AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. I think it may be more than a perk. I think the SD exposure is probably the only reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 he's just gone into my mates place of work. i've given a nasty message to pass on if he sees him again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 he's just gone into my mates place of work. i've given a nasty message to pass on if he sees him again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. I'm sure he would as well. We can't have it both ways though. Ashley is stopping advertising money coming into the club by using the billboards as freebies for himself instead of paying sponsors. If the justification for that is "Oh, but he'd be charging that much in interest on the loan so it's just like payment for that" then it's no longer really an interest free loan which can be pointed as as a rare example of benevolence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So next time someone tells us Ashley has given us an interest free loan, we can clarify he's actually taking millions out of the club as his interest, just in a roundabout and dishonest manner. You're a cynical chap aren't you? FWIW I think Ashley would be taking this free advertising even if we didn't owe him any money, he probably just sees it as a perk of owning a football club. I'm sure he would as well. We can't have it both ways though. Ashley is stopping advertising money coming into the club by using the billboards as freebies for himself instead of paying sponsors. If the justification for that is "Oh, but he'd be charging that much in interest on the loan so it's just like payment for that" then it's no longer really an interest free loan which can be pointed as as a rare example of benevolence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Sure, I don't think he's ever linked it to the loan though. Someone just brought that up as a possibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I asked the question if his interest free 'gift' doesn't balance the scales. There are lots of clubs with big debts, not paying any interest whatsoever on it, and still taking money from advertisers...in at least one case, paying a shitload to advertise their own company as a way of pumping in hundreds of millions under FFP. Ashley's not special in covering the debt. He's doing no more than owners at Stoke, Chelsea, QPR, Blackburn, Fulham or Wigan according to these numbers... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club On the other hand, Man U , Arsenal, Villa, Bolton, Spurs, Liverpool, Man City, Sunderland and Norwich all pay out millions a year on interest. Whatever is true of the interest payments, every club bar Newcastle sells their advertising space to the highest bidder as far as I'm aware. No matter what business the owner is in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 It wouldn't be so bad but the £?m it would cost SportsDirect, even at a reduced rate, would be a total drop in the ocean to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I think the silence surrounding the whole (non) debate says everything. Local journalists aren't asking the question and Ashley's people obviously don't feel the need to provide an answer. The fans forum seem to have missed a trick on this one when they met officials last week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The galling thing in all of this is that the club cite their poor commercial revenue as one of the reasons why we can't compete but it is their choice that the revenue is so low. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see where we are falling short. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The galling thing in all of this is that the club cite their poor commercial revenue as one of the reasons why we can't compete but it is their choice that the revenue is so low. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see where we are falling short. The galling thing is that our club is now a billboard for the tackiest low grade tat shop in the country but it's ok because FMA gave himself some money and isn't charging himself for the privilege. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 True Faith, an article on the crippling lack of ambition and completely dismissive attitude to NUFC from Ashley. http://www.true-faith.co.uk/thru-black-white-eyes-live-witch-trials/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The galling thing in all of this is that the club cite their poor commercial revenue as one of the reasons why we can't compete but it is their choice that the revenue is so low. It doesn't take a marketing genius to see where we are falling short. The galling thing is that our club is now a billboard for the tackiest low grade tat shop in the country but it's ok because FMA gave himself some money and isn't charging himself for the privilege. So not paying for SD to advertise at St James' is an outrage but paying off the debts and not charging any interest is just "giving himself money and not charging himself for the privilege"? You can't have it both ways, which I think is the point Happy Face is making. True Faith, an article on the crippling lack of ambition and completely dismissive attitude to NUFC from Ashley. http://www.true-faith.co.uk/thru-black-white-eyes-live-witch-trials/ Seriously trying to claim that we actively don't want to win anything and also would prefer to finish no higher than 6th, why do some people let hatred of an individual twist their minds so much that they talk/write such utter bollocks? The mans a cunt who doesn't care about the club outside of it being his business, no doubt, but that doesn't mean all reason should disappear out of the window. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So not paying for SD to advertise at St James' is an outrage but paying off the debts and not charging any interest is just "giving himself money and not charging himself for the privilege"? You can't have it both ways, which I think is the point Happy Face is making. Ashley didn't pay the loans off as a favour, he did it because debt costs more than savings and he had cash in the bank while we/he paid interest of loans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 So not paying for SD to advertise at St James' is an outrage but paying off the debts and not charging any interest is just "giving himself money and not charging himself for the privilege"? You can't have it both ways, which I think is the point Happy Face is making. Ashley didn't pay the loans off as a favour, he did it because debt costs more than savings and he had cash in the bank while we/he paid interest of loans. Right, what's your point? Nowhere have I claimed he did anyone a favour. My point is that both examples are quite similar, in that one is him not charging his own company interest and the other is him not charging his own company for advertising at his other company. One is trivialised and the other is evangelised as a deplorable act. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Right, what's your point? Nowhere have I claimed he did anyone a favour. He's done his self a favour and the club is paying for it while claiming we can't sell advertising because nobody wants it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Of course, everything he does is to help himself financially, he doesn't care about the club obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Of course, everything he does is to help himself financially, he doesn't care about the club obviously. SD's money isn't his own. Edit. You edited your post while I was replying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 The one you quoted is the same. I edited the earlier post. Anyway wether its technically his own money or not he still owns the majority stake, obviously the company's finances directly effect the value of his stake. Otherwise getting SD to pay as much as possible for advertising would be a win win for him, and he'd obviously be doing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I doubt he does anything for his personal wealth any more, if that was his motivation he would have stopped before now. It's more about success, getting the best deal, screwing people over, all the stuff that drives entrepreneurs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I just wonder what he's thinking right now, is it going to be "Pards is fucking shite", or "ahahahaha fuck you Geordies roll in your own shit". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Ashley's fat fucking face then. He's dozing of man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Thought the fat cunt never wore a shirt and tie? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maze Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I just wonder what he's thinking right now, is it going to be "Pards is f***ing s****", or "ahahahaha f*** you Geordies roll in your own s***". I doubt it's the latter. Mike Ashley is a business man, not a football man. He, along with all of us, watches his investment go down the drain. At the end of the day it hurts more for Ashley than me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts