Mike Ashley

[Matt]

I read somewhere, probably on here, someone saying that they hadn't felt this good about the club since the days of SBR.

 

For me its further back than that to the first promoted season under KK. When I wasnt really expecting great things and was all of a sudden surprised at how well we were doing.

 

It must have been tough spending so long in a coma, only to go into another one a few years later.

[quayside]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

[Matt]

But the 2007 going concern opinion surely reflects the fact that £50m+ of debts had become due under change of control and repaid by shareholder loans?

 

We'll never know for sure what the opinion would have been if the status quo remained.

 

It could have been worse of course, Paragon were sniffing around the club at the same time. I can only assumed someone there got their decimal points in the wrong place.

 

[quayside]

But the 2007 going concern opinion surely reflects the fact that £50m+ of debts had become due under change of control and repaid by shareholder loans?

 

We'll never know for sure what the opinion would have been if the status quo remained.

 

It could have been worse of course, Paragon were sniffing around the club at the same time. I can only assumed someone there got their decimal points in the wrong place.

 

 

No it doesn't reflect the repayment to Barclays. It is in respect of the the club having net liabilities (hence being technically insolvent)  and thus being forced to demonstrate that adequate cash was available to allow it to continue trading for the foreseeable future. Foreseeable future is generally taken as 12 months. Ashley gave the undertaking to fund it for the foreseeable future.

 

If the status quo remained the club would have been technically insolvent and looking for someone to guarantee to fund it.

 

Edit: just to clarify that the club was technically insolvent in June 2007 when the Barclays loans were still in place. Ashley simply replaced Barclays as the lender in August.

[Benwell Lad]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

[Parky]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

[Guest Eric]

But the 2007 going concern opinion surely reflects the fact that £50m+ of debts had become due under change of control and repaid by shareholder loans?

 

We'll never know for sure what the opinion would have been if the status quo remained.

 

It could have been worse of course, Paragon were sniffing around the club at the same time. I can only assumed someone there got their decimal points in the wrong place.

 

 

The loan repayment wasn't the issue as Quayside says, the balance sheet didn't look great when the accounts latterly came out.

 

There are many ways to rectify the situation however and there was plenty time, no winding up petitions were being served or anything.

 

But it's used to excuse Ashley and muddy the waters in a technique not too dissimilar to how Llambias works, blame the previous regime and suggest things would have been much worse, thus forgetting about the slug and his gross mismanagement.

 

We may have even suffered relegation under "someone".

[BottledDog]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

 

I'm not sure he'd have had the chance. SJH said that Ashley was only the preferred bidder because the Malaysians wanted to take some time to go through things, while Ashley was willing to offer a quicker sale.

[quayside]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

 

Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them.

 

He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal.

[Cronky]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

 

Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them.

 

He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal.

 

He might still have gone ahead, but reduced his offer. The Halls were desperate to get out and they probably couldn't believe their luck at the offer they got, which I think was about £1 per share. The Stock Market listing was about 20p if IIRC.

[quayside]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

 

Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them.

 

He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal.

 

He might still have gone ahead, but reduced his offer. The Halls were desperate to get out and they probably couldn't believe their luck at the offer they got, which I think was about £1 per share. The Stock Market listing was about 20p if IIRC.

 

It was indeed £1 a share for the Halls but F Shepherd screwed £1.01 (although he got no compensation for loss of office). The stock market had been riding along at 45p but had risen on "speculation" to over 60p when the deal was struck. Ashley's deal valued the club at about £132 million, add on the legal costs etc and he was in for £140m. But you are absolutely right, it was one hell of a deal for the Hall family and the Shepherd family. I've said it before on here and been shot down but imo Ashley paid way over the odds.

[Matt]

Would he have bought the club if he had done due diligence? Not at that price. But he didn't even need that. He could even have just looked at the last couple of sets of accounts for half an hour and saved himself a small fortune.

 

 

[Guest Eric]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

[themanupstairs]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

 

No no, he clearly spunked upwards of 200 million on the club just to take the piss out of Geordies

[Parky]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

 

Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them.

 

He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal.

 

Think it's pretty clear he wouldn't have done the deal if he's scrutinised the books and the debts etc...

 

So, people who keep bleeting about how much he's put in need to SHUT THE FUCK UP. 

 

It's only to protect AN INSANE BUSINESS DESCISION AND PROTECT HIS INVESTMENT while he tries to figure out how to make his money back.

 

P

[quayside]

The funding is totally irrelevant as the answer is in short, someone. The going concern issue isn't as clean cut as you're making out either, I see far worse balance sheets weekly and I know you won't be surprised to know that many still continue to trade long after the event. Shepherd claims they weren't as bad as made out and he always had a plan, could be more bullshit, could be true, whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm talking about Mike Ashley, his mistakes, the price he's paying and the mistakes he's still making, I made a point about the sponsorship, you defended him, that's your prerogative, just as it all the nuggets who defend him for anything and everything, much of what they haven't got the first idea about.

 

I like most of the players, I too like the Manager , I don't like being patronised and treat with utter contemt which is why I have given up my season ticket and won't ever return under this ownership, but that's my choice, just as it those who think f*** it, I'm supporting the team even though I hate him, or even those who say don't use lube Derek, just ram it in.

 

One last point, he wouldn't have to stick as much in if he showed a little ambition, communicated with the fans instead of taking them for granted (at best) and got some f***ing sponsorship money in for starters. Instead we'd be talking full houses, happy fans and decent corporate partners, but this is Mike Ashley, he doesn't give a f*** what we think.

 

"Someone" would have funded the club - good to know that. I too have seen some horrendous balance sheets and yes some of these businesses survived. I have never said the club would have gone into any sort of insolvency, but it was technically insolvent and had borrowed against every asset and revenue source. Ashley had to guarantee to fund it to ensure its going concern status - it was in REAL difficulty. So Shepherd said things weren't as bad as made out, he is is of course the man who said the club made a profit every year he was there. Numbers with brackets around them obviously don't count as losses in his world. We needed someone with proper cash resources to come in and fund it. One or two potential buyers had a look and we got Ashley who could fund it but was clueless as to how to run it. And no other f*cker wanted it.

 

Whether you choose to go to games or not is, as you say, your call. Ashley owns it, he runs it how he likes and if you don't like it then you can stay away. For me I know what Ashley is like, I think he's a spiv but there again I don't like the look of quite a few football club owners. I'm more bothered about what happens on the pitch than taking umbrage at what he does. Just about all of us on here have supported the club even when it has been in absolute turmoil. It feels like a life sentence at times. But if the club puts some good entertaining players out there I want to see them play and want them to do well. Each to their own....

 

 

 

Do you think he would have bought the club if he had done due diligence?

 

P

 

Interesting question. He could certainly afford to absorb any unpleasant financial surprises, but I suspect he wouldn't have bought it. It must have tied up way more of his capital than he ever expected. Also I don't think he realised the extent to which his every decision and mistake would be analysed by both fans and media. He ran SD and pretty much did exactly what he liked there without being challenged much. And on the odd occasion when he was challenged by investors he simply berated them.

 

He also totally failed to understand the mentality of footballers and, in particular, football managers. And that led to some of his more costly mistakes. I would think that given his time again he wouldn't have done the deal.

 

Think it's pretty clear he wouldn't have done the deal if he's scrutinised the books and the debts etc...

 

So, people who keep bleeting about how much he's put in need to SHUT THE f*** UP. 

 

It's only to protect AN INSANE BUSINESS DESCISION AND PROTECT HIS INVESTMENT while he tries to figure out how to make his money back.

 

P

 

To be honest the "protecting his investment" argument applies whatever the reasons for buying and whatever the circumstances were. As far as the money he's put in is concerned, if he'd put it into buying another sports brand or a chain of shops no one would give a toss. The fact is he's put it into the club we support, so it gets our attention. We would have really struggled without it, and yes he is culpable for the costs of the relegation. It also gets attention in the media due to the high profile of the club and the Premiership in general. I suppose it also highlights yet again that owning a Premiership football club is for those with deep pockets.   

[Cronky]

I can't see that Ashley's decision was entirely based on business considerations. Otherwise he would have done due diligence.

 

I don't doubt that the idea of promoting his business overseas was somewhere in his mind, but it seems to me that he'd only just pocketed £800 million or so from the partial sale of SD, and the thought of paying cash for one of the bigger clubs in Football was too much for him to resist. I do believe he's a genuine football fan and there was some emotional impulse behind it as well. He's paid a big price for his moment of madness of course.

 

I think when people mention the fact that he's put in a lot of money it isn't to try and attract sympathy. For sure, he has to take responsibility for his actions. It usually just comes out in reaction to these comments that he's 'asset stripping', or otherwise ripping the fans off, which is nonsense.

[ChezGiven]

Due diligence is irrelevant. The answer to the question is imo 'yes he would have bought it as the DD would only have additionally revealed the clause on the stadium debt, an amount that needs to be paid back either way but in this instance requires access to £40m worth of capital in the short-term. He knew the debt was there just not the clause so all it created was a need for this additional capital. The real problem which he had was that his forecasts were wrong on the cost of capital, his own wealth, the bouyancy of the football market and the difficulty in running a football club. These latter issues were decisive in his decision to buy and his realisation that he had to change his strategy. The stadium debt had to be repaid either way and he knew the club had that debt. The repayment clause has cost of capital implications which are not going to alter the NPV on the £140m he initially invested (not that he woudl have done a formal NPV).'

[Dave]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

 

No no, he clearly spunked upwards of 200 million on the club just to take the piss out of Geordies

 

Good luck finding a post from anyone ever claiming that.

[ChezGiven]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

 

No no, he clearly spunked upwards of 200 million on the club just to take the piss out of Geordies

 

Good luck finding a post from anyone ever claiming that.

 

Billy said it on here, off the top of my head.

[Dave]

I'd be interested to see it. Huge difference between thinking he does/has done certain things that rile the fans and thinking that was his entire reason for buying the club.

[Christmas Tree]

Surely every Ashley understander    has been an Ashley hater at one time or another.

[themanupstairs]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

 

No no, he clearly spunked upwards of 200 million on the club just to take the p*ss out of Geordies

 

Good luck finding a post from anyone ever claiming that.

 

Oh. Didn't realize the post needed a  or summat. Sorry like

[Dave]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

 

No no, he clearly spunked upwards of 200 million on the club just to take the p*ss out of Geordies

 

Good luck finding a post from anyone ever claiming that.

 

Oh. Didn't realize the post needed a  or summat. Sorry like

 

Accepted.

 

I just think there's often as much hyperbole on either side of the fence when it comes to Ashley.

[TRon]

So much irrelevant stuff gets brought into it when people defend Ashley, but I think the answer to Parky's question depends on what Ashley's real motive is.

 

If it's to promote his Sports Direct brand around the World ultimately, then the answer is probably yes.

 

No no, he clearly spunked upwards of 200 million on the club just to take the p*ss out of Geordies

 

Good luck finding a post from anyone ever claiming that.

 

Oh. Didn't realize the post needed a  or summat. Sorry like

 

Accepted.

 

I just think there's often as much hyperbole on either side of the fence when it comes to Ashley.

 

So why ask for a proof of a fairly bog standard comment which most people understood perfectly well? Was it really necessary? I think most people have seen posts along the lines themanupstairs alluded to.