LeazesMag 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Toonpack is out of his depth on here though, because he's used to going through this sort of thing with the geniuses in the skunkers "bunker". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6901 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Toonpack is out of his depth on here though, because he's used to going through this sort of thing with the geniuses in the skunkers "bunker". Please provide a link to such debate please ?? The other questions I'll look at now, enjoy your night out, hope you don't get run over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Toonpack is out of his depth on here though, because he's used to going through this sort of thing with the geniuses in the skunkers "bunker". Please provide a link to such debate please ?? The other questions I'll look at now, enjoy your night out, hope you don't get run over. wahey. Point proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 We'd probably be doing that now if we didn't have an owner with deep pockets. Spurs - their ONLY debt is debt they took on to develop their training complex. They operate within their means and they've just turned a profit. Liverpool - Massive debts but they turn a profit (well they did when they were locked in the Champs league) and their sponsorship is 10 times ours. The new owner has said, they must sell to buy. Be interesting how they do now they've "slipped".We had Champions League debts and costs on a non Champions League footing, where'd the money come from Leazes to assault the 4 - 6 of top of the league. That isn't true, our new Yanks paid off the leveraged debt to the bank and have said they won't be taking anything out of the club for the forseeable future. Prior to Hicks and Gillette no Liverpool chairman or director, took anything out of the club, either in the form of dividends or wages, all profits were re-invested in the club, that was the way it always was. These new Yanks have said the same thing will happen with them, profits will be re-invested. So where you got sell to buy from I don't know. The Torres deal may have worked out that we'd spent nothing, but they had already offered Ajax the money for Suarez before anyone knew that Torres wanted a move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6901 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) Under Ashley that figures is £150m. Take away the £50m Lambias said relegation cost the club and the stadium development loan which was only payable becaue the club was sold and you’re looking at a figure in the region of £60-70m to steady the ship. If push came to shove Hall and Shepherd could have sold 49% of their shares and raised something like £60m, and this would only have been necessary if the banks had refused to help which is an unprovable claim. It’s worth noting SportsDirect agreed a credit deal with the banks this year in excess of £200m. Throw in the money expended on sacking three managers, a troublesome director of football and employing Chris Mort. Then add in the shortfall between what Sports Direct pay for their blue-chip advertising package and what its worth on the open market - and the whole picture becomes a lot less clear than you like to make out. Football finances are complex and it’s better to deal with what did happen rather than what might have happened. Or at least that’s the case if you want to avoid years of pointless debate. Well I've been asking where the cash would have come from for two years so you could be right !! Anyway The debt (or level of investment) only comes down to the levels you suggest IF the cost cutting (and profit on transfers), that Ashley gets vilified for, still takes place. The debt doubled in the last 4 years of the previous regime, I would suggest it's fair to say the same would have continued, So we're back at £140 Million, less the stadium as you suggest so we're at £100 Million. There was also £27 Million owing on transfers as at the point of sale, so that's us back to £127 million, but we can knock £10 Mill off that against the managerial shenanigans that were down to Ashley, so back down to £117 Million. Vinay Bedi from stockbrokers Brewin Dolphin, “Ashley bought a club that was financially going nowhere with debts increasing as player transfers built up. It was a difficult situation – it was hard to see how the club could be turned round quickly without a huge injection of cash.” So let's say we're looking for £117 Mill to steady the ship i.e. just stand still. Specifically NOT allowing the throwing of money at the team to allow the striving for improvement and improved performance on the pitch = nirvana. Regarding raising the money, there was no security in the club for bank lending, the club had already had maxed out its equity so the only conceivable way to do generate banking finance (as is the norm with the Premiership debt not tied to a club assett or future revenue stream) is to have it guaranteed by an owner/benefactor. The Halls and Shepherd (even if they had the will) just weren't rich enough. I personally doubt they had the will tbh, at the first sign of the gravy train approaching the buffers they unsuccesfully spent £3 Million trying to get rid or refinance. The indecent haste of the sale to Ashley tells you all you need to know about what they would have done - In my opinion. I appreciate Shepherd tried to block the sale for reasons unknown, which is strange, as he MUST have been party to the previous years attempts. Other prospective buyers did due dilligence and ran like fuck, Ashley the idiot didn't (to his cost). The clubs finances were a train wreck in 2007, without an owner with VERY deep pockets I remain convinced we would have been fucked. Ashley's made monumental cock-ups that have cost him a fortune (he's got about 25% of his wealth tied up in the club now), it's not the man himself that makes me happy he's here, it's simply the depth of his pockets. They wouldn't have needed to be so deep if he hadn't been such a useless twat BUT they'd have still needed to be pretty damned deep. I don't accept that we are Bolton or Stoke (despite what the old rascist one says) but I am a realist and I believe the above position is a realistic one. Absolutely we had the BEST times under the Halls/Shepherd but I think the latter years we were like the gambler chasing the last big loss, whether it's done for the "right" reasons or not it's still the road to BIG trouble. We REALLY REALLY needed to do something different. All my opinion of course, but I hope at least some, who dissagree with me, (I know one won't) will at least agree my that premise/opinion is not ludicrous and only done because of blind hatred THE END Edited April 5, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Bloomin board crashing lost my post! I think that the permanent thrashing of Shpeherd based on him spending money is naive at best. Im anything but a lover of Shepherd and have no issue in battering him on any one of a dozen things hes done that I dont agree with. Spending money on players to achieve the kind of football I may never again see in my lifetime is not one of them. The assumption seems to be that Freddy had no other ideas, thoughts etc. How do we know that? at the end of the day if the credit lines were gone then they were gone. he would have had to do something different, either through refinancing the club, bringing in other investors or cutting costs and maximising revenues. Im fairly confident though that if he'd done the latter it wouldnt have been at the expense of our best players with a hope that we'd survive. I have enough belief in the fat man to know that he'd have looked at ways to increase our revenues and cut our costs in other areas first. I see nobody has answered my question on our current debt levels though. The thing is PP it looks like to some extent they had seen the writing on the wall as they were looking at refinancing/investors/sale so a "blind" faith that they had something up their sleeves is imo going a bit too far. As it stands now as Chez posted, most if not all the premier league clubs only exist as going businesses based on guarantees in one form or another from rich owners. The Halls and Shepherd never had to do that explicitly based on a mixture of timing and I have no problem admitting good times on the pitch. However that was then, this is now. I think the failure of Moat to buy the club based on Barclays bot accepting him as a guarantor (my reading) shows that as it stand its hard to see an alternative mode other than an underwriting owner. The question then becomes what does that owner want? Is he an Abramovitch or an Ashley/any of the others? They have to chose between running the club purely for "fun" or trying to run it "properly". As I've said before, I think the worst thing about Ashley is that he either doesn't know or hasn't decided which one he wants. My real hope is that he still wants to sell but again that depends on the intentions of any new owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) So, in a nutshell, those who wanted rid of Shepherd, and thought the grass would be greener, because he was "Shit", "did a crap job", "anybody would be better", "embarrassing", "didn't have ambition", (any or all of that list) were spouting bollocks ? All "faults" of which have been totally intensified, steamrollered, if you perceived them to be true that is, and taken to new heights, by the actions and ownership of Ashley ? And that is before the european qualifications, league positons and performance on the pitch of the team comes into it ? That is all. Edited April 5, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The sale was completely out of the blue man - I don't believe you could find one person who "wanted rid" of him as nobody had the slightest idea the club was up for sale - more made up opinions for other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Bloomin board crashing lost my post! I think that the permanent thrashing of Shpeherd based on him spending money is naive at best. Im anything but a lover of Shepherd and have no issue in battering him on any one of a dozen things hes done that I dont agree with. Spending money on players to achieve the kind of football I may never again see in my lifetime is not one of them. The assumption seems to be that Freddy had no other ideas, thoughts etc. How do we know that? at the end of the day if the credit lines were gone then they were gone. he would have had to do something different, either through refinancing the club, bringing in other investors or cutting costs and maximising revenues. Im fairly confident though that if he'd done the latter it wouldnt have been at the expense of our best players with a hope that we'd survive. I have enough belief in the fat man to know that he'd have looked at ways to increase our revenues and cut our costs in other areas first. I see nobody has answered my question on our current debt levels though. The thing is PP it looks like to some extent they had seen the writing on the wall as they were looking at refinancing/investors/sale so a "blind" faith that they had something up their sleeves is imo going a bit too far. As it stands now as Chez posted, most if not all the premier league clubs only exist as going businesses based on guarantees in one form or another from rich owners. The Halls and Shepherd never had to do that explicitly based on a mixture of timing and I have no problem admitting good times on the pitch. However that was then, this is now. I think the failure of Moat to buy the club based on Barclays bot accepting him as a guarantor (my reading) shows that as it stand its hard to see an alternative mode other than an underwriting owner. The question then becomes what does that owner want? Is he an Abramovitch or an Ashley/any of the others? They have to chose between running the club purely for "fun" or trying to run it "properly". As I've said before, I think the worst thing about Ashley is that he either doesn't know or hasn't decided which one he wants. My real hope is that he still wants to sell but again that depends on the intentions of any new owner. As I've said before, Alan Sugar ran Spurs "properly". Ask Spurs fans what they prefer now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The sale was completely out of the blue man - I don't believe you could find one person who "wanted rid" of him as nobody had the slightest idea the club was up for sale - more made up opinions for other people. what planet do you live on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 As I've said before, Alan Sugar ran Spurs "properly". Ask Spurs fans what they prefer now. You mean the club who've followed Ashley's latest blueprint? (Only spend money generated by transfer profits) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The sale was completely out of the blue man - I don't believe you could find one person who "wanted rid" of him as nobody had the slightest idea the club was up for sale - more made up opinions for other people. what planet do you live on ? Find me any articles from 2007 that anticipate a sale. If it was so obvious then why do you think they wanted to sell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The sale was completely out of the blue man - I don't believe you could find one person who "wanted rid" of him as nobody had the slightest idea the club was up for sale - more made up opinions for other people. what planet do you live on ? Find me any articles from 2007 that anticipate a sale. If it was so obvious then why do you think they wanted to sell? Who says they wanted to sell? SJH seemed keen but I’ve never seen anything from FF confirming he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 The sale was completely out of the blue man - I don't believe you could find one person who "wanted rid" of him as nobody had the slightest idea the club was up for sale - more made up opinions for other people. what planet do you live on ? Find me any articles from 2007 that anticipate a sale. If it was so obvious then why do you think they wanted to sell? Who says they wanted to sell? SJH seemed keen but I’ve never seen anything from FF confirming he did. The Hall/Shepherd "split" was one of the most interesting things about it imo - in fact I'd give Shepherd credit for his reluctance versus Hall's eagerness to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Shepherd was slowly building his share holdings up from 2005/6, being careful not to hit 30% and invoking a mandatory bid for all the shares. Either he wanted to drive the price up to maximise his payout, or he was desperately trying to stop a takeover bid. The price he was buying at was 47.5p or less from 2005 and him buying up these shares would drive the price up further. I cant find the share price historical data on yahoo http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6783...4/ai_n28284892/ This upward trend was noted as 'soaring' the day before the club was sold in May 2007. http://www.newcastle.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=66550 Imo Shepherd's public reluctance was a bargaining tool. Does anyone remember him refusing an offer and Ashley coming back with a revised offer of +1 pence? Or did i imagine that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Forgot to add he sold at £1 a share and that he didnt have the £100m it would have taken for his stake to turn into ownership either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The thing is PP it looks like to some extent they had seen the writing on the wall as they were looking at refinancing/investors/sale so a "blind" faith that they had something up their sleeves is imo going a bit too far. As it stands now as Chez posted, most if not all the premier league clubs only exist as going businesses based on guarantees in one form or another from rich owners. The Halls and Shepherd never had to do that explicitly based on a mixture of timing and I have no problem admitting good times on the pitch. However that was then, this is now. I think the failure of Moat to buy the club based on Barclays bot accepting him as a guarantor (my reading) shows that as it stand its hard to see an alternative mode other than an underwriting owner. The question then becomes what does that owner want? Is he an Abramovitch or an Ashley/any of the others? They have to chose between running the club purely for "fun" or trying to run it "properly". As I've said before, I think the worst thing about Ashley is that he either doesn't know or hasn't decided which one he wants. My real hope is that he still wants to sell but again that depends on the intentions of any new owner. I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. To say they were screwed and had no ideas is wrong therefore. As for Moat, that lad was a joke and had no intentions of anything other than making money. His offer was to buy the club on tick, taking it off Ashleys hands at the time to get him out of the firing line and then paying him with money financed from the club itself. Once he owned it outright his plan was to sell and make himself a fortune. I think Ashleys scum but that 80s reject singing fish selling smirking bastard would have been the death of this club full stop. Theres all kinds of reasons why we wouldnt be in the position we are now under Shepherd, from the advertising that we're currently gifting to SD (to promote the ground name sale) through to the debacle we have with shirts. Have we had a successful shirt release since Ashley took over? Shirt sales have dropped in line wth the quality, obviously I cant say for definite but our long standing link with Adidas was doing us no harm now we have Sports Direct quality clothing at Louis Vitton prices. At least under Shepherd we were being sold clothes of a good quality at rip off prices. And for all his lack of class theres no way on earth Shepherd would have sold some of the tat you can now find gracing our stores, sterotypical fat geordie t-shirt anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The thing is PP it looks like to some extent they had seen the writing on the wall as they were looking at refinancing/investors/sale so a "blind" faith that they had something up their sleeves is imo going a bit too far. As it stands now as Chez posted, most if not all the premier league clubs only exist as going businesses based on guarantees in one form or another from rich owners. The Halls and Shepherd never had to do that explicitly based on a mixture of timing and I have no problem admitting good times on the pitch. However that was then, this is now. I think the failure of Moat to buy the club based on Barclays bot accepting him as a guarantor (my reading) shows that as it stand its hard to see an alternative mode other than an underwriting owner. The question then becomes what does that owner want? Is he an Abramovitch or an Ashley/any of the others? They have to chose between running the club purely for "fun" or trying to run it "properly". As I've said before, I think the worst thing about Ashley is that he either doesn't know or hasn't decided which one he wants. My real hope is that he still wants to sell but again that depends on the intentions of any new owner. I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. To say they were screwed and had no ideas is wrong therefore. As for Moat, that lad was a joke and had no intentions of anything other than making money. His offer was to buy the club on tick, taking it off Ashleys hands at the time to get him out of the firing line and then paying him with money financed from the club itself. Once he owned it outright his plan was to sell and make himself a fortune. I think Ashleys scum but that 80s reject singing fish selling smirking bastard would have been the death of this club full stop. Theres all kinds of reasons why we wouldnt be in the position we are now under Shepherd, from the advertising that we're currently gifting to SD (to promote the ground name sale) through to the debacle we have with shirts. Have we had a successful shirt release since Ashley took over? Shirt sales have dropped in line wth the quality, obviously I cant say for definite but our long standing link with Adidas was doing us no harm now we have Sports Direct quality clothing at Louis Vitton prices. At least under Shepherd we were being sold clothes of a good quality at rip off prices. And for all his lack of class theres no way on earth Shepherd would have sold some of the tat you can now find gracing our stores, sterotypical fat geordie t-shirt anyone? you can't put it much better than that........but stand by for the armchair supporter from Brighton Grove to try and tell you that if not for Mike Ashley, SJP would now be a supermarket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26513 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. To say they were screwed and had no ideas is wrong therefore. Theres all kinds of reasons why we wouldnt be in the position we are now under Shepherd, from the advertising that we're currently gifting to SD (to promote the ground name sale) through to the debacle we have with shirts. Have we had a successful shirt release since Ashley took over? Shirt sales have dropped in line wth the quality, obviously I cant say for definite but our long standing link with Adidas was doing us no harm now we have Sports Direct quality clothing at Louis Vitton prices. At least under Shepherd we were being sold clothes of a good quality at rip off prices. Yes, Hall and Shepherd saved us once but times have very much changed. Ownership of successful topflight football clubs is generally the reserve of billionaires, it took a lot less investment to save us the last time. With Hall's lack of interest in the club and decrease in his wealth, Shepherd's lack of funds and the overall lack of willingness for anyone to invest in football clubs they would have found it all but impossible to re-finance without relinquishing total control. And you're saying that it's a the advertising and shirt sales that are to blame for our current position? I don't see what the previous regime would have done differently. The SD naming and signage on roof isn't costing the club anything, granted it's not gaining the club anything but what has that got to do with our current position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6901 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. Thing is PP, we know exactly what they did to deal with the financial position the club was in, and they absolutely didn't sit like gormless idiots, rather, they did an obscenely quick cut and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. Thing is PP, we know exactly what they did to deal with the financial position the club was in, and they absolutely didn't sit like gormless idiots, rather, they did an obscenely quick cut and run. or you could use your own argument that they sold up to ensure the future of the club, you cant have it both ways. You cant slate them for not being able to sort the finances, state that Ashley is the person who saved us and then slate Hall/Shepherd for selling to him in the 1st place! "They" however didnt up and run, Hall did yes, he made a deal with Ashley behind Shepherds back and took the cash. I dont agree with doing that but its what he did. We always knew however that Hall, more than Shepherd was in it for the money. Doesnt mean however that it was their only avenue or that they would have done nothing had Ashley not turned up with the gormless look on his face that screamed out "Im too rich to bother looking into things". Thats the issue here, the assumption that two of the most successful businessmen in the North East would have been unable to come up wth a plan to raise the income of the club and/or additional finance other than a Barclays loan. There was always Ocean finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6901 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 (edited) I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. Thing is PP, we know exactly what they did to deal with the financial position the club was in, and they absolutely didn't sit like gormless idiots, rather, they did an obscenely quick cut and run. or you could use your own argument that they sold up to ensure the future of the club, you cant have it both ways. You cant slate them for not being able to sort the finances, state that Ashley is the person who saved us and then slate Hall/Shepherd for selling to him in the 1st place! "They" however didnt up and run, Hall did yes, he made a deal with Ashley behind Shepherds back and took the cash. I dont agree with doing that but its what he did. We always knew however that Hall, more than Shepherd was in it for the money. Doesnt mean however that it was their only avenue or that they would have done nothing had Ashley not turned up with the gormless look on his face that screamed out "Im too rich to bother looking into things". Thats the issue here, the assumption that two of the most successful businessmen in the North East would have been unable to come up wth a plan to raise the income of the club and/or additional finance other than a Barclays loan. There was always Ocean finance. FFS had the look for the ads To be honest it was a bit of a throwaway comment, but to be honest the more I've thought about it ................. Edited April 6, 2011 by Toonpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. Thing is PP, we know exactly what they did to deal with the financial position the club was in, and they absolutely didn't sit like gormless idiots, rather, they did an obscenely quick cut and run. or you could use your own argument that they sold up to ensure the future of the club, you cant have it both ways. You cant slate them for not being able to sort the finances, state that Ashley is the person who saved us and then slate Hall/Shepherd for selling to him in the 1st place! "They" however didnt up and run, Hall did yes, he made a deal with Ashley behind Shepherds back and took the cash. I dont agree with doing that but its what he did. We always knew however that Hall, more than Shepherd was in it for the money. Doesnt mean however that it was their only avenue or that they would have done nothing had Ashley not turned up with the gormless look on his face that screamed out "Im too rich to bother looking into things". Thats the issue here, the assumption that two of the most successful businessmen in the North East would have been unable to come up wth a plan to raise the income of the club and/or additional finance other than a Barclays loan. There was always Ocean finance. ....or turning off the escalator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. Thing is PP, we know exactly what they did to deal with the financial position the club was in, and they absolutely didn't sit like gormless idiots, rather, they did an obscenely quick cut and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I have no blind faith, the bit you've just said has proven my point. Shepherd wasnt sat there scratching his arse and permanently ringing Barclays to say "can I borrow another £40m for a trophy signing?" from what you say they were looking at other options to raise the money needed to move the club on and thats my point. This football club had been dragged up from the brink of the abyss by Shepherd & Hall, there is therefore no proof that they were unable to do the same again. To imagine they were sat like gormless idiots without a notion of how to raise finance does an injustice to two of the regions most successful businessmen imo. Thing is PP, we know exactly what they did to deal with the financial position the club was in, and they absolutely didn't sit like gormless idiots, rather, they did an obscenely quick cut and run. or you could use your own argument that they sold up to ensure the future of the club, you cant have it both ways. You cant slate them for not being able to sort the finances, state that Ashley is the person who saved us and then slate Hall/Shepherd for selling to him in the 1st place! "They" however didnt up and run, Hall did yes, he made a deal with Ashley behind Shepherds back and took the cash. I dont agree with doing that but its what he did. We always knew however that Hall, more than Shepherd was in it for the money. Doesnt mean however that it was their only avenue or that they would have done nothing had Ashley not turned up with the gormless look on his face that screamed out "Im too rich to bother looking into things". Thats the issue here, the assumption that two of the most successful businessmen in the North East would have been unable to come up wth a plan to raise the income of the club and/or additional finance other than a Barclays loan. There was always Ocean finance. FFS had the look for the ads To be honest it was a bit of a throwaway comment, but to be honest the more I've thought about it ................. You DO want it both ways don't you He's explaining to you that they saved the club, and if anybody wanted to sell the club in the end, it was the Halls. Yet you don't dispute it, and STILL don't even mention them, only a derisory comment about Shepherd. You're totally, totally obsessed man with your hatred Get over it for fucks sake. 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