NJS

That simply isn’t true. £135m was a stupid price to pay for a club that was apparently about to cease to exist, and we all know why he paid way over the odds. It’s ironic a man renowned for bargain buys should get so well and truly ripped off. Ashley gambled and lost. The bottom line is in close to four years the club’s revenues have dropped, attendances have dropped and its status has dropped. The only key business indicator that has gone up is the amount of money it owes, which has near enough doubled and now stands in excess of £150m. It’s a shocking state of affairs and there is only one person to blame. The local media need to grow some balls and scrutinise the data, not just regurgitate the club’s absurd spin. I don't get this - are you saying Ashley thought he was getting a bargain and thought he was shafting the "daft Geordies" only to find the joke was on him when the debts were revealed? Nobody comes out of the mess well apart from maybe Shepherd himself who at least tried to stop the sale. The cunts who sold their shares among shite about "handing over the reigns to the right man" while sniggering behind his back about the mortgage terms and future liabilities (while their mate was seriously ill BTW) on one hand and the stupid cunt who didn't do due diligence on the other. That key indicator you mention has gone from 110m to 150m and relegation is a factor in that as is falling performances all round but the idea that the extra 40m wouldn't have had to be found anyway to finance Shepherd's debt driven cash flow model is naive - especially as I doubt he would have attacked the wage bill.

What do you think about the argument that this might be a starting point on the way to PR? (and probably the last chance as such for quite a while)

That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now. you won't find a post anywhere by me that says we should be competing with Chelsea and Man City on transfer fees etc. Only skidders and Toonpack makes up that sort of shite. On the contrary, I've made the point a few times, that along with ManU we have to accept they are a special case. Liverpool and Spurs aren't though.....but we have just made Liverpool stronger and us weaker. Great business there from Mike and Dekka. I think we have to see how the new Liverpool owner backs Dalglish in the summer before you can say that - I'd also say that we will never be able to compete with them in terms of pulling power when it comes to players. As I also said above, I think Spurs actually have followed an Ashley type plan by reinvesting sale money - even if it wasn't designed as such. Of course I don't trust Ashley to do that but I do think it would work in a limited fashion.

That's the crux that Leazes just won't acknowledge - Shepherd's way of doing things, even if he could pull it off now which is doubtful financially, simply wouldn't work in 2011. Realistically you can have all the ambition in the world but it means nowt now.

Not so much an age thing but anyone calling me "Sir" still completely freaks me out. My classic age thing is when you get up from a chair or other seat and let out that sort of groan/sigh/Ohh type sound as if its all just too much effort.

I don't think we will spend the Carroll money either - it's just an idea that it MIGHT be a way forward if he flat out refuses to put money directly up for transfers. I have questioned Spurs spending because it seemed to me to be excessive/reckless but as you without knowing the details, I have read articles which suggest the Berbatov, Carrick, Defoe and Keane deals did leave them with a very sizeable excess which would make any remaining spending seem "average". The problem with pining for the good times as both you and I do (despite some of my comments about no trophies) is that unfortunately we are paying for them now and as it stands we need to try and move forward. It does hurt me to say it given my feelings for what Ashley has done, but in the present climate and situation there could be worse owners. If that means you think I'm on his side you're wrong - it's just an acceptance of the situation in the face of no alternative.

the debts have increased ? due to his "prudency" and superior financial "expertise" ? The expectations are lower, the revenues are down, the club has dived down the football rich list. He sells his best striker to a club we have finished above and doesn't give the money to his manager ? How is that progress ? How can you recovered lost ground ? How do you get back to where we were ? How do you restore revenues if this happens ? They are now happy, to be 10th. They will be ecstatic if they finish 10th. Are you ? Is anybody on here telling these Spurs fans how we are doing it better than they are ? Laughable. The debts may have increased but were massive - though I agree the relegation which was down to his stupidity have added further debts. You have to accept that the only we will make limited progress is by Carroll type deals - I'm not happy and have said he should speculate but Man City type stuff is out of the question. Spurs recent spending was fuelled by making massive profits on players - funny that.

The expectations have to be lowered because of the burden of debt left by the previous owners - you might not agree LM but they're just as much to blame for our current predicament as Ashley. Unless you have a realistic suggestion as to how anyone can change that situation of course.

I'd say there isn't much difference between that "wonder team" of 2006 you keep mentioning as if it was a continuation of earlier success which it wasn't and the team now.

a nice tidy balance sheet to cover the blow of relegation ? Toonpack and people like him will be cheering from the Sports Direct rooftops What's your alternative? City have spent 300m+ and aren't even top 4 - would you want Ashley to put 300m in? That would mean he'd have to sell for about 600m to make any money - is that feasible? Unfortunately steady progress (if possible) is the only realistic way forward - though as I've said I think he should spend moderately.

The majority of club debt was the amortising secured loan which built L7- yes the loan cost interest payments but increased attendances generated wnough revenue to cover that. Ashley's shareholder loans are a combination of all sorts but now predominantly represent funding cashflow rather than capital investment. I get the secured loan part but 45m out of 110m isn't the majority though. I also don't think an avoided small loss in crowd size would have covered that cash flow. The outstanding transfer fees would have been a worry.

Basically the club has been losing money and had too high a wages/turnover ratio for years. The marketplace loans of Shepherd have been replaced by the free loans of Ashley. From a timing point on that facet alone things have improved on a purely financial pov. Both regimes used/use the "club would have disappeared" line which is absolute bullshit though Shepherd + credit crunch would have been dodgier.

Of course - but I'm sure the twat has lickspittels who like to point out how England doing well in a tournament makes a big difference to SD sales so feel good can = desirable.

I agree with this whilst disagreeing with it a bit as well. Had we had a tad better luck with injuries, a half decent transfer window and the avoidance of a few notable last minute equalisers, then by now we would be comfortably in the top 6. I also add into this equation our performances against some of the top 5 clubs. I appreciate its still a big leap from 6th to 4th, but with a bit more enthusiasm from the owner it need not be as far away as it currently seems. I think you go a bit too far on this but at the same time have a point - I think the most frustrating this is that most people can see that a modicum of investment would make a difference so why can't he? In the context of his overall wealth, I don't understand why he is supposedly happy to only spend ticking over money for a small return when a few quid would either return more in a pure business sense or increase the chance of him selling at at any kind of a profit. I think the worst think about his regime is we still have no fucking idea what the bloke wants - and more to point I don't think he does either. Problem is that is doesnt. If your not in the top 4 so there is very little financial / business sense in being 6th or 12th. Everyone agrees that from a financial sense and a premiership survival sense, the Europa cup is a waste of space. What is probably needed is some real incentive for owners to finish higher. Im not sure how you achieve that though. My only stab (which wont happen) would be to make the champions league be just that, for champions and therefore increasing the standing of the Europa. Maybe even leaving a european spot available for some sort of play off reward for teams finishing 6th - 9th????? The current set up is fucked though, that I do know. I think Fulham did quite well out of Europa though - I can't see how 5 or 6 more home games even at 25k or less would be something to turn your nose up at. Plus more exposure and a sense of being "back on track" must help sponsorship. I think for Liverpool/Spurs/Man City at the moment its an extremely unpalatable proposition but I think for us it would be "okay" from a feel good factor at the very least.

The Final Destination - some enjoyable deaths but generally shite - plus no Ali Larter which is a pisser. Did fill a particularly brain dead 80 minutes I had earlier though.

I agree with this whilst disagreeing with it a bit as well. Had we had a tad better luck with injuries, a half decent transfer window and the avoidance of a few notable last minute equalisers, then by now we would be comfortably in the top 6. I also add into this equation our performances against some of the top 5 clubs. I appreciate its still a big leap from 6th to 4th, but with a bit more enthusiasm from the owner it need not be as far away as it currently seems. I think you go a bit too far on this but at the same time have a point - I think the most frustrating this is that most people can see that a modicum of investment would make a difference so why can't he? In the context of his overall wealth, I don't understand why he is supposedly happy to only spend ticking over money for a small return when a few quid would either return more in a pure business sense or increase the chance of him selling at at any kind of a profit. I think the worst think about his regime is we still have no fucking idea what the bloke wants - and more to point I don't think he does either.

My 8850 lasts 3 or 4 days no problem Stevie so that sounds iffy - though maybe you should check your wireless settings to ensure it switches off wi-fi if nothing is in range.

Look at the damage it did to the Titanic. Bad shit. Not forgetting the Triffids.

From what ?? I still wouldn't want FFS in charge ever again. The rest is deleted because it's the usual diatribe you mean the Halls and Shepherd ? Whyever not, Because as they never put more than pennies of their own money into the club, and with absolutely no credit being available, the transfer budget would be even less than it is under Ashley. you compete with what you have against the competitors at the time. They would not have watched the club go down and do nothing either. We were one of the biggest clubs in the country, 14th in footballs rich list and qualified for europe finishing 7th in the league only a year before they sold it to him. Nobody has asked Mike Ashley to destroy the revenues they set up. The club is in decline. It would have been anyway - or do you still deny that? The world has changed - they were lucky at the time the way football went but after 2004 the club was going massively downhill and he simply wouldn't have been able to borrow to sustain it. Plucking a lucky 7th place finish out of the air doesn't help your argument either - that was a blip and you know it. Just for once forget about Ashley and any comparisons - nothing since he took over changes the fact that we were fucked in 2007 and would have been destroyed by the crunch in 2008.

From what ?? I still wouldn't want FFS in charge ever again. The rest is deleted because it's the usual diatribe you mean the Halls and Shepherd ? Whyever not, Because as they never put more than pennies of their own money into the club, and with absolutely no credit being available, the transfer budget would be even less than it is under Ashley.

I know its a push but Burnham where he comes from is actually on the Thames.

didn't you jump in and pre-judge my position when Fish asked about the LRA ? No - believe it or not I do sometimes enjoy arguing with you but the thing that annoys me most is when someone does make a good post, maybe with some points that could be answered and you just answer with "idiot" or "you don't know me" - I was trying to say that whether Fish was right about you wasn't the point - it would have been better if you at least tried to respond to the bit about nutters being universal. That response didn't depend on whether you'd heard of the LRA or not.

So someone makes a post with good points about how there are nutters of all kinds and the thing you pick up on is the bit where he say's you won't know something. Simple question - Had you heard of the LRA? If the answer is no then Fish was right. If the answer is yes then can you explain why you won't accept the argument that Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremism? I don't CARE how you and your other leftie chums argue that there are other "extremists", we know there are other extremists, I'm telling YOU about the problems we have here in the UK. Why do you justify your meek acceptance of this by quoting others ? We are talking about the UK, not Uganda. The LRA is Uganda's problem, why are you bothered, unless they suddenly start bombing the UK or blowing planes up or asking for policital asylum etc. You're both mad. Do you think we should send troops in to "sort them out" or something, as justification for sending them into Iraq ? Just a question, but I wouldn't be surprised if your answer is yes, you're so potty. Do you want me to look up your posts advocating action in Libya? For the record I've stated many times I'd support UN backed action to sort out any genocidal regimes. If you only care about what happens in the UK then you are a parochial little Englander and the neigbour/Muslim thing comes to the fore. You exactly mirror Griffin's view of returning the UK to the golden days before immigration with no foreign policy beyond building massive borders. Are you sure you're pure enough genetically to satisfy the future you crave? don't be stupid. If you had your way, you would give people like Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe asylum, protection in accordance with their "human rights", it doesn't make anybody a "parochial little Englander" for wanting cunts in the world like that to get what is coming to them even if it means the death penalty or torture until they die. They deserve it, because they are scum. I literally have no idea how this conclusion has been reached. see the phrase "parochial little Englander" ? It's quoted for a reason ... The lad is pointing out that I clearly stated one thing and that was ignored and my position was stated by you as the opposite - simply because you've pre-judged my position based on your leftie/hippy etc etc idiocy.

Bright red = piles = not serious - but there shouldn't be within a million miles of a litre or more.

of course, and I didn't walk down the main street in Scarborough shouting death to the infidels and burning Scarborough AFC scarves. Is that your [somewhat vague] point ? No - the point was you had a go at immigrants just for calling somewhere else "home" - a perfectly natural attitude which you've just said you did as well.