Llambias on SSN

[Fenham Mag]

On ITV now

[Ronaldo]

I'd much rather us go into the summer with Ashley certain that he's going to be there in August.

[Mowen]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

 

Spot on.

 

Dekka's a reet cunt though.

[Guest malandro]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

“Sports Direct has promised not to run confusing or deceptive closing-down sales after the Office of Fair Trading accused it of breaching the rules on misleading advertising. Although the group denied breaking regulations, it has signed an undertaking to not mislead customers.

The OFT announced yesterday that it had received complaints from members of the public that Sports Direct had displayed "closing down" adverts for months at a time. The stores that carried the notices, however, never closed down or were only temporarily shuttered”

 

I suppose this was just naivety as well?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/21/sportsdirectinternational.consumeraffairs

 

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

Sports Direct has promised not to run confusing or deceptive closing-down sales after the Office of Fair Trading accused it of breaching the rules on misleading advertising. Although the group denied breaking regulations, it has signed an undertaking to not mislead customers.

The OFT announced yesterday that it had received complaints from members of the public that Sports Direct had displayed "closing down" adverts for months at a time. The stores that carried the notices, however, never closed down or were only temporarily shuttered

 

I suppose this was just naivety as well?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/21/sportsdirectinternational.consumeraffairs

 

 

What's that got to do with anything?

[jdckelly]

I think he came with the best intentions and thought he could be in it for the long haul.  He planned to make a success of it from the start. 

 

When it went belly up he hoped to get out with as little loss as possible.

 

I think he's naive and incompetent rather than malicious or machiavellian.

 

Spot on.

 

Dekka's a reet cunt though.

no arguement there, ashleys situation would be much better if he had someone half decent at pr in that role rather than llambias

[Guest fraser]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

[Guest fraser]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

[OzzieMandias]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Yeah piss easy, just borrow more money.

[Guest fraser]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

[Guest secteur2010]

They appear to think we're just a bunch of thick, narrow-minded, fickle-f***s.

 

And quite a few of our fans do very little to dispel that myth.

 

Question is - who are the fickle ones amongst us?

 

I think you'll find that ALL football fans are a fickle bunch. It really doesn't take too much to get the majority of fans back on side, if the terms are right.

[dcmk]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

[OzzieMandias]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

Yeah I must have imagined SJH flogging it off quick so someone else could pay their bills.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

Increasing his control over his substantial investment & "day job" basically.

[Guest secteur2010]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

[Guest malandro]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

Yeah I must have imagined SJH flogging it off quick so someone else could pay their bills.

Cameron Hall Developments was struggling at the time, could it be SJH sold up because he needed the money?

[Guest malandro]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Caveat emptor; the first unseen (at the time) indication of Ashley's incompetence and now we can see where that has got us. However, my point is still that the decisions Ashley made (sacking Allardyce, appointing Keegan, sacking Keegan, havering when clarity was needed, appointing and letting Shearer go) were crap and brought us to this pass. All I want is him to behave in a way that increases the value of his investment and not treat the club as a toy; he appears to be doing that.

 

In my humbles opinion, I think he was badly advised by people around him. Here we have a bloke who knew zero about football (which begs the question of WHY he bought in to it in the first place), but he was/is a very successful businessman. You don't garner the amount of money  he has made by being a fly by night or a shyster. He obviously has business sense. However, his initial foray in football has been a disaster and I'm 100% sure that little by little he is learning and finding out that football is not your ordinary business.

 

On the subject of NUFC though, my gut feeling is he will put people in place to run the club for him (if he decides to keep it). His business plan for the club is beginning to take shape (i.e. not being a club run on debt - though clearing up Shepherd's mess is going to be long and painful). It'll take time but it'll work.

The club is being running on debt, more debt than ever.

[johnnypd]

don't think Ashley is naive, more like arrogant. thought he could make a success in a different field by replicating the kind of practises and decisions he made with sports direct, cutting costs, employing his mates, showing the two fingers to any detractors, refusing to listen to outside voices and so on. more than anything, the "blueprint" he established was about buying low and selling high. players were seen for resale value primarily. he valued this misguided strategy so much he was prepared to let keegan leave to maintain it. well, i guess that is pretty naive tbh, or maybe just plain stupid. 

[dilligaf]

don't think Ashley is naive, more like arrogant. thought he could make a success in a different field by replicating the kind of practises and decisions he made with sports direct, cutting costs, employing his mates, showing the two fingers to any detractors, refusing to listen to outside voices and so on. more than anything, the "blueprint" he established was about buying low and selling high. players were seen for resale value primarily. he valued this misguided strategy so much he was prepared to let keegan leave to maintain it. well, i guess that is pretty naive tbh, or maybe just plain stupid. 

 

Exactly, I really dont see why a lot seem to think he is naive, He's a chancer who got his fingers burnt because he wouldnt listen, and Llambias is only his mouthpiece

[quayside]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

He did and he bought a load when the share price was about 40p and the stock market value of the club was about £50 million. He took his holding right up to 29%. Any more than that would mean he would have to make an offer to buy the whole lot  Your interpretation is that he did that because he didn't want to sell. Mine is that he knew it was going to sell and he wanted the maximum stake he could have without having to launch a buyout.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

For comedy purposes one hopes that UV does indeed continue trying to peddle the idiotic narrative that financially everything was just wonderful up until the point when Shepherd left the club, and then immediately nosedived the minute Ashley took over.

 

To be fair to UV he, like many others of us, appears to be more concerned about the actual nosedive into the CCC rather than a still notional threat of financial oblivion. And it is, and must always remain, notional; who knows what the previous owners might have done to protect their investment?

 

On the basis it was a public company rather than them being "the owners" their options were fairly limited.

 

This isn't difficult; if you own a lot of shares in a plc and the plc goes under you lose a lot of money. The Halls and Shepherd owned a lot of shares and therefore had a substantial interest in maintaining the club's viability.

 

Or in flogging it off quick so someone else had to pay their bills.

 

Shepherd didn't want to sell.. in his last few years as chairmen he was actually buying up more shares.  There goes your theory.

 

He did and he bought a load when the share price was about 40p and the stock market value of the club was about £50 million. He took his holding right up to 29%. Any more than that would mean he would have to make an offer to buy the whole lot  Your interpretation is that he did that because he didn't want to sell. Mine is that he knew it was going to sell and he wanted the maximum stake he could have without having to launch a buyout.

 

Indeed, there goes his theory.

[quayside]

don't think Ashley is naive, more like arrogant. thought he could make a success in a different field by replicating the kind of practises and decisions he made with sports direct, cutting costs, employing his mates, showing the two fingers to any detractors, refusing to listen to outside voices and so on. more than anything, the "blueprint" he established was about buying low and selling high. players were seen for resale value primarily. he valued this misguided strategy so much he was prepared to let keegan leave to maintain it. well, i guess that is pretty naive tbh, or maybe just plain stupid. 

 

Exactly, I really dont see why a lot seem to think he is naive, He's a chancer who got his fingers burnt because he wouldnt listen, and Llambias is only his mouthpiece

 

I think you've both just defined naivete in the context of someone buying a business for more than £100 million in an industry he doesn't understand tbh 

[dilligaf]

Did he have the money for a buyout? or did he buy the max he could afford?