Ronaldo Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Are you blind, Heza? I included the TV revenue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'm sure you didn't before like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Well, I did. Remember that next time you trot into the ground thinking it makes no difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyn davies Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 he makes more dosh investing on the stockmarket in other companies such as debenhams that he will out of our lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Maybe we should just use the ticket money into paying someone into bumping him off. Seems the most straight forward to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Well, I did. Remember that next time you trot into the ground thinking it makes no difference. Aye. Reet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken little Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 This c*** truly is the western worlds Kim Jong un. kinell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 '£23m to the good'? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. Are you still banging this drum? f***ing hell man You think the £23m figure is accurate? F***ing hell man Wasnt talking about that part, clearly the ludicrous bullshit you spouted after Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie1892 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 '£23m to the good'? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. Are you still banging this drum? f***ing hell man You think the £23m figure is accurate? F***ing hell man Wasnt talking about that part, clearly the ludicrous bullshit you spouted after Fantastic construction of an argument. Really forensic; very impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 '£23m to the good'? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. Are you still banging this drum? f***ing hell man You think the £23m figure is accurate? F***ing hell man Wasnt talking about that part, clearly the ludicrous bullshit you spouted after Fantastic construction of an argument. Really forensic; very impressive. If you really are stupid enough to think Ashley has taken £150m of TV money out then good luck to you. Given that you are that stupid its not really surprising you didnt understand my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie1892 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 '£23m to the good'? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. Are you still banging this drum? f***ing hell man You think the £23m figure is accurate? F***ing hell man Wasnt talking about that part, clearly the ludicrous bullshit you spouted after Fantastic construction of an argument. Really forensic; very impressive. If you really are stupid enough to think Ashley has taken £150m of TV money out then good luck to you. Given that you are that stupid its not really surprising you didnt understand my point. Another well-constructed and well-argued response. A strawman argument, and some ignorant and personal abuse thrown in for good measure. If anything, you're endorsing my position with your vacuous retorts. Ad hominem attacks are usually a good sign that there's no real argument on offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heake Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 '£23m to the good'? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. Are you still banging this drum? f***ing hell man You think the £23m figure is accurate? F***ing hell man Wasnt talking about that part, clearly the ludicrous bullshit you spouted after Fantastic construction of an argument. Really forensic; very impressive. If you really are stupid enough to think Ashley has taken £150m of TV money out then good luck to you. Given that you are that stupid its not really surprising you didnt understand my point. Another well-constructed and well-argued response. A strawman argument, and some ignorant and personal abuse thrown in for good measure. If anything, you're endorsing my position with your vacuous retorts. Ad hominem attacks are usually a good sign that there's no real argument on offer. Ye callin him a puff like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I firmly believe the reason he doesn't want us to be successful if his vendetta against the supporters. His main interest is to keep his investment intact and mid table finish always and the rest the fans can sod of. That will be the case for a while not. The fans will never forgive him and he will never change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 '£23m to the good'? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. Are you still banging this drum? f***ing hell man You think the £23m figure is accurate? F***ing hell man Wasnt talking about that part, clearly the ludicrous bullshit you spouted after Fantastic construction of an argument. Really forensic; very impressive. If you really are stupid enough to think Ashley has taken £150m of TV money out then good luck to you. Given that you are that stupid its not really surprising you didnt understand my point. Another well-constructed and well-argued response. A strawman argument, and some ignorant and personal abuse thrown in for good measure. If anything, you're endorsing my position with your vacuous retorts. Ad hominem attacks are usually a good sign that there's no real argument on offer. Strawman? Try nearer £300m - half in TV cash/prize money, the rest in free advertising for his tat emporium and club merchandise. Quite possibly more. You posted this weapons grade bullshit and have the audacity to question my 'well constructed and well argued' point? Laughable attempt to gain the high ground by ignoring just how utterly moronic your post actually was. Not sure how you can state i have no real argument when its clear my argument is that you are talking bollocks of epic proportions and deflecting it proves you havent even got it in you to defend your daft post. Respond/dont respond i dont care but stop trying to move the goalposts from the real fact that you are massively talking out of your arse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie1892 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 You've not really got the hang of this, have you? Apart from the abuse of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Does ashley own Converse now? Noticed it being advertised at the last match. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Does ashley own Converse now? Noticed it being advertised at the last match. No, not even he has enough money to own them. Nike own them, I don't even think SD sell them anymore, they just have their own rip off version. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie1892 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Does ashley own Converse now? Noticed it being advertised at the last match. USC carry a big range of Converse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 A decent piece, from a Sunderland supporter of all people: Michael Graham | On 12, May 2015 Newcastle United fans’ recent protests against the club’s ownership and direction has drawn criticism from plenty, but is it just a case of lazy stereotyping? If football was a property market, then Newcastle United would be the poorly maintained mansion positioned on a precarious flood plain – always just a little short of its natural potential and never far from complete disaster. It’s a football club that I’ve lived around my whole life without ever wanting to see them do well. I’m a Sunderland fan, born and bred, but one who was predominantly raised in strictly black and white territory. I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence or be patronising here: I enjoy a good old fashioned Newcastle United implosion. I always have, and the current one surrounding the John Carver circus is as juicy as they get – save, perhaps, Alan Shearer taking them down, but, you know, been there, done that. There is something that accompanies a Magpies meltdown that I do find a little irritating, though, and that is the ‘unrealistic expectations’ stigma that Newcastle fans get lumbered with from far and wide. I don’t like that one bit. Most of my oldest friends are Newcastle fans. I currently have colleagues who support the club, and I’ve spent more than enough time around the North-East press pack to know that, generally speaking, they are a realistic bunch when it comes to their coverage of the club. In fact, most of them could barely raise a smile right now, never mind an actual ambition. “Transfer policies should be a means to an end, not a means to itself. That’s something we all, as football fans, have a veritable right to take for granted.” Over the last few weeks the fans’ protest against the club’s performance and policies under owner Mike Ashley have been accompanied by sneers from far and wide as the same old stereotypes are applied. “What do they expect?!”; “what do they think makes them so special?”; “how dare they try to claim a monopoly on anger?”; “deluded!” All total nonsense, in my opinion at least. There has also been the odd defence of them, in fairness, though they only seem interested in endorsing rather than explaining. First of all, though, the charge list. What is unrealistic about expecting honest ownership of your football club? Generally speaking, football looks upon Blackpool and Hull City fans with sympathy and understanding, and quite rightly so. The Blackpool owners appear to care only for extracting money out of the club, the Hull City owners appear to think nothing of sweeping the club’s identity and history under a carpet. Mike Ashley is guilty of both, yet Newcastle fans are unreasonable heathens for not meekly sitting on their hands and accepting it? View image | gettyimages.com What is unrealistic about wanting to feel like you can trust the sporting integrity of your football club? Most of us have to accept our clubs failing and making mistakes, but none of us should feel like our club isn’t trying to be the most it can be. I’ve never spoken to a Newcastle fan who was angry that the club failed to prevent moneybags Paris Saint-Germain from luring Yohan Cabaye away, but I’ve spoken to plenty understandably demotivated that they never made any serious attempt to replace him with something even remotely comparable. Transfer policies should be a means to an end, not a means to itself. That’s something we all, as football fans, have a veritable right to take for granted. Newcastle are not a ‘special’ club, and the scores of former players you hear trying to suck up to the club’s fans by insisting it is do the image of the club immeasurably more harm than good. Mick Quinn, John Beresford, and a host of other now wholly irrelevant names of yesteryear, I’m looking at you. But there is one thing that I do believe applies to Newcastle supporters that most of us can’t lay claim to – they have seen, and lived, just how big a club theirs can be. I was living on Tyneside when Kevin Keegan rolled into town in the early 90s, and you’d struggle to see a more seminal club-altering moment that didn’t involve foreign oil money. Everything changed. Suddenly, a club struggling under Ossie Ardiles and genuinely fearing a relegation to the third tier was one of the biggest in the land. View image | gettyimages.com They challenged for the title, and they’ll still wonder how the hell they didn’t win one. They spent money. They broke the world record transfer fee for arguably the most sought-after talent in Europe at that time. They attacked, they entertained, they tasted the Champions League and were taken seriously in it. The game has moved on now, and everyone gets that, Newcastle fans included. It would take closer to £300million to get from midtable to top four than the £30million or so Mike Ashley has apparently syphoned off for purposes unknown in the Magpies’ financial results. But when you’ve tasted the best your club can be, when you’ve felt the pride from seeing your club daring to live for you, being asked to settle for simply existing as your pockets are exploited is going to sting more than it would normally. I think that, deep down, we all enjoy seeing the big clubs struggle. There is a drama to it, almost a sense of theatre. And I enjoy seeing Newcastle struggle more than most. It’s also fair to say that there is a small element of the supporters who don’t do anyone any favours – you know, the ones who punch horses, stage mock funerals outside the ground, wave shoes at empty boardrooms, paint themselves from head to foot in black and white and loiter seemingly endlessly outside the ground…that small element. But those little social oddities shouldn’t define a club. I know plenty Stoke fans and none of them have ever, or would ever, form a lynch mob with undefined purpose and seek Sky Sports News cameras on deadline day. I know plenty of Manchester United fans, and none of them are from Kent. Are Newcastle fans, as a whole, deluded? Not in my experience, no. If asking your football club simply to make every effort to be the best it can be, to represent you and your passions with honest sporting intentions and mutual respect, is asking too much, then it’s an accusation that can, and should, be made of us all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuv Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Good read Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Fans of other clubs in general should be a lot more concerned about what Ashley has done. It could easily happen to any of them - stopping him should be a matter of solidarity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 'Easily' is overstating it. How many Premier League owners have effectively bought their clubs solely to steal money from it during the past 23 years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EthiGeordie Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The Sunderland fan nail it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32717309 Rangers: Mike Ashley wants EGM and £5m loan returned By Chris McLaughlin BBC Sport Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley has called on the Rangers board to hold an extraordinary meeting to pay back his £5m loan to the Glasgow club. Ashley, who owns a 9% stake in Rangers, has also asked the board to explain why the club has been delisted from the AIM stock exchange. If the loan is paid back, the club will regain security over their branding, the Murray Park training ground and the club's retail rights. All are currently held by Ashley. The move comes after the Sports Direct owner lost control of the Ibrox boardroom to South Africa-based businessman Dave King, who is awaiting Scottish FA approval to become the club's new chairman. That followed an EGM called by King in March, when shareholders backed the former Rangers director and his allies. Paul Murray, who was named interim chairman, was this month formerly cleared by the SFA to become a director of the Scottish Championship club despite sitting on the board along with King in the years preceding Rangers' insolvency in 2012. Police investigating takeovers at Rangers last week searched Sports Direct's Derbyshire headquarters. The company stressed that it related to "various persons previously employed by and or associated with Rangers" and was "not directed at Sports Direct or at any of its directors or employees". Rangers International Football Club plc was delisted from AIM in April after the club failed to appoint a nominated advisor. That following the resignation of previous nomad, WH Ireland, but the club blamed the previous administration. Derek Llambias, a former Newcastle managing director, took charge in December and appointed former Sports Direct executive Barry Leach as finance director. An initial £2m loan from Ashley had given the Newcastle owner the right to appoint two directors to Rangers' board. The Englishman agreed a further £10m loan in January to help keep the club solvent, although only £5m was made available immediately as working capital. Sports Direct started its merchandising deal with the Glasgow club in 2012 following a takeover led by English businessman Charles Green, after which Rangers were accepted to play in the Scottish Third Division. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Rangers will be free of him. Well played. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts