José Enrique

[Ayatollah Hermione 13887]

[LoveTheBobby 1]

The Halls' The Shepherds' The Johnsons' The Jones'

 

 

[JawD 99]

You got any links to where manc mag said all of that stuff? I'd be surprised personally.

 

This is where it gets utterly pointless. I criticized Shepherd and advocated regime change. That's essentially what he's getting at. I thought Shepherd (shorthand:Shepherd and Hall) had the club in decline and I didn't think he had a hope in hell of getting us back into league challenging/Champions League positions. I still don't think he would have, particularly given what happened in world credit and additionally the emergence of Saudi billionaires. This essentially represented my views at the point shortly before the Ashley took over. It did not, as Leazes insists, mean I was ungrateful for Champions League football of the past, the Keegan era (or however he wants to portray it, it all amounts to the same thing).

 

What Leazes' fails to understand and/or acknowledge about his infallible 'go for broke' philosophy in any economic climate, whoever is doing the financing, is this; he consistently makes the point that Hall and Shepherd bought up the club when it had failed to float for tuppence the year before. I agree that showed vision and foresight and ambition on their part. What he fails to acknowledge however is that, in terms of a risk game, the couple million quid they paid for it was the extent of their financial exposure on gambling with NUFC. Thus they could spend tens of millions on credit because if they did and the gamble didnt come off, the worst case scenario is the club goes bust. They're behind a limited company vehicle so they're personally protected from those debts and they've only lost an asset that they paid a couple million quid to acquire. They've made that money back in dividends already anyway but I've no qualms with that, just stating a fact, the main point is, even if the debts at the time of administration are hundreds of millions, they've only lost an asset they've paid a few bob for.

 

Now again Leazes is right in saying that clubs don't ordinarily go bust-they don't-they operate at massive losses and continue, but that's usually because (in modern times) someone else acquires ownership and so also buys up the debt. In our case Ashely did that (out of pure stupidity in my view). Again he's done it via a limited company vehicle, so he's protected from further spiralling debt just as Shepherd was, but unlike Shepherd, if his gambles fuck up he stands to lose an asset he's paid £100 million for (and made a further £100 million loan to). Not an asset he's paid buttons for. So it's a different risk altogether.

 

Oh and did I mention, there isn't any credit available anymore either? Yes I'm sure I have, but Leazes just ignores that. So he can't finance the gamble using credit either (as Shepherd did), it'll have to be more of his own cash. The club's cash alone won't let you compete with the bankrolled clubs.

 

So what I'm trying to do instead of focusing on that complete waste of time of a debate (which frankly, while not massively complex is nonetheless too much for Leazes to get his head around), is ask, picking up directly on these frequent comments that he will be 'proved right', what exact event/events must occur in future for him to be proved right. It's a statement which relies on something happening in the future and it must contradict what I'm saying. Presumably he must know what that event is. It's an opportunity to nail the debate once and for all, so I make no apologies in seeking clarification.

 

So come on Leazes, just one line.

 

And before you come back with something inane like 'You're just the sort of supporter Ashley would love' etc etc etc blah blah. That's entirely irrelevant. Ashley isn't arsed what any fan thinks. He could not give a tuppeny jizz for the views of supporters and whether they approve of his methods or not and that should be apparent by now by his actions.

 

Pretty much my opinon. I dislike to much MA has done and every time I start to think he is finally "getting it" he makes another fuck up of a decision. TBF, we were spoiled by the highs of the previous regime and many made this the benchmark. Loads of clubs would be happy with MA and the way he is running the club. Me? I think he is a wanker of the highest order. However, I do now think we are in a better position than we were when he took over. Pains me to say it. The Halls etc brought us the best times I known supporting this club and it would not surprise me if I dont see them again in my lifetime. But football has changed, not just our club. The league was easier than it was now as well.

 

What I dont get is why some people think that you can only support Ashley or Shepherd and not see the merit of both regimes while taking on board the fuck ups of both?

[manc-mag 1]

 

Pretty much my opinon. I dislike to much MA has done and every time I start to think he is finally "getting it" he makes another fuck up of a decision. TBF, we were spoiled by the highs of the previous regime and many made this the benchmark. Loads of clubs would be happy with MA and the way he is running the club. Me? I think he is a wanker of the highest order. However, I do now think we are in a better position than we were when he took over. Pains me to say it. The Halls etc brought us the best times I known supporting this club and it would not surprise me if I dont see them again in my lifetime. But football has changed, not just our club. The league was easier than it was now as well.

 

What I dont get is why some people think that you can only support Ashley or Shepherd and not see the merit of both regimes while taking on board the fuck ups of both?

 

Aye, spot on! Or just be entitled to a balanced view, in other words.

[snakehips 0]

An irrational balance.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not going to get into quote ladders with you, Leazes but you're still not answering a very simple question. You're referring to being proved right in the future. What future event will prove that?

 

Even you must be able to see the sense in clarifying that point.

 

give it a rest. Mike Ashley will never match the Halls and Shepherd, even with his "plan", and the limit of his ambition is to survive in the premiership with as little expenditure as possible.

 

Only a complete prick can't see that, like you. And whats more, you won't admit you were wrong when this stares you in the face either.

 

Now. Fuck off, and stop derailing threads and stalking me, you are boring and a tosser without the balls to admit you have been proved completely wrong.

 

Bookmark this thread.

 

See my post (above) in response to Skidders. Answer in your own time.

 

One line, a future event and it has to contradict something I'm saying.

 

Thread bookmarked.

 

I've told you already what will happen and you have disagreed.

 

You have bookmarked the thread. Good.

 

Have you searched for your posts when you said Villa's "plan" would do better than the "planless" Halls and shepherd yet ?

 

I don't hold out much hope for you anyway, because when I am proved conclusively correct about Mike Ashley [as if 4 years of his "plan" isn't enough already] you will just wriggle your way out of admitting you were spouting bollocks again anyway. What a fuckin big bairn you are man.

 

I'm starting to think you are an even bigger tit than some of the arseholes on NO who also insisted anybody but Fred would be better for the club and also took ambition and knowledge of the club for granted.

[LeazesMag 0]

Pretty much my opinon. I dislike to much MA has done and every time I start to think he is finally "getting it" he makes another fuck up of a decision. TBF, we were spoiled by the highs of the previous regime and many made this the benchmark. Loads of clubs would be happy with MA and the way he is running the club. Me? I think he is a wanker of the highest order. However, I do now think we are in a better position than we were when he took over. Pains me to say it. The Halls etc brought us the best times I known supporting this club and it would not surprise me if I dont see them again in my lifetime. But football has changed, not just our club. The league was easier than it was now as well.

 

What I dont get is why some people think that you can only support Ashley or Shepherd and not see the merit of both regimes while taking on board the fuck ups of both?

 

I don't really see what Ashley has done, our current league position is - temporarily - higher than when he took over, but that is only cherry picking. Most people [ie owners] and managers leave clubs on a bit of a low, that is why these sort of changes happen in the first place. The point is, what they did will NEVER be anywhere near matched by Ashley. In the long term, this club is in decline under Ashley, longer term decline than a short periold of re-grouping before attempting to be successful again which was the attitude of the previous owners ie the Halls and Shepherd.

 

Ashley will be absolutely ecstatic with a mid table league position, and dont' for a moment think that next season he will want to go higher, because if it means spending money [which it will] then he won't do it.

 

There, is the BIG difference and the one which is a huge gulf between them.

Edited March 2, 2011 by LeazesMag

[manc-mag 1]

Not going to get into quote ladders with you, Leazes but you're still not answering a very simple question. You're referring to being proved right in the future. What future event will prove that?

 

Even you must be able to see the sense in clarifying that point.

 

give it a rest. Mike Ashley will never match the Halls and Shepherd, even with his "plan", and the limit of his ambition is to survive in the premiership with as little expenditure as possible.

 

Only a complete prick can't see that, like you. And whats more, you won't admit you were wrong when this stares you in the face either.

 

Now. Fuck off, and stop derailing threads and stalking me, you are boring and a tosser without the balls to admit you have been proved completely wrong.

 

Bookmark this thread.

 

See my post (above) in response to Skidders. Answer in your own time.

 

One line, a future event and it has to contradict something I'm saying.

 

Thread bookmarked.

 

I've told you already what will happen and you have disagreed.

 

You have bookmarked the thread. Good.

 

Have you searched for your posts when you said Villa's "plan" would do better than the "planless" Halls and shepherd yet ?

 

I don't hold out much hope for you anyway, because when I am proved conclusively correct about Mike Ashley [as if 4 years of his "plan" isn't enough already] you will just wriggle your way out of admitting you were spouting bollocks again anyway. What a fuckin big bairn you are man.

 

I'm starting to think you are an even bigger tit than some of the arseholes on NO who also insisted anybody but Fred would be better for the club and also took ambition and knowledge of the club for granted.

 

I think in the end it was established that your view was essentially that because one plan (the Aston Villa plan being the particular case study) failed, that was conclusive evidence that all plans were bad or not worth making. Which of course is just palpable nonsense. That one I'm not even getting into as (despite claiming I'm obsessed), I can quite clearly see what defect of reason lies at the bottom of that 'debate'. Crazy.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not going to get into quote ladders with you, Leazes but you're still not answering a very simple question. You're referring to being proved right in the future. What future event will prove that?

 

Even you must be able to see the sense in clarifying that point.

 

give it a rest. Mike Ashley will never match the Halls and Shepherd, even with his "plan", and the limit of his ambition is to survive in the premiership with as little expenditure as possible.

 

Only a complete prick can't see that, like you. And whats more, you won't admit you were wrong when this stares you in the face either.

 

Now. Fuck off, and stop derailing threads and stalking me, you are boring and a tosser without the balls to admit you have been proved completely wrong.

 

Bookmark this thread.

 

See my post (above) in response to Skidders. Answer in your own time.

 

One line, a future event and it has to contradict something I'm saying.

 

Thread bookmarked.

 

I've told you already what will happen and you have disagreed.

 

You have bookmarked the thread. Good.

 

Have you searched for your posts when you said Villa's "plan" would do better than the "planless" Halls and shepherd yet ?

 

I don't hold out much hope for you anyway, because when I am proved conclusively correct about Mike Ashley [as if 4 years of his "plan" isn't enough already] you will just wriggle your way out of admitting you were spouting bollocks again anyway. What a fuckin big bairn you are man.

 

I'm starting to think you are an even bigger tit than some of the arseholes on NO who also insisted anybody but Fred would be better for the club and also took ambition and knowledge of the club for granted.

 

I think in the end it was established that your view was essentially that because one plan (the Aston Villa plan being the particular case study) failed, that was conclusive evidence that all plans were bad or not worth making. Which of course is just palpable nonsense. That one I'm not even getting into as (despite claiming I'm obsessed), I can quite clearly see what defect of reason lies at the bottom of that 'debate'. Crazy.

 

Give it a rest man. Once a tit always a tit. You were wrong and haven't got it in you to admit it. What you are saying now is what I said when you insisted these "plans" work and the previuos owners never had one, despite qualifying for the champions League and europe more than any club bar 4 in 15 years, and they did it without a "plan". Aye, it looks stupid but it's what you and others were saying. What utter shite. Any stick to beat them with.

 

Obsessed or what. Give it a rest.

Edited March 2, 2011 by LeazesMag

[manc-mag 1]

An irrational balance.

 

 

Fuck off.

[manc-mag 1]

Not going to get into quote ladders with you, Leazes but you're still not answering a very simple question. You're referring to being proved right in the future. What future event will prove that?

 

Even you must be able to see the sense in clarifying that point.

 

give it a rest. Mike Ashley will never match the Halls and Shepherd, even with his "plan", and the limit of his ambition is to survive in the premiership with as little expenditure as possible.

 

Only a complete prick can't see that, like you. And whats more, you won't admit you were wrong when this stares you in the face either.

 

Now. Fuck off, and stop derailing threads and stalking me, you are boring and a tosser without the balls to admit you have been proved completely wrong.

 

Bookmark this thread.

 

See my post (above) in response to Skidders. Answer in your own time.

 

One line, a future event and it has to contradict something I'm saying.

 

Thread bookmarked.

 

I've told you already what will happen and you have disagreed.

 

You have bookmarked the thread. Good.

 

Have you searched for your posts when you said Villa's "plan" would do better than the "planless" Halls and shepherd yet ?

 

I don't hold out much hope for you anyway, because when I am proved conclusively correct about Mike Ashley [as if 4 years of his "plan" isn't enough already] you will just wriggle your way out of admitting you were spouting bollocks again anyway. What a fuckin big bairn you are man.

 

I'm starting to think you are an even bigger tit than some of the arseholes on NO who also insisted anybody but Fred would be better for the club and also took ambition and knowledge of the club for granted.

 

I think in the end it was established that your view was essentially that because one plan (the Aston Villa plan being the particular case study) failed, that was conclusive evidence that all plans were bad or not worth making. Which of course is just palpable nonsense. That one I'm not even getting into as (despite claiming I'm obsessed), I can quite clearly see what defect of reason lies at the bottom of that 'debate'. Crazy.

 

Give it a rest man. Once a tit always a tit. You were wrong and haven't got it in you to admit it.

 

Obsessed or what.

 

Basically that paragraph represented your view so I stand by the statement.

[manc-mag 1]

And in reference to your edit, aye, I said he didn't have a plan at the end. Or a clue. It had become a shambles.

 

You'll interpret that (somehow) as being a criticism of his entire tenure and ingratitude at playing in Europe etc etc in bygone years.

[LeazesMag 0]

And in reference to your edit, aye, I said he didn't have a plan at the end. Or a clue. It had become a shambles.

 

You'll interpret that (somehow) as being a criticism of his entire tenure and ingratitude at playing in Europe etc etc in bygone years.

 

only to tits who think it IS representative of the entire years of the Halls and Shepherd.

 

Like you, when you spouted that bollocks about the club "lacking the total professionalism to actually win something"...I didn't answer that particular nonsense, because it implies that the likes of the smogs, Leicester to name 2 actually WERE more professional than we were for those 15 years, which is clearly bollocks. At the end of the day, however short the club were, only 4 clubs during that entire period were more professional than we were, and managers such as Keegan, Dalglish, Gullit and Robson would clearly know and understand these areas and rectify them during over a decade of managing the football club. Maybe if we had played Leicester, Tranmere or Bolton in one of those Finals instead of the Premiership Champions we may have won the FA Cup, or even played well on the day, how stupid are you to think that winning a cup final is anything but playing well on one particular day, getting the team right, formation right etc ? Even Birmingham on Sunday have done it now, although they are now probably more ambitious than us, something which I think probably may escape you, and definitely one or two others.

 

I don't get your problem. Why do you think you know more than everybody, you know nothing about me, but you think you know more than me, is it because you have some sort of ego problem ? You were wrong man, just admit it instead of arguing and bickering like a big bairn all the time.

 

If I am wrong about Mike Ashley, if he invests the Carrol money completely into signing players with the intention of coming out of this a better team and spends a period of time in the top 4-6 places and competing at the level the previous owners did, then I will admit I am wrong. No problem, in fact as I am paying for 3 years upfront again, I hope he does. But having witnessed 4 years already of his "plan" it doesn't look too good does it......not all of us were attracted to the club by the Halls and Shepherd and not all of us have bailed out since they sold and then have the hypocrisy to criticise how they ran the club.

 

But he won't show the ambition and use that money completely, his "plan" is to survive in the premiership with minimum expenditure. You have already said this is nonsense. You will see. But at least you can say he has a "plan" although it isn't the sort of "plan" you may like, and others who absurdly expected ambition on the field was an automatic right when you said anybody but the Halls and Shepherd would be better owners.

 

Bookmark this thread.

Edited March 2, 2011 by LeazesMag

[Wavey Davey 0]

And in reference to your edit, aye, I said he didn't have a plan at the end. Or a clue. It had become a shambles.

 

You'll interpret that (somehow) as being a criticism of his entire tenure and ingratitude at playing in Europe etc etc in bygone years.

 

You'll notice that he hasn't actually debated the point, yet.

 

Besides, arguing with him is like banging your head against a brick wall. I tried it once and it got me nowhere (the arguing thing, not the head-banging) I'm suprised people rise to it to be honest.

[LeazesMag 0]

And in reference to your edit, aye, I said he didn't have a plan at the end. Or a clue. It had become a shambles.

 

You'll interpret that (somehow) as being a criticism of his entire tenure and ingratitude at playing in Europe etc etc in bygone years.

 

You'll notice that he hasn't actually debated the point, yet.

 

Besides, arguing with him is like banging your head against a brick wall. I tried it once and it got me nowhere (the arguing thing, not the head-banging) I'm suprised people rise to it to be honest.

 

I thought you had me on ignore ? You can bookmark this thread too.

 

You can continue in your ignorance as long as you like. Just like the arseholes on Newcastle Online, you're wrong. Mike Ashley has destroyed what was a top club when he took it over and transformed it into also-rans, and its the likes of you who have lowered your expectations and don't even realise it.

[manc-mag 1]

And in reference to your edit, aye, I said he didn't have a plan at the end. Or a clue. It had become a shambles.

 

You'll interpret that (somehow) as being a criticism of his entire tenure and ingratitude at playing in Europe etc etc in bygone years.

 

only to tits who think it IS representative of the entire years of the Halls and Shepherd.

 

Like you, when you spouted that bollocks about the club "lacking the total professionalism to actually win something"...I didn't answer that particular nonsense, because it implies that the likes of the smogs, Leicester to name 2 actually WERE more professional than we were for those 15 years, which is clearly bollocks. At the end of the day, however short the club were, only 4 clubs during that entire period were more professional than we were, and managers such as Keegan, Dalglish, Gullit and Robson would clearly know and understand these areas and rectify them during over a decade of managing the football club.

 

I don't get your problem. Why do you think you know more than everybody, you know nothing about me, but you think you know more than me, is it because you have some sort of ego problem ? You were wrong man, just admit it instead of arguing and bickering like a big bairn all the time.

 

If I am wrong about Mike Ashley, if he invests the Carrol money completely into signing players with the intention of coming out of this a better team and spends a period of time in the top 4-6 places and competing at the level the previous owners did, then I will admit I am wrong. No problem, in fact as I am paying for 3 years upfront again, I hope he does. But having witnessed 4 years already of his "plan" it doesn't look too good does it......not all of us were attracted to the club by the Halls and Shepherd and not all of us have bailed out since they sold and then have the hypocrisy to criticise how they ran the club.

 

But he won't show the ambition and use that money completely, his "plan" is to survive in the premiership with minimum expenditure. You have already said this is nonsense. You will see. But at least you can say he has a "plan" although it isn't the sort of "plan" you may like, and others who absurdly expected ambition on the field was an automatic right when you said anybody but the Halls and Shepherd would be better owners.

 

Bookmark this thread.

 

OK, mate. OK.

 

Tbh I think that's more your insecurities coming out because, as you never tire of telling everybody, you "know more about the club than anyone."

 

You can't debate though so it makes no odds at the end of the day. I've asked a simple question which you can't answer and instead you're going through your default routine of countering with made up statements. Fair enough, but everyone can see it for what it is.

[LeazesMag 0]

And in reference to your edit, aye, I said he didn't have a plan at the end. Or a clue. It had become a shambles.

 

You'll interpret that (somehow) as being a criticism of his entire tenure and ingratitude at playing in Europe etc etc in bygone years.

 

only to tits who think it IS representative of the entire years of the Halls and Shepherd.

 

Like you, when you spouted that bollocks about the club "lacking the total professionalism to actually win something"...I didn't answer that particular nonsense, because it implies that the likes of the smogs, Leicester to name 2 actually WERE more professional than we were for those 15 years, which is clearly bollocks. At the end of the day, however short the club were, only 4 clubs during that entire period were more professional than we were, and managers such as Keegan, Dalglish, Gullit and Robson would clearly know and understand these areas and rectify them during over a decade of managing the football club.

 

I don't get your problem. Why do you think you know more than everybody, you know nothing about me, but you think you know more than me, is it because you have some sort of ego problem ? You were wrong man, just admit it instead of arguing and bickering like a big bairn all the time.

 

If I am wrong about Mike Ashley, if he invests the Carrol money completely into signing players with the intention of coming out of this a better team and spends a period of time in the top 4-6 places and competing at the level the previous owners did, then I will admit I am wrong. No problem, in fact as I am paying for 3 years upfront again, I hope he does. But having witnessed 4 years already of his "plan" it doesn't look too good does it......not all of us were attracted to the club by the Halls and Shepherd and not all of us have bailed out since they sold and then have the hypocrisy to criticise how they ran the club.

 

But he won't show the ambition and use that money completely, his "plan" is to survive in the premiership with minimum expenditure. You have already said this is nonsense. You will see. But at least you can say he has a "plan" although it isn't the sort of "plan" you may like, and others who absurdly expected ambition on the field was an automatic right when you said anybody but the Halls and Shepherd would be better owners.

 

Bookmark this thread.

 

OK, mate. OK.

 

Tbh I think that's more your insecurities coming out because, as you never tire of telling everybody, you "know more about the club than anyone."

 

You can't debate though so it makes no odds at the end of the day. I've asked a simple question which you can't answer and instead you're going through your default routine of countering with made up statements. Fair enough, but everyone can see it for what it is.

 

ah, I can admit when I am wrong, and I will. I don't know more about the club than everybody at all, but I certainly know more than you and I don't have my head up my arse like you do.

 

My post above is a "debate" by the way, do you consider it isn't because you don't agree with it ? Shame, because in time, I'm 100% sure everything I say will be right.

 

Bookmark this thread, and "debate" it in a few years time.....

[manc-mag 1]

You could be 100% "right" in your predictions about Ashley's spending plans, but you'll fail to find anyone who categorically refutes that point anyway. At the same time, being proved "right" in that regard wouldn't vindicate your views about Shepherd or indeed vitiate the (perfectly valid and contextual) points others make about the realities of financing NUFC these days, post-Shepherd. It's a failure to grasp these basic rudiments that render you incapable of participating in sensible debate.

[manc-mag 1]

Anyway, 30 pages. Fuck this for a laugh.

[JawD 99]

To me LM its not as simple as saying MA wont achieve what FS did. He has a much harder playing field for one. The whole thing is open for debate which is the idea ofc. Your problem though seems to be that you have people as black or white, as one side or the other? I could easily say if MA had took the same gambles (not quite the same as its more his money he is gambling with as pointed out, but still) he could have kept us up. "could". It's never certain. He didn't, he took the risk and we paid for it dearly. Though personally I say the reason were relegated was not down to squad investment, afterall he had invested in the team, but was down to his repeated fuck ups in managerial appointments. The squad was on its knees and morale likely never lower. He done that, no one else imo. But, perhaps we have come back stronger for it. I am glad we no longer let players write their own cheques so to speak. At the time, I was happy to see Kluivert/Owen etc sign. Like I said above, I thnk we were spoiled at times. But the reality is that we were also spending someone elses money. Money we didnt have. I dont think it was as bad as the Ashley camp would have you believe, but clearly things were wobbling. SJH is a very very shrewd business man and he knew it was time to jump ship. MA took a punt and didnt check the books, more fool him.

 

Regards Carrolls money, as I keep saying, I think if we hadnt sold him we might have got a £10M kitty for a player. I think the £35M has replaced that, not been added to it. Also its meant to be including wages so the player value is likely only £20M? (£90K over 3 players over 3 years is £14M). So, I only expect to see £20M on players. Unless he now says Tiote's deal etc is part of it. We can likely factor in Enrique also sadly.

[Toonpack 9455]

To me LM its not as simple as saying MA wont achieve what FS did. He has a much harder playing field for one. The whole thing is open for debate which is the idea ofc. Your problem though seems to be that you have people as black or white, as one side or the other? I could easily say if MA had took the same gambles (not quite the same as its more his money he is gambling with as pointed out, but still) he could have kept us up. "could". It's never certain. He didn't, he took the risk and we paid for it dearly. Though personally I say the reason were relegated was not down to squad investment, afterall he had invested in the team, but was down to his repeated fuck ups in managerial appointments. The squad was on its knees and morale likely never lower. He done that, no one else imo. But, perhaps we have come back stronger for it. I am glad we no longer let players write their own cheques so to speak. At the time, I was happy to see Kluivert/Owen etc sign. Like I said above, I thnk we were spoiled at times. But the reality is that we were also spending someone elses money. Money we didnt have. I dont think it was as bad as the Ashley camp would have you believe, but clearly things were wobbling. SJH is a very very shrewd business man and he knew it was time to jump ship. MA took a punt and didnt check the books, more fool him.

 

Regards Carrolls money, as I keep saying, I think if we hadnt sold him we might have got a £10M kitty for a player. I think the £35M has replaced that, not been added to it. Also its meant to be including wages so the player value is likely only £20M? (£90K over 3 players over 3 years is £14M). So, I only expect to see £20M on players. Unless he now says Tiote's deal etc is part of it. We can likely factor in Enrique also sadly.

 

In contrast to Ashley, the former owners did very nicely out of their investment in Newcastle United, thank you very much. In fact, they absolutely coined it with the Halls (Sir John and Douglas) receiving a total of £95 million over the years, while the Shepherds (Freddy and Bruce) had to make do with £55 million. The Halls’ money comprised £55 million from the sale to Ashley, £20 million from previous share sales (to NTL and the club itself), £15 million from dividends and £5 million in salary payments, while the Shepherds’ money came from £38 million Ashley sale, £7 million dividends and £5 million salaries.

 

And what was the result of these staggering payments? After years of rank bad management, they left the club in an appalling mess: a £30 million loss; £70 million of debt plus £27 million owing transfer fees; extremely limited borrowing capacity, as all assets and income streams had already been used to secure loans; and a bloated wage bill of aging mercenaries on generous long-term contracts.

[ChezGiven 0]

That analysis from swissramble (based on an experts view of the accounts with no affinity for or against the club) made me look at things differently.

[Guest]

Bananas.

[Guest]

That analysis from swissramble (based on an experts view of the accounts with no affinity for or against the club) made me look at things differently.

 

A "rethink" is all that was needed though, appointing big Sam was proof that they'd definitely gotten out of that hole (canyon)

[Toonpack 9455]

That analysis from swissramble (based on an experts view of the accounts with no affinity for or against the club) made me look at things differently.

 

His latest "look" is at Sunlun, that's a canny read as well