Mike Ashley

[BlueStar]

Seems we're not the only ones being used by the owner to further the family business.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious that the issue people have is that Sports Direct were getting free adverts which was cutting off income from paying advertisers.  Thus the multi-million pound deal Bet365 have made with Stoke to put adverts on their kits and stadium isn't a very good comparison. 

 

For debating purposes it's usually better to know the answer to rhetorical questions before you ask them to make sure it's your side of the argument they support.

[Guest neesy111]

Seems we're not the only ones being used by the owner to further the family business.

 

Piss off.

[Stu]

Seems we're not the only ones being used by the owner to further the family business.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious that the issue people have is that Sports Direct were getting free adverts which was cutting off income from paying advertisers.  Thus the multi-million pound deal Bet365 have made with Stoke to put adverts on their kits and stadium isn't a very good comparison. 

 

For debating purposes it's usually better to know the answer to rhetorical questions before you ask them to make sure it's your side of the argument they support.

 

 

 

 

 

You've been waiting for that aaaaall morning

[loki679]

Seems we're not the only ones being used by the owner to further the family business.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious that the issue people have is that Sports Direct were getting free adverts which was cutting off income from paying advertisers.  Thus the multi-million pound deal Bet365 have made with Stoke to put adverts on their kits and stadium isn't a very good comparison. 

 

For debating purposes it's usually better to know the answer to rhetorical questions before you ask them to make sure it's your side of the argument they support.

 

 

 

 

 

You've been waiting for that aaaaall morning

 

Stoke get paid, we don't.

 

You fucking moron.

[Guest bimpy474]

Seems we're not the only ones being used by the owner to further the family business.

 

I thought it was pretty obvious that the issue people have is that Sports Direct were getting free adverts which was cutting off income from paying advertisers.  Thus the multi-million pound deal Bet365 have made with Stoke to put adverts on their kits and stadium isn't a very good comparison. 

 

For debating purposes it's usually better to know the answer to rhetorical questions before you ask them to make sure it's your side of the argument they support.

 

 

 

 

 

You've been waiting for that aaaaall morning

 

Stoke get paid, we don't.

 

You fucking moron.

 

[Stu]

Christ, we've not even lost yet

 

Are you confirming that Stoke are receiving market rate for the B365 sponsorship deal?

 

EDIT: Just seen the Micaehl Knees impersonators on the last page truly amazing

[BlueStar]

Are you confirming that Stoke are receiving market rate for the B365 sponsorship deal?

 

They're receiving a seven figure sum, which is more than the one figure sum we're getting from Sports Direct. 

 

Stoke say Bet365 were the highest bidder, Newcastle say Sports Direct don't have to bid and just get it all for nowt.  Without access to both clubs books that's all you or I have to go on.

[Wullie]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2013/08/20/premier-league-shirt-sponsors-pour-record-166m-into-top-flight-bank-accounts-200801/

 

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Shirt-deals-13-14-PL.jpg

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Would people prefer for the emporium of tat to pay us (lets make up a figure...) £2m a year for advertising and the FMA to charge us say (again lets make up a figure) £2m interest on the loans he has so kindly provided us? (That's roughly 2% on £120m of loans so a pretty good deal for the paying party)

 

That is the alternative - I've no doubts that the fat man wins by not charging for either somehow with the tax bods but that fact doesn't impact us as fans.

 

And before the 'but its his fault he has had to put the loans in' replies come in - the same could be said of all owner cash injections, and the vast majority of owners will charge interest back on them.

 

[Dokko]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2013/08/20/premier-league-shirt-sponsors-pour-record-166m-into-top-flight-bank-accounts-200801/

 

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Shirt-deals-13-14-PL.jpg

 

Ive already proven this to be inaccurate.

[Wullie]

Would people prefer for the emporium of tat to pay us (lets make up a figure...) £2m a year for advertising and the FMA to charge us say (again lets make up a figure) £2m interest on the loans he has so kindly provided us? (That's roughly 2% on £120m of loans so a pretty good deal for the paying party)

 

That is the alternative - I've no doubts that the fat man wins by not charging for either somehow with the tax bods but that fact doesn't impact us as fans.

 

And before the 'but its his fault he has had to put the loans in' replies come in - the same could be said of all owner cash injections, and the vast majority of owners will charge interest back on them.

 

Find that very hard to believe, seems to me that most owners don't generally demand back any money they put in.

[Stu]

Would people prefer for the emporium of tat to pay us (lets make up a figure...) £2m a year for advertising and the FMA to charge us say (again lets make up a figure) £2m interest on the loans he has so kindly provided us? (That's roughly 2% on £120m of loans so a pretty good deal for the paying party)

 

That is the alternative - I've no doubts that the fat man wins by not charging for either somehow with the tax bods but that fact doesn't impact us as fans.

 

And before the 'but its his fault he has had to put the loans in' replies come in - the same could be said of all owner cash injections, and the vast majority of owners will charge interest back on them.

 

Find that very hard to believe, seems to me that most owners don't generally demand back any money they put in.

 

Going back to the Stoke comparison - they've signed over the deeds for the training ground and the Britannia Stadium (obviously not applicable for SJP) to B365 in return for the £60m of losses that they've incurred in recent seasons.

 

Hoping this doesn't give MA ideas.

[BottledDog]

Would people prefer for the emporium of tat to pay us (lets make up a figure...) £2m a year for advertising and the FMA to charge us say (again lets make up a figure) £2m interest on the loans he has so kindly provided us? (That's roughly 2% on £120m of loans so a pretty good deal for the paying party)

 

That is the alternative - I've no doubts that the fat man wins by not charging for either somehow with the tax bods but that fact doesn't impact us as fans.

 

And before the 'but its his fault he has had to put the loans in' replies come in - the same could be said of all owner cash injections, and the vast majority of owners will charge interest back on them.

 

Find that very hard to believe, seems to me that most owners don't generally demand back any money they put in.

 

 

I'm sure most don't see ownership as a charitable money pit any more, especially foreign investor. One way or another they need to get it back, even the Emirates bods must be seeing some value in the increased profile they've gained.

 

To protect themselves, most owners I'd have thought tend not to use their own money to fund loans, but if they do directly (or through a parent company) then they tend to charge interest unless the club can't afford it (in the case of Bolton, they were charging 10% a while back, more than the interest rate from the banks I'd have thought).

 

For instance, on loaning Villa £49.5m Lerner charged £4.1m per year interest. After the loans increased to £120m+ he had to waive £20m worth of interest payments because the club simply couldn't afford it.

 

Ashley takes neither interest, or a salary, but allows one of his companies free advertising. Doesn't seem a particularly diabolical move by him, though the excuses that nobody else might pay a few quid for the spots seems feeble in the extreme.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

There is no scam with the SD advertising, its his club, he can literally do owt he likes within legal means and adverting SD even for nowt, is not illegal.

[BlueStar]

There is no scam with the SD advertising, its his club, he can literally do owt he likes within legal means and adverting SD even for nowt, is not illegal.

 

A scam doesn't have to be illegal, just dishonest.  The claim that the alternative to having 75% of the advertising at the ground taken up with Sports Direct freebies is blank hoardings rather than paying advertisers is where the dishonesty comes in.

[Guest neesy111]

Christ, we've not even lost yet

 

Are you confirming that Stoke are receiving market rate for the B365 sponsorship deal?

 

EDIT: Just seen the Micaehl Knees impersonators on the last page truly amazing

 

Truly amazing how much of an arsehole you remain and will always remain, stuart.

[kirkwdavis2001]

There is no scam with the SD advertising, its his club, he can literally do owt he likes within legal means and adverting SD even for nowt, is not illegal.

 

Exactly! fucks me off all this bollocks about SD advertising.

 

It's his fucking club for fucks sake!

[Wullie]

[Mick]

Would people prefer for the emporium of tat to pay us (lets make up a figure...) £2m a year for advertising and the FMA to charge us say (again lets make up a figure) £2m interest on the loans he has so kindly provided us? (That's roughly 2% on £120m of loans so a pretty good deal for the paying party)

 

That is the alternative - I've no doubts that the fat man wins by not charging for either somehow with the tax bods but that fact doesn't impact us as fans.

 

And before the 'but its his fault he has had to put the loans in' replies come in - the same could be said of all owner cash injections, and the vast majority of owners will charge interest back on them.

 

 

I think we are losing more money then the £2 million you've mentioned as Sunderland were £3 million ahead of us commercially and nobody will ever convince me that we shouldn't bring in much more than they bring in. 

 

In 2011-12 we were took in the 7th most in the league from media which is basically TV money based on appearances and we had the 3rd best attendance which should reflect on our commercial value and it doesn't.

 

You would think that even a poor salesman would be able to at least sell what we have to offer for the same as the mackems can sell for.  Add extra people in the ground and extra televised games and you would expect the selling price to be much higher.

[kirkwdavis2001]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

[Mick]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

 

Who gives a shit about a van?

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

It is pure bullshit to say Virgin Money paid £10m a year to sponsor NUFC. Virgin Money took over Northern Rock's sponsorship deal. Northern Rock certainly weren't paying £10m a season sponsorship either.

 

Wonga is the biggest shirt sponsor deal NUFC have ever had according to the club. The sponsorship income for each year will be listed in the club accounts.

[Guest Slippery Sam]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

 

It's a huge van.  Would you like me to give you some money for a small advert of my own company?

 

er, no, I don't want any of your money.

[Dave]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

 

It's a huge van.  Would you like me to give you some money for a small advert of my own company?

 

er, no, I don't want any of your money.

 

...despite the fact I 'can't afford' to maintain it or buy new tyres.

[Ste]

Here mate, that sign you have on the side of your van, you should be paying for that!

 

..er, it's my van?

 

Who gives a shit about a van?

 

Tickled me.