NG32 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Battle of the stats Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 He said I was talking bollocks. I can only prove him wrong with facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 How's your day going mate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 He said I was talking bollocks. I can only prove him wrong with facts. No worries man :lol: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andymc1 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 He said I was talking bollocks. I can only prove him wrong with facts. I took my figures from a credit report from both experian and credit safe using the latest entered accounts dated 31 December 2013. As I stated, those were the accounts for the UK company (Company Registration: 03223028). Bringing up a companies accounts from the USA in relation to Newcastle Uniteds forthcoming accounts isn't relevant. To be honest, it’s pointless comparing accounts from other industries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JS Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Couldn't find anything current like: ST JAMES HOLDINGS LIMITED 06254688 Registered Address: Unit A Brook Park East, Shirebrook, NG20 8RY Accounts Filed up to 2013 £1,000 Cash £-212,000 Net Worth £5,000 Assets £142,022,000 Liabilities John Irving and Big Mike are current directors. NEWCASTLE UNITED LIMITED 02529667 Registered Address: St. James' Park, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 4ST Accounts Filed up to 2013 Charnley, Irving as directors £0 Cash £-77,148,000 Net Worth £26,681,000 Assets £38,607,000 Liabilities Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 He said I was talking bollocks. I can only prove him wrong with facts. I took my figures from a credit report from both experian and credit safe using the latest entered accounts dated 31 December 2013. As I stated, those were the accounts for the UK company (Company Registration: 03223028). Bringing up a companies accounts from the USA in relation to Newcastle Uniteds forthcoming accounts isn't relevant. To be honest, it’s pointless comparing accounts from other industries. i made a simple point that a company can have low/no "profit" but considerable cash to spend. A company can also make a lot of "profit" and have no cash to spend. So we shouldn't simply look at "profit" - it is only an indication and can be greatly manipulated depending on the intent of the people running the business. I don't know for sure what Ashley wants from us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieT Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I bought a single share in Sports Direct International and then I requested a copy of their share register. Their company secretary then wrote asking why I wanted the register and I explained thus:- Mr Cameron Olsen, The Company Secretary, Sports Direct International, Monday 16 February 2015 Dear Mr Olsen, Thank you for your letter of the 9th February requesting me to explain the purpose of my request to obtain the shareholders register. As you will be aware, Section 116 of the Companies Act enables a shareholder to request a copy of the company's register of members where this constitutes a proper purpose. As a shareholder I am concerned over the bad publicity the company has been receiving over its use of zero hours contracts and the retail agreements in place with RIFC plc which have also caused a large amount of detrimental publicity which may damage the share price. I wish to canvass my fellow shareholders as to whether they would be willing to support resolutions to end the use of zero hours contracts and to review the terms of the retail agreements with RIFC plc to ensure that these generate sales revenue that benefits shareholders; rather than the current agreements which whilst appearing to be favourable are generating low sales volumes due to the level of hostility amongst the public to what are viewed as unfair terms. I look forward to receiving the register so that I can canvass my fellow shareholders to ensure that we are able to ensure that the business does not continue to be involved in contracts which damage the long term interests of shareholders. Regarding the requested fee of £65, my understanding is that as a member of the company, under Section 116, that this information should be available for free. I have laid out the appropriate section below: Section 116 Rights to inspect and require copies (1)The register and the index of members' names must be open to the inspection— . (a)of any member of the company without charge, and . If my understanding is incorrect, or the company feels this is too great a financial encumbrance, then I will, of course, send a cheque subject to your advice. I would prefer the copy of the register to be in electronic form. Yours sincerely, MARK DINGWALL The same day Sport Direct lawyers made an application to the Companies Court in London seeking the following - 1/ That the Claimant shall not comply with the request of Mr Mark DIngwall by letter dated 3 February 2015 for a a copy of the Claimant’s register of members. 2/ That they “shall not comply with any future request (whether made by Mark Dingwall or any other person) to inspect the Claimant’s register of members or for a copy of that register where the only purpose given for the request is to enable members to be contacted, without identifying the subject matter and purpose of such contact: 3/ Mark Dingwall do pay the Claimant’s costs, such costs to be assessed if not agreed. The hearing is set for 11.30 on 14th April. I can understand a company not wishing to hand out it’s share register willy-nilly but the principle is that sensible shareholders dis-satisfied with the performance of a company should be able to seek out other shareholders and canvass their opinions. In my original request I undertook not to share the register with anyone else and not to contact the shareholders regarding anything other than the company’s affairs. By moving to strike out my request; and specifically to set the precedent that neither I nor any other shareholder can in the future obtain a copy of the register; Sports Direct are seeking to remove one vital right whereby shareholders can seek to enforce their rights by lobbying other investors in the company. I have had some free advice so far but with the 14th April looming I think engaging a lawyer would be the sensible way to go. FF.com exists on a hand to mouth basis - we have no rich and mysterious backers nor plentiful sources of income. If we can settle outside of court or are otherwise successful then the balance will, of course, be donated to charitable causes after consultation with the donors. http://www.followfollow.com/news/tmnw/mike_ashley_rangers_and_the_sports_direct_share_register_857955/index.shtml No shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Fair play to the Rangers fans mind. They've been right on his back ever since he got involved with them. Compare and contrast to our pathetic fanbase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Easier target when he doesn't own all the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackM Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Easier target when he doesn't own all the club if anything, the opposite is the case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Fair play to the Rangers fans mind. They've been right on his back ever since he got involved with them. Compare and contrast to our pathetic fanbase. This. Showing us up tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Easier target when he doesn't own all the club if anything, the opposite is the case How? Surely having others opposed to him who are shareholders makes it easier to take back control. If he owns 100% you feel like there is nothing can be done and apathy sets in like us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Fair play to the Rangers fans mind. They've been right on his back ever since he got involved with them. Compare and contrast to our pathetic fanbase. I agree in one sense but they knew exactly what they were in for whereas all we knew was that an English billionaire had bought us with apparent good intentions! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfrederi Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Fair play to the Rangers fans mind. They've been right on his back ever since he got involved with them. Compare and contrast to our pathetic fanbase. This. Showing us up tbh. Reckon if we had a Magpies Group or something similar waiting in the wings to take over from this mob fans would be a lot more vocal/miltant but there is no end game in sight for us unlike Rangers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Couldn't find anything current like: ST JAMES HOLDINGS LIMITED 06254688 Registered Address: Unit A Brook Park East, Shirebrook, NG20 8RY Accounts Filed up to 2013 £1,000 Cash £-212,000 Net Worth £5,000 Assets £142,022,000 Liabilities John Irving and Big Mike are current directors. NEWCASTLE UNITED LIMITED 02529667 Registered Address: St. James' Park, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 4ST Accounts Filed up to 2013 Charnley, Irving as directors £0 Cash £-77,148,000 Net Worth £26,681,000 Assets £38,607,000 Liabilities Its Newcastle United Football Company Limited isnt it? Noticed MASH Holdings accounts are two months overdue too, doing everything they can to avod people seeing them til the last second Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JS Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Couldn't find anything current like: ST JAMES HOLDINGS LIMITED 06254688 Registered Address: Unit A Brook Park East, Shirebrook, NG20 8RY Accounts Filed up to 2013 £1,000 Cash £-212,000 Net Worth £5,000 Assets £142,022,000 Liabilities John Irving and Big Mike are current directors. NEWCASTLE UNITED LIMITED 02529667 Registered Address: St. James' Park, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 4ST Accounts Filed up to 2013 Charnley, Irving as directors £0 Cash £-77,148,000 Net Worth £26,681,000 Assets £38,607,000 Liabilities Its Newcastle United Football Company Limited isnt it? Noticed MASH Holdings accounts are two months overdue too, doing everything they can to avod people seeing them til the last second Could well be, aye. I see that from April 2014 Ashley was registered as an actual active director where he wasn't before then. Cash £0 Net Worth £-87,290,000 Assets £28,958,000 Liabilities £51,028,000 Still grim reading mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/03/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-david-conn Martin compares Newcastle to some other great sporting names Sports Direct has bought, such as Slazenger, Lonsdale and Everlast, evoking heritage and quality, yet which seem unloved and cheap in the shops, among the racks of gear festooned with discount tags. “The club feels like something which used to be good,” Martin says, “it has the original label but isn’t genuinely the thing it used to be.” The club would argue this is unfair, that Sunderland’s present relegation danger shows how much worse things could be, that they have worked hard to run the club on sound policies and plan to make progress. Yet football is a game of hopes and dreams, heroes and memories, not a mere exercise in financial soundness. Newcastle United, one of England’s grandest clubs, does not feel right as a billboard for a company dedicated to cheapness. Have the guardian been banned by ashley yet? Cos they sure are gonna be now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Came here to post that, great article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sempuki Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Will Jabba be there today? Don't think he'll risk it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Hope he gets chinned Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 He still not died yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Zaius Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 Going to get this one in early. Hurry up and die you fat slug. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/03/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-david-conn Martin compares Newcastle to some other great sporting names Sports Direct has bought, such as Slazenger, Lonsdale and Everlast, evoking heritage and quality, yet which seem unloved and cheap in the shops, among the racks of gear festooned with discount tags. “The club feels like something which used to be good,” Martin says, “it has the original label but isn’t genuinely the thing it used to be.” The club would argue this is unfair, that Sunderland’s present relegation danger shows how much worse things could be, that they have worked hard to run the club on sound policies and plan to make progress. Yet football is a game of hopes and dreams, heroes and memories, not a mere exercise in financial soundness. Newcastle United, one of England’s grandest clubs, does not feel right as a billboard for a company dedicated to cheapness. Have the guardian been banned by ashley yet? Cos they sure are gonna be now. What a gem of article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted April 5, 2015 Share Posted April 5, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/apr/03/newcastle-united-mike-ashley-david-conn Martin compares Newcastle to some other great sporting names Sports Direct has bought, such as Slazenger, Lonsdale and Everlast, evoking heritage and quality, yet which seem unloved and cheap in the shops, among the racks of gear festooned with discount tags. “The club feels like something which used to be good,” Martin says, “it has the original label but isn’t genuinely the thing it used to be.” The club would argue this is unfair, that Sunderland’s present relegation danger shows how much worse things could be, that they have worked hard to run the club on sound policies and plan to make progress. Yet football is a game of hopes and dreams, heroes and memories, not a mere exercise in financial soundness. Newcastle United, one of England’s grandest clubs, does not feel right as a billboard for a company dedicated to cheapness. Have the guardian been banned by ashley yet? Cos they sure are gonna be now. Perfectly distills the problems with Ashley. I don't know how anyone could read that and argue that he's been an overall positive influence for this club and its fans, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts