Toonpack

Think you have to weight it against turnover for it to make sense. He's spent almost 3 times as much as the villa and Spurs owners...and as CG said in the other thread, our turnover should sit right between theres this year. Lerner was in for the thick end of £270 Mill at the end of 2009, £63 Mill purchase, £108m equity and £97m in loans (for which he charges LIBOR + 2% (about £6Mill) and management fees of circa £8Mill a year = around 15% of their turnover). Spurs, Lewis' contribution is as shareholder of Enic (who own the club), his contribution is solely in purchase of shares (of ENIC), the club itself has financed it's football activities fro operating profits.

No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all. You're missing out the fundamental point - one that is the very crux of why anyone follows a football club surely. That is related to real life emotions, sentiment . End of the day the classless, vindictive horror's taking the piss man. Maybe that's my problem, I don't do emotion/sentiment for football any more, well not to any great degree, it's just not worth the angst for something that is such a fundamentaly unbalanced "contest". Maybe that's also why a part of me, actually wants Ashley's way to work. The ridiculous throwing bazillions at it of Man City is obcene. Given our relative "size" on a level playing field we "should" compete at the highest level, on our own merits and our size should matter, currently it's an irrelevance. Only a fundamental change in the game or someone breaking the mold will do that. The sooner the financial bubble bursts the better IMO I agree . Football's fucked big time *. To be honest (think it was HF that said it) it's also become to enjoying the whole panto villain of all this . *Did you see that 'Dispatches - Buying A Football Club' prog a couple of months ago btw ? About ownership of PL clubs and how completely absurd it all is . Nope, didn't see it, sadly. Think last one I saw was the very average Alan Sugar one.

And where did I say that ? Keep looking for stuff that isn't there if it makes you happy. You're becoming more Leazes every day. I'm not particularly "into" PL football anymore that's a fact, it is on the whole, distinctly average shite.

We don't now, but we did then. As for the rest, aye probably, although outside the top 3-4 there's really not a lot to beat, even Mr Bridges-Burned should be able to pull that off. That's the problem though, just say we finished 7th or 8th even with Satan incarnate in charge, what realistically, extra, would a "supporter friendly" gaffer bring to the table. Other than being supporter friendly. The gap is false and is just too big. I can't believe the penny isn't going to drop pretty soon with the Shorts and Lerners (and even John Henry's if the scousers miss CL again) that ploughing their own money in is futile as the game stands today. Although Lerner particularly is onto a nice little earner. The next TV deal will be interesting, is the PL still the golden chalice it was, if the deal money drops, football is fucked. For the better.

S'not like

No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all. You're missing out the fundamental point - one that is the very crux of why anyone follows a football club surely. That is related to real life emotions, sentiment . End of the day the classless, vindictive horror's taking the piss man. Maybe that's my problem, I don't do emotion/sentiment for football any more, well not to any great degree, it's just not worth the angst for something that is such a fundamentaly unbalanced "contest". Maybe that's also why a part of me, actually wants Ashley's way to work. The ridiculous throwing bazillions at it of Man City is obcene. Given our relative "size" on a level playing field we "should" compete at the highest level, on our own merits and our size should matter, currently it's an irrelevance. Only a fundamental change in the game or someone breaking the mold will do that. The sooner the financial bubble bursts the better IMO

Where do I think he's aiming the club ? Is that what you're asking. If so I think he's aiming for above 10th "his way" with maybe a trip into Europe or two or maybe even a'la Spurs into the CL, after all they managed it "within their means". No, I wasn't asking you anything. I said mediocrity was his aim, which you disagreed with despite also saying he was recouping money rather than backing the side (i.e. not interested in making progress on the field in the conventional sense). I'm not really interested what you think about his intentions tbh as you seem to be at odds with yourself. I was just pointed out the obvious fallacy of your argument. He is not (patently obvious now) prepared to throw his own cash at it any more, the club it appears must be self financing (and within that very possibly repay his exposure over time). The evidence would seem to show that throwing money at it (at under Man City levels) doesn't work (a'la Villa. Sunlun) so he's doing it "his way". I doubt his aim is mediocrity, irrespective of method, mega-succesfull people just don't see anything that way. I think you're talking bollocks (and you probably know you are tbh) but it's all opinions as to what his 'aim' is, given only he really knows. The outcome of his methods is almost certainly mediocrity (at best) though. Therefore I don't think it's too massive a leap to suggest that's his aim. What you're suggesting, i.e. he's hoping for success on his terms (i.e. spending fuck all) is far less realistic imo. Even I credit him with more of a clue about running a football club than that. Yes it is only opinion. In reality, mediocrity is all that's left outside of the top 4 (maybe even top 2-3), it's a likely outcome and nothing but silly money would possibly change that. But that's footballs problem. Maybe he's just being realistic. We're not spending "fuck all" though, we are (I believe) spending what the club can afford (and not a penny more it seems) given our "size" that gives us an advantage over a fair number of clubs (notwithstanding the amount he recoups, obviously). The Prem is basically a tiny layer of cream floating on a pile of shit of various density.

All while TP ignores the fact that Sports Direct is a listed company with 22% of the business held by others, whereas NUFC is a 100% owned private entity. The reason people get het up about this is because of phrases like 'he doesn't take a penny out of the club' and 'we need to be self-sufficient' when he does in kind by providing free advertising to his other companies. There is a clear benefit to him of doing this. This line about not charging interest on the loans is totally irrelevant. This is not really debt at all, as it was required in order to preserve the original equity purchase. He could charge 1% or 1000%, as Ashley himself would have to pick up any shortfall. There is no net benefit to him either way. The reason people (some people) get all het up is simply because it's Ashley and all and everything that happens si some machiavelian plan to piss said people off. There is no middle ground in anything

Strange how you read so much in so little. If it matters so much to you, I surrender

Good post, the bold bit is the point I have been making for what seems like ever, we needed one and got one, but as you say in the rest of that sentence it's not quite like we'd hoped.

No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all.

Where do I think he's aiming the club ? Is that what you're asking. If so I think he's aiming for above 10th "his way" with maybe a trip into Europe or two or maybe even a'la Spurs into the CL, after all they managed it "within their means". No, I wasn't asking you anything. I said mediocrity was his aim, which you disagreed with despite also saying he was recouping money rather than backing the side (i.e. not interested in making progress on the field in the conventional sense). I'm not really interested what you think about his intentions tbh as you seem to be at odds with yourself. I was just pointed out the obvious fallacy of your argument. He is not (patently obvious now) prepared to throw his own cash at it any more, the club it appears must be self financing (and within that very possibly repay his exposure over time). The evidence would seem to show that throwing money at it (at under Man City levels) doesn't work (a'la Villa. Sunlun) so he's doing it "his way". I doubt his aim is mediocrity, irrespective of method, mega-succesfull people just don't see anything that way.

Nee difference at all (execpt that it's not Ashley), in our case the "sponsor" is making a big contribution (the equivalent of paying a huge amount for the privilege even) to the club by not taking interest (as yet) Your second sentence proves it's different. How ?? obvious question is obvious... Nope it's not, nee different. A party is benefitting the club by a large sum, as part of that large sum (or in consideration of) they appear to be getting advertising. You cannot consider one a disgrace and ignore the other.

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was. But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really. I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time. I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it. so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ? Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears). That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max. Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ? Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses. NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club. This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business. Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it. You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too. No-one least of all me has ever said that, what I have said is that our plight was unsustainable, and thus our ability to compete with any fucker was severely limited. A book I've never read in that case, why did you recommend it to me ? and why is a quote from it in your sig ? Edit. and has been asked, when are Everton - and 90% of the clubs in the country and/or the premiership, also going to go bust ? It's a quote in my sig becasue I found it (as a quote) and liked it. When will you explain/describe how all other premier debt is like ours was, then your question will make sense.

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was. But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really. I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time. I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it. so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ? Just illustrates your lack of comprehension . If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears). That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max. Please show me where you, or anybody else, said 5-6 years ago that we had to get rid of the Halls and Shepherd because sugar daddies were about to take over Man City [only Chelsea at the time were being bankrolled] and [for some reason] needed this takeover to act bigger than clubs such as West Ham, Wigan, Stoke, Blackburn etc and we would have to become a selling club again, sell our best players, keep the cash and settle for premiership survival as success ? Nobody said this, not one of you, and you know it. You just thought anybody would tap the resources and be more successful, automatically show the ambition, and not "embarrass you" by making PR gaffes and renting warehouses. NUFC do not need a rich benefactor to act big and be a bigger club than clubs like this, but you have allowed yourself to be conned, hook line and sinker, by the arsehole who now owns the football club. This is what YOU fail to grasp every time. If NUFC were ever going to go bust, they would have gone bust in 1991. As it is, they are now heading down the same road of long term apathy that led eventually to the situation that existed in 1991. You fail to grasp that football business is not like a high street business. Fucking absurd, tbh. The odds were totally stacked against it, and only a complete and utter lunatic would still cling to it and not be able to admit it. You have been brainwashed by that book by Dennis Cassidy....who had a huge agenda with the old board.....what else would he do but print anti-Hall/Shepherd comments ? As soon as he was appointed to the board in the first place, I cringed tbh, because as soon as "businessmen" start making comments about football clubs like "run them as a business", you just KNOW that the actual football is not going to come first. See Alan Sugar too. No-one least of all me has ever said that, what I have said is that our plight was unsustainable, and thus our ability to compete with any fucker was severely limited. A book I've never read

I don't expect him to throw endless amounts of cash in order to make us into title contenders but it hardly takes a genius to work out how little vision the man has with regard to taking the team (a little old-fashioned I know but that's the bit I care most about) forward. As HF pointed out, KK could've worked wonders with the money spunked on paying for relegation. In fact he'd have worked wonders with the Carroll money too. Mediocrity is his aim and, quite frankly, I despise the bloke for it. I rather think doing it "his way" is the aim and fuck everyone else. That may or may not lead to mediocrity, but I doubt mediocrity is indeed his aim. Haven't you already conceded he's concerned with recouping money as opposed to taking the team forward in a footballing sense? Realistically you're looking at mediocrity (at best) in that scenario. I didn't say that at all. He appears to be recouping, that's seems to be a fact. He should have bought a striker, in my opinion, in his opinion he's doing it his way, I still doubt his aim is mediocrity. Mediocrity may well be the result, but it's not a given. It's all irrelevant anyway, whatever he does, it's all a great evil masterplan to piss people off whilst he sits back and chuckles with Decka curled up on his lap like Blofeld's cat. so it's taken you 4 years to arrive at soopa Mike's masterplan, despite others telling you far earlier ? Is this what your verdict is, now that September 1st is past, or are you giving him until 2015, for instance ? You do realise that this is a football club people are supposed to supporting, and they are hoping they will win on the pitch, and will judge success on those terms, and choose to either continue putting money into it or withdraw altogether if the team stops winning, rather than shareholders hoping to see a profit courtesy of far East sweat shops and a market who will buy the product regardless ? I'm trying to explain how football is not a "normal" high street business here.....which you and some others appear to continue to think is the case. You said that on Sept 1st, you would "judge" Mike Ashley [presumably in terms of how much he wanted success on the pitch] and that would depend on whether or not he spent the cash for Carroll. I take it this is your "final verdict" then ? What a pity you've wasted all that time going around in circles, for all these months, if you now accept the ambition to have success on the pitch is not the primary aim. You could have just agreed with people like myself, Alex, PP and HF ages and ages ago. I can't agree with you ever because the situation now, no matter how bleak, is inestimably better than it would have been had there been no ownership change. Success "on the pitch" was never comming back under the previous ownership because we didn't had a pot to piss in. Could have been SO much better if we'd got a brighter billionaire, but at least we got one.

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was. But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really. I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time. I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it. so you said at the time if we don't replace the Halls and Shepherd we will go bust in a few years time, but nobody else with "unsustainable debts" will go bust in a few years time ? Just illustrates your lack of comprehension. If the debt at the time had been stable it would have been sustainable, the ONLY way to service the debt, because it was growing, was by more debt, that model (in the real world) is NOT sustainable. Who else had a model like that, with no owner to bail it out ??? Maybe Portsmouth, and that's all (and perhaps Everton it appears). That's what you fail to grasp every fucking time, our debt was like no-one else's, there wasn't an owner to support it or underwrite it, it was 100% financial institution debt to the max.

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was. But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really. I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time. I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it. So when will Everton cease to exist then? When did I ever say they would (or we would for that matter).

Where do I think he's aiming the club ? Is that what you're asking. If so I think he's aiming for above 10th "his way" with maybe a trip into Europe or two or maybe even a'la Spurs into the CL, after all they managed it "within their means". Is that not a bit like me aiming to impress my lass, but doing it "my way" by sending her photos of me shagging her mother? What do you think the "aim" should be (not involving female parents)

Where do I think he's aiming the club ? Is that what you're asking. If so I think he's aiming for above 10th "his way" with maybe a trip into Europe or two or maybe even a'la Spurs into the CL, after all they managed it "within their means".

I don't expect him to throw endless amounts of cash in order to make us into title contenders but it hardly takes a genius to work out how little vision the man has with regard to taking the team (a little old-fashioned I know but that's the bit I care most about) forward. As HF pointed out, KK could've worked wonders with the money spunked on paying for relegation. In fact he'd have worked wonders with the Carroll money too. Mediocrity is his aim and, quite frankly, I despise the bloke for it. I rather think doing it "his way" is the aim and fuck everyone else. That may or may not lead to mediocrity, but I doubt mediocrity is indeed his aim. Haven't you already conceded he's concerned with recouping money as opposed to taking the team forward in a footballing sense? Realistically you're looking at mediocrity (at best) in that scenario. I didn't say that at all. He appears to be recouping, that's seems to be a fact. He should have bought a striker, in my opinion, in his opinion he's doing it his way, I still doubt his aim is mediocrity. Mediocrity may well be the result, but it's not a given. It's all irrelevant anyway, whatever he does, it's all a great evil masterplan to piss people off whilst he sits back and chuckles with Decka curled up on his lap like Blofeld's cat. You can spin it whichever way you want to be honest but to quote you, you said (in relation to the last window) "it would show what Ashleys intentions were" either he'd be backing us or recouping. I have said I believe he is recouping." So, he isn't backing us? That's absolutely implied there regardless of your attempts to wriggle out of it. By his not backing us, it's obvious mid-table status or mediocrity, as I put it, is the best he can hope for. So you're either arguing he's monumentally stupid, in hoping he can do better than that whilst spending nowt or you're ignoring the obvious now you've dug a hole for yourself. But he has backed us but that's now apparently stopped, that's why the debts grown but the club is profitable (so it appears), Mid/upper mid-table is all anyone outside of about 4 clubs can aspire to. Within our own means we have more clout than most, and spending nowt isn't really true is it, spending more of his own money is where it stops. Do I think he should have chucked in another £20 Mill or so, absolutely. Do I comprehend why maybe he didn't, absolutely. It's all really irrelevant, he's here and he aint going anywhere soon, so either get used to it or wrap it in. The constant wailing and gnashing of keyboards over what is, in the main, tirvia is beyond pathetic to be honest. Yes he's fucked up again, he should have bought a striker (which is really the only substantive point of angst) and thus he should have chucked a few more Mill in, and all would have been great, he'd have won over a large section of fans, he patently doesn't care, it's his way or no way. That's the way it is. Ashley is a grade A cunt, (which by the way, I have said all along) but why anyone would think it would/could have been better with no change of ownership is beyond my comprehension.

I don't expect him to throw endless amounts of cash in order to make us into title contenders but it hardly takes a genius to work out how little vision the man has with regard to taking the team (a little old-fashioned I know but that's the bit I care most about) forward. As HF pointed out, KK could've worked wonders with the money spunked on paying for relegation. In fact he'd have worked wonders with the Carroll money too. Mediocrity is his aim and, quite frankly, I despise the bloke for it. I rather think doing it "his way" is the aim and fuck everyone else. That may or may not lead to mediocrity, but I doubt mediocrity is indeed his aim. Haven't you already conceded he's concerned with recouping money as opposed to taking the team forward in a footballing sense? Realistically you're looking at mediocrity (at best) in that scenario. I didn't say that at all. He appears to be recouping, that's seems to be a fact. He should have bought a striker, in my opinion, in his opinion he's doing it his way, I still doubt his aim is mediocrity. Mediocrity may well be the result, but it's not a given. It's all irrelevant anyway, whatever he does, it's all a great evil masterplan to piss people off whilst he sits back and chuckles with Decka curled up on his lap like Blofeld's cat.

There but by the grace of God etc etc The big differences are somewhat mitigated by the fact their "now" debt is just over half of what our "then" debt was. But anyway, they'll just raise their revenues, simple really. I like the way some people pretend they looked into a crystal ball 5-6 years ago and pretend this is why they wanted rid of the Halls and Shepherd, at the time. I woke up and smelled the coffee, you've been castigating me for my view for many years, no crystal ball about it.

Salaries (£10Mill), Dividends (£22Mill) and sales of shares during the tenure (£20Mill sold back to the club and to NTL) .