Toonpack

No "he" doesn't SD also have a world exclusive relationship with Nike and a purpose built "Nike Academy" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/life-with-mike-ashley-6264661.html

Take your pick

Using that logic, it's going to be: http://www.sportsdirect.com/nike

What colour is their money ?? Unreal getting upset about "brands" I mean come on, really !!!!!!

Most football sponsors are "tacky" outside of some of the blue-chips. It'll be a bookies and could well be tackier than SD - mark my words.

In terms of strategy he absolutely wears the pants, but that's a hugely different thing to the run of the mill day to day business stuff of which sponsorship/marketing is a part.

Depends what you mean by "clout" tbh - On day to day stuff, if he was majority shareholder and CEO then loads, but he's not. As majority shareholder he can/will influence corporate strategy (in fact that's stated as his actual deputy chariman role on the board - vision and strategy) but day to day application of that strategy will be down to the "management" led by the Chief Exec (David Forsey). Major decisions (like an aquisition of another company) would undoubtedly be run by him and he could block it, but day to day stuff like advertising/marketing spend unlikely, as Chez alluded to, he'd have to convince the board to make spend he couldn't just arbitrarily do it. SD will have an annual marketing budget (set by the board) but the actual spending of that budget will be solely down to the marketing organisation. Ashley could say I want you to spend £15 Mill a year on NUFC, marketing could say OK or they could say "aye OK Mike" but if we do that we can't spend x amount on TV or wherever else they spend dosh and that would hit our bottom line by £y and we'd make more by keeping the TV adds. If it could make money for SD it could happen, but if that money could be spent elsewhere at greater return, pretty sure it wouldn't hit NUFC.

Which means nowt in real world corporate governance/decision making.

It's going to be a bookies, will out tacky SD IMO, but so long as there's dosh in it.

Club terminating contract early http://uk.virginmoney.com/virgin/news-centre/press-releases/2012/virgin-money-sponsorship-of-newcastle-united-to-end-early.jsp Wonder who's in the wings

About what ?? Also re the benevolence, if he still isn't charging interest or recouping his exposure, that is actually benevolent to a point. I won't reiterate as it's well known what my view is if we hadn't got previous tens of millions of "benevolence". LIttle wrong in that interview IMO.

Like who ?? We signed 4 this offseason (including the Aussie trialist gadgie).

I mean seriously, what's not to like. For him to see out the 8 years we'll have to be doing consistently well and the duration of the contract means he's unlikely to get "poached" without serious dosh. Absolutely will have get out of jail clauses for Ashley if it shouldn't work out. He's the best manager (and backroom team) we've had for absolutely ages, think it's good news all round, me.

New 8 year deal for him and his staff !!

Of course he is, our first team, at full strength, always do so well down there

Your Honour I rest my case

"being there" is an irrelevance in forming an opinion/comment, if you see the game on tv/Internet your viewpoint is in truth probably more "on the button" than just about anyone in the ground apart from those at a reasonable elevation in the expensive halfway seats. Additionally, many ( as I did, when I went) have a few beers before/during the match, alcohol impairs judgement, so it could be a sober non attendee watcher's opinion is actually more valid than a well served attender, especially if said attendee sits at an end of the ground, where lets face it, you can see nine tenths of fuck all what's going on down the other end apart from 18 or so subbuteo sized players pelting about.

Is the correct answer. Even playing well below par we were a much more potent team than them, we will give someone a howking soon.

I'm no Thatcherite but that is all totally laughable (especially the bold bit)

In the bigger picture, a government cannot undermine the police publicly (however justified) the vast majority of who wouldn't deserve "devastating criticism".

Piffle!! Social division is not a new 1970's/80's invention, it's embedded in our very history. Shit man it's totally natural, nature itself is violently hierarchical to the point of genocide. As for ruining this country, that's bollocks, try some third world states for social division and ruin. Whoever is "lowest of the low" in this country is a hell of a lot better off than some "mid-table" in other countries. I now expect some answer on the lines that the third world is the third world because that's our fault an all !!

I must be some of the above then, first started work in 78, married and mortgaged in 81, kids mid/late 80's don't recall me or my mates etc going through any "special" brand of social hell tbh. Life can be tough at times whenever, you just get on with it. That said, the 80's did bring some pain as most of the music was utter wank. I do recall working with several wives of miners who's husbands, to a man from various pits, did not want to be on strike, but were threatened/scared into it by the threat of downright thuggery (based upon their comments/opinions at the time not mine, btw it was a fairly regular topic of conversation). My opinion of the miners strike (formed from conversations with those involved) is not the picture of the oppressed miner rising up en mass to fight injustice but of left wing activist lunacy becomming a snowball down a mountain sweeping all with it, however reluctant they were, and those who I actually knew of personally, were hugely reluctant. Said snowball was screaming out for a big fist to stop it, and it found one. IMO It's what Scargill etc really wanted, he just thought he would win.

I believe he classes himself as a marxist.

Father Liam Finnegan ????