NJS

I agree about the good and bad but you can't really draw a line in the sand as it doesn't take into account the outstanding debt and the legacy of a wage bill which wasn't producing on the field success. If Ashley had really written off the debt instead of claiming at various stages that it was a. gone b. unimportant or c. the sole reason for all the troubles then you could judge him completely on his performance since. My view is still the same - I think he's fucked most things he's done up but there is a begrudged underlying view that an interest free loan underpinning the club and a willingness to meet further running costs is a lot better than some of the other possible scenarios. LM goes between stating he doesn't care what the finances were under the previous regime to picking magic words out to try and argue the finances were better. I think our finances have been pretty much screwed for the entirety of my lifetime no matter's who's been in charge. A few good years of football shouldn't really blind anyone to that fact.

Didn't he say he thought the Cockney Mafia Flag showed a lot of effort had been put in which was what had made the twat smile?

We do actually have a dyke receptionist who does that.

Poor. The POINT is that Mike Ashley has presided over a club which has cut costs, sold players, players contracts, staff cuts....show me where either myself or UV in this instance has mentioned an INCREASE in revenues, the point is that they have FALLEN. Therefore, all he had to do was retain the old revenues and the "debts" would be decreased, but they have actually increased. How can this be ? As said, how come anybody with half a brain can't do any better than his hopeless predecessor he's replaced, especially when he is paid a lot of money to do it ? Perhaps Mike and Dekka should ring their predecessor for some tips and ask him how he did it HF proved to you the revenues fell under Shepherd and rebounded just as they have under Ashley - you ignored it - see my comment about facts being ignored. The debts mainly have increased because of the absolute cunt's trick of having a clause that insisted on paying off the mortgage on ownership transfer - do you have an opinion on how anyone who gives the slightest fuck about NUFC could put such a clause in knowing full well it would fuck any new owner? How would Shepherd have refinanced loans in the crunch?

Okay you're Shepherd at the end of 2008 speaking to the bank manager BM: Your cash flow is shot - what's you plan? FS/LM: Increase revenues BM: How? FS/LM: I'd take future sponsorship and spend it up front BM: You've done that already, you cant do it again. FS:/LM I'd increase the cost of season tickets BM: You've already squeezed them enough, they won't pay much more FS/LM: I'd finance some new new players to increase revenues. BM: We can't lend you any money - how the fuck are you going to pay for them? FS/LM: I'd increase revenues etc. etc.

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question. I'm too busy with the conundrum of where the money we used to generate with a terrible chairman has gone such that now we're run by such a great businessman we managed to double the club debt in 3 years even though TV revenues shot up when he bought the club and we've made £50m+ profit on selling players. It's completely bizarre and unexplainable how revenues have dropped when everyone can see how well Mike is doing by putting the best possible people in charge, selling players and cutting costs. I wonder if Toonpack, or his chums on skunkers, can shed any light on this mystery ? What's the point when as soon as someone with half a brain actual produces an analysis of the figures they are dismissed with insults and any half-baked opinions like this with no back up are quoted by you here and on Skunkers. Doesn't matter what the subject, actual facts are ridiculed under the guise of "but we were in Europe" as if that's some kind of ultimate joker which trumps anything. For starters this lad can either break down his "50m profit" (which I guess includes Carroll which has no bearing on current financial figures) or we could try some actual facts or questions you can't answer like how would Shepherd have refinanced loans since the credit crunch.

One my mate suggested for himself was "None the fucking wiser". I always fancied my sort of life mission statement but people might think it referred to the manner of my death - "It seemed like a good idea at the time".

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. Personally, I think that Mike Ashley wanted to look for an outlet, for want of a better word, to sit alongside his Sports Direct. A big football club, with huge support [we won't go into that I've said my bit] fitted the bill perfectly. He was naive, or stupid, or both, for not doing his diligence etc. There isn't much doubt that he was shocked at the costs involved in football - naive and stupid - which wasn't what he expected at all. He has set about running it as a business as he thinks it should be run. He is well known for being a maverick sort of figure, so may even be aware now that his approach is not what went before, but isn't really bothered so long as he makes some money out of it, although there is a case for him not making money and sacrificing that if he made it up as a vehicle sitting alongside Sports Direct. I'm guessing, none of us know, but I'm absolutely certain that he - now - has no intention at all of doing what is required to make it a success on the pitch and try to get the money from the Champions League because although it is a gamble, its the sort of gamble that just does not appeal to him. His naivety about football, which was obvious from the very start, is unfortunate and it is us who are the ones who have to put up with the frustration of it as supporters of the club. Maybe I haven't worded this perfectly, I'm sure others will have their say and expand in different ways. Now that I agree with - the saddest element for me is the schizo way that one minute he talks about it being "properly run" and 5 year plans and the next (though not so much recently) talking about enjoying the thrills of the actual game as if he'd bought it as a "plaything". Even though it was just another piece of bullshit I think his "20m in per year above and beyond running costs" would be a way forward if he stuck to it (plus allowing sales profits as well) but I don't suppose that's a starter either.

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.