Mike Ashley is a fat twat

[LeazesMag 0]

Don't read True Faith, gave up a few years ago as it starting spouting the same sort of shite prevalent on these message boards re the Halls and Shepherd, by people taking for granted that we should always have an ambitious owner etc blah blah

 

But this shows the worm is turning, and people are beginning to see ... hopefully. If nothing else, it might register a chord with numpties like Skidmarks/thompers, but don't hold your breath

 

http://www.true-faith.co.uk/tf/letters.nsf...54?OpenDocument

 

However, I don't expect the 10 year old spotty schookids from Singapore on Newcastle Online to even understand it nor the Ashley apologists to change their "opinion" despite the facts ....

Edited September 30, 2010 by LeazesMag

[peasepud 59]

I dont know who this coops is but if it wasnt for the boycotting bit I would have thought he was me!

 

Everything he says there I wholeheartedly agree with, no money is being "pumped into" our club, if you read the statements they always say "invested". Fat Mike is simply loaning the club more money to protect his investment, he expects it all back which is where I argue the fact we're in way bigger shit now than when we owed the banks.

 

As for True Faith, a bigger opponent of MA you couldnt hope to find. Mick Martin raised doubts over the way the club was being ran way before the Keegan saga. He was central in the setting up of the NUSC as a protest group (the view shared by most of us in the original dozen, in particular the other name in that article, Michael Ord).

 

Unlike the "popular" view, I see True Faith as being the only realistic vehicle these days for the protest voice. Hopefully, no matter how many fans are swayed by talk of "financial solvency" and "zero debt" True Faith will continue to print articles and letters which show the other side of the coin. Knowing Mick he'll do that even if it means his readership drops so significantly he ends up stapling printed A4. Something I can guarantee other "fanzine" owners wont do.

[Gemmill 46086]

Don't read True Faith, gave up a few years ago as it starting spouting the same sort of shite prevalent on these message boards re the Halls and Shepherd, by people taking for granted that we should always have an ambitious owner etc blah blah

 

But this shows the worm is turning, and people are beginning to see ... hopefully. If nothing else, it might register a chord with numpties like Skidmarks/thompers, but don't hold your breath

 

http://www.true-faith.co.uk/tf/letters.nsf...54?OpenDocument

 

However, I don't expect the 10 year old spotty schookids from Singapore on Newcastle Online to even understand it nor the Ashley apologists to change their "opinion" despite the facts ....

 

Jesus can you not just post a link to the article without boring us all with your agenda? Another snoozefest quote-athon in the post when thompers gets back and sees this. Cheers for that.

 

Good article, shit post.

[ewerk 31222]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

[Christmas Tree 4850]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

Agree with this.

 

Think apart from a few old radicals on either side, most have moved on from this argument.

 

Water under the bridge.

[Monkeys Fist 43108]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

Agree with this.

 

Think apart from a few old radicals on either side, most have moved on from this argument.

 

Water under the bridge.

Wrong again.

I'm neither old nor radical.

I agree with Ewerk that the blame lies " somewhere in the middle".

I still despise Ashley and what he's doing to our club.

[Asprilla 96]

The Shepherds and Halls were no different to the millions of home owners who kept remortgaging during the boom years. While I appreciate the good times (and believe me I do) the fact is they ALL lined their pockets and none of the money they "made available" was their own.

 

We win a few games, Ashley's steering us in the right direction, we lose a couple and he's the antichrist.

 

 

Like the saner people here have already said, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Park Life 71]

Think the main bugbear is that he isn't really investing in the first team ie we're chronically short of quality in the striking department and right back. In saying that the Bafra and Tiote deals were good, but tbf the Bafra deal was agent triggered rather than us going looking for him. Imagine where we'd be and how we'd feel without Bafra.

[ewerk 31222]

Think the main bugbear is that he isn't really investing in the first team ie we're chronically short of quality in the striking department and right back. In saying that the Bafra and Tiote deals were good, but tbf the Bafra deal was agent triggered rather than us going looking for him. Imagine where we'd be and how we'd feel without Bafra.

 

You reckon that Ben Arfa decided he wanted to join Newcastle without any prompting from us at all?

[Park Life 71]

Think the main bugbear is that he isn't really investing in the first team ie we're chronically short of quality in the striking department and right back. In saying that the Bafra and Tiote deals were good, but tbf the Bafra deal was agent triggered rather than us going looking for him. Imagine where we'd be and how we'd feel without Bafra.

 

You reckon that Ben Arfa decided he wanted to join Newcastle without any prompting from us at all?

 

No. I'm saying his agent was hawking him around most of Europe. I also think we're a bit lucky that he is a bit mad and just likes us and perhaps was swayed by our past and indulgences with famous French players.

[Guest alex]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

Agree with this.

 

Think apart from a few old radicals on either side, most have moved on from this argument.

 

Water under the bridge.

Many are still boycotting games though. Like yourself.

[sammynb 3517]

Think the main bugbear is that he isn't really investing in the first team ie we're chronically short of quality in the striking department and right back. In saying that the Bafra and Tiote deals were good, but tbf the Bafra deal was agent triggered rather than us going looking for him. Imagine where we'd be and how we'd feel without Bafra.

 

You reckon that Ben Arfa decided he wanted to join Newcastle without any prompting from us at all?

 

No. I'm saying his agent was hawking him around most of Europe. I also think we're a bit lucky that he is a bit mad and just likes us and perhaps was swayed by our past and indulgences with famous French players.

 

Maybe he's really cool and just likes black and white stripes!!!

[Christmas Tree 4850]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

Agree with this.

 

Think apart from a few old radicals on either side, most have moved on from this argument.

 

Water under the bridge.

Wrong again.

I'm neither old nor radical.

I agree with Ewerk that the blame lies " somewhere in the middle".

I still despise Ashley and what he's doing to our club.

 

Thats fair enough, but how many times do you want to go over the same old ground with the same old people and arrive at the same old stalemate?

 

Each to their own I suppose.

[Christmas Tree 4850]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

Agree with this.

 

Think apart from a few old radicals on either side, most have moved on from this argument.

 

Water under the bridge.

Many are still boycotting games though. Like yourself.

 

Nope, moved on and get to the odd one now and then, but wouldnt get another season ticket.

[LeazesMag 0]

Don't read True Faith, gave up a few years ago as it starting spouting the same sort of shite prevalent on these message boards re the Halls and Shepherd, by people taking for granted that we should always have an ambitious owner etc blah blah

 

But this shows the worm is turning, and people are beginning to see ... hopefully. If nothing else, it might register a chord with numpties like Skidmarks/thompers, but don't hold your breath

 

http://www.true-faith.co.uk/tf/letters.nsf...54?OpenDocument

 

However, I don't expect the 10 year old spotty schookids from Singapore on Newcastle Online to even understand it nor the Ashley apologists to change their "opinion" despite the facts ....

 

Jesus can you not just post a link to the article without boring us all with your agenda? Another snoozefest quote-athon in the post when thompers gets back and sees this. Cheers for that.

 

Good article, shit post.

 

Agenda ? It's what I've been saying all along. Could be me in fact

[LeazesMag 0]

I dont know who this coops is but if it wasnt for the boycotting bit I would have thought he was me!

 

Everything he says there I wholeheartedly agree with, no money is being "pumped into" our club, if you read the statements they always say "invested". Fat Mike is simply loaning the club more money to protect his investment, he expects it all back which is where I argue the fact we're in way bigger shit now than when we owed the banks.

 

As for True Faith, a bigger opponent of MA you couldnt hope to find. Mick Martin raised doubts over the way the club was being ran way before the Keegan saga. He was central in the setting up of the NUSC as a protest group (the view shared by most of us in the original dozen, in particular the other name in that article, Michael Ord).

 

Unlike the "popular" view, I see True Faith as being the only realistic vehicle these days for the protest voice. Hopefully, no matter how many fans are swayed by talk of "financial solvency" and "zero debt" True Faith will continue to print articles and letters which show the other side of the coin. Knowing Mick he'll do that even if it means his readership drops so significantly he ends up stapling printed A4. Something I can guarantee other "fanzine" owners wont do.

 

I stopped buying True Faith a while ago, because I got fed up with their constant agenda [yep Gemmil, agenda] against the old board and their insistence that anybody would be better. Along with what comes across as an "alternative" point of view and the feeling that if you didn't agree with the view of their "bunker" you were some sort of 2nd class supporter, and it all became very childish in the end.

 

Good to see someone telling it like it is. I haven't met Mick Martin and to be honest, I may have seen him also printing some of the views I disagreed with so much, but I may be wrong.

 

I used to like Paullys articles.

 

Oh and the constant references to Joy Divison and the Happy Mondays were shite too.

 

I never wrote anything for True Faith, only for the Mag

Edited October 1, 2010 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

The debate barely elevates itself above schoolground mud-slinging and retarded economic analysis. The Shepherd/Halls era was an era of exponential revenue growth and asset price inflation. The Ashely era has been characterised by flat revenues from the key sources, a massive reduction in the availability of credit, a global financial crisis and a global recession.

 

Its daft to draw direct comparisons. I was a big supporter of what the previous board did for this club as they took the gambles neccessary for the club to compete at the top but the business model has changed since then because of the changes in the credit market and the economy.

[Park Life 71]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

The debate barely elevates itself above schoolground mud-slinging and retarded economic analysis. The Shepherd/Halls era was an era of exponential revenue growth and asset price inflation. The Ashely era has been characterised by flat revenues from the key sources, a massive reduction in the availability of credit, a global financial crisis and a global recession.

 

Its daft to draw direct comparisons. I was a big supporter of what the previous board did for this club as they took the gambles neccessary for the club to compete at the top but the business model has changed since then because of the changes in the credit market and the economy.

 

I'd still like another striker though.

[ChezGiven 0]

For those arguing that Ashley needs to think big, act big and invest big to bring success (Hit the top-line to drive the bottom-line, standard fair for a big business), this is apparently what it takes nowadays...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/....3-million.html

[Park Life 71]

For those arguing that Ashley needs to think big, act big and invest big to bring success (Hit the top-line to drive the bottom-line, standard fair for a big business), this is apparently what it takes nowadays...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/....3-million.html

 

Should have spent that 50m two years ago like I said.

[Renton 22007]

For those arguing that Ashley needs to think big, act big and invest big to bring success (Hit the top-line to drive the bottom-line, standard fair for a big business), this is apparently what it takes nowadays...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/....3-million.html

 

And that is why football in this country is fucked.

[Renton 22007]

I never wrote anything for True Faith, only for the Mag

 

That in itself explains a lot about your opinion then.

 

I think they're both a bit shit, however tf has a distinct advantage in that it fits in the back pocket of a pair of jeans.

[Guest alex]

The article/letter's childish btw. Naming people etc.

[ewerk 31222]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

The debate barely elevates itself above schoolground mud-slinging and retarded economic analysis. The Shepherd/Halls era was an era of exponential revenue growth and asset price inflation. The Ashely era has been characterised by flat revenues from the key sources, a massive reduction in the availability of credit, a global financial crisis and a global recession.

 

Its daft to draw direct comparisons. I was a big supporter of what the previous board did for this club as they took the gambles neccessary for the club to compete at the top but the business model has changed since then because of the changes in the credit market and the economy.

 

Indeed, the previous regime hit it lucky/timed it well in their takeover of the club, just before football revenues and the availability of credit were about to explode.

 

They did take gambles with the club's money but the problem was that as the years went on, their operating model wasn't working well enough to sustain the business model you were speaking of.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm no Ashley apologist but the article is a bit shit imo. Basically saying that Shepherd/Halls were constantly making money available for managers while the evil Ashley is sucking every penny out of the club, when the truth lies somewhere in middle. Far too simplistic for my liking.

 

The debate barely elevates itself above schoolground mud-slinging and retarded economic analysis. The Shepherd/Halls era was an era of exponential revenue growth and asset price inflation. The Ashely era has been characterised by flat revenues from the key sources, a massive reduction in the availability of credit, a global financial crisis and a global recession.

 

Its daft to draw direct comparisons. I was a big supporter of what the previous board did for this club as they took the gambles neccessary for the club to compete at the top but the business model has changed since then because of the changes in the credit market and the economy.

 

Indeed, the previous regime hit it lucky/timed it well in their takeover of the club, just before football revenues and the availability of credit were about to explode.

 

They did take gambles with the club's money but the problem was that as the years went on, their operating model wasn't working well enough to sustain the business model you were speaking of.

 

Which was why John Hall decided to sell.