Llambias on SSN

[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?

[Mick]

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

 

He had the money at the time but like most investors lost quite a bit when the global ecenomy dipped.

[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.

 

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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

[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.

 

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.

Was Shepherd the biggest single shareholder? I thought St James Holdings Ltd was.

[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.

Was Shepherd the biggest single shareholder? I thought St James Holdings Ltd was.

 

You are a bit mixed up. St James Holdings is 100% owned by Ashley and it owns the club now. Prior to St James Holdings buying the club Shepherd (and his brother) had 29% and the Hall family had about 41% iirc.

[dilligaf]

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

 

He had the money at the time but like most investors lost quite a bit when the global ecenomy dipped.

 

Really? Shepherds only worth that now after getting his pay off from Ashley, Im pretty sure he didnt have the sort of money to buy the club outright back then, and as Quayside said thats only his interpretation that shepherd wanted to sell,  Its not a proven fact

[Mick]

 

 

Really? Shepherds only worth that now after getting his pay off from Ashley, Im pretty sure he didnt have the sort of money to buy the club outright back then, and as Quayside said thats only his interpretation that shepherd wanted to sell,   Its not a proven fact

 

Sorry, I meant a different he.

[quayside]

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

 

He had the money at the time but like most investors lost quite a bit when the global ecenomy dipped.

 

Really? Shepherds only worth that now after getting his pay off from Ashley, Im pretty sure he didnt have the sort of money to buy the club outright back then, and as Quayside said thats only his interpretation that shepherd wanted to sell,   Its not a proven fact

 

You never truly know what people are worth but imo he probably could have launched a bid when the market value was about £50m or £60m. maybe with a bit of venture capital if needed, but I don't think he wanted to. Shrewd move as it turned out.

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

Depends if you believe the stuff being said about his recent efforts to sell and his willingness to sell for £100m or £80m all in. Some don't, but lets face it he wasn't going to get anyone to cough £210 million or thereabouts for a Championship club so I think I do believe it. Based on that he's already shown himself prepared to write off more than £100m to get rid.

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

Depends if you believe the stuff being said about his recent efforts to sell and his willingness to sell for £100m or £80m all in. Some don't, but lets face it he wasn't going to get anyone to cough £210 million or thereabouts for a Championship club so I think I do believe it. Based on that he's already shown himself prepared to write off more than £100m to get rid.

As usual confusion reigns. He was happy to say the price was £100m, but never clarified the position on the loans. Given how quick he is to tell us about how benevolent his is you’d have expected him to have been shouting it from the rooftops if he’d been prepared to wipe the debt to try and sell the club.

 

Also if he’s not expecting to get his money back, why doesn’t he just cancel the loan agreements now?

 

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

Depends if you believe the stuff being said about his recent efforts to sell and his willingness to sell for £100m or £80m all in. Some don't, but lets face it he wasn't going to get anyone to cough £210 million or thereabouts for a Championship club so I think I do believe it. Based on that he's already shown himself prepared to write off more than £100m to get rid.

As usual confusion reigns. He was happy to say the price was £100m, but never clarified the position on the loans. Given how quick he is to tell us about how benevolent his is youd have expected him to have been shouting it from the rooftops if hed been prepared to wipe the debt to try and sell the club.

 

Also if hes not expecting to get his money back, why doesnt he just cancel the loan agreements now?

 

 

Far more protection for him if things get any worse having them as debt rather than equity.

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

So why doesn’t he just do it? What’s he waiting for? What’s the point of having loans that are never going to be repaid? Why doesn’t he just come out and say ‘there’s no way the club will ever be able to do fuck all if it has to pay me £140m so I’m cancelling the loans?”

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

I don't think he's going to have much choice.

So why doesnt he just do it? Whats he waiting for? Whats the point of having loans that are never going to be repaid? Why doesnt he just come out and say theres no way the club will ever be able to do fuck all if it has to pay me £140m so Im cancelling the loans?

 

Answered that above.

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

It’s fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesn’t mean the debts won’t have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

Depends if you believe the stuff being said about his recent efforts to sell and his willingness to sell for £100m or £80m all in. Some don't, but lets face it he wasn't going to get anyone to cough £210 million or thereabouts for a Championship club so I think I do believe it. Based on that he's already shown himself prepared to write off more than £100m to get rid.

As usual confusion reigns. He was happy to say the price was £100m, but never clarified the position on the loans. Given how quick he is to tell us about how benevolent his is you’d have expected him to have been shouting it from the rooftops if he’d been prepared to wipe the debt to try and sell the club.

 

Also if he’s not expecting to get his money back, why doesn’t he just cancel the loan agreements now?

 

 

Far more protection for him if things get any worse having them as debt rather than equity.

Worse!

[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 Shep

herd 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.

 

That is true but there is a huge difference between being in debt to an owner with deep pockets and being in debt to a bunch of external creditors with foreclosure rights imo. Entirely different risk. And the previous external creditors we had didn't miss a trick in triggering the change of ownership clause and hauling their debt in, good business partners they were...... and yes I would have done the same thing.

Its fair to say the chances of Ashley putting himself out of business by calling in his loans in one go are slim. That doesnt mean the debts wont have to be repaid.

 

For the sake of argument assume the loans have to be repaid, how do you see that being achieved?

 

 

I can't see it.

So you think Ashley is going to write off over a £100m?

 

Depends if you believe the stuff being said about his recent efforts to sell and his willingness to sell for £100m or £80m all in. Some don't, but lets face it he wasn't going to get anyone to cough £210 million or thereabouts for a Championship club so I think I do believe it. Based on that he's already shown himself prepared to write off more than £100m to get rid.

As usual confusion reigns. He was happy to say the price was £100m, but never clarified the position on the loans. Given how quick he is to tell us about how benevolent his is youd have expected him to have been shouting it from the rooftops if hed been prepared to wipe the debt to try and sell the club.

 

Also if hes not expecting to get his money back, why doesnt he just cancel the loan agreements now?

 

 

Far more protection for him if things get any worse having them as debt rather than equity.

Worse!

 

Things could get an awful lot worse, as you well know.  I've answered  your question though.  If he cancels the loans/converts them to equity & the club went under he'd more than likely lose the lot,  as loans that isn't necessarily the case.