Mike Ashley (former owner) (still alive)

[Stifler]

Bah!

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1237437/Saudi-Arabia-news-MBS-Mohammad-bin-Salman-Newcastle-United-takeover-human-rights

 

F*cking do-gooders

 

Oh, and:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005585/AHEAD-GAME-Mike-Ashleys-links-Qatar-threaten-Newcastles-Saudi-takeover.html

 

Like the fat c*nt needs any excuses to f*ck a deal up...

 

The Express and Daily Mail. Mate you need to change where you’re getting your news from.

[Happinesstan]

Even if they did take over, UEFA have pretty much stopped any hopes of becoming a long term elite club.

 

Fine. I just want this club out of the coma its been in for 13years first.

Besides we've got a lot of natural potential to be re unleashed.

 

At best, without ‘doing a City’ we’d become a 5th-8th placed club with the odd top 4 finish and cup run. I know we’d die for that given the last 13 years but that’s not competition. You can’t organically become a title contender. Spurs have been the closest to do it but even if they won one title, they were hardly going to be regular contenders. It’ll just be Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, then the rest.

 

The fact that Liverpool haven't won the league for 30 years kind of disputes your entire argument.

[Pandamninator]

Even if they did take over, UEFA have pretty much stopped any hopes of becoming a long term elite club.

 

Fine. I just want this club out of the coma its been in for 13years first.

Besides we've got a lot of natural potential to be re unleashed.

 

At best, without ‘doing a City’ we’d become a 5th-8th placed club with the odd top 4 finish and cup run. I know we’d die for that given the last 13 years but that’s not competition. You can’t organically become a title contender. Spurs have been the closest to do it but even if they won one title, they were hardly going to be regular contenders. It’ll just be Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, then the rest.

 

The fact that Liverpool haven't won the league for 30 years kind of disputes your entire argument.

 

Liverpool still had that built in fan base both domestically and internationally thanks to the 70s/80s, plus those trophy winning teams under Houllier and Rafa.  The Americans they have currently were just the first ones who had the nouse and the ability to tap into that properly and get the commercial side of things in order, but even when they were run by morons they were still among the richest clubs.

 

We could've been one of the clubs benefiting from FFP as well - we had a 15 year head start on Spurs, but the latter stages of the Halls/Sheppards hobbled us and Ashley put a bullet in the head of that ever happening.

[Guest]

Even if they did take over, UEFA have pretty much stopped any hopes of becoming a long term elite club.

 

Fine. I just want this club out of the coma its been in for 13years first.

Besides we've got a lot of natural potential to be re unleashed.

 

At best, without ‘doing a City’ we’d become a 5th-8th placed club with the odd top 4 finish and cup run. I know we’d die for that given the last 13 years but that’s not competition. You can’t organically become a title contender. Spurs have been the closest to do it but even if they won one title, they were hardly going to be regular contenders. It’ll just be Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, then the rest.

 

The fact that Liverpool haven't won the league for 30 years kind of disputes your entire argument.

 

If Man City and Chelsea hasn’t spent to get where they are, there’s a good chance they’d have won a few more in that time which proves my theory correct.

[Hhtoon]

Staveley lowballed originally as there was a real chance of relegation at the time and her bids reflected that:

 

£250m cash no clauses.

£300m - £200m paid up front and 2 X £50m to be laid later, but not payable if relegated.

£350m - various relegation and future success clauses. Can't remember split.

 

Not saying Staveley was wrong to offer that, it was probably fair due to the risk but can understand why Ashley rejected and as we're now talking £350m cash buy, looks like his gamble paid off (if he were to actually sell of course  )

[mrmojorisin75]

Big difference in that man city owner had to sell.

 

what does that have to do with the point i made nees?

[D. Yimentov]

You can still spend your way to the top of football. You can spend your way to the top of anywhere. I'm amazed that City have even received a punishment to be honest. I thought they'd be keeping the right people sweet. PSG are obviously keeping up with the cheques.

 

If the Saudi government buy a club - us or anyone else - they'll be abe to do whatever the hell they want. They'll violate FFP for fun.

[jackyboy]

Maybe we'll get banned from Europe for a couple of years when they investigate Mikes overspend on NUFC

[1964]

Liverpool have had some brilliant results from good scouting as well  the money they have made on transfers is incredible, Sterling, Suarez, coutinho, torres, benteke brought in over 300 million 

[Toonjam88]

Maybe we'll get banned from Europe for a couple of years when they investigate Mikes overspend on NUFC

What if they do it the other way and put us in the Champions League due to our underspending ??

[Manxst]

Liverpool have had some brilliant results from good scouting as well  the money they have made on transfers is incredible, Sterling, Suarez, coutinho, torres, benteke brought in over 300 million 

 

They spent around 100m getting those 5 players in though, and have spent over 30m on at least 10 different players, including a 53m, a 56m, a 75m. They’re certainly not scouting geniuses- most of the time, they just pay the going rate. For every transfer success they have, they also have Aquilani, Keane, Markovic, Downing, etc etc where they’ve spent big money and received little in return.

[Kanj]

Liverpool’s transfer hits just happen to have developed into some of the best players in the world and are able to consistently perform at every stage. That’s the difference. They couple that with a world class manager and the ground swell picks up. Add in they don’t settle and continue to push.

 

It’s about time people stop pointing fingers and just accept it for what it is. Liverpool were purchased by highly intelligent and ambitious people and over several years they’ve learned from their mistakes, built up incredible revenue streams to fund investment on and off pitch and are fully deserved in where they are today. Simple as that.

[loki679]

Liverpool’s transfer hits just happen to have developed into some of the best players in the world and are able to consistently perform at every stage. That’s the difference. They couple that with a world class manager and the ground swell picks up. Add in they don’t settle and continue to push.

 

It’s about time people stop pointing fingers and just accept it for what it is. Liverpool were purchased by highly intelligent and ambitious people and over several years they’ve learned from their mistakes, built up incredible revenue streams to fund investment on and off pitch and are fully deserved in where they are today. Simple as that.

 

Still twats though, fuck em.

 

Mike[/member]

[Guest]

People forget that Liverpool had £200m of debt in 2010 which was magically wiped out overnight when Hicks & Gillett were forced out. Why is that so much more different to Man City?

[mrmojorisin75]

People forget that Liverpool had £200m of debt in 2010 which was magically wiped out overnight when Hicks & Gillett were forced out. Why is that so much more different to Man City?

 

wasn't the purchase price pretty low though, so you could argue the debt payment was part of the ownership process much like it will be when ashley sells ()

[Happinesstan]

People forget that Liverpool had £200m of debt in 2010 which was magically wiped out overnight when Hicks & Gillett were forced out. Why is that so much more different to Man City?

 

Wiped out? What do you mean, exactly? Was it not paid off as part of the sale? Surely there aren't people out thee wiping out £200M  debts? If there are I want a lend of a tenner.

[Guest]

Same thing though surely? That takeover allowed Liverpool to operate at a level they couldn’t have without their debt. Obviously it’s not Man City level of spending but where do you draw the line?

[loki679]

People forget that Liverpool had £200m of debt in 2010 which was magically wiped out overnight when Hicks & Gillett were forced out. Why is that so much more different to Man City?

 

Wiped out? What do you mean, exactly? Was it not paid off as part of the sale? Surely there aren't people out thee wiping out £200M  debts? If there are I want a lend of £200M.

 

fyp

[mrmojorisin75]

really hard to work out what if anything they paid gillett & hicks looking back at the articles, from what i can see they agreed to pay off the debt the club owed RBS and that gave them ownership - somewhere between 2-300m - so the other yanks didn't seem to get anything as they were suing fenway over it

 

can't see any issue with that myself

[Ashley17]

It was also before FFP so completely irrelevant

[Happinesstan]

People forget that Liverpool had £200m of debt in 2010 which was magically wiped out overnight when Hicks & Gillett were forced out. Why is that so much more different to Man City?

 

Wiped out? What do you mean, exactly? Was it not paid off as part of the sale? Surely there aren't people out thee wiping out £200M  debts? If there are I want a lend of £200M.

 

fyp

 

I only need a tenner.

[Guest]

Issue is they were slipping away from the top 6 with the likes of Spearing, Shelvey, Poulsen & Carroll and in debt, then a takeover wiped out their debt overnight and gave them a platform to challenge again.

[Happinesstan]

Issue is they were slipping away from the top 6 with the likes of Spearing, Shelvey, Poulsen & Carroll and in debt, then a takeover wiped out their debt overnight and gave them a platform to challenge again.

 

Seems like perfectly normal business practice, to me. You could say the same of Man City, of course, except breaking rules put in place to maintain a balanced playing field... is general business practice.

[Guest]

But this is why I don’t think there should be rules around this which is my original point. If it’s unfair on the established top 3 for City to spend what they want, then it was unfair on the teams who normally battle for 5th-7th or whatever for Liverpool to suddenly go from £200m of debt to being able to spend what they fancied again.

[TRon]

Liverpool’s transfer hits just happen to have developed into some of the best players in the world and are able to consistently perform at every stage. That’s the difference. They couple that with a world class manager and the ground swell picks up. Add in they don’t settle and continue to push.

 

It’s about time people stop pointing fingers and just accept it for what it is. Liverpool were purchased by highly intelligent and ambitious people and over several years they’ve learned from their mistakes, built up incredible revenue streams to fund investment on and off pitch and are fully deserved in where they are today. Simple as that.

 

Hiring a world class manager and backing him with funds is what separates Liverpool from anything we would ever do with Ashley, even if he had an extra £200m to spend. Klopp didn't spend a huge amount on players like Mane and Sala, but they were the right players, and he got them because he was the right manager. This is something that our massive bell end of an owner refuses to countenance. He deliberately picks shit managers so he can continue with his bent transfer policy where he probably takes a cut of the agents fees in a paper bag.