Various: N-O has lost the plot over potential end of Mike Ashley's tenure

[Guest reefatoon]

American owners doesn't really mean anything though does it? You could be talking about people and business outlooks as diverse as Warren Buffet or Charles Koch.

 

He said Koch

 

[Whitley mag]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Wrong the noise, passion, feeling of belonging will be greater after this takeover than at any point in the last 13 years.

[Unbelievable]

I am struggling to understand the “if it’s not the Saudis I’m done” argument? Liverpool are owned by Americans and they’ve done pretty fucking well. What if the American bidders were to invest in the team, the infrastructure, and build us towards a team challenging the top 6? You wouldn’t want that? And we get that without any of the baggage associated with the PCP bid? That attitude seems crazy to me. There are people writing them off as terrible owners and we don’t even know who they are? Seems bizarre to me. Stifler was writing about them aiming for 17th and keeping Bruce, based on essentially nothing.

 

I can't speak for anybody else, but to me this (PCP) and the stage is at is a "now or never" moment given everything we know about Ashley and the numerous other interested parties and "bids" from the past that have come to absolutely nothing. If the PL turns down the PCP bid we could be looking at another decade of Mike Ashley, and that would really mean curtains as far as I am concerned. I barely watch our games anymore as it is. To start next season (whenever it starts) with Bruce in the dugout and Ashley in the stands would be hugely deflating after this latest takeover attempt.

 

I understand why some people oppose the Saudi backed bid and see in them a reason to continue to not return or go to St James' anymore. I am uneasy with their human rights record myself, but this takeover is about much more than that to me. It's about finally getting our club back from the grim hold that Mike Ashley has kept on it for the past 13 miserable years.

 

Ideally we would have squeaky clean new owners who have the club and the city's interest at heart, but I think to suggest such an owner is just waiting in the wings is fantasy dreamland considering what we know to be true about Mike Ashley.

 

In reality it's Amanda Stavely's PCP, the Rueben Brothers and the PIF on the one side or Mike Ashley on the other. Of those two I'll take the first option any day of the week thank you very much. I'd be fairly confident they would be better custodians of the club than Ashley has ever been, and if not we'll cross that bridge when we get there. There is no certainty any other prospective owner would be better. I don't think any Newcastle fan demands that they buy the best players in the world and have us challenging for the Champions League anytime soon. Let's start by getting our club back and see it trying to be the best it can be when it's not being actively being destroyed by a parasite owner.

 

That doesn't mean I condone everything the new owners do or can't oppose or condemn their actions if I feel like it. I use the services and buy the products of many companies that do stuff I don't agree with and I think many people do, knowingly or unknowingly. If the Saudi's don't end up buying us they'll get another club in England or elsewhere. I'd rather it was us and finally see the back of Mike Ashley.

[Guest godzilla]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Ironically, having owners who will invest in the club, the buildings and the city will bring back the noise, the pride and the passion IMO. It's been the exact opposite when we've been run like a cold hard business.

 

Like Man City?

 

Even Man City levels would be on a different planet to the morgue inside the ground these last 13 years.

[Raconteur]

I have no idea how FFP works more than that it's some sort of revenue/spend balance and that you have a maximum level of loss per year which you cant exceed and so on.

Say that Saudi Aramco turns out to be our new sponsors, can they give us lets say 600m over a few years for that deal? Surely there's something regulated against these kind of deals if the owner owns the other company? If so, surely there are ways around it? I imagine that this is similar to what City and PSG have done earlier through the years but that they have now changed the FFP rules in some way.

 

Anyone know this FFP stuff well enough to make a simple explanation of how it works? Im sure I'm not the only one clueless about this?

 

 

Inflated sponsorship deals are specifically prohibited - but enforcement of that has to be a nightmare. Didn't City get into trouble with their airline sponsorship?

[RS]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

“Don’t ever give up on your club. Keep supporting it, it’s your club and trust me, one day you will get your club back and it will be everything you wanted it to be.”

[Kid Icarus]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Wrong the noise, passion, feeling of belonging will be greater after this takeover than at any point in the last 13 years.

 

So would having any other owner.

[TRon]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Ironically, having owners who will invest in the club, the buildings and the city will bring back the noise, the pride and the passion IMO. It's been the exact opposite when we've been run like a cold hard business.

 

Like Man City?

 

How was the atmosphere at City before they started winning stuff? I don't remember it being that great tbh, plenty of them were converting to Man U as their favourite club.

[Stifler]

I have no idea how FFP works more than that it's some sort of revenue/spend balance and that you have a maximum level of loss per year which you cant exceed and so on.

Say that Saudi Aramco turns out to be our new sponsors, can they give us lets say 600m over a few years for that deal? Surely there's something regulated against these kind of deals if the owner owns the other company? If so, surely there are ways around it? I imagine that this is similar to what City and PSG have done earlier through the years but that they have now changed the FFP rules in some way.

 

Anyone know this FFP stuff well enough to make a simple explanation of how it works? Im sure I'm not the only one clueless about this?

 

 

Inflated sponsorship deals are specifically prohibited - but enforcement of that has to be a nightmare. Didn't City get into trouble with their airline sponsorship?

They aren’t. They can’t be inflated by a company which has links with the owners. Everything else is hard to prove. If City, PSG, and Spurs in recent years can gain sponsorship deals 1000’s time higher than any previous deals, it would be hard to argue that other clubs can’t achieve the sale.

[Kid Icarus]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

“Don’t ever give up on your club. Keep supporting it, it’s your club and trust me, one day you will get your club back and it will be everything you wanted it to be.”

 

Yes, NUFC being owned by and connected with the Saudi state is presumably what Keegan meant by the club being ours again and it being everything we all want it to be.

[Collage]

I am struggling to understand the “if it’s not the Saudis I’m done” argument? Liverpool are owned by Americans and they’ve done pretty fucking well. What if the American bidders were to invest in the team, the infrastructure, and build us towards a team challenging the top 6? You wouldn’t want that? And we get that without any of the baggage associated with the PCP bid? That attitude seems crazy to me. There are people writing them off as terrible owners and we don’t even know who they are? Seems bizarre to me. Stifler was writing about them aiming for 17th and keeping Bruce, based on essentially nothing.

 

I can't speak for anybody else, but to me this (PCP) and the stage is at is a "now or never" moment given everything we know about Ashley and the numerous other interested parties and "bids" from the past that have come to absolutely nothing. If the PL turns down the PCP bid we could be looking at another decade of Mike Ashley, and that would really mean curtains as far as I am concerned. I barely watch our games anymore as it is. To start next season (whenever it starts) with Bruce in the dugout and Ashley in the stands would be hugely deflating after this latest takeover attempt.

 

I understand why some people oppose the Saudi backed bid and see in them a reason to continue to not return or go to St James' anymore. I am uneasy with their human rights record myself, but this takeover is about much more than that to me. It's about finally getting our club back from the grim hold that Mike Ashley has kept on it for the past 13 miserable years.

 

Ideally we would have squeaky clean new owners who have the club and the city's interest at heart, but I think to suggest such an owner is just waiting in the wings is fantasy dreamland considering what we know to be true about Mike Ashley.

 

In reality it's Amanda Stavely's PCP, the Rueben Brothers and the PIF on the one side or Mike Ashley on the other. Of those two I'll take the first option any day of the week thank you very much. I'd be fairly confident they would be better custodians of the club than Ashley has ever been, and if not we'll cross that bridge when we get there. There is no certainty any other prospective owner would be better. I don't think any Newcastle fan demands that they buy the best players in the world and have us challenging for the Champions League anytime soon. Let's start by getting our club back and see it trying to be the best it can be when it's not being actively being destroyed by a parasite owner.

 

That doesn't mean I condone everything the new owners do or can't oppose or condemn their actions if I feel like it. I use the services and buy the products of many companies that do stuff I don't agree with and I think many people do, knowingly or unknowingly. If the Saudi's don't end up buying us they'll get another club in England or elsewhere. I'd rather it was us and finally see the back of Mike Ashley.

 

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

There are no other groups interested in any case, wouldn’t have gotten to exclusivity stage if there were

 

Drawing inspiration from a possible Wolves model isn’t particularly relevant, considering their success is down to their links with Jorge Mendes and his production line of talent

[NE27]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

I haven't really got the energy to argue/debate with anyone about this and just reading it all honestly gives me a bad head.

 

But I dont subscribe to this at all. Whilst I'm morally conflicted there is not a chance in hell that I've just went "aye fuck human rights, I just want fuck tones of money!".

 

I want Ashley gone first and foremost. If these new owners run it as shoddily as Ashley then I'd aim the exact same criticism at them as I would Ashley now.

 

Is it really that cut and dry, you support your club still then you must shoulder KSA human rights violations and whatever else they do?.

 

So confused where I stand tbh

[Raconteur]

I have no idea how FFP works more than that it's some sort of revenue/spend balance and that you have a maximum level of loss per year which you cant exceed and so on.

Say that Saudi Aramco turns out to be our new sponsors, can they give us lets say 600m over a few years for that deal? Surely there's something regulated against these kind of deals if the owner owns the other company? If so, surely there are ways around it? I imagine that this is similar to what City and PSG have done earlier through the years but that they have now changed the FFP rules in some way.

 

Anyone know this FFP stuff well enough to make a simple explanation of how it works? Im sure I'm not the only one clueless about this?

 

 

Inflated sponsorship deals are specifically prohibited - but enforcement of that has to be a nightmare. Didn't City get into trouble with their airline sponsorship?

They aren’t. They can’t be inflated by a company which has links with the owners. Everything else is hard to prove. If City, PSG, and Spurs in recent years can gain sponsorship deals 1000’s time higher than any previous deals, it would be hard to argue that other clubs can’t achieve the sale.

 

Eh? First Google search tells me that Man City's Etihad sponsorship was one of the reasons they got banned from the Champions League?

 

https://slate.com/culture/2020/02/manchester-city-banned-champions-league-uefa-sponsorship-scandal.html

 

How did Manchester City break those rules?

 

In 2008, Abu Dhabi royal family member Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan bought Manchester City and immediately started splashing cash on superstar players and their exorbitant wages. He was totally cool with losing money to win, but his hobby went against UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations. Soon after those were passed, Etihad Airways (of Abu Dhabi) significantly upped its sponsorship deal to about 67.5 million pounds annually, which helped balance Manchester City’s books.

 

What’s wrong with that?

 

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s private equity company owns both Etihad and Manchester City. The sponsorship deal wasn’t really worth all that money, and UEFA investigated the club for self-dealing and deceptive financial reporting.

 

Unless it wasn't obvious I was referring to Saudi/PIF/Armamco sponsorship?

[Thomson Mouse]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Ironically, having owners who will invest in the club, the buildings and the city will bring back the noise, the pride and the passion IMO. It's been the exact opposite when we've been run like a cold hard business.

 

Like Man City?

 

How was the atmosphere at City before they started winning stuff? I don't remember it being that great tbh, plenty of them were converting to Man U as their favourite club.

 

Nah, they were pretty loyal but were the self proclaimed ‘best fans in the world’. There used to several attendance arguments with usas they had the nerve to sing ‘where were you when you were shit’ at us at St James’.

[Unbelievable]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Ironically, having owners who will invest in the club, the buildings and the city will bring back the noise, the pride and the passion IMO. It's been the exact opposite when we've been run like a cold hard business.

 

Bingo

[triggs]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

I haven't really got the energy to argue/debate with anyone about this and just reading it all honestly gives me a bad head.

 

But I dont subscribe to this at all. Whilst I'm morally conflicted there is not a chance in hell that I've just went "aye f*** human rights, I just want f*** tones of money!".

 

I want Ashley gone first and foremost. If these new owners run it as shoddily as Ashley then I'd aim the exact same criticism at them as I would Ashley now.

 

Is it really that cut and dry, you support your club still then you must shoulder KSA human rights violations and whatever else they do?.

 

So confused where I stand tbh

 

KI's post was in response to those who said they'd take the Saudis above anybody else

[NE27]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

I haven't really got the energy to argue/debate with anyone about this and just reading it all honestly gives me a bad head.

 

But I dont subscribe to this at all. Whilst I'm morally conflicted there is not a chance in hell that I've just went "aye f*** human rights, I just want f*** tones of money!".

 

I want Ashley gone first and foremost. If these new owners run it as shoddily as Ashley then I'd aim the exact same criticism at them as I would Ashley now.

 

Is it really that cut and dry, you support your club still then you must shoulder KSA human rights violations and whatever else they do?.

 

So confused where I stand tbh

 

KI's post was in response to those who said they'd take the Saudis above anybody else

 

That's fair, as you can see I'm following it all closely 

 

I'm pretty sure if there was concrete evidence of 2/3 official bids for our club, and we could sit and pick which ones fit the ethos of our club, most fans would 100% choose the best fit and not just the money angle.....

 

Then I read twitter and start to realise why people think we are idiots sometimes.

[Guest godzilla]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Wrong the noise, passion, feeling of belonging will be greater after this takeover than at any point in the last 13 years.

 

So would having any other owner.

 

Maybe or maybe not. At the end of the day they are probably going to be our new owners. If you can't stomach that, then that is totally your choice and I totally respect your right and opinion on that. I just want my club to be the best it can be and these new owners in my opinion represent the best opportunity for that to happen. I can't change the wrongful human rights issue. I can however actually look forward to going to the match excited by seeing my club trying to be the best it can after 13 years of total willful neglect. These new owners provide the best opportunity for that to happen.

[Unbelievable]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Wrong the noise, passion, feeling of belonging will be greater after this takeover than at any point in the last 13 years.

 

So would having any other owner.

 

That's what people told me 13 years ago when I was cautious about Ashley being definitely better than the previous lot.

[Darth Crooks]

The bobby quote has been used to all sorts of ends tbh justifying boycotting/non-boycott, sticking with one manager or another. I love it but it’s getting to the point where, without context of the era in which it was uttered it has diminishing returns.

[Jackie Broon]

I have no idea how FFP works more than that it's some sort of revenue/spend balance and that you have a maximum level of loss per year which you cant exceed and so on.

Say that Saudi Aramco turns out to be our new sponsors, can they give us lets say 600m over a few years for that deal? Surely there's something regulated against these kind of deals if the owner owns the other company? If so, surely there are ways around it? I imagine that this is similar to what City and PSG have done earlier through the years but that they have now changed the FFP rules in some way.

 

Anyone know this FFP stuff well enough to make a simple explanation of how it works? Im sure I'm not the only one clueless about this?

 

 

Inflated sponsorship deals are specifically prohibited - but enforcement of that has to be a nightmare. Didn't City get into trouble with their airline sponsorship?

They aren’t. They can’t be inflated by a company which has links with the owners. Everything else is hard to prove. If City, PSG, and Spurs in recent years can gain sponsorship deals 1000’s time higher than any previous deals, it would be hard to argue that other clubs can’t achieve the sale.

 

Eh? First Google search tells me that Man City's Etihad sponsorship was one of the reasons they got banned from the Champions League?

 

https://slate.com/culture/2020/02/manchester-city-banned-champions-league-uefa-sponsorship-scandal.html

 

How did Manchester City break those rules?

 

In 2008, Abu Dhabi royal family member Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan bought Manchester City and immediately started splashing cash on superstar players and their exorbitant wages. He was totally cool with losing money to win, but his hobby went against UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations. Soon after those were passed, Etihad Airways (of Abu Dhabi) significantly upped its sponsorship deal to about 67.5 million pounds annually, which helped balance Manchester City’s books.

 

What’s wrong with that?

 

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s private equity company owns both Etihad and Manchester City. The sponsorship deal wasn’t really worth all that money, and UEFA investigated the club for self-dealing and deceptive financial reporting.

 

Unless it wasn't obvious I was referring to Saudi/PIF/Armamco sponsorship?

 

IIRC Man City only got done because emails were leaked proving that they were deliberately using the sponsorship deals to get around FFP.

[RS]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

“Don’t ever give up on your club. Keep supporting it, it’s your club and trust me, one day you will get your club back and it will be everything you wanted it to be.”

 

Yes, NUFC being owned by and connected with the Saudi state is presumably what Keegan meant by the club being ours again and it being everything we all want it to be.

I think he meant there would be a time when we would compete and have a chance at success again. Not sure he was being specific regarding ownership.  I understand your disdain for the new owners and the countries human rights.  I agree it’s a massive issue. Perhaps this will be highlighted and acted on as their ownership of our club progresses?

[Thomson Mouse]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

Ironically, having owners who will invest in the club, the buildings and the city will bring back the noise, the pride and the passion IMO. It's been the exact opposite when we've been run like a cold hard business.

 

Like Man City?

 

How was the atmosphere at City before they started winning stuff? I don't remember it being that great tbh, plenty of them were converting to Man U as their favourite club.

 

Nah, they were pretty loyal but were the self proclaimed ‘best fans in the world’. There used to several attendance arguments with usas they had the nerve to sing ‘where were you when you were s***’ at us at St James’.

 

They had good attendances in lower league football for sure. They were decent fans. I think the same thing that happened to them will happen to us. It’s a fatigue really more than anything.

 

Yeah they had decent crowds when they were where the mackems are now. They are just normal arrogant Mancs in the hear then before you see them Noel Gallagher mould and mouthed off too much.

 

Maine Road was a good old ground, bloody nightmare to get in and out of though.

[Kid Icarus]

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's having loads of money to spend on players and ignoring everything else. the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

 

I haven't really got the energy to argue/debate with anyone about this and just reading it all honestly gives me a bad head.

 

But I dont subscribe to this at all. Whilst I'm morally conflicted there is not a chance in hell that I've just went "aye f*** human rights, I just want f*** tones of money!".

 

I want Ashley gone first and foremost. If these new owners run it as shoddily as Ashley then I'd aim the exact same criticism at them as I would Ashley now.

 

Is it really that cut and dry, you support your club still then you must shoulder KSA human rights violations and whatever else they do?.

 

So confused where I stand tbh

 

I was getting at the heart of a lot of the comments on here about only wanting an owner with enormous wealth regardless of other factors that I've read over the last few pages tbh mate. It wasn't meant as a wider comment on everyone, just specifically that outlook. Apologies if it was read that way.