Toonpack

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) .

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.

But they'd still have their £52 Million plus at least some "profit" from the shareholding at the sale, unless of course it went into administration and they'd just have been left with their £52 Million.

Ninety odd views and one comment not from the OP or me. There's a fucking surprise.

Then how do you cover the other £100 million ??

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point. If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump. does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ? Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ? Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter. good start ? Bollocks. Its the easiest set of fixtures we have had in years.......and only by going to games, can you evaluate the performance, which is without a doubt inferior to even last years effort, which for some reason satisfied those who have lowered their standards and expectations. Posters on your other message board ie skunkers, were posting how wonderful life was just because we beat the mackems 5-1 last season. The same posters who laughed at mackems for thinking how their ultimate ambition was simply to beat us, they have now sunk to the same level. FWIW, the logo on the roof wouldn't matter a shite if the team was winning and soopa Mike was backing his managers instead of running the club down, that is why I support this football team. I don't care in the slightest about logos, warehouses etc, but it only shows how daft some people are tbh when things like that get in the way of their judgements. How long are you giving Mike Ashley now ? Did you mean September 1st 2018 ? I have no deadline for Ashley, he and he alone controls that. I have stated what I think he's doing, that's it really. We still needed him (or someone as rich as him) see Chez's Everton post. didn't you say your "deadline" was September 1st ? We would NOT have gone bust btw, despite the scaremongering you have bought into. The only time this club would have gone bust was in 1991, and soopa Mike is now restoring the long term apathy which would have brought that into becoming reality, not a club signing top footballers, filling the 3rd biggest ground in the country located right in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the country, and having the 14th biggest revenues in world football. And with debts that make all that irrelevant and importantly, totally unsustainable. See Chez's thread, although I suspect you'll avoid that one like the plague. Carry on thinking we are the only club with "unsustainable debts", if you like, despite the revenues built up by the previous owners, that Mike Ashley is now eroding. Do you concede that all the signs are now obvious to a blind man, that this club is going seriously backwards, or does the best part of 10,000 empty seats [which is just the start] going to be easily explained by you as of little significance ? We're not now, but we were (not necessarily the only one but unsustainable just the same). The club has/had been going backwards for years before Ashley came along. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Simple

Hardly, Ashley for all his faults is inestimably better than the last lot. He still hasn't pocketed his £52 Million "profit"

What investment ??

Well, then they couldn't use the line 'Mike hasn't taken a penny out of this club", which clearly he is but in kind rather than in cash. So yes, I'd rather he did. Of course he could also convert his tax-efficient loans into cumbersome equity. It wouldn't help him financially, but it would stop daft discussions like this. It wouldn't help the club either

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point. If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump. does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ? Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ? Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter. good start ? Bollocks. Its the easiest set of fixtures we have had in years.......and only by going to games, can you evaluate the performance, which is without a doubt inferior to even last years effort, which for some reason satisfied those who have lowered their standards and expectations. Posters on your other message board ie skunkers, were posting how wonderful life was just because we beat the mackems 5-1 last season. The same posters who laughed at mackems for thinking how their ultimate ambition was simply to beat us, they have now sunk to the same level. FWIW, the logo on the roof wouldn't matter a shite if the team was winning and soopa Mike was backing his managers instead of running the club down, that is why I support this football team. I don't care in the slightest about logos, warehouses etc, but it only shows how daft some people are tbh when things like that get in the way of their judgements. How long are you giving Mike Ashley now ? Did you mean September 1st 2018 ? I have no deadline for Ashley, he and he alone controls that. I have stated what I think he's doing, that's it really. We still needed him (or someone as rich as him) see Chez's Everton post. didn't you say your "deadline" was September 1st ? We would NOT have gone bust btw, despite the scaremongering you have bought into. The only time this club would have gone bust was in 1991, and soopa Mike is now restoring the long term apathy which would have brought that into becoming reality, not a club signing top footballers, filling the 3rd biggest ground in the country located right in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the country, and having the 14th biggest revenues in world football. And with debts that make all that irrelevant and importantly, totally unsustainable. See Chez's thread, although I suspect you'll avoid that one like the plague.

And I answered, haven't moved anything. What exactly did I say about 1st September ?? I believe I said "it would show what Ashleys intentions were" either he'd be backing us or recouping. I have said I believe he is recouping. Is that "judgement" enough for you ??

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) BTW, we don't definitively know if the sponsorship is being paid for, or not (yet). An outside body paying a lot of money for sponsorship is a clear difference though, ridiculous to argue otherwise tbh. And I'd suggest we'd know if Ashley was paying sponsorship because they'd be constantly reminding us about it. IF a third party comes along and gets knocked back, then it's different. So do you think he should pay advertising fees and charge interest?

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. It was exactly what i was thinking. If the debt market is that tough now and is putting that much pressure on Everton, where would we have been with over twice that level in 2007 and without a real plan to reduce it, just re-finance it. What do you mean on that last bit? Sarcasm? Fisrt bit - It's what I've been blathering on about for ages. Second bold bit - Aye just being a tad sarky. Seems to be the stock answer round here when any question about the source of money is mentioned.

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point. If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump. does the performance of the team on the pitch interest you at all, in any way ? Just asking. Or do you just buy scarves with the balance sheet woven into them ? Reading this forum, everyone should stop going because there's a distastefull logo on the roof, the fact the teams had a good start doesn't seem to matter. good start ? Bollocks. Its the easiest set of fixtures we have had in years.......and only by going to games, can you evaluate the performance, which is without a doubt inferior to even last years effort, which for some reason satisfied those who have lowered their standards and expectations. Posters on your other message board ie skunkers, were posting how wonderful life was just because we beat the mackems 5-1 last season. The same posters who laughed at mackems for thinking how their ultimate ambition was simply to beat us, they have now sunk to the same level. FWIW, the logo on the roof wouldn't matter a shite if the team was winning and soopa Mike was backing his managers instead of running the club down, that is why I support this football team. I don't care in the slightest about logos, warehouses etc, but it only shows how daft some people are tbh when things like that get in the way of their judgements. How long are you giving Mike Ashley now ? Did you mean September 1st 2018 ? I have no deadline for Ashley, he and he alone controls that. I have stated what I think he's doing, that's it really. We still needed him (or someone as rich as him) see Chez's Everton post.

See my post above, which is apparently unpalatable to most.