Toonpack

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.

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.

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). Your second sentence proves it's different. And if SD were paying for the space, why not come out and say it? They've had plenty of time considering people complained when: 1. The SD Logo went on the front on the Gallowgate End 2. The huge SD logo went on the roof of the Gallowgate 3. SD appeared on the bench seats. Audi and Citroen pay a huge amount for their logos to appear in the same place at Old Trafford and the Emirates respectively. BTW did the SD signs outside the ground ever happen? How ??

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now. Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ??? On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off. Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh? You can't look at this shit in isolation. That's a weak argument at best. The debt the club had and it's on going financial losses were reflected in the sale price. £134 million wouldn't be enough to build half the stadium let alone buy the players or build a customer base more loyal than Apple. Look at the sign and have a word. It's not an argument, it's a fact. and in no way shape or form is it a "defence". The club owes him a large wedge, interest on that wedge could reasonably be about £10 Mill (it used to be £7mill on the original debt) and yet there's outrage about payment (or not) of advertising fees. It's simple income versus expenditure. If he pays advertising fee's that's great, if he doesn't, so what, he "could" charge the aforementioned interest, but as yet he hasn't. In ground advertising is coppers in comparison to the interest we could be paying. To deride him for not paying "the going rate" is ridiculous whilst ignoring or not acknowledging the other. The sign is irrelevant. Look at just about every ground in the Prem, plastered to fuck with logo's. The Emirates one at Arsenal lights up, but that of course is different As I posted elsewhere in a similar discussion, if he changed the colour of the paper towels in the bogs there'd be uproar. If it was a "sexy" logo from a totally independant company, would anyone complain, would they fuck. Would they get it for free? People have issue with his company plastering their logo everywhere on the cheap, all while we are told prudence is vital to us breaking even and making us a viable business. I can assure you if we he had invested the correct amount in the first team each season there would be a lot less people arsed about the name or logo change. He's not getting it for free in the greater scheme of things. It's not an independant third party. He and SD are indivisible. It's giving with one hand and taking with the other, on balance the club is better off. You can't divide the give from the take when it's the same bloke. If a third party came along and was blown out in deference to SD, then there's an argument. We still don't know if it's free btw.

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).

Fuck off Chez, I haven't read it, but the swiss rambler knows nowt and it's all bollocks.

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now. Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ??? On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off. Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh? You can't look at this shit in isolation. That's a weak argument at best. The debt the club had and it's on going financial losses were reflected in the sale price. £134 million wouldn't be enough to build half the stadium let alone buy the players or build a customer base more loyal than Apple. Look at the sign and have a word. It's not an argument, it's a fact. and in no way shape or form is it a "defence". The club owes him a large wedge, interest on that wedge could reasonably be about £10 Mill (it used to be £7mill on the original debt) and yet there's outrage about payment (or not) of advertising fees. It's simple income versus expenditure. If he pays advertising fee's that's great, if he doesn't, so what, he "could" charge the aforementioned interest, but as yet he hasn't. In ground advertising is coppers in comparison to the interest we could be paying. To deride him for not paying "the going rate" is ridiculous whilst ignoring or not acknowledging the other. The sign is irrelevant. Look at just about every ground in the Prem, plastered to fuck with logo's. The Emirates one at Arsenal lights up, but that of course is different As I posted elsewhere in a similar discussion, if he changed the colour of the paper towels in the bogs there'd be uproar. If it was a "sexy" logo from a totally independant company, would anyone complain, would they fuck.

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.

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.

Yes is the only right answer to this question

properly talented ability wise can play a load of instruments etc, but a total and utter twat whose actual material is shabby at best, was listening to that devil without a cause album not so long ago for the first time in years and it's cringeworthy. Girl i knew from states was a massive KR fan, used to help her design some massive fansite she ran, even she eventually realised he was a cock thankfully. Being a twat tends to go hand in hand with fame/celebrity. I do like his latest album though, country-ish and very good IMO

Seriously? Ashley? The man who lost a fortune betting on HBOS shares and thinks nothing of losing a couple of million on the roulette table? Hence, making a few million a year from NUFC would seem irrelevant.