Mike Ashley

[loki679]

Let's not let the 'journalists being cunts' shock detract from the salient point.

[JH]

Regardless of who is right and wrong, the club's handling of this has been shambolic yet again.

 

You expect a tabloid newspaper to be a bit childish/petty, but for a football club to release a statement entitled "Caught lying again (The Telegraph)" is hilariously unprofessional

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Sure, the club shouldn't respond to the media in the incredibly childish way they've chosen. On the other hand I can see why people feel frustrated by how they are treated by the press. Most people just swallow it.

[Unbelievable]

I think the club means that no decision has actually been made with regards to Rangers and NUFC specifically. Which, although incredibly pedantic, is technically correct.

 

As tgarve said basically. No doubt The Telegraph relished the opportunity to take the most extreme possible angle on this.

 

Tough one for me, because I don't like the Telegraph any more than I like Mike Ashley.

 

What decision is there to be made? These are the rules. Same as when a player gets send off, you know he is suspended for the next game(s), or when you lose a cup game you are out of the competition.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well presumably there needs to be a ruling, like for Financial Fair Play for example. It could be open to argument as to the extent of Ashley's involvement, it could exclude NUFC but not Rangers, or the other way round, or it could be subject to legal challenge. And possibly other things. The Telegraph just took a very strong line on it.

[Unbelievable]

The way I read it the only thing that may be up for debate is whether Ashley's interest is above or below a (I believe not explicitly specified) threshold where he is deemed to have a controlling interest in Rangers. To be fair to the Telegraph, if they asked UEFA the question what would happen if Newcastle and Rangers both qualified for a UEFA competition, and their reply was to refer them to that section of their regulations than that at the very least very strongly implies where they sit on the issue on whether Ashley's interest in Rangers can be deemed as controlling or not.

 

I don't trust the media at all, but I trust Mike Ashley a hell of a lot less yet. The nature of the club statement makes it all the more cringe-worthy. We're being run by a bunch of fucking pricks who will do anything to protect their own reputation whilst slowly destroying the club as a meaningful force in English football.

[tgarve]

I think the club means that no decision has actually been made with regards to Rangers and NUFC specifically. Which, although incredibly pedantic, is technically correct.

 

As tgarve said basically. No doubt The Telegraph relished the opportunity to take the most extreme possible angle on this.

 

Tough one for me, because I don't like the Telegraph any more than I like Mike Ashley.

 

What decision is there to be made? These are the rules. Same as when a player gets send off, you know he is suspended for the next game(s), or when you lose a cup game you are out of the competition.

 

I think it's more the fact that they said we may never play in Europe again while Ashley is in charge and also that he would pick Rangers above us when there is no proof either way.

[thomas]

Well presumably there needs to be a ruling, like for Financial Fair Play for example. It could be open to argument as to the extent of Ashley's involvement, it could exclude NUFC but not Rangers, or the other way round, or it could be subject to legal challenge. And possibly other things. The Telegraph just took a very strong line on it.

Section 3.c.ii & .iv sounds like there isn't much room there tbh:

 

c) no individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than

one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or

influence being defined in this context as:

i) holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;

ii) having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the

administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;

iii) being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the

shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with

other shareholders of the club; or

iv) being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the

decision-making of the club.

 

The Telegraph have rightly interpreted his appointing of his own people as evidence of that influence. He clearly already has it at NUFC. He's now demonstrated it at Rangers.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not saying they wouldn't rule against us, I'm saying it's not guaranteed.

 

Also, it's not really news so the Telegraph has clearly run the story to hit back against the club.

 

Whether you agree or not with either of these arguments is a different matter, I know sympathy for anything Ashley does is (rightly) in short supply.

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The Telegraph have rightly interpreted his appointing of his own people as evidence of that influence. He clearly already has it at NUFC. He's now demonstrated it at Rangers.

 

In your opinion, but it would have to be tested and argued. I imagine he would have a few arguments that would point the other way.

[Minhosa]

I'm not saying they wouldn't rule against us, I'm saying it's not guaranteed.

 

Also, it's not really news so the Telegraph has clearly run the story to hit back against the club.

 

Whether you agree or not with either of these arguments is a different matter, I know sympathy for anything Ashley does is (rightly) in short supply.

 

 

 

Regardless of the agenda of the Telegraph, surely it is news if they are found to be correct. An exclusive for them potentially if they are the first daily to air the story.

[thomas]

The Telegraph have rightly interpreted his appointing of his own people as evidence of that influence. He clearly already has it at NUFC. He's now demonstrated it at Rangers.

 

In your opinion, but it would have to be tested and argued. I imagine he would have a few arguments that would point the other way.

I'm not sure what uncertainty you think there is in that interpretation. What are some of these arguments you're imagining?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not saying they wouldn't rule against us, I'm saying it's not guaranteed.

 

Also, it's not really news so the Telegraph has clearly run the story to hit back against the club.

 

Whether you agree or not with either of these arguments is a different matter, I know sympathy for anything Ashley does is (rightly) in short supply.

 

 

 

Regardless of the agenda of the Telegraph, surely it is news if they are found to be correct. An exclusive for them potentially if they are the first daily to air the story.

 

Possibly, it could become news a few years into the future when both clubs could potentially qualify for Europe. I don't think that is the motivation for the story though.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The Telegraph have rightly interpreted his appointing of his own people as evidence of that influence. He clearly already has it at NUFC. He's now demonstrated it at Rangers.

 

In your opinion, but it would have to be tested and argued. I imagine he would have a few arguments that would point the other way.

I'm not sure what uncertainty you think there is in that interpretation. What are some of these arguments you're imagining?

 

Well I can't really second guess what he might argue, but I'm saying it's unlikely to be a fight he gives up without trying.

 

Just off the top of my head, he could argue his influence over the board is marginal and only extended to that one bloke he got into position. He might argue his only interest in Rangers is his commercial retail partnership, he could position himself more as a sponsor/business partner than a controller. There are probably others that a highly-paid legal team could come up with. 

 

PS I just enjoy this kind of debate, I'm not saying I agree that Ashley should be allowed to control two clubs.

[Unbelievable]

I think the club means that no decision has actually been made with regards to Rangers and NUFC specifically. Which, although incredibly pedantic, is technically correct.

 

As tgarve said basically. No doubt The Telegraph relished the opportunity to take the most extreme possible angle on this.

 

Tough one for me, because I don't like the Telegraph any more than I like Mike Ashley.

 

What decision is there to be made? These are the rules. Same as when a player gets send off, you know he is suspended for the next game(s), or when you lose a cup game you are out of the competition.

 

I think it's more the fact that they said we may never play in Europe again while Ashley is in charge and also that he would pick Rangers above us when there is no proof either way.

 

The thing is Ashley wouldn't get to choose who plays in Europe and who doesn't. Ian's argument of a ruling is also null and void as the rules are perfectly clear. By doing what he is doing Ashley is endangering any chance NUFC have of getting back in Europe. I don't know what's hard to understand about this. The club statement has come about because The Telegraph were 100% correct, not because they were wrong. As always though, some of our fans appear to have fallen for it. Club and fans shortchanged and lied to, Ashley under no pressure due to false propaganda. Mission accomplished.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I agree he's endangering both clubs' participation in Europe, but it's a fact that that law will need to be ruled on by someone and that process will presumably involve representations from Ashley and possibly legal action or the threat of it.

 

It's not as simple as saying "the rule is perfectly clear".

 

I haven't falled for anything, I think the statement is idiotic and childish, but I also think The Telegraph has jumped the gun.

[Unbelievable]

The Telegraph have rightly interpreted his appointing of his own people as evidence of that influence. He clearly already has it at NUFC. He's now demonstrated it at Rangers.

 

In your opinion, but it would have to be tested and argued. I imagine he would have a few arguments that would point the other way.

I'm not sure what uncertainty you think there is in that interpretation. What are some of these arguments you're imagining?

 

Well I can't really second guess what he might argue, but I'm saying it's unlikely to be a fight he gives up without trying.

 

Just off the top of my head, he could argue his influence over the board is marginal and only extended to that one bloke he got into position. He might argue his only interest in Rangers is his commercial retail partnership, he could position himself more as a sponsor/business partner than a controller. There are probably others that a highly-paid legal team could come up with. 

 

PS I just enjoy this kind of debate, I'm not saying I agree that Ashley should be allowed to control two clubs.

 

Dear God Ian, these guys don't even want us to qualify for Europe (EL at least). Why would they put up a fight to allow us in when the rules clearly state we wouldn't be allowed?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well if they don't decide to put up a fight then fair enough, nothing about the arguments is worse discussing.

 

I never considered that Ashley was doing this to actively exclude us from Europe TBH.

[Unbelievable]

Well if they don't decide to put up a fight then fair enough, nothing about the arguments is worse discussing.

 

I never considered that Ashley was doing this to actively exclude us from Europe TBH.

 

Nobody has suggested he has. He's doing it because it benefits him. The fact it hurts NUFC doesn't come into the equation.

[Happy Face]

Newcastle in Europe offers literally nothing to Mike Ashley.  His sports Direct ads get covered up and his team risk injury/fatigue.

 

If he gets Sports Direct on the Rangers shirts he'll be delighted for them to get into Europe.  There's nothing else appealing to him about buying into Scottish football over and above already owning Newecastle.  It's one of the least watched leagues, their stores are reporting losses (which he's contracted Rangers to pay Sports Direct to cover), he's alienating half of the people that would otherwise shop in his store north of the border and the returns in terms selling shares are non-existant, even if they win titles again, it'll be a minuscule return comparatively.

 

The only attraction for him is to get Sports Direct coverage in European games that aren't going to jeopardise the clubs league challenge or prove too expensive a cost if they did.

 

With or without Rangers, if NUFC got into Europe I wouldn't have been surprised if we forfeited the position.

[AlanSkÃrare]

Newcastle in Europe offers literally nothing to Mike Ashley.  His sports Direct ads get covered up and his team risk injury/fatigue.

 

If he gets Sports Direct on the Rangers shirts he'll be delighted for them to get into Europe.  There's nothing else appealing to him about buying into Scottish football over and above already owning Newecastle.  It's one of the least watched leagues, their stores are reporting losses (which he's contracted Rangers to pay Sports Direct to cover), he's alienating half of the people that would otherwise shop in his store north of the border and the returns in terms selling shares are non-existant, even if they win titles again, it'll be a minuscule return comparatively.

 

With or without Rangers, if NUFC got into Europe I wouldn't have been surprised if we forfeited the position.

 

Even reading a hypothetical discussion on this is fucking grim.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Seems unlikely Ashley would just get to choose one club to compete and one to drop out though, that would be even more against the spirit of competition. Although TBH I haven't a clue what actually would happen.

[Happy Face]

Man U chose not to play in the FA Cup.  Think he can withdraw any of his clubs from any competition he likes.

[tgarve]

Newcastle in Europe offers literally nothing to Mike Ashley.  His sports Direct ads get covered up and his team risk injury/fatigue.

 

If he gets Sports Direct on the Rangers shirts he'll be delighted for them to get into Europe.  There's nothing else appealing to him about buying into Scottish football over and above already owning Newecastle.  It's one of the least watched leagues, their stores are reporting losses (which he's contracted Rangers to pay Sports Direct to cover), he's alienating half of the people that would otherwise shop in his store north of the border and the returns in terms selling shares are non-existant, even if they win titles again, it'll be a minuscule return comparatively.

 

The only attraction for him is to get Sports Direct coverage in European games that aren't going to jeopardise the clubs league challenge or prove too expensive a cost if they did.

 

With or without Rangers, if NUFC got into Europe I wouldn't have been surprised if we forfeited the position.

 

Eh surely if that's all it was about he would just put sports direct on out shirts?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Man U chose not to play in the FA Cup.  Think he can withdraw any of his clubs from any competition he likes.

 

Suppose he could if you put it like that. Would be insane from a sporting point of view, but obviously that's never stopped him before.