Mike Ashley

[quayside]

To me he doesn't appear to restructured the way we're run for us to able to manage without him. Commercial revenue has decreased. There's nothing on the pitch worth a hike in season ticket pricing.

 

Does this make us an attractive option to buy?

 

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that.  He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo.

[Guest neesy111]

I'll judge this regime on football matters, nothing else. 

[Guest icemanblue]

I'll judge this regime on football matters, nothing else. 

 

No you won't.

[quayside]

Financial performance has “improved” because we refuse to invest properly in players, which was Shepherd’s main outgoing. Using the word ‘improvement’ in that context is a misnomer imo, because we’re a football club.

 

Might as well say “my personal financial situation has improved dramatically since I stopped paying for electricity, gas and food. Now I sit in the dark with a blanket and some stale bread and I consider myself much better off”

 

Whatever - I was asked about financial performance and replied about financial performance.

[Toonpack]

Financial performance has “improved” because we refuse to invest properly in players, which was Shepherd’s main outgoing. Using the word ‘improvement’ in that context is a misnomer imo, because we’re a football club.

 

Might as well say “my personal financial situation has improved dramatically since I stopped paying for electricity, gas and food. Now I sit in the dark with a blanket and some stale bread and I consider myself much better off”

 

Apart from the dividends and dodgy warehouse deals

[Guest neesy111]

I'll judge this regime on football matters, nothing else. 

 

No you won't.

 

Prove it!

[TRon]

Was it certain that we were fucked to such an extent at the time? I have no idea tbh, but even if Ashley did save us that one time he's done more than his fair share to fuck us over since, including actually relegating us.

 

He clearly has no intention of running us as anything more than a fairly sustainable Premiership club and for that any positives he has ever done for the club are completely negated, we're a chore to support at the moment and we have been for a while; if it wasn't for Ben Arfa I'd probably slice my fucking wrists.

 

Shepherd has defended his record and the financial stability of the club when he left, but then if the finances were in hand, why did Hall and Shepherd sell out? They could have carried on in the same vein and had themselves a successful club run by proud local owners rather than the cockney spivs currently sitting in the hot seats. The biggest problem we have isn't Mike Ashley, it's that no one else wants to buy the club and invest money into making it any better - and you have to include the previous regime in that bracket because the only reason Ashley is here is because they fucked off with £40m each in their personal accounts.

[Unbelievable]

Its a well known fact we were in dire straights before Ashley came along and bought us. Those teams I mentioned were unlucky enough not to have been bought by someone who sorted their debt.

 

I suppose my point is whilst I am not a fan of Mike I guess we would be following a different path now and it would be a lot worse imo.

 

Pure conjecture. We cannot judge what hasn't happened, but we can what has, and we haven't progressed as a football club at all under his tenure.

[Toonpack]

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate.

 

Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

 

The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO.

 

That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them.

[quayside]

To me he doesn't appear to restructured the way we're run for us to able to manage without him. Commercial revenue has decreased. There's nothing on the pitch worth a hike in season ticket pricing.

 

Does this make us an attractive option to buy?

 

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that.  He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo.

 

Just to add a further point. If a buyer was looking at it and he was concerned about the finances (and not just looking for a vanity project) he might well think he could increase the clubs revenue. The points people have made on here about commercial income and Sports Direct's advertising are good ones imo.

[TRon]

To me he doesn't appear to restructured the way we're run for us to able to manage without him. Commercial revenue has decreased. There's nothing on the pitch worth a hike in season ticket pricing.

 

Does this make us an attractive option to buy?

 

It could be, maybe as a vanity project for some multi billionaire. Right now as others have said the minimum price Ashley would take would appear to be about £250 million, being the purchase price plus the debt. As it stands £250 million isn't stupid money these days, there's plenty of people around who could pay that.  He might get totally hacked off with it and sell at a loss, he seemed to be going down that path when Barry Moat was in the frame. On the other hand he might be looking for daft money that allows him to exit with a decent profit, a buyer would have to really want it to pay more than £250 million imo.

 

Just to add a further point. If a buyer was looking at it and he was concerned about the finances (and not just looking for a vanity project) he might well think he could increase the clubs revenue. The points people have made on here about commercial income and Sports Direct's advertising are good ones imo.

 

True. That leaves me wondering why there hasn't been any real interest in buying Newcastle Utd? Seems to me that beyond the glamour clubs buyers are only interested in low level clubs like QPR or Fulham for location or because they are using them for their own purposes, not necessarily to further the fortunes of the football clubs themselves.

[Unbelievable]

For all this talk about financial performance, where would we be without the extra TV revenue (a factor outside of his control) since Ashley took over, considering every other form of income has stagnated or deteriorated?

 

For reference: the year Ashley took over the TV revenue almost doubled from 21.2M in 2006-2007 (Shepperd) to 39.2M in 2007-2008 (Ashley; source: http://soccerlens.com/20072008-premier-league-tv-revenue/7415/). For the next 3 seasons, it will almost certainly top 80M (source: http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/06/19/premier-league-tv-rights-qa-including-where-the-money-goes-and-what-next-190601/).

 

The fact is that the revenue that Ashley had direct influence over has significantly decreased over this period (see graph below, also note performance relative to competition) and the part of the revenue he didn't has quadrupled.

 

http://i41.tinypic.com/161l5ao.jpg

 

Financial performance my backside.

[Lotus]

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate.

 

Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

 

The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO.

 

That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them.

 

Then you're not comparing apples with apples so don't bother.

 

You bring up to clubs as comparison when in actuality the situations were very different.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires.

 

I wonder if we're exaggerating our commercial potential at all? In the scenario where we're getting in the CL every year for about a decade, signing superstars and winning cups I can see that we have the potential to compete as a 'global brand' eventually.

 

But how expensive is that going to be to achieve? It doesn't seem like increased commercial revenue is likely to be the answer to that shortfall. Or at least, some sustained (and subsisdised) success is going to have to come before the increased revenue is really that feasible.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate.

 

Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

 

The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO.

 

That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them.

 

Then you're not comparing apples with apples so don't bother.

 

You bring up to clubs as comparison when in actuality the situations were very different.

 

I think he was just comparing football clubs who have financial stability issues.

[Guest neesy111]

I think we'll need a period of relative success in the league to get people thinking of buying us.  Under Ashley we've yo-yoed every season, which shows no stability in league position terms.

[DJ_NUFC]

Look at me, look at me, I'm a contrarian. Pathetic.

[Unbelievable]

When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires.

 

I wonder if we're exaggerating our commercial potential at all? In the scenario where we're getting in the CL every year for about a decade, signing superstars and winning cups I can see that we have the potential to compete as a 'global brand' eventually.

 

But how expensive is that going to be to achieve? It doesn't seem like increased commercial revenue is likely to be the answer to that shortfall. Or at least, some sustained (and subsisdised) success is going to have to come before the increased revenue is really that feasible.

 

See the graph above your post. Our commercial income has decreased from around 60M to 40M in a period where most other club's improved by at least 30%, which would have given us 80M. A 40M difference.

[Lotus]

Rangers were slapped with a vast bill after it was discovered they'd been fiddling their taxes for years, and Coventry didn't own their own ground, and so had to rent it at an extortionate rate.

 

Are these two clubs the new Portsmouth in that they'll be used to defend Ashley under any circumstances despite being nothing like us?

 

The source of the debt is irrelevant, the fact was we were built on unsustainable credit, we needed an owner with deep pockets, we got one, could have been better oh aye, BUT the resultant carnage had we not got one would dwarf the current situation in terms of criticality IMO.

 

That's not a defence btw, just a statement of the facts as I see them.

 

Then you're not comparing apples with apples so don't bother.

 

You bring up to clubs as comparison when in actuality the situations were very different.

 

I think he was just comparing football clubs who have financial stability issues.

 

Then use examples that are in some way relevant and comparable. Otherwise it highlights nothing tbf.

[merlin]

I think it's pretty clear we have an owner that isn't really committed to making Newcastle United the club it should be by rights and is effectively running it on a skeleton crew. But when comparing other club owners favourably, please don't mention Gillett and Hicks of Liverpool. They were mis-managed so badly they were effectively up s*** creek without a paddle with a mounting debt racked up against Liverpool FC rather than the owners themselves. Their fans were protesting and they only got out of that because the club was sold over their heads by the bank to another buyer. If there hadn't been another buyer what then?

 

 

There WAS another buyer though, and the reason is that Liverpool had a recent record of success - that will always attract people who want a PL football club.

NUFC is supposedly in a better state financially than they were, but because the club is seen as a comedy show, nobody is rushing to buy it but they will when it suits their purpose...

[AyeDubbleYoo]

When we were at our most successful we were losing about £30m a year weren't we? So assuming that is about our true position if we want to compete at the top. Probably larger losses required to compete now that other clubs are bankrolled by billionaires.

 

I wonder if we're exaggerating our commercial potential at all? In the scenario where we're getting in the CL every year for about a decade, signing superstars and winning cups I can see that we have the potential to compete as a 'global brand' eventually.

 

But how expensive is that going to be to achieve? It doesn't seem like increased commercial revenue is likely to be the answer to that shortfall. Or at least, some sustained (and subsisdised) success is going to have to come before the increased revenue is really that feasible.

 

See the graph above your post. Our commercial income has decreased from around 60M to 40M in a period where most other club's improved by at least 30%, which would have given us 80M. A 40M difference.

 

I understand, but what I'm saying is... look at who the biggest improved revenues belong to. MCFC... dodgy deals from companies already owned by their owners, MUFC... already a global brand. Granted, decent increases from Liverpool and Spurs.

 

All I mean is, it's surely not as easy as just saying "let's increase our revenue by 50%". I'm not saying Mike Ashley is maximising our commercial potential, he clearly isn't. But I mean that something would be required to get us in the position where we could get our revenue up to the level we want. Probably success paid for out of debt (say over 5-10 seasons).

 

And also, revenue is of limited value without profit/loss to go along with it.

[BlueStar]

 

http://i41.tinypic.com/161l5ao.jpg

 

I think I've just discovered I'm colourblind.

[Benwell Lad]

A bit more interesting debate about the fat one of late, and gladly it seems to have risen above the "wish he was dead" level which has become almost predictable post transfer window.

Especially loved the foreign correspondent who said he didn't spend anything on NUFC but if he did he'd stop. Ashley must be quaking in his boots!

Thing about Ashley is he will not buckle under pressure, it's not in his make up.

He will only leave if a) he totally loses interest. or b) he receives a too good to be true offer.

Scenario (a) may already have arrived as far as attending games is concerned, but he may enjoy playing the business side of the sport from afar.

Scenario (b) has never looked like happening yet and remains unlikely.

It seems almost a rule of N-O that if something is repeated enough times it can then be quoted as fact, but there's no way Ashley will be making any money out of NUFC - quite the opposite. However it's undeniable that it is a very good fit with his "core assets" in terms of global marketing. He'd be reluctant to give that up.

Although many claim to be so desperate to see the back of him they'd take any alternative, be careful what you wish for. Most would compromise their principles for the greater good of the game to have an "Abramovich" or "Sovereign State" in charge and sugar-daddying us to success, but other alternatives could be quite scary.

Just look back at the "arm punching delight" when he arrived, of some who are now his biggest critics, to illustrate that change does not guarantee anything.

When change comes it has to be progressive and not just at any cost.

[Dave]

Kinnear as Director of Football

Pardew as Manager

Llambias as Chairman

Sacking Chris Hughton

Depriving Chris Hughton of a first team coach.

SportsDirect@StJamesPark stadium.

Sports Direct everywhere.

Relegation

Joe Kinnear as Manager.

Disbanding the singing section.

The Keegan Fiasco.

Deliberate lies to the fans.

Worse average league position than the previous (universally loathed) chairman.

 

 

Why the f*** are we even talking finances?

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Fair point, he has made absolutely loads of terrible decisions. I don't think anyone denies that.

 

It's actually really strange, because if he would just employ 2 or 3 competent people on decent salaries he could run the club exactly how he wants and do much better.