Is Mike Ashley steering Newcastle United in the right direction?

[quayside]

Whereas referring to anyone bright enough to spot the difference between being being hock to a bank, and an owner supporting his own business, as a "know-nowt moron" is completely par for the course.

 

You mean the Gaydamak way to administration (and near winding up) is better than the Ridsdale way?

 

Personally as a supporter with no control of how the owner runs the club I would feel more secure with an owner who was stuck within the financial restraints of what the banks would lend them than one who could rack up the club's wage bill to well over what it could support in future years without their input and then run into financial problems themselves or just f*** off when they get bored or daddy pulls the plug. Owners putting in external money is also what's f***ed the game up so much financially as clubs without that artificial aid risk more just to try to keep up.

 

Everyone is just waiting for Abramovich to get bored and leave Chelsea in the s***. If Lerner ran into external financial trouble now Villa would be in the s*** as they are running at a big loss year on year. Neither of these clubs could sustain where they are now without their owners. Liverpool and Man U have a different problem in that they can sustain where they are now without their owners (who are taking out rather than putting in) they just can't sustain it if they drop down the league. There are risks either way, one is dependant on football results, the other is dependant on external forces. Personally I'd rather the club's fortunes were dictated by the football than live with the chance that no matter how well you might be doing on the pitch the rug could suddenly be pulled from beneath your feet. That's not to say I'd turn my nose up at a rich benefactor, just that I'd feel it was a more solid foundation if it were self-sustaining as long as the footballing side of things didn't go tits up.

 

Obviously having an owner with their own money has the advantage that they can put money into the club that a bank just would not risk. This is however promoting a far higher risk strategy to running the club than the one the old board were able to take, so I'm not sure why some who are post-fact dismayed with the risk level set by the last owners are happy with being completely dependant on the whims and finances of one man, especially when that man has shown nothing so far but an abject inability to run the club successfully or hire competent people to do so and a desire to offload any responsibility and sell at any opportunity when the club is in the s***.

 

Having a rich incompetent owner of the club is of course better than having a poor incompetent owner of the club, however some seem to have extended that to meaning having a rich incompetent owner of the club is better than having a poor competent owner. It's not.

 

People exaggerate how bad things had got footballing wise here prior to Ashley, we'd had a bad season due to having more injuries than I can ever remember having before, but we still pretty comfortably avoided relegation in the end and certainly had a massively better squad when Ashley took over to the "relegation enhanced" one we have now. If people judged the squad then with the expectations we have for the squad next year they'd be over the moon with it. Without all the injuries we'd have been competing for Europe again, if we were to have the same injury problems next year I think there'd be absolutely no question of us going back down again.

 

People also exaggerate how bad things had got financially with regard to the debt.

 

the difference isn't the debt anyway, as many have said all along, it's the way it is structured. far betteroff owe the money to the owner as he is unlikely to call it in (gibson,lerner,abramovich) than owe it to financial institutions and the taxman who will call it in (cardiff,portsmouth,leeds etc)

 

To put this in context for us prior to Ashley, the majority of the debt was the stadium expansion loan (around £45m) which couldn't just be called in on a whim. The last set of accounts before the stadium debt was shifted to be a current liability (due to the sale of the club) in 2006 had current liabilities from debts of £5.5m overdraft + £10.9m loans. This was with £9.3m cash in the bank as security against capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan. There would have been around an extra £5m overdraft and £5m in loans in 2007, ie a total of around £25m. I'd suggest this is a lower current debt liability than most premiership clubs other than those recently promoted or owned by a sugar daddy, and certainly within the means of a club with our turnover as was.

 

Contrast this with the £40m overdraft facility Ashley was running the club with on top of his £150m loan.

 

Is Ashley steering the club in the right direction or is he overcompensating after causing a skid?

 

So yet again we have the argument put forward that a football club that had, over a period of 3 years, gone into a steady decline financially to the point that it was technically insolvent was, in fact, in pretty good shape to meet the challenges ahead  . Never mind that it needed a personal guarantee from a billionaire to ensure going concern status. Never mind that it had already borrowed against every possible asset and income source at high ticket interest rates. We'd have been just fine.....

 

Just out of curiosity could you explain the bit in your post that is in bold?

[Happy Face]

I don't understand the need for anyone to push the blame for EVERYTHING onto Ashley or onto Shepherd when there's plenty of blame to go around for both of them.

 

The only difference is Shepherd can't possibly do any further damage.

[Dave]

I don't understand the need for anyone to push the blame for EVERYTHING onto Ashley or onto Shepherd when there's plenty of blame to go around for both of them.

 

The only difference is Shepherd can't possibly do any further damage.

 

[quayside]

I don't understand the need for anyone to push the blame for EVERYTHING onto Ashley or onto Shepherd when there's plenty of blame to go around for both of them.

 

The only difference is Shepherd can't possibly do any further damage.

 

That's all true enough, but let's just say some have become a bit entrenched in their loyalties.

[Guest malandro]

Whereas referring to anyone bright enough to spot the difference between being being hock to a bank, and an owner supporting his own business, as a "know-nowt moron" is completely par for the course.

 

You mean the Gaydamak way to administration (and near winding up) is better than the Ridsdale way?

 

Personally as a supporter with no control of how the owner runs the club I would feel more secure with an owner who was stuck within the financial restraints of what the banks would lend them than one who could rack up the club's wage bill to well over what it could support in future years without their input and then run into financial problems themselves or just f*** off when they get bored or daddy pulls the plug. Owners putting in external money is also what's f***ed the game up so much financially as clubs without that artificial aid risk more just to try to keep up.

 

Everyone is just waiting for Abramovich to get bored and leave Chelsea in the s***. If Lerner ran into external financial trouble now Villa would be in the s*** as they are running at a big loss year on year. Neither of these clubs could sustain where they are now without their owners. Liverpool and Man U have a different problem in that they can sustain where they are now without their owners (who are taking out rather than putting in) they just can't sustain it if they drop down the league. There are risks either way, one is dependant on football results, the other is dependant on external forces. Personally I'd rather the club's fortunes were dictated by the football than live with the chance that no matter how well you might be doing on the pitch the rug could suddenly be pulled from beneath your feet. That's not to say I'd turn my nose up at a rich benefactor, just that I'd feel it was a more solid foundation if it were self-sustaining as long as the footballing side of things didn't go tits up.

 

Obviously having an owner with their own money has the advantage that they can put money into the club that a bank just would not risk. This is however promoting a far higher risk strategy to running the club than the one the old board were able to take, so I'm not sure why some who are post-fact dismayed with the risk level set by the last owners are happy with being completely dependant on the whims and finances of one man, especially when that man has shown nothing so far but an abject inability to run the club successfully or hire competent people to do so and a desire to offload any responsibility and sell at any opportunity when the club is in the s***.

 

Having a rich incompetent owner of the club is of course better than having a poor incompetent owner of the club, however some seem to have extended that to meaning having a rich incompetent owner of the club is better than having a poor competent owner. It's not.

 

People exaggerate how bad things had got footballing wise here prior to Ashley, we'd had a bad season due to having more injuries than I can ever remember having before, but we still pretty comfortably avoided relegation in the end and certainly had a massively better squad when Ashley took over to the "relegation enhanced" one we have now. If people judged the squad then with the expectations we have for the squad next year they'd be over the moon with it. Without all the injuries we'd have been competing for Europe again, if we were to have the same injury problems next year I think there'd be absolutely no question of us going back down again.

 

People also exaggerate how bad things had got financially with regard to the debt.

 

the difference isn't the debt anyway, as many have said all along, it's the way it is structured. far betteroff owe the money to the owner as he is unlikely to call it in (gibson,lerner,abramovich) than owe it to financial institutions and the taxman who will call it in (cardiff,portsmouth,leeds etc)

 

To put this in context for us prior to Ashley, the majority of the debt was the stadium expansion loan (around £45m) which couldn't just be called in on a whim. The last set of accounts before the stadium debt was shifted to be a current liability (due to the sale of the club) in 2006 had current liabilities from debts of £5.5m overdraft + £10.9m loans. This was with £9.3m cash in the bank as security against capital and interest repayments on the stadium loan. There would have been around an extra £5m overdraft and £5m in loans in 2007, ie a total of around £25m. I'd suggest this is a lower current debt liability than most premiership clubs other than those recently promoted or owned by a sugar daddy, and certainly within the means of a club with our turnover as was.

 

Contrast this with the £40m overdraft facility Ashley was running the club with on top of his £150m loan.

 

Is Ashley steering the club in the right direction or is he overcompensating after causing a skid?

 

The main damage to the club under Shepherd was done by Souness with his reckless signings. This went a long way to devaluing the squad and putting Shepherd in a position where further strengthening of the squad was impossible without selling players especially considering the size of the wage bill. We were on a slippery slope by the time Shepherd left and to say otherwise is just spin as far as I'm concerned.

Shepherd backed his manager with money the club didn’t have, in much the same way Ashley backed Fat Sam with money the club didn’t have. The difference is that Souness’ spending spree was offset against guaranteed future income, whereas Fat Sam’s was just money we couldn’t afford given the perilous state of our finances  everybody keeps going on about.

 

Not really sure where you are coming from tbh. On the one hand you are saying that Ashley should be spending big on quality players, then in the next post you are saying he shouldn't have backed Fat Sam at all. What is your point exactly?

When did I say that?

My point is we’ve been forced into a position where we have to shop for bargains and out of contract players because Ashley has completely fucked up, and that constantly harping out about Shepherd doesn’t change this. When Ashley bought the club he took on responsibility for running it properly, he didn’t and now we all have to pay the price. Nothing that happened before Ashley bought the club provides any a basis for determining if the club is now heading in the right direction.

 

[Mick]

Back on topic, yes.

[TRon]

Back on topic, yes.

It’ll not last long. It’ll be back to Shepherd eats babies soon enough, but while the sun is shining. To make any headway in this debate we have to decide what the clubs long term objective should be. Should we ultimately looking to challenge for the title again, competing for a European place, or just be content to avoid relegation?

 

There’s no way we can decide if the club is heading in the right direction if we don’t know what our intended destination is.

 

 

I absolutely agree I would prefer us to spend £200million on players and challenge for the title again. It might take closer to £300million if you consider that Man City have spent £200million and are only pushing for top four at this point but let's not split hairs. You really have made a good point here, I don't know why I didn't realise this earlier.

 

 

[Guest malandro]

So beneath the sarcasm what you’re saying is we can never challenge for the title again?

[Heron]

We'll be challenging up there again in 10years, when other clubs have fucked up and gone bust around us.

[TRon]

So beneath the sarcasm what you’re saying is we can never challenge for the title again?

 

How do you think we will be in a position to challenge for the title in the near future? Assuming Mike Ashley doesn't want to spend £200million of his money, or borrow that amount Glazer style, where is the money going to come from?

 

 

[Mick]

Itll not last long. Itll be back to Shepherd eats babies soon enough, but while the sun is shining. To make any headway in this debate we have to decide what the clubs long term objective should be. Should we ultimately looking to challenge for the title again, competing for a European place, or just be content to avoid relegation?

 

Theres no way we can decide if the club is heading in the right direction if we dont know what our intended destination is.

 

 

We can only take one step at a time, I'll be happy to stay up next season and then build on that.  All we can do for now is to go for promotion and then move on, hopefully.

[Guest malandro]

So beneath the sarcasm what you’re saying is we can never challenge for the title again?

 

How do you think we will be in a position to challenge for the title in the near future? Assuming Mike Ashley doesn't want to spend £200million of his money, or borrow that amount Glazer style, where is the money going to come from?

 

 

You tell me. You’re the one who says the club are going to make the vast profits.

[Guest malandro]

It’ll not last long. It’ll be back to Shepherd eats babies soon enough, but while the sun is shining. To make any headway in this debate we have to decide what the clubs long term objective should be. Should we ultimately looking to challenge for the title again, competing for a European place, or just be content to avoid relegation?

 

There’s no way we can decide if the club is heading in the right direction if we don’t know what our intended destination is.

 

 

We can only take one step at a time, I'll be happy to stay up next season and then build on that.  All we can do for now is to go for promotion and then move on, hopefully.

Isn’t that the rudderless ship approach? No long term planning. No real sense of direction. Why bother with any navigation as long as the wind doesn’t blow us onto the rocks?

[dilligaf]

I was thinking about this earlier

Youve got to have aspirations otherwise whats the point.

With the fanbase, attendences etc we should be at least aiming high even if its not attainable atm

to be a team that avoids relegation every year but makes a profit just isnt good enough really

[Heron]

We should be aspiring to win the league, as should everyone involved in sport, you play to win, you want to be a champion...

[Mick]

Isnt that the rudderless ship approach? No long term planning. No real sense of direction. Why bother with any navigation as long as the wind doesnt blow us onto the rocks?

 

No it's not a rudderless ship approach, that was last season.  This season we're heading in the right direction and can't do better than we are currently doing.

[madras]

to be fair melandro when we came up last time many werent happy that we only strengthened by buying beardsley and mathie (allen only came in because of beardsley being assaulted by ruddick).

 

also, and no doubt i'll be correctred to death about this as i haven't properly checked but am going off memory, wasn't keegans rant the other year about needing wheelbarrows full of cash to compete saying that the game had changed massivly since we came up last time  and was after building on those circumstances that we were able to challenge ?

 

as i've asked bob to no reply and i've asked others......should we keep on borrowing till success or bankruptcy, whichever comes first ?

 

i realise it sounds like it has nothing to do with the thread but youre asking if we can ever challenge for the title again have to realise that not onkly our circumstances but those under which everyone works have changed massivly since then (a bit like a burnley fan wanting hardwork and local talent/youth system to get far today cos it worked in 1960)

[Guest malandro]

Isn’t that the rudderless ship approach? No long term planning. No real sense of direction. Why bother with any navigation as long as the wind doesn’t blow us onto the rocks?

 

No it's not a rudderless ship approach, that was last season.  This season we're heading in the right direction and can't do better than we are currently doing.

But what’s the long term objective and do we get there?

[TRon]

So beneath the sarcasm what you’re saying is we can never challenge for the title again?

 

How do you think we will be in a position to challenge for the title in the near future? Assuming Mike Ashley doesn't want to spend £200million of his money, or borrow that amount Glazer style, where is the money going to come from?

 

 

You tell me. You’re the one who says the club are going to make the vast profits.

 

I was making the point that if we were making vast profits then there would have been no shortage of buyers at the price Ashley was asking. The reality is, without a rich sugar daddy owner who is willing to spend shitloads of his own money, not many clubs can generate the sort of money required to challenge for the championship straight away. As most sensible people have pointed out, we will need to build season on season for now, we can worry about challenging Chelsea and Man U a bit further down the line. Unless a mega zillionaire steps in with big cash and buys Ashley out of course.

[Mick]

But whats the long term objective and do we get there?

 

The long term objective will be to improve every season.

[Guest malandro]

to be fair melandro when we came up last time many werent happy that we only strengthened by buying beardsley and mathie (allen only came in because of beardsley being assaulted by ruddick).

 

also, and no doubt i'll be correctred to death about this as i haven't properly checked but am going off memory, wasn't keegans rant the other year about needing wheelbarrows full of cash to compete saying that the game had changed massivly since we came up last time  and was after building on those circumstances that we were able to challenge ?

 

as i've asked bob to no reply and i've asked others......should we keep on borrowing till success or bankruptcy, whichever comes first ?

 

i realise it sounds like it has nothing to do with the thread but youre asking if we can ever challenge for the title again have to realise that not onkly our circumstances but those under which everyone works have changed massivly since then (a bit like a burnley fan wanting hardwork and local talent/youth system to get far today cos it worked in 1960)

I’m only asking what we think our mid/long term objective should be. If people don’t think we can ever challenge for the title again so be it, but let’s hear what we should be aiming for. Promotion is only a step forward if it fits into a long term plan – atm it seems like our planning doesn’t extend beyond ‘oh shit we went down, we better get back up asap’. Any opportunity relegation offered to build a better future might be pissed down the drain if there’s no long term plan. The pain of relegation all for nothing.

[madras]

Isn’t that the rudderless ship approach? No long term planning. No real sense of direction. Why bother with any navigation as long as the wind doesn’t blow us onto the rocks?

 

No it's not a rudderless ship approach, that was last season.  This season we're heading in the right direction and can't do better than we are currently doing.

But what’s the long term objective and do we get there?

there'll be no talk of an all geordie first team and racing team thats for sure.

[Guest malandro]

Isn’t that the rudderless ship approach? No long term planning. No real sense of direction. Why bother with any navigation as long as the wind doesn’t blow us onto the rocks?

 

No it's not a rudderless ship approach, that was last season.  This season we're heading in the right direction and can't do better than we are currently doing.

But what’s the long term objective and do we get there?

there'll be no talk of an all geordie first team and racing team thats for sure.

Here we go, back to the Hall/Shepherd fixation.

[Liam Liam Liam O]

I don't understand the need for anyone to push the blame for EVERYTHING onto Ashley or onto Shepherd when there's plenty of blame to go around for both of them.

 

The only difference is Shepherd can't possibly do any further damage.

 

 

Never say never though

[Guest malandro]

But what’s the long term objective and do we get there?

 

The long term objective will be to improve every season.

That sounds more like a political slogan than a plan.