Dave Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Whatever the opinion on Ashley, the fact is Barclays were unwilling to back Barry Moat to the same tune during his somewhat pathetic takeover attempt. Like the saying goes, the grass isn't always greener.... Source? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Whatever the opinion on Ashley, the fact is Barclays were unwilling to back Barry Moat to the same tune during his somewhat pathetic takeover attempt. Like the saying goes, the grass isn't always greener.... Source? They didn't lend him the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 That doesn't answer my question. Unless you have a source of some kind I don't really see how you can claim anything as fact about Barclays or the Moat bid. What money was he asking of them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 i've always loved the way everyone slags the press off but they swallow every line. What i 'love' is when people make reasoned arguments and then decimate them in one fell swoop by trying to attribute individual opinions to everyone at once. you know what i meant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Couple of reasons - it's the NotW and Ashley has a mate (Rob Beasley) who is a sport hack and writes for the paper. It's why all weekend 'exclusives' end up in the NotW. As has been said previously, it'll be the £20million he had to put into the club when he took it off the market. The article is just putting a pro-Ashley slant on things and remember folks - you can't polish a turd. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Couple of reasons - it's the NotW and Ashley has a mate (Rob Beasley) who is a sport hack and writes for the paper. It's why all weekend 'exclusives' end up in the NotW. As has been said previously, it'll be the £20million he had to put into the club when he took it off the market. The article is just putting a pro-Ashley slant on things and remember folks - you can't polish a turd. we'll find out in the accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 That doesn't answer my question. Unless you have a source of some kind I don't really see how you can claim anything as fact about Barclays or the Moat bid. What money was he asking of them? Due to objections raised as to the legality of aforementioned statements the defendant would ask those in witness to acknowledge that the previous factually incorrect post has been duly amended to meet selective required forum standards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Couple of reasons - it's the NotW and Ashley has a mate (Rob Beasley) who is a sport hack and writes for the paper. It's why all weekend 'exclusives' end up in the NotW. As has been said previously, it'll be the £20million he had to put into the club when he took it off the market. The article is just putting a pro-Ashley slant on things and remember folks - you can't polish a turd. we'll find out in the accounts. When they are eventually released. Are they overdue? Wouldn't surprise me if so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 I'd take this with a pinch of salt. Couple of reasons - it's the NotW and Ashley has a mate (Rob Beasley) who is a sport hack and writes for the paper. It's why all weekend 'exclusives' end up in the NotW. As has been said previously, it'll be the £20million he had to put into the club when he took it off the market. The article is just putting a pro-Ashley slant on things and remember folks - you can't polish a turd. we'll find out in the accounts. When they are eventually released. Are they overdue? Wouldn't surprise me if so. Last time they were early, IIRC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 If Ashley has a problem keeping the club going, I hope to fuck a proper organisation like nusc take over soon and sort it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 If Ashley has a problem keeping the club going, I hope to f*** a proper organisation like nusc take over soon and sort it out. there'll be many on here that'll need a smiley tacked on there to understand it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 If Ashley has a problem keeping the club going, I hope to f*** a proper organisation like nusc take over soon and sort it out. there'll be many on here that'll need a smiley tacked on there to understand it. It was put very badly to be fair. I'm liking the new tack of NUSC apparently piping down and just going for more fan representation these days while toning down their more offensive members though. Those figures are just downright scary. Good on Ashley not bailing if true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Pro/Anti Ashley fueding apart, this once again shows that it is absolutely imperative that the club spends no longer than one season outside the PL, who ever the future owner may be. In the absence of skinny Geordie benefactors and with corporate backers deserting, we may have to be thankful that the fat cockney bast@rd did stick around a while and bail things out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatwax Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Pro/Anti Ashley fueding apart, this once again shows that it is absolutely imperative that the club spends no longer than one season outside the PL, who ever the future owner may be. In the absence of skinny Geordie benefactors and with corporate backers deserting, we may have to be thankful that the fat cockney bast@rd did stick around a while and bail things out. Yeah but the trouble with that argument is that Ashley, although sorting out the clubs finances, cost us millions and set us back several years by getting us relegated with ridiculous mistakes. It's always going to come back to that. Plus he had the chance to sell us to "them rich Arab blokes down the road" and didn't. He's a greedy cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Whatever the opinion on Ashley, the fact is Barclays were unwilling to back Barry Moat to the same tune during his somewhat pathetic takeover attempt. Like the saying goes, the grass isn't always greener.... Source? Nothing nailed on, but what Big TRon says is plausible. There was much publicity that Barclays were a stumbling block for Moat. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/25/newcastle-moat-takeover-barclays-loans http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/21/newcastle-takeover-mike-ashley-barry-moat http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/championship/6083285/Mike-Ashley-extends-deadline-for-Barry-Moat-to-buy-Newcastle.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The fact that he's had to pump more money in, is largely his own stupid fault anyway. It's what happens when you don't do your homework first and then get your mates to run a football club, which cost us our PL status. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Pro/Anti Ashley fueding apart, this once again shows that it is absolutely imperative that the club spends no longer than one season outside the PL, who ever the future owner may be. In the absence of skinny Geordie benefactors and with corporate backers deserting, we may have to be thankful that the fat cockney bast@rd did stick around a while and bail things out. Yeah but the trouble with that argument is that Ashley, although sorting out the clubs finances, cost us millions and set us back several years by getting us relegated with ridiculous mistakes. It's always going to come back to that. Plus he had the chance to sell us to "them rich Arab blokes down the road" and didn't. He's a greedy c***. Wasn't really meant to be an "argument" as such, and I'm certainly not going to argue with the points you made. Facts are facts, and mistakes have been made. Everyone, including Ashley NOW knows that. Bottom line though, is we are where we are, we can't go back in time, so we need to look forward, get back in the PL quickly and move forward from there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The NOTW in a 'Mike is actually a nice guy' shocker. It's amazing what you can get your mates to print in the Sunday rags for you. Especially when it hastens to mention that the only reason we're in the Championship and struggling for cash is because of the fat bastard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The NOTW in a 'Mike is actually a nice guy' shocker. It's amazing what you can get your mates to print in the Sunday rags for you. Especially when it hastens to mention that the only reason we're in the Championship and struggling for cash is because of the fat bastard. The only reason? Like things were going swimmingly under Shepherd, either financially or on the field? Why do you think the Halls were so keen to bail out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 Pro/Anti Ashley fueding apart, this once again shows that it is absolutely imperative that the club spends no longer than one season outside the PL, who ever the future owner may be. In the absence of skinny Geordie benefactors and with corporate backers deserting, we may have to be thankful that the fat cockney bast@rd did stick around a while and bail things out. Yeah but the trouble with that argument is that Ashley, although sorting out the clubs finances, cost us millions and set us back several years by getting us relegated with ridiculous mistakes. It's always going to come back to that. Plus he had the chance to sell us to "them rich Arab blokes down the road" and didn't. He's a greedy c***. sureli it has to always go back to even beyond that,unless you're saying the club was doing fine before he took over. as for the arabs i take it you know how much was offered or should he just sell for any price because you don't like him. true he's made some crap decisions but being labelled greedy in relation to his dealings with us is laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 tbf, i would have agreed with ashley selling even more players, i simply can't justufy colocini, smith etc taking 8m of our wage budget alone between the two of them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 tbf, i would have agreed with ashley selling even more players, i simply can't justufy colocini, smith etc taking 8m of our wage budget alone between the two of them Now we have Williamson I'd be easier with the idea of Colo leaving (assuming Williamson handles the Premier League ok). We'd have to buy another centre back though. Smith can fuck off, just isn't worth what we are paying him. Why did we hand Smith a 5 year contract! We are still stuck with his wages for another 2 years. Ashley has nobody to blame but his self on that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The NOTW in a 'Mike is actually a nice guy' shocker. It's amazing what you can get your mates to print in the Sunday rags for you. Especially when it hastens to mention that the only reason we're in the Championship and struggling for cash is because of the fat b******. The only reason? Like things were going swimmingly under Shepherd, either financially or on the field? Why do you think the Halls were so keen to bail out? That's got nothing to do with it. The reason we are in the Championship comes back to every decision that Ashley made from post-Allardyce onwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The NOTW in a 'Mike is actually a nice guy' shocker. It's amazing what you can get your mates to print in the Sunday rags for you. Especially when it hastens to mention that the only reason we're in the Championship and struggling for cash is because of the fat b******. The only reason? Like things were going swimmingly under Shepherd, either financially or on the field? Why do you think the Halls were so keen to bail out? That's got nothing to do with it. The reason we are in the Championship comes back to every decision that Ashley made from post-Allardyce onwards. the reason we are in the championship is because we have been poorly run since 2004. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted February 21, 2010 Share Posted February 21, 2010 The NOTW in a 'Mike is actually a nice guy' shocker. It's amazing what you can get your mates to print in the Sunday rags for you. Especially when it hastens to mention that the only reason we're in the Championship and struggling for cash is because of the fat b******. The only reason? Like things were going swimmingly under Shepherd, either financially or on the field? Why do you think the Halls were so keen to bail out? That's got nothing to do with it. The reason we are in the Championship comes back to every decision that Ashley made from post-Allardyce onwards. the reason we are in the championship is because we have been poorly run since 2004. Agree 100% 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