Jump to content

St James' Park


Delima

Recommended Posts

Guest Roger Kint

I dont think that fella is a kid tbh, looked to me like he had some facial hair on ITV last night. He didn't sound like he had special needs either. When he was at the training thing I thought he had downs sydrome or something.

 

19 apparently

 

Reckon he posts on here? :lol:

 

If he is the poor kid wont enjoy reading some of the posts about him ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Walked past the stadium today and that absolute eejit who's always black and white from head to toe was standing outside the club shop with a sign saying 'Sack The Board'. Had two side kicks with him- one being a horrendously fat kid. Cringe didn't do it justice.

 

Hope you pelted him with eggs. :thup:

 

:lol: I had a whole chicken in my shopping bag, shame I don't loaf that at the clown. His mate would of swallowed it in one, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

Of course it's taking out, I take money out of my bank account on a daily basis.  I put it in and I take it out.

 

Suppose you loaned some of your money to a company. If the company paid some of it back (with no interest) do you consider that you have taken money out of that company? I can't see that you have since all you have done is get a repayment of what you loaned in the first place.

 

On the other hand if you charged 6% interest on the loan then you have taken money out because you did not put the interest into the company in the first place. The company has had to somehow earn the interest in order to be able to pay it to you.

 

If I loaned a company money and they re-paid it of course I'd consider that I'd taken money out of that company.  I understand that Ashley has saved us money by not charging interest, he's still taken at least £6 million out, even if it is the money that he put in.

 

people have lost the fucking plot here like

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

Of course it's taking out, I take money out of my bank account on a daily basis.  I put it in and I take it out.

 

Suppose you loaned some of your money to a company. If the company paid some of it back (with no interest) do you consider that you have taken money out of that company? I can't see that you have since all you have done is get a repayment of what you loaned in the first place.

 

On the other hand if you charged 6% interest on the loan then you have taken money out because you did not put the interest into the company in the first place. The company has had to somehow earn the interest in order to be able to pay it to you.

 

If I loaned a company money and they re-paid it of course I'd consider that I'd taken money out of that company.  I understand that Ashley has saved us money by not charging interest, he's still taken at least £6 million out, even if it is the money that he put in.

 

people have lost the f***ing plot here like

he hasn't lost the plot, he's just prepared to be very pedantic in order to try and be seen to right.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Taking back (if he has) what you've put in, is not "taking out"

 

Check out the previous regime for a real example of taking out. (£52 Millions worth of taking out)

 

Of course it's taking out, I take money out of my bank account on a daily basis.  I put it in and I take it out.

 

Suppose you loaned some of your money to a company. If the company paid some of it back (with no interest) do you consider that you have taken money out of that company? I can't see that you have since all you have done is get a repayment of what you loaned in the first place.

 

On the other hand if you charged 6% interest on the loan then you have taken money out because you did not put the interest into the company in the first place. The company has had to somehow earn the interest in order to be able to pay it to you.

 

If I loaned a company money and they re-paid it of course I'd consider that I'd taken money out of that company.  I understand that Ashley has saved us money by not charging interest, he's still taken at least £6 million out, even if it is the money that he put in.

 

people have lost the f***ing plot here like

he hasn't lost the plot, he's just prepared to be very pedantic in order to try and be seen to right.

must be longing for those NE5 days again 'cause the above is absolute nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

he hasn't lost the plot, he's just prepared to be very pedantic in order to try and be seen to right.

 

I was replying originally to this:

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

 

Ashley has taken £6 million out and it's in the club accounts.

 

The £6 million is nothing compared to what he's put in and he's put a lot more in since taking that out but that wasn't the point of what was said and I don't think I'm being pedantic considering what I was replying to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

he hasn't lost the plot, he's just prepared to be very pedantic in order to try and be seen to right.

 

I was replying originally to this:

 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion? We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club'

 

Ashley has taken £6 million out and it's in the club accounts.

 

The £6 million is nothing compared to what he's put in and he's put a lot more in since taking that out but that wasn't the point of what was said and I don't think I'm being pedantic considering what I was replying to.

come on mick, it was obvious what was meant by "taking money out the club"..........i guess i'm not the only one to think it meant profiteering form it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

come on mick, it was obvious what was meant by "taking money out the club"..........i guess i'm not the only one to think it meant profiteering form it.

 

Has anybody ever suggested that he's profiteering from the club?  I've always defended Ashley on the money he's put it and will do so again.  I just don't agree with "We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club."

Link to post
Share on other sites

come on mick, it was obvious what was meant by "taking money out the club"..........i guess i'm not the only one to think it meant profiteering form it.

 

Has anybody ever suggested that he's profiteering from the club?  I've always defended Ashley on the money he's put it and will do so again.  I just don't agree with "We can't have repaid 'debt' because the debt is held by Ashley and as Dekka keeps saying 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club."

and thats where the pedanticism comes in. ashley holds a debt but it is dead unless he wants to try and budget it onto a sale. as for him taking money out he has but only in your pedantic way. as yet he hasn't profiteered from the club, unlike so many in the clubs past
Link to post
Share on other sites

and thats where the pedanticism comes in. ashley holds a debt but it is dead unless he wants to try and budget it onto a sale. as for him taking money out he has but only in your pedantic way. as yet he hasn't profiteered from the club, unlike so many in the clubs past

 

The bit in bold is all that was needed, the rest hasn't been mentioned.  Nobody claimed he'd profiteered, like you said, unlike others in the past which is beyond doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and thats where the pedanticism comes in. ashley holds a debt but it is dead unless he wants to try and budget it onto a sale. as for him taking money out he has but only in your pedantic way. as yet he hasn't profiteered from the club, unlike so many in the clubs past

 

The bit in bold is all that was needed, the rest hasn't been mentioned.  Nobody claimed he'd profiteered, like you said, unlike others in the past which is beyond doubt.

you don't think it needs to be taken in it's full context as opposed to a mere snippet that at first glance backs your cause but on wider examination doesn't ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't think it needs to be taken in it's full context as opposed to a mere snippet that at first glance backs your cause but on wider examination doesn't ?

 

This is the context of the post I replied to.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/index.php/topic,36257.msg3329123.html#msg3329123

 

This is going nowhere, we might as well agree to disagree.

it's just that i read it as  "not taking a penny out of the club" as profiteerring, i'm guessing most think the same way.
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...