Toonpack

I bet there's no formal contractual deal in place between SD plc and NUFC, it will be an informal "can I use the logo"/"aye OK" now I accept that wouldn't normally happen as companies are incredibly precious about their logo's, and their use, but given who the owner of NUFC is all the normal "yes you can use it but caveat caveat caveat etc." won't likely have been necessary. I would guess their standard TV adverts reach more people than the SJP stuff.

First Bold bit: Not a chance, for many reasons. Firstly Ashleys reported management ethos is the promotion of dissent and confrontation being drivers to excellence. Secondly, at corporate governance level, it just doesn't happen, at lower or middle management oh aye, there's jobs for the boys. At Corporate level it's the best people for the job because as Chez mentioned if the institutional investors caught a whiff of Ashley driving the bus roughshod over everything (as he saw fit) they'd be less than happy which in turn would/could effect the share price and even a penny off SD share value would be a tidy sum taken away from his holding I reckon. This majority shareholding thing and it's day to day influence is way over blown, if he wanted to run things day to day he'd be CEO. Majority shareholders take a back seat their primary interest being comfort that the business is being run/grown properly (with them having to do as little as possible whilst that happens). They put in the 24/7 graft to bring the business into a position that being the majority share holder is worth bazzilions, once there, they just want it to run/grow smoothly so they can concentrate on the things they enjoy doing, when they want to do them - Likely the reason behind Ashleys directorship role, he patently likes doing the aquisition expansion stuff. He wants to see SD the biggest on the planet, read their annual report (easy to find via Google) and where they want to expand to. Second Bold bit: They don't have one to comment on.

I don’t know who could stop him, but I know what could stop him and that’s common sense. If there was a shortfall in NUFC revenue’s which in turn weakened the team which in turn meant they started making losses again Ashley personally would have to cover that gap out of his own pocket (as he has previously). To expose himself financially for the benefit of the corporate entity just doesn’t stack up. The sums we’d be talking about “diverting” from NUFC to SD are buttons to SD but a decent wedge to NUFC (i.e. exposure to Ashley’s pocket). Has anyone tracked if any SD signage has been replaced (or not) by other sponsors anywhere ?? We don’t know if he’s using area’s that could have been sold elsewhere for SD marketting, or rather, turning down offers to advertise in deference to SD. Significantly there is only one entity, the detrimental effect or exposure bestowed on the “other” is Ashley’s own pocket. Nope NUFC are simply exercising the contractual clause that allowed either party to terminate after 12 months, Virgin announced that they’d been given notice, of said termination, before NUFC did. This was simply the exercising of an agreed contractual clause ending the deal at the earliest time it was agreed it could be terminated. Technically it’s not really as emotive as “ending the deal early” or premature.

Aye, but you don't see Russian Mafia shops (alledgedly) on the highstreet.

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".