So it seems Barclays are to blame

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Barclays boycoutt it is then.

 

Is it worth boycitting Barclays?

 

It'd have to be properly organised to make it worthwhile, rather than personal protest.

 

I've got a barclays account and i'm not going to cancel it unless there's a widespread boycott.

 

You have to get parental permission!

[Guest Phil K]

As much as i think banks are c***s, Barclays are well within there rights to know who will be servicing the overdraft.

If they didn't that would be considered reckless banking.

There was no shortage of "reckless banking" from them and others for the past 10 years - why else did they need the help and understanding from the govrernment (with our money)  they AREN'T giving themselves ?

[NG32]

Barclays never borrowed from our Government, they went to the arabs for the cash.

 

IRC

[Guest Roger Kint]

Barclays never borrowed from our Government, they went to the arabs for the cash.

 

IRC

 

I was thinking that. Thought it was N Rock/RBS that got Gov help.

[Jill]

Barclays never borrowed from our Government, they went to the arabs for the cash.

 

IRC

 

I was thinking that. Thought it was N Rock/RBS that got Gov help.

 

A mate who works for Barclays reckons they asked the Govt and were turned down. No idea if there's any truth in that.

[merlin]

Barclays are not to blame, most of the debt at the club still come's from the previous regime

 

barclays are in the right mind to refuse imo, because if they don't believe they can make some money from the deal then why should they

 

This - quite true.

[merlin]

I, like the majority, want Ashley to go ASAP.

 

But, does Moat have the means to support the Club if he has to beg steal and borrow from Barclays to complete a takeover? If we do have to sell three more players to complete a takeover then I would think the takeover is not worth going through with as our chance of this being a one season exile will dimish now with every player that leaves.

 

This is also true - the club will find it VERY difficult to make progress if it is always beholden to the goodwill of the Bank to progress ; unless it has a wealthy owner who RUNS IT PROPERLY, then every step forward will mean another back - if the manager/coaches manage to build a decent young side, the top Prem teams will be in like a shot for the best young players and the Bank, wanting to see progress on lowering the debts, will put pressure on for sales to be made.

 

That is the reality of life in football now, esp if you are not in the Prem ; unless the club is owned by a person who can decide whether or not sales/purchases are made, there is a great danger of becoming just another CCC club.

 

Blaming the banks is pointless - they are NOT a charity, they are there to make money and football clubs are NOT a safe source of steady return.

 

Only clubs like Man U(because of their position as top generators of cash in football),Man City(because of their owner's wealth), Chelsea(until Abramovitch tires of it)and Arsenal(because of their status and sensible management PLUS the fact that mega-rich people would fall over themselves to buy it if it was available) , will be sure of being able to keep their players ; even Liverpool are looking more vulnerable because of their debt....

 

Whisper it quietly, but even the Mackems are safer from being forced to sell any decent players they develop than is NUFC at this time - and even if Moat gets the club, UNLESS he is joined on the board by some guys with REAL money.

[quayside]

Does Barclay's interest in NUFC only extend as far as the overdraft? Quayside, can you find out?

 

I don't have access to any info that others don't and as far as I know Barclays are simply the club's clearing bank. And as such they provide an overdraft facility. I'm not aware of any other connection.

[quayside]

I, like the majority, want Ashley to go ASAP.

 

But, does Moat have the means to support the Club if he has to beg steal and borrow from Barclays to complete a takeover? If we do have to sell three more players to complete a takeover then I would think the takeover is not worth going through with as our chance of this being a one season exile will dimish now with every player that leaves.

 

This is also true - the club will find it VERY difficult to make progress if it is always beholden to the goodwill of the Bank to progress ; unless it has a wealthy owner who RUNS IT PROPERLY, then every step forward will mean another back - if the manager/coaches manage to build a decent young side, the top Prem teams will be in like a shot for the best young players and the Bank, wanting to see progress on lowering the debts, will put pressure on for sales to be made.

 

That is the reality of life in football now, esp if you are not in the Prem ; unless the club is owned by a person who can decide whether or not sales/purchases are made, there is a great danger of becoming just another CCC club.

 

Blaming the banks is pointless - they are NOT a charity, they are there to make money and football clubs are NOT a safe source of steady return.

 

Only clubs like Man U(because of their position as top generators of cash in football),Man City(because of their owner's wealth), Chelsea(until Abramovitch tires of it)and Arsenal(because of their status and sensible management PLUS the fact that mega-rich people would fall over themselves to buy it if it was available) , will be sure of being able to keep their players ; even Liverpool are looking more vulnerable because of their debt....

 

Whisper it quietly, but even the Mackems are safer from being forced to sell any decent players they develop than is NUFC at this time - and even if Moat gets the club, UNLESS he is joined on the board by some guys with REAL money.

 

Agree with this. Without wishing to re-enter well covered territory this highlights the problem the club was running into before Ashley arrived. All the funding was provided by external lenders, with foreclosure clauses and high interest rates. There are only limited prospects for a club of our size working on that model.

[Guest Phil K]

Interesting.

I thought they all got varied degrees of help and assistance (money in other words)

Happily accept your take on it though.

 

[Thespence]

You cant blame Barclays for being cunts like as we did poach Steve Walton (Sunderland fan) from them. Who we then dumped & is now chief exec at Sunderland.

 

[madras]

Barclays never borrowed from our Government, they went to the arabs for the cash.

 

IRC

 

I was thinking that. Thought it was N Rock/RBS that got Gov help.

 

A mate who works for Barclays reckons they asked the Govt and were turned down. No idea if there's any truth in that.

not as i understand it. when the government were handed out the cash braclays had a sniff but didn't like the terms so done it's own refinancing in order to be free of any government interference.