Mike Ashley

[cp40]

We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc.

 

While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts.

 

There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo.

 

totally agree- my thinking is moderate investment after finishing fifth, would surely have paid itself back in terms of revenues increasing through lifting the profile of the club. Im certain the club can achieve a higher turnover and still be sensibly run within that- yet be doing more than we are now.

[TRon]

Yeah I think his primary motivation was that he assumed he'd be successful at it and loved the idea of having a football team. You only have to look at his behaviour when he first took over to see that.

 

The question I think is whether his motivation changed in the wake of the hate campaign against him post-Keegan, and whether he now simply wants to claw back his investment and sell for the best possible price, or whether he's still determined to pull it round and make a real success of it. And I don't think we've seen enough yet to know which is the reality. I'm not sure what the real test of that would be, really.

 

If he wants to get the fans back onside again, he needs to invest in firstly the team - which he's shown signs of doing this window tbf - and secondly the manager. You can have all the quality players in the world, but they still need to be led and organised effectively. Ashley has gone for the cheap option in appointing Pardew, but that might undo all the work in the transfer market and end up costing far more than to pay for a well regarded manager in the first place.

[Guest tollemache]

Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way.

 

Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first?

 

So do Arsenal every year, by and large. It's a good way of doing things, if you possibly can, and if you rewound to the last days of Shepherd and asked fans "Would it be better if we adopted Arsenal's model in the transfer market?" then you'd have heard a loud "Yes" from a large majority of them. We shouldn't aim to make a loss! As long as good players keep arriving and the overall quality gets better and better, we shouldn't mind one bit if we turn a profit.

[Guest bimpy474]

It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks.

 

That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yes, if someone offered him his money back that'd be a test. Til that happens though, I don't think there's any reason for him not to try to make the club as successful as possible. Whether he wants to sell for a good price, or he wants success for its own sake, that is the best course of action. Aiming to make us a lower-mid table team forever and ever and then sell would be silly for him to do - he might as well try to build us into a better side and sell for more. So I don't think we've seen enough to be able to say for sure whether he's thinking in terms of selling or not. He'd be behaving the same way either way.

 

Are you aware we have made a substantial profit on transfer dealings in every season under Mike Ashley bar his first?

 

So do Arsenal every year, by and large. It's a good way of doing things, if you possibly can, and if you rewound to the last days of Shepherd and asked fans "Would it be better if we adopted Arsenal's model in the transfer market?" then you'd have heard a loud "Yes" from a large majority of them. We shouldn't aim to make a loss! As long as good players keep arriving and the overall quality gets better and better, we shouldn't mind one bit if we turn a profit.

 

Heard an excellent interview with one of the Arsenal execs a while ago. He was basically saying that the only aim to make a profit as a club so that they can invest it all back into success. But that meant overall profit, not just profit from transfers.

 

For me, I'm not bothered if we make a transfer profit at all. As long as the club isn't making overall profits every year and nobody is creaming the money off.

[Guest tollemache]

And I don't think it tells us whether or not Ashley just wants to sell, at all. All it tells us is that he thinks the club will end up more successful if it makes a profit.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks.

 

That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it.

 

It's sensible until you get into a crisis situation IMO. The problem is if you can't find a player in a certain position, and one of your existing players gets injured or turns out to be shit, you might not be able to find a new player who perfectly fits the criteria.

 

I'm behind the transfer policy but I hope we flex it to get a CB and CF because we desperately need them. On the other hand, you could argue a policy becomes pointless if you're always making exceptions to it. I'm not 100% sure about it TBH.

[Guest bimpy474]

We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc.

 

While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts.

 

There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo.

 

totally agree- my thinking is moderate investment after finishing fifth, would surely have paid itself back in terms of revenues increasing through lifting the profile of the club. Im certain the club can achieve a higher turnover and still be sensibly run within that- yet be doing more than we are now.

 

As Ian has said they seem willing to spend, so the money is there and therefore the wages too. It's just they limit themselves with what players they can buy.

 

Now a cynic would say that's on purpose so they don't have to spend, personally i don't think that, it's a stupid way to do it, and as you say with a little bit more freedom and sense we could have been so much better off.

[Rosenrot]

I wish we, the fans, owned at least half of the club like in Germany and like Barcelona/Real Madrid. At least then we'd feel like we have some control over our club..

[Guest tollemache]

I was thinking about that the other day... how does it even work? Members pay their dues every year and that means they've bought shares? How do the fans meaningfully own half of Bayern Munich?

[Guest bimpy474]

It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks.

 

That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it.

 

It's sensible until you get into a crisis situation IMO. The problem is if you can't find a player in a certain position, and one of your existing players gets injured or turns out to be shit, you might not be able to find a new player who perfectly fits the criteria.

 

I'm behind the transfer policy but I hope we flex it to get a CB and CF because we desperately need them. On the other hand, you could argue a policy becomes pointless if you're always making exceptions to it. I'm not 100% sure about it TBH.

 

Well put it this way, if a 32 year old CB became available they wouldn't touch him. Just a stupid policy if that player is good enough. I'm not saying sign 4 or 5 like that but one or two when you really need them, like now say.

 

Seem daft to be so rigid on it. Like you say, just a little bit more flexability.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I was thinking about that the other day... how does it even work? Members pay their dues every year and that means they've bought shares? How do the fans meaningfully own half of Bayern Munich?

 

I thought they just basically elected the president? No idea either TBH.

[TRon]

It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks.

 

That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it.

 

It's sensible until you get into a crisis situation IMO. The problem is if you can't find a player in a certain position, and one of your existing players gets injured or turns out to be shit, you might not be able to find a new player who perfectly fits the criteria.

 

I'm behind the transfer policy but I hope we flex it to get a CB and CF because we desperately need them. On the other hand, you could argue a policy becomes pointless if you're always making exceptions to it. I'm not 100% sure about it TBH.

 

Well put it this way, if a 32 year old CB became available they wouldn't touch him. Just a stupid policy if that player is good enough. I'm not saying sign 4 or 5 like that but one or two when you really need them, like now say.

 

Seem daft to be so rigid on it. Like you say, just a little bit more flexability.

 

It will be interesting to see if we show some flexibility on that policy this time. I can understand we are reluctant to be lumbered with a player we don't really want but that will be tested this window with the threat of relegation hovering.

[Rosenrot]

I was thinking about that the other day... how does it even work? Members pay their dues every year and that means they've bought shares? How do the fans meaningfully own half of Bayern Munich?

 

Along with FC Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao, and Osasuna, Real Madrid is organised as a registered association. This means that Real Madrid is owned by its supporters who elect the clubs president. The club president cannot invest his own money into the club[106] it can only spend what it earns, this is mainly derived through merchandise sales, television rights and ticket sales. Unlike a limited company, it is not possible to purchase shares in the club, but only membership.[107] The members of Real Madrid, called socios, form an assembly of delegates which is the highest governing body of the club.[108] As of 2010 the club has 60,000 socios.[109]

 

That's how RM works.

[Guest bimpy474]

It would be nice to know they had more alternatives lined up, but I suppose there aren't that many young, good and cheap players around in every position we need. Everything crossed for the next two weeks.

 

That's what i meant by narrow thinking by them, they rule out ages above 27 and loans etc. Along with the 11 purple nonsense. It's so daft and leads us to where we are now, insufficient squad numbers, low on quality and low on alternative targets because of it.

 

It's sensible until you get into a crisis situation IMO. The problem is if you can't find a player in a certain position, and one of your existing players gets injured or turns out to be shit, you might not be able to find a new player who perfectly fits the criteria.

 

I'm behind the transfer policy but I hope we flex it to get a CB and CF because we desperately need them. On the other hand, you could argue a policy becomes pointless if you're always making exceptions to it. I'm not 100% sure about it TBH.

 

Well put it this way, if a 32 year old CB became available they wouldn't touch him. Just a stupid policy if that player is good enough. I'm not saying sign 4 or 5 like that but one or two when you really need them, like now say.

 

Seem daft to be so rigid on it. Like you say, just a little bit more flexability.

 

It will be interesting to see if we show some flexibility on that policy this time. I can understand we are reluctant to be lumbered with a player we don't really want but that will be tested this window with the threat of relegation hovering.

 

Yeah, it will be interesting. It would be madness to go without a CB or a forward. Especially looking at the league.

[Guest tollemache]

A little flexibility is a good thing, no doubt about it. Mertesacker didn't remotely fit Arsenal's profile, for example, and they won't get a penny when he leaves but they've benefited enormously from having him. I think the same kind of target would probably become necessary if Colo left

[BottledDog]

We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc.

 

While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts.

 

There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo.

 

We are only going to spend what we bring in unless there is a massive change of heart (something Pardew has clearly been pressing for). Still pissed off that the fallout from the Keegan debarcle saw Ashley saying fuck it, the plan was to throw an extra £20 million of my own money a year but I'm bollocked if I'm going to do it now.

 

I'm fairly sympathetic to the reasons for him falling out of love for the project, but christ, think of the difference it would have made to us.

[Guest bimpy474]

We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc.

 

While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts.

 

There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's shit football) Imo.

 

We are only going to spend what we bring in unless there is a massive change of heart (something Pardew has clearly been pressing for). Still pissed off that the fallout from the Keegan debarcle saw Ashley saying fuck it, the plan was to throw an extra £20 million of my own money a year but I'm bollocked if I'm going to do it now.

 

I'm fairly sympathetic to the reasons for him falling out of love for the project, but christ, think of the difference it would have made to us.

 

Wish he would but i think he doesn't want to ever again. I actually think he doesn't want to sell either, not while it helps Sports Direct. He's just going to plod a long, which will drive us mad if we stick with policy we have. Especially when a little tweak that wouldn't mean going mental would help massively.

[quayside]

We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc.

 

While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts.

 

There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's s*** football) Imo.

 

We are only going to spend what we bring in unless there is a massive change of heart (something Pardew has clearly been pressing for). Still p*ssed off that the fallout from the Keegan debarcle saw Ashley saying f*** it, the plan was to throw an extra £20 million of my own money a year but I'm bollocked if I'm going to do it now.

 

I'm fairly sympathetic to the reasons for him falling out of love for the project, but christ, think of the difference it would have made to us.

 

Although he has been here 5 full years and, since buying the club, has put in an additional £140 million so that's well over £20 million a year on average....is one way of looking at it. And probably is the way he looks at it.

[Guest bimpy474]

We are never going to spend big under Ashley as he has no ambition for us to do so, say like Jack Walker did at Blackburn, or like the owners of Man City, Chelsea etc.

 

While it's noble to get the club to become self sufficient that isn't going to help us break into the top 4. There has to be a balance, something we haven't got. Unfortunately on here and other places, if you say that, like Dave and others have, you are saying we should spend mental amounts.

 

There's middle ground to be found and that's what Dave and others mean but our board are playing the game in to narrow of a playing field, aiming so narrow with transfer targets it has left us in trouble (along with Pardew's s*** football) Imo.

 

We are only going to spend what we bring in unless there is a massive change of heart (something Pardew has clearly been pressing for). Still p*ssed off that the fallout from the Keegan debarcle saw Ashley saying f*** it, the plan was to throw an extra £20 million of my own money a year but I'm bollocked if I'm going to do it now.

 

I'm fairly sympathetic to the reasons for him falling out of love for the project, but christ, think of the difference it would have made to us.

 

Although he has been here 5 full years and, since buying the club, has put in an additional £140 million so that's well over £20 million a year on average....is one way of looking at it. And probably is the way he looks at it.

 

The £140m was his own fault for not getting due dilligence done though. See your point mind.

[Guest tollemache]

Presumably it was a choice between put the £140m in or not buy the club though, even if he had done due diligence. So anyone who bought the club was looking at being £140m down. No?

 

By which I mean it's still worth being a bit grateful for him having bunged £140m into the club, even if it came as a surprise to him that that's what he had to do

[Guest bimpy474]

Presumably it was a choice between put the £140m in or not buy the club though, even if he had done due diligence. So anyone who bought the club was looking at being £140m down. No?

 

Yep, it would have been £140m or so debt plus the price of the club. And that's what put off buyers when Ashley was trying to sell.

[Guest tollemache]

sorry....edited my post while you were replying, it looks like, so I think I've already replied... shambles

 

I think my point is that the £140m is still a much-needed investment in the club, out of his own pocket, regardless of how it came about. People occasionally write it off as though it's not really a proper investment, because he didn't do due diligence.

 

It's not really much of a point is it? Let's move on

 

[TRon]

Presumably it was a choice between put the £140m in or not buy the club though, even if he had done due diligence. So anyone who bought the club was looking at being £140m down. No?

 

Yep, it would have been £140m or so debt plus the price of the club. And that's what put off buyers when Ashley was trying to sell.

 

It also put buyers off when SJH and Shepherd were trying to sell.

[Guest bimpy474]

sorry....edited my post while you were replying, it looks like, so I think I've already replied... shambles

 

 

 

That's ok mate