Colocho Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Where's the best place to access the accounts in full? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Where's the best place to access the accounts in full? Companies House. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Where's the best place to access the accounts in full? Companies House. Ta. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooonDoom Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Northern Rock pay us. So once sports direct takes the hit and we are used to a branded st James park if someone is willing to pay then it will be all change again? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm struggling to understand your reasoning that Sports Direct should be a "side interest", it brings in what, 10 times the revenue? Obviously it makes large profits too, which NUFC doesn't... Why should Newcastle United and Sports Direct be associated? Because they are owned by the same person? Do all sports clubs owners associate the clubs they own with other organisations in their portfolio? The only thing that links NUFC and SD is Mike Ashley. Sports Direct isn't a local company, it has no historical ties to the club - why should we have to accept providing them with free advertising that stains our stadium? I wasn't trying to suggest that SD should be a side interest to Ashley, but why should the fans of this club be forced to support his brand? "to promote his side interest" So that's exactly what you were trying to suggest. That is the only reason for the association... Which is wrong. He is using NUFC to promote his own company, that is what I disagree with. The 2008 and 2009 accounts suggest NUFC paid SD £47,000 for the privilege of branding in SD! The concept that we are in fact 'supporting' SD is strengthened, when you consider the opportunity cost of not having a stadium sponsor that actually pays for advertising... It looks truly horrible and, personally, I see it as having degraded a great stadium. But as far as the money side is concerned it's part of the deal with having Ashley own us. Just reading this forum it's obvious that plenty of people want him gone. As ever it's up to the individual as how much good they think he has done and is doing. But if we were funded by externally borrowed money we would be paying huge chunks of interest. In fact I shudder to think what rate we would be paying. If there is anyone around who would lend £140 million (or even half that) to a technically insolvent business they would want a substantial margin for doing so. Ashley is a package deal - like it or not. Spot on that. They might not be paying us, but we are not paying him currently either. As much as it looks fucking shit, is a shit brand etc, there is not alot we can really do about it. If we have, for example, 5M coming in from xSponsor each year and it went to Ashley there would be uproar. He cannot win either way, according to most that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Tomorrow's the day we'll see the new sign then Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Tomorrow's the day we'll see the new sign then I'm sure we'll manage. It was pay day today and I blew my whole month's wages in JD Sports in protest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Tomorrow's the day we'll see the new sign then I'm sure we'll manage. It was pay day today and I blew my whole month's wages in JD Sports in protest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 In all seriousness it'll be interesting to see/hear the reaction/lack of reaction. I think a lot of people are tired of bickering now and we're winning games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I can imagine a quite a lot negative remarks being made pre-match but then when the game starts, people will forget about it (temporarily anyway.....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Its going to look fucking shit. Hopefully he hasnt being doing something else as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I won't see it cos I'm in the east stand. Last time there was a sudden increase in branding in the ground it elicited a chanf of "Sports Direct is fucking shit" from level 7 not long after kick off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I'm struggling to understand your reasoning that Sports Direct should be a "side interest", it brings in what, 10 times the revenue? Obviously it makes large profits too, which NUFC doesn't... Why should Newcastle United and Sports Direct be associated? Because they are owned by the same person? Do all sports clubs owners associate the clubs they own with other organisations in their portfolio? The only thing that links NUFC and SD is Mike Ashley. Sports Direct isn't a local company, it has no historical ties to the club - why should we have to accept providing them with free advertising that stains our stadium? I wasn't trying to suggest that SD should be a side interest to Ashley, but why should the fans of this club be forced to support his brand? "to promote his side interest" So that's exactly what you were trying to suggest. That is the only reason for the association... Which is wrong. He is using NUFC to promote his own company, that is what I disagree with. The 2008 and 2009 accounts suggest NUFC paid SD £47,000 for the privilege of branding in SD! The concept that we are in fact 'supporting' SD is strengthened, when you consider the opportunity cost of not having a stadium sponsor that actually pays for advertising... It looks truly horrible and, personally, I see it as having degraded a great stadium. But as far as the money side is concerned it's part of the deal with having Ashley own us. Just reading this forum it's obvious that plenty of people want him gone. As ever it's up to the individual as how much good they think he has done and is doing. But if we were funded by externally borrowed money we would be paying huge chunks of interest. In fact I shudder to think what rate we would be paying. If there is anyone around who would lend £140 million (or even half that) to a technically insolvent business they would want a substantial margin for doing so. Ashley is a package deal - like it or not. Sums the situation up. People need to get away from the reasoning that they don't like Ashley and therefore anything that harms him or his business is good for the club. In practice, it can work the other way. If Sports Direct flourishes because of its association with the club, then that can encourage greater investment in the team to raise the club's profile in overseas markets still further. Of course that's less likely to happen if Ashley is bombarded by hostile messages about his involvement. The other point is - what's the alternative? The local businessman made good isn't going to be able to compete at the top end of the game. There aren't that many oil billionaires around and their room for manoevre is likely to be squeezed by Financial Fair Play. We've seen money spent at QPR and Liverpool by new owners recently but they've made it clear that it's a one-off and the clubs are going to have to balance the books. (Questionable whether these time-limited spending sprees work anyway, but that's another issue) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I'm struggling to understand your reasoning that Sports Direct should be a "side interest", it brings in what, 10 times the revenue? Obviously it makes large profits too, which NUFC doesn't... Why should Newcastle United and Sports Direct be associated? Because they are owned by the same person? Do all sports clubs owners associate the clubs they own with other organisations in their portfolio? The only thing that links NUFC and SD is Mike Ashley. Sports Direct isn't a local company, it has no historical ties to the club - why should we have to accept providing them with free advertising that stains our stadium? I wasn't trying to suggest that SD should be a side interest to Ashley, but why should the fans of this club be forced to support his brand? "to promote his side interest" So that's exactly what you were trying to suggest. That is the only reason for the association... Which is wrong. He is using NUFC to promote his own company, that is what I disagree with. The 2008 and 2009 accounts suggest NUFC paid SD £47,000 for the privilege of branding in SD! The concept that we are in fact 'supporting' SD is strengthened, when you consider the opportunity cost of not having a stadium sponsor that actually pays for advertising... It looks truly horrible and, personally, I see it as having degraded a great stadium. But as far as the money side is concerned it's part of the deal with having Ashley own us. Just reading this forum it's obvious that plenty of people want him gone. As ever it's up to the individual as how much good they think he has done and is doing. But if we were funded by externally borrowed money we would be paying huge chunks of interest. In fact I shudder to think what rate we would be paying. If there is anyone around who would lend £140 million (or even half that) to a technically insolvent business they would want a substantial margin for doing so. Ashley is a package deal - like it or not. Sums the situation up. People need to get away from the reasoning that they don't like Ashley and therefore anything that harms him or his business is good for the club. In practice, it can work the other way. If Sports Direct flourishes because of its association with the club, then that can encourage greater investment in the team to raise the club's profile in overseas markets still further. Of course that's less likely to happen if Ashley is bombarded by hostile messages about his involvement. The other point is - what's the alternative? The local businessman made good isn't going to be able to compete at the top end of the game. There aren't that many oil billionaires around and their room for manoevre is likely to be squeezed by Financial Fair Play. We've seen money spent at QPR and Liverpool by new owners recently but they've made it clear that it's a one-off and the clubs are going to have to balance the books. (Questionable whether these time-limited spending sprees work anyway, but that's another issue) This is the thing for me, all the other fly by nights who may want to get their grubby hands on our club for much more sinister reasons. An English based sports magnate should be an ideal type of owner to have. Less chance of him getting bored like an overseas owner and more chance of the "marriage" benefitting both companies over the longer term. Im also not as snobby about the Sports Direct brand as some. Is it any worse than Venkys chickens or Tombola! Imagine the east stand Newcastle Sign with a rooster either side of it! Hopefully a period of calm can unfold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I'm struggling to understand your reasoning that Sports Direct should be a "side interest", it brings in what, 10 times the revenue? Obviously it makes large profits too, which NUFC doesn't... Why should Newcastle United and Sports Direct be associated? Because they are owned by the same person? Do all sports clubs owners associate the clubs they own with other organisations in their portfolio? The only thing that links NUFC and SD is Mike Ashley. Sports Direct isn't a local company, it has no historical ties to the club - why should we have to accept providing them with free advertising that stains our stadium? I wasn't trying to suggest that SD should be a side interest to Ashley, but why should the fans of this club be forced to support his brand? "to promote his side interest" So that's exactly what you were trying to suggest. That is the only reason for the association... Which is wrong. He is using NUFC to promote his own company, that is what I disagree with. The 2008 and 2009 accounts suggest NUFC paid SD £47,000 for the privilege of branding in SD! The concept that we are in fact 'supporting' SD is strengthened, when you consider the opportunity cost of not having a stadium sponsor that actually pays for advertising... It looks truly horrible and, personally, I see it as having degraded a great stadium. But as far as the money side is concerned it's part of the deal with having Ashley own us. Just reading this forum it's obvious that plenty of people want him gone. As ever it's up to the individual as how much good they think he has done and is doing. But if we were funded by externally borrowed money we would be paying huge chunks of interest. In fact I shudder to think what rate we would be paying. If there is anyone around who would lend £140 million (or even half that) to a technically insolvent business they would want a substantial margin for doing so. Ashley is a package deal - like it or not. Sums the situation up. People need to get away from the reasoning that they don't like Ashley and therefore anything that harms him or his business is good for the club. In practice, it can work the other way. If Sports Direct flourishes because of its association with the club, then that can encourage greater investment in the team to raise the club's profile in overseas markets still further. Of course that's less likely to happen if Ashley is bombarded by hostile messages about his involvement. The other point is - what's the alternative? The local businessman made good isn't going to be able to compete at the top end of the game. There aren't that many oil billionaires around and their room for manoevre is likely to be squeezed by Financial Fair Play. We've seen money spent at QPR and Liverpool by new owners recently but they've made it clear that it's a one-off and the clubs are going to have to balance the books. (Questionable whether these time-limited spending sprees work anyway, but that's another issue) This is the thing for me, all the other fly by nights who may want to get their grubby hands on our club for much more sinister reasons. An English based sports magnate should be an ideal type of owner to have. Less chance of him getting bored like an overseas owner and more chance of the "marriage" benefitting both companies over the longer term. Im also not as snobby about the Sports Direct brand as some. Is it any worse than Venkys chickens or Tombola! Imagine the east stand Newcastle Sign with a rooster either side of it! Hopefully a period of calm can unfold. Imagine the east stand Newcastle sign with a cock either side of it ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 People need to get away from the reasoning that they don't like Ashley and therefore anything that harms him or his business is good for the club. In practice, it can work the other way. If Sports Direct flourishes because of its association with the club, then that can encourage greater investment in the team to raise the club's profile in overseas markets still further. Of course that's less likely to happen if Ashley is bombarded by hostile messages about his involvement. So is the 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of the club' line just another lie? Because if this is some kind of mutual beneficial arrangement, then this must be payment in kind? Unless Sports Direct are sending over their head of marketing to play left-back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Hope they provided a sports direct sick bag underneath each seat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooonDoom Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 It would not have looked quite so s**** if he'd just used a slightly smaller font for the advert. Maybe the size of the .com bit. At least then the focus would have been on "Newcastle United". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 At the very very least they could have had made the writing black. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dell Boi Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Puma not going up next to it afterall then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Well, it's there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 At the ground, Dave? Pics? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKSC Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I've just posted one on my facebook taken from level 7. Anyone who can get on there and rip it feel free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dell Boi Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Link? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Link? www.facebook.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now