Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 All of these people who reckon we'd have done a Portsmouth without Ashley are talking s****. Does no one think that at some point we wouldn't have been sold to someone else? Shhh stop talking common sense. There is no common sense involved in that statement. Unfortunately it's something that you cannot disprove. Hence it would and could have been quite possible, and fairly common sense to think it might. Not when you look at how many times Shepherd had blocked potential takeovers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 They are both shit, Shepherd was shit, Ashley is shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 All of these people who reckon we'd have done a Portsmouth without Ashley are talking s****. Does no one think that at some point we wouldn't have been sold to someone else? Shhh stop talking common sense. There is no common sense involved in that statement. Unfortunately it's something that you cannot disprove. Hence it would and could have been quite possible, and fairly common sense to think it might. Not when you look at how many times Shepherd had blocked potential takeovers. Didn't block Ashley, so there's no way of knowing that he wouldn't have blocked someone else if Ashley's bid had fallen through. We can do this all night, all ifs and buts that can't be totally proven either way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Of course the debt has doubled under Ashley. Statements like "Barclays were straining at the leash to call in our hefty overdraft" don't help your argument either Thomson Mouse. Pure speculation. What was the debt when Ashley took over? That is not pure speculation. Barclays wanted to call the overdraft in, it was common knowledge. Around £61m. "Common knowledge"? You'll have to do better than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Of course the debt has doubled under Ashley. Statements like "Barclays were straining at the leash to call in our hefty overdraft" don't help your argument either Thomson Mouse. Pure speculation. What was the debt when Ashley took over? That is not pure speculation. Barclays wanted to call the overdraft in, it was common knowledge. Around £61m. "Common knowledge"? You'll have to do better than that. http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/bank_orders_newcastle_united_to_cut_overdraft/ http://www.football.co.uk/newcastle_united/trio_s_exit_vital_to_seal_deal_rss183561.shtml Quick google. That was debts carried over from Shepherd which Ashley paid off by his now infamous 'loan' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 these were debts that had to be paid in the event of any new owner, not had shepherd remained in charge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 So Shepherd was responsible then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest antz1uk Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 the loan/debt may have been serviceable had shepherd remained/ plc etc.. we will never know, what we do know is no one was asking for the loan/debt to be called in, that is you sensationalising, eggagerating the fact. it was only called in due to a change of ownership. as per terms and conditions, im not entering into this with you as a debate cos frankly you're posts have been shit, however i have merely stated facts, ehich we know are to be true Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Of course the debt has doubled under Ashley. Statements like "Barclays were straining at the leash to call in our hefty overdraft" don't help your argument either Thomson Mouse. Pure speculation. What was the debt when Ashley took over? That is not pure speculation. Barclays wanted to call the overdraft in, it was common knowledge. Around £61m. "Common knowledge"? You'll have to do better than that. http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/bank_orders_newcastle_united_to_cut_overdraft/ http://www.football.co.uk/newcastle_united/trio_s_exit_vital_to_seal_deal_rss183561.shtml Quick google. That was debts carried over from Shepherd which Ashley paid off by his now infamous 'loan' Don't really know where to start with that tbh. a) the article was published two years after Ashley bought the club. b) it was published when we were in the Championship where obviously the club's ability to pay its debts had become compromised - by Mike Ashley's mismanagement. You can't blame Shepherd for that particular enormous change in circumstance. c) the club accrued a lot of debt upon purchase because of the structure of the loan on the stadium. Again, that comes down to Ashley not doing due diligence and would not have been the case had Shepherd remained. Nobody questions that the finances of the club were looking decidedly ropey at the time. Even Shepherd knew that, which is why he brought in Allardyce, in the hope that he could solidify us enough on a pittance for a couple of years. My objection is to the use of terms like "bankrupt", which is just nonsense. Even Leeds and Portsmouth have never gotten as far as declaring bankruptcy for God's sake, and their financial problems make ours at the time look like owing your mam a fiver. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 The overdraft was there before Ashley took the club over and the club was losing money. The stadium loan was structured by Shepherd/Halls, not because Ashley did not do DD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 The overdraft was there before Ashley took the club over and the club was losing money. The stadium loan was structured by Shepherd/Halls, not because Ashley did not do DD. The loan didn't have to be paid off immediately under Shepherd. Surely you know this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Hugely increased TV revenue since Ashley took over, in no way attributable to him directly, simply glosses over how grossly he's mismanaging us financially. Our debt has doubled inside 7 years, non-TV related revenue income has almost halved at a time where nearly every other Premiership club has seen significant growth, and ultimately we're posting profits because we are a selling club who don't reinvest even the money generated in the playing or coaching side of the football club. I cannot believe people are falling for this insane notion that we were heading for financial ruin until Mike saved the day. The Hall/Shepherd ownership pisses all over this one on any level, including financial, even if it was going stale towards the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Hugely increased TV revenue since Ashley took over, in no way attributable to him directly, simply glosses over how grossly he's mismanaging us financially. Our debt has doubled inside 7 years, non-TV related revenue income has almost halved at a time where nearly every other Premiership club has seen significant growth, and ultimately we're posting profits because we are a selling club who don't reinvest even the money generated in the playing or coaching side of the football club. I cannot believe people are falling for this insane notion that we were heading for financial ruin until Mike saved the day. The Hall/Shepherd ownership pisses all over this one on any level, including financial, even if it was going stale towards the end. Agree with everything apart 'Mike saved the day' and the club was going down a very poor financial path. Genuinely would like to see how the debt has doubled though. No bullshit or anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Hugely increased TV revenue since Ashley took over, in no way attributable to him directly, simply glosses over how grossly he's mismanaging us financially. Our debt has doubled inside 7 years, non-TV related revenue income has almost halved at a time where nearly every other Premiership club has seen significant growth, and ultimately we're posting profits because we are a selling club who don't reinvest even the money generated in the playing or coaching side of the football club. I cannot believe people are falling for this insane notion that we were heading for financial ruin until Mike saved the day. The Hall/Shepherd ownership pisses all over this one on any level, including financial, even if it was going stale towards the end. Think the financial situation under Ashley has been a lie repeated so much it's taken as truth. Looking at the numbers we're doing okay, but we should be doing fucking great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 I agree entirely. People just can't seem to separate Shepherd = bad, Ashely = good, from Shepherd = arsehole, Ashley = arsehole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 The overdraft was there before Ashley took the club over and the club was losing money. The stadium loan was structured by Shepherd/Halls, not because Ashley did not do DD. The loan didn't have to be paid off immediately under Shepherd. Surely you know this? It didn't. The club were going to struggle to meet the repayments though due to profit/loss under Shepherd. Surely you knew this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 nah mate. nah. ashley is a 10 on the shiteometer and FFS was a 7.5, don't know how you're rating him a 7.6 and here's 20 pages of historical opinion why because it really really matters to me that you don't consider him as bad as you do they're both 10 on the shiteometer for me just for different reasons. Yep, spot on. I just don't like seeing the Shepherd love-in that has been happening over the last few pages. The blokes a moron. Can't put it any clearer than jdckelly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 The overdraft was there before Ashley took the club over and the club was losing money. The stadium loan was structured by Shepherd/Halls, not because Ashley did not do DD. The loan didn't have to be paid off immediately under Shepherd. Surely you know this? It didn't. The club were going to struggle to meet the repayments though due to profit/loss under Shepherd. Surely you knew this? How do you get from that to bankruptcy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Hugely increased TV revenue since Ashley took over, in no way attributable to him directly, simply glosses over how grossly he's mismanaging us financially. Our debt has doubled inside 7 years, non-TV related revenue income has almost halved at a time where nearly every other Premiership club has seen significant growth, and ultimately we're posting profits because we are a selling club who don't reinvest even the money generated in the playing or coaching side of the football club. I cannot believe people are falling for this insane notion that we were heading for financial ruin until Mike saved the day. The Hall/Shepherd ownership pisses all over this one on any level, including financial, even if it was going stale towards the end. Agree with everything apart 'Mike saved the day' and the club was going down a very poor financial path. Genuinely would like to see how the debt has doubled though. No bullshit or anything. It was around £61m in 2007. It's now £129m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 By the way: "he's a miracle man, the chairman." - Sir Bobby Robson, 2003. Everyone sucks up to their boss man Are you too young to remember SBR, or something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 BTW Everton made a tiny profit in their last accounts, and a loss the year before, and they have a debt of more than £45m. Are they going bankrupt? Liverpool made a loss of £50m, and have a debt of £114m - that is vastly worse than ours in 2007. Surely they're going to the wall? You can't just post numbers without placing them against the context of other businesses in the same sector - i.e. other Premier League clubs. Looking in isolation as a lay person, they nearly all look fucked - big losses, big debts. In reality, none of them are unless they drop out of the Premier League. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Depends if they can service the debt. If they can, they're fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 Depends if they can service the debt. If they can, they're fine. They have taken a calculated risk that appointing a well rated manager will make the difference. Kenwright hasn't been popular with Everton fans but at least he seems to be a football man who is hands on and actually loves his team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan_Taylor Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 By the way: "he's a miracle man, the chairman." - Sir Bobby Robson, 2003. Everyone sucks up to their boss man Are you too young to remember SBR, or something? Nope. But just because someone said their boss isn't a dick, in a public interview. Doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't matter if your SBR or John Doe. You don't grief the boss in the public eye, unless you hate your job like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted April 12, 2014 Share Posted April 12, 2014 If I had a boss I'd imagine it would take a lot more than him not being 'a dick' for me to say that about him, like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts