ohhh_yeah 2767 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 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) Your second sentence proves it's different. How ?? obvious question is obvious... Nope it's not, nee different. then why not type in "both of the scenarios"??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6307 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 One is being sponsored by a 3rd party, the other is being sponsored by a company the club owner owns. How anyone can claim that is 'nee different' is ridiculous. Whether you think the idea of Ashley's company sponsering his football club is above or below board is irrelevant here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Your Name Here Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) One is being sponsored by a 3rd party, the other is being sponsored by a company the club owner owns. How anyone can claim that is 'nee different' is ridiculours. Whether you think the idea of Ashley's company sponsering his football club is above or below board is irrelevant here. That’s if they are sponsoring the club, which doesn’t appear at all likely. If they’re not the club is being used, but that’s OK because rather than paying interest on some loans FMA lent himself some money. Money that might being paid back by the club by selling its best players. Edited September 15, 2011 by Your Name Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Let's remember we have no history of naming rights at SJP. Personally I think slapping tacky Sportsdirect.com signs all over the stadium is horrible. I'd feel the same way whether or not the club was getting paid for it. The fact that it's the sports equivalent of Poundstretcher or Mr BuyRite just makes it worse, it's not even a classy "sponsor". I obviously don't go to the match so I've been largely spared this up to now. If he has slapped his logo on the East Stand there's no escape even for an armchair fan in NZ. I hate to think how I'd feel if I was at the ground and it was slapped everywhere. You can't even watch the footy without being reminded of your arsehole owner wherever you look. Not paying for it is the final insult. It's like going back to deliver a gratuitous kick to the nads after you've decked someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2929 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 As someone who gets the opportunity to see every league match on the telly, it's blindingly obvious that they are trying to cover every TV angle to include a prominent SD.com logo, something no other PL club does. It's gone from naming rights sponsor to product placement marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26347 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 The only problem I really have with it is that it's tacky as fuck. Whether we're getting paid for it is largely irrelevant, as long as that argument isn't being used to support the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden McGroin 4855 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 If we were getting £100m for it to spend on players I wouldnt really care that much. But we're not so it STINKS ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6865 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 TPs strange logic states that value of the interest not being paid on loans equates to the value of the SD advertising package – it would be good if he could put a figure on this. No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) 'Strange' how you separate Ashley and the club when it suits your argument, i.e. the club owes him money, but they're one and the same when it comes to advertising, i.e. what you say about his choosing not to charge himself for it. Edited September 16, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26347 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Is it? I hadn't noticed branding as garish and tacky as that at SJP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 'Strange' how you separate Ashley and the club when it suits your argument, i.e. the club owes him money, but they're one and the same when it comes to advertising, i.e. what you say about his choosing not to charge himself for it. All while TP ignores the fact that Sports Direct is a listed company with 22% of the business held by others, whereas NUFC is a 100% owned private entity. The reason people get het up about this is because of phrases like 'he doesn't take a penny out of the club' and 'we need to be self-sufficient' when he does in kind by providing free advertising to his other companies. There is a clear benefit to him of doing this. This line about not charging interest on the loans is totally irrelevant. This is not really debt at all, as it was required in order to preserve the original equity purchase. He could charge 1% or 1000%, as Ashley himself would have to pick up any shortfall. There is no net benefit to him either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6865 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 'Strange' how you separate Ashley and the club when it suits your argument, i.e. the club owes him money, but they're one and the same when it comes to advertising, i.e. what you say about his choosing not to charge himself for it. Strange how you read so much in so little. If it matters so much to you, I surrender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6865 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 'Strange' how you separate Ashley and the club when it suits your argument, i.e. the club owes him money, but they're one and the same when it comes to advertising, i.e. what you say about his choosing not to charge himself for it. All while TP ignores the fact that Sports Direct is a listed company with 22% of the business held by others, whereas NUFC is a 100% owned private entity. The reason people get het up about this is because of phrases like 'he doesn't take a penny out of the club' and 'we need to be self-sufficient' when he does in kind by providing free advertising to his other companies. There is a clear benefit to him of doing this. This line about not charging interest on the loans is totally irrelevant. This is not really debt at all, as it was required in order to preserve the original equity purchase. He could charge 1% or 1000%, as Ashley himself would have to pick up any shortfall. There is no net benefit to him either way. The reason people (some people) get all het up is simply because it's Ashley and all and everything that happens si some machiavelian plan to piss said people off. There is no middle ground in anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 'Strange' how you separate Ashley and the club when it suits your argument, i.e. the club owes him money, but they're one and the same when it comes to advertising, i.e. what you say about his choosing not to charge himself for it. All while TP ignores the fact that Sports Direct is a listed company with 22% of the business held by others, whereas NUFC is a 100% owned private entity. The reason people get het up about this is because of phrases like 'he doesn't take a penny out of the club' and 'we need to be self-sufficient' when he does in kind by providing free advertising to his other companies. There is a clear benefit to him of doing this. This line about not charging interest on the loans is totally irrelevant. This is not really debt at all, as it was required in order to preserve the original equity purchase. He could charge 1% or 1000%, as Ashley himself would have to pick up any shortfall. There is no net benefit to him either way. Not sure anyone would claim it was a benevolent act like, it's only about protecting his investment at the end of the day. Just that that in itself (Ashley being forced to protect his asset) is better than having some financial lender raping you, to coin a Pardew-ism. Swings and roundabouts in a purely footballing sense though if what can realistically be achieved on the pitch makes no difference to him....that being anywhere between 6th and 17th. Obviously he knows you can finish lower than that but he also knows you can't finish higher, but significantly it doesn't matter that much to him where you come in between as it means nowt from a financial pov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt 0 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Everything he does will always be in the context of what has gone before and as such the club will not be able to maintain any notable level success under his stewardship. When you have been proven to have lead your customers up the garden path then such a reaction is entirely understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 TPs strange logic states that value of the interest not being paid on loans equates to the value of the SD advertising package – it would be good if he could put a figure on this. No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all. You're missing out the fundamental point - one that is the very crux of why anyone follows a football club surely. That is related to real life emotions, sentiment . End of the day the classless, vindictive horror's taking the piss man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Is it? I hadn't noticed branding as garish and tacky as that at SJP. Did Sports Direct pay NUFC £100m, like Emirates did Arsenal? Does this look as tacky as this Edited September 16, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26347 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 As I said before, it's irrelevant. If SD paid us £1m a year for the privilege of the branding then would it be £1m more into the coffers for spending on transfers and wages? Would it fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34464 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I dunno why people are even trying to discuss this with TP tbh. He's basically just acting as an automated devil's advocate robot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) I see where TP's coming from mind. It's like Fritzl. He gave that girl food, shelter, warmth, clothes, mod cons and everything. Entitled to take the odd nosh and more. Edited September 16, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 'Strange' how you separate Ashley and the club when it suits your argument, i.e. the club owes him money, but they're one and the same when it comes to advertising, i.e. what you say about his choosing not to charge himself for it. Strange how you read so much in so little. If it matters so much to you, I surrender It was an obvious thing to pick up on tbh. You having your cake and eating it. When it suits your argument Ashley and the club are separate entities, as evidenced by your comments about the club owing him money. At the same time you mention Ashley being indivisible from SD. Explain how the club 'owes' Ashley x amount of money when he owns the club 100%. Yet at the same time his other business can't be separated from the man. It makes no sense to me and it comes across as you justifying what he's doing whilst applying double standards. Nice strop as well btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6865 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 TPs strange logic states that value of the interest not being paid on loans equates to the value of the SD advertising package – it would be good if he could put a figure on this. No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all. You're missing out the fundamental point - one that is the very crux of why anyone follows a football club surely. That is related to real life emotions, sentiment . End of the day the classless, vindictive horror's taking the piss man. Maybe that's my problem, I don't do emotion/sentiment for football any more, well not to any great degree, it's just not worth the angst for something that is such a fundamentaly unbalanced "contest". Maybe that's also why a part of me, actually wants Ashley's way to work. The ridiculous throwing bazillions at it of Man City is obcene. Given our relative "size" on a level playing field we "should" compete at the highest level, on our own merits and our size should matter, currently it's an irrelevance. Only a fundamental change in the game or someone breaking the mold will do that. The sooner the financial bubble bursts the better IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 As though there's the Man City method or Ashley's way and no sensible middle ground I can't understand anyone being into football and not being emotionally involved btw. Mind, I don't think you are into football tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 TPs strange logic states that value of the interest not being paid on loans equates to the value of the SD advertising package – it would be good if he could put a figure on this. No it doesn't and never did. There's two points one fiscal and one aesthetic. Aesthetic - SD is posted all over SJP, Emirates is plastered all over Arsenal, one's tacky shite one isn't. Fiscal - Ashley is indivisible from SD, it seems (although not yet known) that SD/Ashley is advertising for free, as in no money is changing hands or rather comming into the club (which itself is indivisible from Ashley). So Ashley is not charging himself for advertising, similarly he is not charging himself (via the club) interest on his loans, the net effect of that is of financial benefit to the club. You can't piss and moan about a few hundred grand (at most) in in-ground advertising not (possibly) being paid, when at the same time you owe the person doing the advertising tens and tens of millions of quid especially when discounting the interest you could be paying against that debt. Arsenal get £10Mill a year for 10 years from Emirates for the naming rights, advertising, commercial acivities and use of their brand but on the other hand Arsenal owe Emirates fuck all. You're missing out the fundamental point - one that is the very crux of why anyone follows a football club surely. That is related to real life emotions, sentiment . End of the day the classless, vindictive horror's taking the piss man. Maybe that's my problem, I don't do emotion/sentiment for football any more, well not to any great degree, it's just not worth the angst for something that is such a fundamentaly unbalanced "contest". Maybe that's also why a part of me, actually wants Ashley's way to work. The ridiculous throwing bazillions at it of Man City is obcene. Given our relative "size" on a level playing field we "should" compete at the highest level, on our own merits and our size should matter, currently it's an irrelevance. Only a fundamental change in the game or someone breaking the mold will do that. The sooner the financial bubble bursts the better IMO I agree . Football's fucked big time *. To be honest (think it was HF that said it) it's also become to enjoying the whole panto villain of all this . *Did you see that 'Dispatches - Buying A Football Club' prog a couple of months ago btw ? About ownership of PL clubs and how completely absurd it all is . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6865 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) As though there's the Man City method or Ashley's way and no sensible middle ground I can't understand anyone being into football and not being emotionally involved btw. Mind, I don't think you are into football tbh. And where did I say that ? Keep looking for stuff that isn't there if it makes you happy. You're becoming more Leazes every day. I'm not particularly "into" PL football anymore that's a fact, it is on the whole, distinctly average shite. Edited September 16, 2011 by Toonpack 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