tinofbeans 86 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 NEWCASTLE GOSSIP Owner Mike Ashley is asking for £481m for Newcastle - a profit of £230m. (Sun) A consortium linked to Dubai Sports City has emerged as the frontrunner to take over Newcastle. (Daily Mail) Zabeel Investments, part of Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Al-Maktoum's Dubai Holding, have told Ashley to lower his £480m asking price. (Star) Zabeel have already told Kevin Keegan he will get his job back back if their takeover succeeds. (Daily Express) However, Zabeel may only be showing an interest in Newcastle in order to force Liverpool's owners to sell. (Guardian) Ashley's attempts to sell the club in the Middle East have not been helped by his claims that he and his family have been threatened with violence. (Guardian) Ashley suffered huge financial losses as the value of HBOS shares - of which he has a sizeable holding - tumbled. (Independent) No representative from Newcastle turned up at a Prince's Trust Charity dinner in aid of disadvantaged children, which did attract stars from Sunderland and Middlesbrough. (Sun) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Small club you see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Ashley is cunt and taking us all for everything he can get you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshadow 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Might be something and nothing but thought you might be interested anyway. From a lad on RAWK "from what I hear, they (newcastle) have already been taken over by an investment unit in Abu Dhabi - quite a big one, apparantly will hit the headlines tomorrow I live in Dubai and work in the financial industry - so it could just be someone gettin' excited" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 If he's actually trying to get, never mind getting that much profit, then ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Might be something and nothing but thought you might be interested anyway. From a lad on RAWK "from what I hear, they (newcastle) have already been taken over by an investment unit in Abu Dhabi - quite a big one, apparantly will hit the headlines tomorrow I live in Dubai and work in the financial industry - so it could just be someone gettin' excited" Grain of salt but fuck everyone here hopes you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Might be something and nothing but thought you might be interested anyway. From a lad on RAWK "from what I hear, they (newcastle) have already been taken over by an investment unit in Abu Dhabi - quite a big one, apparantly will hit the headlines tomorrow I live in Dubai and work in the financial industry - so it could just be someone gettin' excited" What's your take on foreign investments mate? Lerner has done well at Villa, Glazers haven't caused the implosion that FC United of Manchester were afraid of, but they're not the only foreign owners in the prem. Good thing, bad thing? as an aside, when you posted that, did you mean the the lad on RAWK said that yesterday so the headline would break today or he posted it this morning and it'll break tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The money he seems to be asking is insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The money he seems to be asking is insanity. Even £350m seems to be OTT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The money he seems to be asking is insanity. Even £350m seems to be OTT. The value of the club is £240. Say he adds on £50m for good measure, I can't honestly see anyone paying more than £300m. Of course great if they did, but can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 cunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magma 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Ashley has had a make over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshadow 0 Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Might be something and nothing but thought you might be interested anyway. From a lad on RAWK "from what I hear, they (newcastle) have already been taken over by an investment unit in Abu Dhabi - quite a big one, apparantly will hit the headlines tomorrow I live in Dubai and work in the financial industry - so it could just be someone gettin' excited" What's your take on foreign investments mate? Lerner has done well at Villa, Glazers haven't caused the implosion that FC United of Manchester were afraid of, but they're not the only foreign owners in the prem. Good thing, bad thing? as an aside, when you posted that, did you mean the the lad on RAWK said that yesterday so the headline would break today or he posted it this morning and it'll break tomorrow? Sorry Fish, only just got back on. He posted it this morning to break tomorrow. I'm a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to money in the game. I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. Man United were the richest club in the world for a long time, and paid the most for players, but they earned their money themselves, through winning trophies and capitalising on their commercial value. I have no problem with that. I still don't think the Glazers are good owners though, nor Hicks and Gillett, as both sets of owners bought the clubs without one penny of their own money, the Glazers turning Man U in to one of the most in debt clubs in the world. The debt should not be allowed to be put on to a club, if they need a loan to buy it then do it in their own name with their own assets at stake, not the clubs. We at Liverpool lived in a cosy little world for decades, Scousers owning and running the club with supreme professionalism, with not a penny taken out of the club by the chairman or directors, everything was reinvested. Then David Moores made the biggest mistake of his life when he thought he'd made the best decision for the club and we've eneded up in the state we're in. We have an excellent manager who has the vision to create a dynasty in the way Shanks did, but he's been hamstrung financially because nowadays you need an enormous amount of money to compete and the owners need most of the profit to pay the interest on their loans. You can still try to build, but it takes time and many aren't willing to wait, or another billionnaire comes in and makes 3rd and 4th place harder. Liverpool and Arsenal are the most vulnerable to Citys challenge after the January window. They have a good manager in Mark Hughes, and with the january window should have the players to compete if they can stay thereabouts until then. Soon the game will become a pissing contest between billionnaires imo and the days of bringing our own players through will be dead and gone unless they are so exceptional they get in the team and hit the ground running like Owen and Fowler did. Liverpool fans, who had no reason to protest for decades, now have a supporters union, Spirit of Shankly, and a group called share Liverpool trying to buy the club from the Americans. We are banking on a Shiekh to buy us just so we don't go under altogether, and if he does buy us then you have to wonder how much interference he'll exert in player acquisition or team picking. We've already lost the game we all started watching as kids, and the young ones coming up now will know no different, 10 years from now clubs won't care how many go through the turnstiles because that source of revenue will be peanuts compared to world wide TV deals. What then? Manufactured atmosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. That's never been entirely true though. Liverpool, for example, had a pretty decent financial backing system in their heyday. Not the same as these days perhaps, but enough to create more than a little edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. That's never been entirely true though. Liverpool, for example, had a pretty decent financial backing system in their heyday. Not the same as these days perhaps, but enough to create more than a little edge. I don't think Redshadow is talking about "more than a little edge", I think he's referring to the staggering gap between clubs with sugar daddies and those without. It cannot be bridged with a decent crop of kids or one or two astute signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. That's never been entirely true though. Liverpool, for example, had a pretty decent financial backing system in their heyday. Not the same as these days perhaps, but enough to create more than a little edge. I don't think Redshadow is talking about "more than a little edge", I think he's referring to the staggering gap between clubs with sugar daddies and those without. It cannot be bridged with a decent crop of kids or one or two astute signings. Aye, but historically they were rather secure, more so than most english clubs of the time. Perhaps not surprisingly Liverpool's fortunes seemed to wane as their relative wealth waned. I don't think you can compare it to Chelsea or Man City, but it's certainly at least as bad as a large town club trying to compete with a big city one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Pre-Abramovich Man Utd spent an absolute fortune, relatively at least. Same applies to Liverpool in the 80s. The gap is even harder to close now but it isn't all that different really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshadow 0 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 (edited) I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. That's never been entirely true though. Liverpool, for example, had a pretty decent financial backing system in their heyday. Not the same as these days perhaps, but enough to create more than a little edge. I don't think Redshadow is talking about "more than a little edge", I think he's referring to the staggering gap between clubs with sugar daddies and those without. It cannot be bridged with a decent crop of kids or one or two astute signings. Aye, but historically they were rather secure, more so than most english clubs of the time. Perhaps not surprisingly Liverpool's fortunes seemed to wane as their relative wealth waned. I don't think you can compare it to Chelsea or Man City, but it's certainly at least as bad as a large town club trying to compete with a big city one. How were we secure historically Fop? Liverpool chairmen were like all other chairman, they'd occasionally underwrite a bank loan for structural change, but most of the money was generated by the club themselves. Success breeds more wealth and Shankly created a team of homegrowns and a few cheap additions to win his first title, which in turn brought in money to invest in better quality. Liverpool were always known for finding gems in the lower divisions, KK being a prime example at £33,000. They still carried this policy on through to Paisley, although as their success grew they were able to buy a couple of top quality players a season. The money was generated through the club, not some mega rich business man looking for a toy to play with. Edited September 18, 2008 by Redshadow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Re: all the money pouring in, clubs being bought etc. apparently the controls on buying and owning sporting clubs / franchises are far more lax than they are in most other countries (at least the ones where you'd want to buy a club). I was reading this in either The Sunday Times of The Observer at the weekend. Couple that with the worldwide appeal of the Premier League and you have the recipe for the craziness we are now witnesssing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. That's never been entirely true though. Liverpool, for example, had a pretty decent financial backing system in their heyday. Not the same as these days perhaps, but enough to create more than a little edge. I don't think Redshadow is talking about "more than a little edge", I think he's referring to the staggering gap between clubs with sugar daddies and those without. It cannot be bridged with a decent crop of kids or one or two astute signings. Aye, but historically they were rather secure, more so than most english clubs of the time. Perhaps not surprisingly Liverpool's fortunes seemed to wane as their relative wealth waned. I don't think you can compare it to Chelsea or Man City, but it's certainly at least as bad as a large town club trying to compete with a big city one. How were we secure historically Fop? Liverpool chairmen were like all other chairman, they'd occasionally underwrite a bank loan for structural change, but most of the money was generated by the club themselves. Success breeds more wealth and Shankly created a team of homegrowns and a few cheap additions to win his first title, which in turn brought in money to invest in better quality. Liverpool were always known for finding gems in the lower divisions, KK being a prime example at £33,000. They still carried this policy on through to Paisley, although as their success grew they were able to buy a couple of top quality players a season. The money was generated through the club, not some mega rich business man looking for a toy to play with. Aye it was a different time and like I said not really comparable to the current issues, but equally security and relative wealth at the time gave a lot of advantages. Certainly a lot of clubs at the time would have been more than happy to trade Liverpool's "non-existent" security and relative wealth for their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshadow 0 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'd rather have the pre Abramovich time when clubs built teams to win trophies, which in turn brought in the finances to buy the best players. That's never been entirely true though. Liverpool, for example, had a pretty decent financial backing system in their heyday. Not the same as these days perhaps, but enough to create more than a little edge. I don't think Redshadow is talking about "more than a little edge", I think he's referring to the staggering gap between clubs with sugar daddies and those without. It cannot be bridged with a decent crop of kids or one or two astute signings. Aye, but historically they were rather secure, more so than most english clubs of the time. Perhaps not surprisingly Liverpool's fortunes seemed to wane as their relative wealth waned. I don't think you can compare it to Chelsea or Man City, but it's certainly at least as bad as a large town club trying to compete with a big city one. How were we secure historically Fop? Liverpool chairmen were like all other chairman, they'd occasionally underwrite a bank loan for structural change, but most of the money was generated by the club themselves. Success breeds more wealth and Shankly created a team of homegrowns and a few cheap additions to win his first title, which in turn brought in money to invest in better quality. Liverpool were always known for finding gems in the lower divisions, KK being a prime example at £33,000. They still carried this policy on through to Paisley, although as their success grew they were able to buy a couple of top quality players a season. The money was generated through the club, not some mega rich business man looking for a toy to play with. Aye it was a different time and like I said not really comparable to the current issues, but equally security and relative wealth at the time gave a lot of advantages. Certainly a lot of clubs at the time would have been more than happy to trade Liverpool's "non-existent" security and relative wealth for their own. I'm genuinely confused at what you're hinting at Fop. A healthy attendance record and a reluctance to spend from the end of the war onwards kept the coffers topped up, but other than that you'll have to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm genuinely confused at what you're hinting at Fop. A healthy attendance record and a reluctance to spend from the end of the war onwards kept the coffers topped up, but other than that you'll have to explain. Don't feel bad, not even Fop knows what he's getting at half the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm genuinely confused at what you're hinting at Fop. A healthy attendance record and a reluctance to spend from the end of the war onwards kept the coffers topped up, but other than that you'll have to explain. Don't feel bad, not even Fop knows what he's getting at half the time. I get wrong when I explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8989 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm genuinely confused at what you're hinting at Fop. A healthy attendance record and a reluctance to spend from the end of the war onwards kept the coffers topped up, but other than that you'll have to explain. Don't feel bad, not even Fop knows what he's getting at half the time. I get wrong when I explain. Because you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 I'm genuinely confused at what you're hinting at Fop. A healthy attendance record and a reluctance to spend from the end of the war onwards kept the coffers topped up, but other than that you'll have to explain. Don't feel bad, not even Fop knows what he's getting at half the time. I get wrong when I explain. Because you don't. That's just the fun bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now