Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Well you'd think from the way the Man U fans whinged on that the Glazers were worse than Ashley.

 

Apart from the fact that even despite them actively and obviously taking money out they still manage to spend massive fees on players and make profits every year.  Most of them still think Ashley was good for us and we treated him harshly.

I would say the Glazers on a much bigger scale are similar to how Newcastle was run under Shepherd/Hall in their last five years. Fans were disgruntled, everyone knew they took money out the club, not happy with managerial appointments but still kept the club competitive or at least kept up the appearance of trying. Basically we were kept happy enough not to demand change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Like 9/11? That’s if you believe…

 

They are safe as houses, Saud!

 

We are literally arming them with weapons which led to the worst famine in modern history 

 

 

Edited by Klaus

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Exactly right. 

 

The simple fact is that NUFC fans as a collective could not be arsed to boycott matches for the period of time sufficient to make Ashley quickly sell up. It wouldn't even have taken that many matches either. A dozen matches at the absolute most in front of an empty SJP and he would have been gone long before he actually departed.

 

We as a fanbase also collectively petitioned to have the Saudis own us, and when it looked like they had pulled out we were completely heartbroken about it. Me being one of them. And I am now over the moon that they finally succeeded, with zero regrets, despite what is happening in Ukraine. One day they may be forced to bugger off due to politics but until that day arises I am going to enjoy this era on a gigantic level.

 

The idea that fans cannot influence who owns their club is lazy, hand-wringing bullshit.

Would he fuck. It was well publicised that money coming into the club via match day fans was negligible in comparison to the cash he made from his SD advertising and TV money. Boycotts would have achieved the sum of fuck all other than potentially got media interest, which Ashley would’ve probably ignored anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
6 minutes ago, macphisto said:

I would say the Glazers on a much bigger scale are similar to how Newcastle was run under Shepherd/Hall in their last five years. Fans were disgruntled, everyone knew they took money out the club, not happy with managerial appointments but still kept the club competitive or at least kept up the appearance of trying. Basically we were kept happy enough not to demand change.

Good analogy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Klaus said:

 

We are literally arming them with weapons which led to the worst famine in modern history 

 

 

 

Ethiopia and Somalia respectfully disagree that this is the worst modern famine 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
3 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Would he fuck. It was well publicised that money coming into the club via match day fans was negligible in comparison to the cash he made from his SD advertising and TV money. Boycotts would have achieved the sum of fuck all other than potentially got media interest, which Ashley would’ve probably ignored anyway.

A half empty stadium is one thing he wouldn’t want, hence the free season tickets. He shit himself at a half empty stadium against Spurs. Do that every week and he sells up. 

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
Just now, gjohnson said:

Ethiopia and Somalia respectfully disagree that this is the worst modern famine 

And our trophy cabinet or lack of…

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Would he fuck. It was well publicised that money coming into the club via match day fans was negligible in comparison to the cash he made from his SD advertising and TV money. Boycotts would have achieved the sum of fuck all other than potentially got media interest, which Ashley would’ve probably ignored anyway.

 

Total bollocks. Its a line that was peddled by NUFC fans to justify their refusal to boycott so that they could have their day out...."it's his club, what can we do?" Absolute twaddle.

 

 

Edited by Wandy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Wandy said:

 

Total bollocks. Its a line that was line peddled by NUFC fans to justify there refusal to boycott so that they could have there day out...."it's his club, what can we do?" Absolute twaddle.

 

 

 

Seriously? Ashley was interested solely in the TV cash and advertising. A half empty stadium impacts neither of those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

A half empty stadium is one thing he wouldn’t want, hence the free season tickets. He shit himself at a half empty stadium against Spurs. Do that every week and he sells up. 

 

Exactly. Ashley was actually incredibly reactionary to a lack of backsides on seats. An empty SJP for a dozen games and he'd have been gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II

Ashley didn’t like the scrutiny on him, to him a packed SJP justified everything and a half empty stadium every week would have intensified the spotlight on him and eventually, cost him money because a half empty stadium is no good to sponsors, Sky or fine profit margins from match day going fans. 10k free tickets at least give him some money over 10k not being there, spending fuck all, plus a full stadium. He’d rather devalue a brand at a low price to sell in volume than push it at a higher price and sell the same volume or less, that’s his whole SD business model or was and of course NUFC’s under him. I hate how today it’s almost accepted that fans are irrelevant because match day income is so small compared to TV and sponsorship money, let’s see what happens if fans up and down the country boycotted games, the money would soon disappear and their cash would be needed more than ever, not to mention all the owners would soon fuck off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

Seriously? Ashley was interested solely in the TV cash and advertising. A half empty stadium impacts neither of those.

 

For a start, a half empty stadium instantly affects the way TV companies look at NUFC as a club. They don't want to televise games in front of empty stadiums. That would just be the start of the snowball building momentum. 

 

The guy was incredibly thin skinned, and fans of LFC, MUFC and GRFC would have quickly cottoned on to that and had him gone within months, if he had done to their club what he did to NUFC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Seriously? Ashley was interested solely in the TV cash and advertising. A half empty stadium impacts neither of those.

 

Of course it does, at the very least an empty stadium every week would have damaged the PL brand and seen us on TV less which in turn impacts the money received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
4 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Seriously? Ashley was interested solely in the TV cash and advertising. A half empty stadium impacts neither of those.

Which to continue, would require a full stadium every week. Although he outsourced a lot of stuff, like catering, he’d have had to have undertaken thathimself if he couldn’t guarantee his tenders full houses every week, or puma getting guaranteed shirt sales or product sales on match day, or betting firms or Sky wanting to televise a packed SJP game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mattoon said:

 

Of course it does, at the very least an empty stadium every week would have damaged the PL brand and seen us on TV less which in turn impacts the money received.

You get paid tv money no matter what. It doesn’t depend on what they think of your club, the owner, the amount of fans turning up or anything. TV money primarily comes from overseas markets that the PL has sold to. It would look bad for Ashley, but being the stubborn cunt he was/is, I just don’t see it having an effect. Obviously just me though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II

Just look at the way Sky and BT wax lyrical about a packed SJP playing out to the Wor Flags displays, compared to an empty stadium during Covid, a full house at any sporting event is paramount to an advertiser and especially a broadcaster. And of course to those who have paid up front to do any outsourced contracts like catering, merchandise, providing security and other staff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
4 minutes ago, Manxst said:

You get paid tv money no matter what. It doesn’t depend on what they think of your club, the owner, the amount of fans turning up or anything. TV money primarily comes from overseas markets that the PL has sold to. It would look bad for Ashley, but being the stubborn cunt he was/is, I just don’t see it having an effect. Obviously just me though. 

So why give away 10k free tickets and 10 year deals if full houses don’t matter? Of course they did and do and always will. 

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, veriaqa said:

As long as Saudi dont attack a white european country, UK government would do nothing about NUFC's ownership.

 

So, for anyone who worried that this thing that happen to Chelsea could happen to NUFC: relax it wont! Because as "barbaric" as the Saudi's are, they're not stupid. Clearly not stupid enough to attack white european country anywhere in the future.

 

For anyone waiting enthusiastically, keep waiting... maybe your hope of fans ownership or whatever could happen in world dominated by capitalist ideology.

Its not an attack on Yemen as you well know. Its a civil war with the Arab world backing one side and Iran the other bit like we did in Yugoslavia.

Its a bad enough situation and speaks for itself so why misrepresent it or bring race into it

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
5 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

Just a question on the Chelsea situation again, what does that mean for their Premier league money at the end of the season, does the club still earn that?

Another question, Abramovic has said he’ll waver the 1.5bn or so CFC owe him, but can the government seek to reclaim that and it be added to the sale of the club price? Technically that money is stolen money still from Russia and money probably funnelled Illegally from Russia into the club through money laundering?

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

Just a question on the Chelsea situation again, what does that mean for their Premier league money at the end of the season, does the club still earn that?

 

Quote

The impact on revenues contributed to the Group recording a loss of £153.4m for the year ended 30 June 2021.

 

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2021/12/30/chelsea-fc-financial-results

That money will probably go to operational costs, but reading through most of that statement tells me they're going to be in trouble until a buyer is negotiated between the Gov and PL. The most likely outcome will be some short term pain until a takeover happens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Bonk said:

 

 

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2021/12/30/chelsea-fc-financial-results

That money will probably go to operational costs, but reading through most of that statement tells me they're going to be in trouble until a buyer is negotiated between the Gov and PL. The most likely outcome will be some short term pain until a takeover happens. 

 

I'm sure an upstanding large donator to the Tory party will get the club for a very reasonable price. Completely unrelated ofc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...