back up there by buying players and paying off the deals using the merchandise sales (they reckon the Ronaldo deal will bring in Real an extra £80m a year revenue that's how they could afford him and his wages) but until we're at that level we can't risk the club by pretending we're already at that level. The previous board did well to get us where they did but appeared to be losing the plot near the end and running out of ideas so hopefully they have learned from those mistakes. If they have done all that then I'll happily back them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhg Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 SSN reporting that Ashley is to receive £150m bid from a North East businessman. Was only half listening. Fee is to include next seasons transfer budget, apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 SSn reporting that Ashley is to receive £150m bid from a North East businessman. Not a good start if he can't read/count Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 90 + 30 = 150? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I'm confused, does that mean the guy has declared he can afford to give Ashley £90m and have £30m for transfers etc and if so why should that matter to Ashley, surely that wouldn't be included in the bid ?? I'm confused. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Freddie will be in it to line his own pockets. The warehouse deal is why Ashley banned him from the ground soon after his takeover. I remember when he proudly announced his dividends where 'not leaving the Club' as he was 'buying up as many shares' as he could - which invariably raised his dividend amount year by year. For what the Halls/Shepherd took out in divi's they could likely have paid the Owen deal in full with extra on top. Also, it was very likely the Halls as major shareholders who were pulling the strings at SJP. If the horrible twat was to return I'd hope it was as the front for major investors where he would have limited input into the financial side of things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 ffs, we already said we didnt catch the whole thing, but 90 for ashley+ 30 for transfers+ rest for restructuring Fair enough. Although the bid is really just 90m and the rest promises Ashley won't give a stuff about. I'm watching it now and nowts been mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhg Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 A north-east businessman is planning to launch a £150million takeover bid for Newcastle. Rick Parkinson, who has made much of his cash from the textiles industry, has joined forces with four other entrepreneurs and is preparing to make a formal offer for United. The Northumberland-based multi-millionaire's consortium is willing to pay £90million to current owner Mike Ashley, plus £30million for transfers and the same amount again for restructuring. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/12062009/63/businessman-plans-magpies-bid.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QBG Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 ffs, we already said we didnt catch the whole thing, but 90 for ashley+ 30 for transfers+ rest for restructuring Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I wonder what exactly they mean by restructuring ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I wonder what exactly they mean by restructuring ? Just got a text from someone who heard the story on Metro Radio and they put down that last £30m as being to buy out contracts of big earners we can't sell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Parka Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Fucking hell. This is getting complicated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebolarama Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 As Mike Ashley considers how Singapore's Profitable Group will seek to turn a profit from investing £100m in Newcastle United and turning it into a fans' trust, investors are wondering where is the upside in other Profitable interests. Among those interests is "Profitable Plots ... a strategic land investment company". This offers the chance to buy land such as at Cherry Tree Grove in Colchester which, once planning permission is received, will instantly increase in value. But how to reconcile those promises with two separate local authority refusals of plans to build a 77-bed and then 87-bed hotel at Cherry Tree Grove on the grounds that it is too far out of town and in a Countryside Conservation Area? One respondent during the planning application process thinks he knows the answer. "These companies purchase protected land and then make proposals for development. They then resell the land to investors at 10 times or more profit in Asia and Canada, giving the impression that planning permission will be achieved," the respondent wrote to planners. Not so, says Profitable's Canadian client services manager, Dan Strumos. "These accusations are false. Our headquarters are in Singapore and that would be the last place on earth for corporate shenanigans because the penalty for it is death." But could Profitable Group by any chance be a new incarnation of The Profitable Plot Company that was the subject of a 2007 application for compulsory winding-up by the then secretary of state for trade and industry, only voluntarily to appoint a liquidator six months later? The very same! Tim Goldring, Nigel Blanchard and Neil Osborn were directors of that firm and all are now listed on the Singapore firm's website. There is one new face, though: the group commercial director and former Liverpool captain, Steve McMahon. It's a funny old game. Source article Once again, sorry if this has been posted. I couldn't see it on the last two pages, and it was published today on The G. If it has, I'll give up posting in this thread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 A north-east businessman is planning to launch a £150million takeover bid for Newcastle. Rick Parkinson, who has made much of his cash from the textiles industry, has joined forces with four other entrepreneurs and is preparing to make a formal offer for United. The Northumberland-based multi-millionaire's consortium is willing to pay £90million to current owner Mike Ashley, plus £30million for transfers and the same amount again for restructuring. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/12062009/63/businessman-plans-magpies-bid.html I'll be pleased with this over the Profitable lot and even more pleased if the little buddha's not involved as one of the 'four entrepreneurs'. I fear this is "Team Shepherd" and hope I am wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I wonder what exactly they mean by restructuring ? Just got a text from someone who heard the story on Metro Radio and they put down that last £30m as being to buy out contracts of big earners we can't sell Ooo that's a plus then, I'd be happy with that. Joe Harvey always said if there is a player at the club who you don't want there get rid at all costs because if you have injuries or whatever you will rely on that player but if he's not there you will find a solution instead. That was our problem last year, we don't want it to be our problem again this year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1192507/Textiles-tycoon-planning-150m-bid-Newcastle-United--30m-set-aside-transfers.html Another link and a photo too.... As an out of the blue report on some random we've never heard of, there's pobably more mileage in this than the other stories I would reckon http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/5475/rick.th.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magorific Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 If he lives in Northumberland then he's not on the Electoral Register (I checked). I smell a Mackem wind-up............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 If he lives in Northumberland then he's not on the Electoral Register (I checked). I smell a Mackem wind-up............. He may have opted out of having his name on the published one, a lot of people do these days to avoid ID theft Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts