David Icke - Son of God Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 This is what NUST said at the start of the campaign - ‘It is believed that this is the first stage of a 6 week campaign including advertisements, the opening of an advice shop in central Newcastle and the unveiling of high profile backers.’ I can't find that quote attributed to NUST. It originated on True Faith who were reporting on the NUST. http://www.true-faith.co.uk/tf/features.nsf/ab283684d03f231d80256b520047d321/05f16bc3fb51dd0e80257669007c3eba?OpenDocument Nice one Bob. You people are hard work sometimes. It's on the NUST website. Click under 'Read more about the campaign'. It's on the launch article from 9th November. Fifth paragraph down. http://www.nust.org.uk/the-ultimate-protest-confirmation-of-launch-of-the-yes-we-can-campaign Whey provide a link yourself in future. Even with the whole quote in google there's no returns of the NUST website. Verbatim from the article Bob mentioned "It is believed that this is the first stage of a 6 week campaign including advertisements, the opening of an advice shop in central Newcastle and the unveiling of high profile backers." Happy? As NUST have already admitted the six week campaign was 'wrong' I've no idea of the point you're trying to prove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 16, 2010 Share Posted January 16, 2010 This is what NUST said at the start of the campaign - ‘It is believed that this is the first stage of a 6 week campaign including advertisements, the opening of an advice shop in central Newcastle and the unveiling of high profile backers.’ I can't find that quote attributed to NUST. It originated on True Faith who were reporting on the NUST. http://www.true-faith.co.uk/tf/features.nsf/ab283684d03f231d80256b520047d321/05f16bc3fb51dd0e80257669007c3eba?OpenDocument Nice one Bob. You people are hard work sometimes. It's on the NUST website. Click under 'Read more about the campaign'. It's on the launch article from 9th November. Fifth paragraph down. http://www.nust.org.uk/the-ultimate-protest-confirmation-of-launch-of-the-yes-we-can-campaign Whey provide a link yourself in future. Even with the whole quote in google there's no returns of the NUST website. Verbatim from the article Bob mentioned "It is believed that this is the first stage of a 6 week campaign including advertisements, the opening of an advice shop in central Newcastle and the unveiling of high profile backers." Happy? As NUST have already admitted the six week campaign was 'wrong' I've no idea of the point you're trying to prove. I believe the point was about the difference between backers and advisors. Some of us have been waiting for the promised names of these "high-profile backers". You seem to think there's no difference between that and the names of some accountants and lawyers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 www.nust.org.uk We have announced our chosen partners who will advise on NUST's next moves in the ongoing Yes We Can campaign and we will make further announcements to complement the team during next three weeks. Local Company HRC Group are working with the Trust on compliance issues. A premier Newcastle based legal company is advising on corporate matters and as final contracts have yet to be concluded, the Trust will announce the firm in the next three weeks. In addition, Hentons & Co of Leeds have been working with the Trust on an ad hoc basis which will continue for the foreseeable future. We are currently in discussions about strategy with a corporate investment group who have a proven track record and we will be formally announcing them in the near future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 www.nust.org.uk We have announced our chosen partners who will advise on NUST's next moves in the ongoing Yes We Can campaign and we will make further announcements to complement the team during next three weeks. Local Company HRC Group are working with the Trust on compliance issues. A premier Newcastle based legal company is advising on corporate matters and as final contracts have yet to be concluded, the Trust will announce the firm in the next three weeks. In addition, Hentons & Co of Leeds have been working with the Trust on an ad hoc basis which will continue for the foreseeable future. We are currently in discussions about strategy with a corporate investment group who have a proven track record and we will be formally announcing them in the near future. Interesting although they could still do with announcing some of their big financial backers to increase the interest of the supporters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 www.nust.org.uk We have announced our chosen partners who will advise on NUST's next moves in the ongoing Yes We Can campaign and we will make further announcements to complement the team during next three weeks. Local Company HRC Group are working with the Trust on compliance issues. A premier Newcastle based legal company is advising on corporate matters and as final contracts have yet to be concluded, the Trust will announce the firm in the next three weeks. In addition, Hentons & Co of Leeds have been working with the Trust on an ad hoc basis which will continue for the foreseeable future. We are currently in discussions about strategy with a corporate investment group who have a proven track record and we will be formally announcing them in the near future. Interesting although they could still do with announcing some of their big financial backers to increase the interest of the supporters. My guess would be that they simply don't have any "backers" to announce. They're releasing these names of accountants and lawyers, even though it's all a bit "so what?", to plug the PR hole they've dug for themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 So he's making £7m a month, not up to £7m a month? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elbel1 Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' Quincy with a calculator? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 I haven't looked at the accounts for 2007/2008/2009 enough to say if this is the case or not, but it would have been/will be bloody obvious from the accounts if he has been doing this. I guess that if forensic accountants have been invovled then NUST have had access to the source data for the accounts? Bit of a waste of money if they are just paying people to decipher the published accounts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 So he's making £7m a month, not up to £7m a month? I think its all based on the land issue, he took it out the club at the start and is worth a fair bit. They seem oblivious to the fact transfers arent paid in full in cash immediately Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 So he's making £7m a month, not up to £7m a month? I think its all based on the land issue, he took it out the club at the start and is worth a fair bit. They seem oblivious to the fact transfers arent paid in full in cash immediately Like anyone has made £7m a month on land in the past couple of years Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 So he's making £7m a month, not up to £7m a month? I think its all based on the land issue, he took it out the club at the start and is worth a fair bit. They seem oblivious to the fact transfers arent paid in full in cash immediately Like anyone has made £7m a month on land in the past couple of years Didnt say that at all. The post says the equivilent of that on average. If something is worth £50 thats could be said as £10m a month over 5 months if you wanted to make it look better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 I haven't looked at the accounts for 2007/2008/2009 enough to say if this is the case or not, but it would have been/will be bloody obvious from the accounts if he has been doing this. I guess that if forensic accountants have been invovled then NUST have had access to the source data for the accounts? Bit of a waste of money if they are just paying people to decipher the published accounts Clearly wasn't happening in 2008 - it would have been disclosed as a related party transaction. And surely if forensic accountants have been digging around the club's source data they have a contractual duty to keep quiet about what they find? Christ knows what is going on ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 So Mike Ashley has made himself an absolute fortune since he took over NUFC? All in all it's been a great financial investment for him? Maybe in a parellel universe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Mike Ashley Holdings Limited doesn't exist Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Mike Ashley Holdings Limited doesn't exist MASH Limited does - set up in March 2008 edit, why Mike Ashley Holdings bescomes MASH I don't know - but thats what the NUST thing says Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Norwich Mafia Out! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Norwich Mafia Out! Too f*cking right - Boycoutt the bastards! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Norwich Mafia Out! Too f*cking right - Boycoutt the bastards! Where are you???? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Norwich Mafia Out! Too f*cking right - Boycoutt the bastards! Where are you???? Nowhere near Norwich but I've got a cousin who lives there - I'll put the word out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Norwich Mafia Out! Too f*cking right - Boycoutt the bastards! Where are you???? Nowhere near Norwich but I've got a cousin who lives there - I'll put the word out. was a rubbish Delia Smith impression! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Just seen this on another forum. Posted by a bloke claiming to be up their in NUST regarding the £7m a month claiim. Naturally it brings more questions and comedy than answers though... 'Many of you have pointed out the sentence in the last newsletter that said that sources claimed that Mike Ashley had made £7 Million a month & been critical of the statement, so I hope you'll give me the chance to remedy that. English can be a funny language. You can mean to say one thing but the wrong choice of wording can convey a different meaning, as it is in this case. What it meant, was that MA has made the equivalent of £7 million a month from several sources. Basically, it equates to have made on average the equivalent of £7M monthly. Some of this money has come from player sales that have not been invested in the club. We know, for example, that a large proportion of the Summers transfer money went to Ashley. The assets of Newcastle United Football Company is not just made up of the team, they have/had their fingers in many pies. These range from the training ground, the team, merchandising, property and land. Large amounts of the latter two, like the profits from transfers no longer reside with the club. They have been transferred from SJH (St James Holdings, the company that owns Newcastle United Football Company) to MASH (Mike Ashley Holdings), a company MA created to do just this. As both companies & their assets are owned by MA, it is legal to do this. We had a team of Forensic Accountants go over the books of the club recently. The report stated the monies & the value of the assets transferred to MASH average out to the equivalent of £7 Million a month to Mike Ashley. Not, as it was unfortunately perceived in the newsletter, Ashley making £7 Million a month from NUFC - language again. I hope this clarifies things a little more & puts the sentence in its correct context. Anything more I find out about, I'll let you know.' I don't know where to start on that tbh - maybe a search on Mike Ashley Holdings Limited? I'll let you know what turns up. MASH Limited incorporated March 2008, cba to buy the information on it OK got the annual return for that - no accounts because it's a small company. Registered office in Goat Lane, Norwich Can't see that any of the directors or shareholders have anything whatsoever to do with Ashley or St James Holdings. Norwich Mafia Out! Too f*cking right - Boycoutt the bastards! Where are you???? Nowhere near Norwich but I've got a cousin who lives there - I'll put the word out. was a rubbish Delia Smith impression! Ok - and er "let's be having you"! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now