peasepud 59 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 Whom was owed what? Does the Owner include his purchase price in this figure? Yes. The £280m breaks down something like this. A £135m (loan?) for the purchase of the club. A £110m loan to pay off the stadium loan and other existing interest incurring debts. A £25-35m loan to cover operating losses during our season in the championship It fucks me off big style that Ryder reels out this shit. In the same way it fucks me off that we’ve had the crap about FMA being some kind of saviour rammed down our throats for the best part of four years. At end of the day an NUFC carrying a £100m of debts was either worth £135m or FMA paid too much. Either way he deserves no praise. He either got what he paid for or he fucked up... it’s no basis for kissing his arse Mr Ryder. A. So NUFC owes Mike Ashley £135M because..........? B. So aside from paying off the Stadium, (approx £57M) our debts were in the region of £50M? C. The £25-£35M cost of keeping us afloat in the 2nd Division shouldn't be a loan re-payable to this twat as it was his own incompetence that caused us to be relegated in the first place and the bill for it should laid completely at his door. It looks to me that we should owe the bloke £110M. The Stadium was mortgaged until he paid it off, (saving himself interest), and became the new creditor. Now go back to his statement about 4 years ago where he said that he was always willing to bankroll the club to the tune of £20m per year and not expect anything back in return, said it before and I'll say it again, this football club should therefore owe the fat one £10m not a penny more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7073 Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 lol you guys realise im watching ya comments hehehe What you gonna do like, report us to the F.A.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney 0 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Re the questions a possible follow up: Dear Dekka, considering Nolan, Enrique, Keegan, Barton and the courts system have all called you liars, why should we believe a single thing that you say? Xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 lol you guys realise im watching ya comments hehehe What you gonna do like, report us to the F.A.? He's noted down your name in his notebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... "We didnt promise to spend all the money in this window." All the money? They hardly spend ANY of it. 1% of the transfer fee received has been reinvested in transfer fees. Our wage bill this season will increase by seven percent as a result of the business weve done, including new deals for existing players. Assuming a tenth place league position, that gives us a wages-to-turnover ratio of approximately 65 per cent. I'm almost certain this is a creative use of the facts. I believe he's saying 65% based on last years reported turnover, in the championship. Given that we've shifted Barton, Enrique and Nolan off the wage bill I don't see the new players or improved contracts being any more than that. As a result of some of the things we’ve done in the past there will always be fans who will not like nor believe what we have to say. The upshot is that when we speak publicly more often than not we are criticised. After the statement I made last week, it was interesting to read comments from some supporters saying “I just wish they’d shut up!” Of course everyone has a different view, that’s football for you, which as we all know is a very passionate game. Strange one this. He seems to accept it's down to things they've done in the past, but we've never heard of any regret from the club at all for how they've gone about their business. He clearly recognises they've been lying to fans, employees and the press but it strikes me that he seems to be saying the fans are being unreasonable in not getting over it. and not believing them now. I'm firmly in the camp that would prefer them to shut up, unless what they're saying is "sorry for everything, we realise the error of our ways, lets pull down some Sports Direct signs as a show of good will and move on". Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. This year we’ve set ourselves the target of a top ten finish in the Premier League. In the coming years we cannot compete with the financial strength of the top six. We have a realistic view of what we can achieve at Newcastle and how quickly we can achieve it. So we're aiming for 7th-10th this season....and long term too. What we see this season is the hight of ambition, from the horses mouth. We started our search the minute Andy Carroll left. The manager and our scouting team identified a number of targets very early in the year and we worked hard to secure those players as soon as possible. Unfortunately it wasn’t until very late in the window that negotiations broke down. At that stage we turned our attention to other available players on our shortlist. Many clubs live to regret knee-jerk business decisions conducted in the final few days of the window. Despite our best efforts unfortunately we were unable to agree the right deal for an additional striker. It's an absurd position to take that they concentrated on one deal for 7 months waiting till the last day or 2 to switch targets, without saying "look, either do the deal or we have to move on" after 4 months or so. The idea they think this excuses the idiocy of such an approach speaks volumes about their incompetence, the idea they use the phrase “knee-jerk” about a decision they had 7 months to make takes it from the absurd to the hilarious. Whilst it heralded the end of the Level 7 ‘singing section’, we didn’t want to create a new singing section elsewhere in the ground. We would far rather encourage a good vocal atmosphere around the whole stadium than in just one part. By which I can only assume they mean they’d rather encourage no (anti-Ashley) atmosphere anywhere in the ground, than have a group persistently on his back. I’d be interested to hear the thinking behind this. If not anti-Ashley sentiment, what was it that changed their mind on how to generate atmosphere between the moment they came up with the ‘singing section’ and now? Season ticket sales are actually up on where we were this time last year. This might be true. I’m certain gate receipts will be well down though. The differentiation on this is key. Because seats that were £450 are now being sold for £100 to kids in order to achieve the modest attendances we’re getting. From time to time we are approached by people claiming to have an interest in buying the club. Our message to them is clear: buy a box for a commitment of five-seasons and then we’ll know you’re serious. No-one’s taken us up on that offer! What a joke. “Taken us up on that offer”? Any potential buyers (and people have approached them apparently) must spend 6 figures just to get into a room with them. And he says it like it’s an offer too good to be true. He deserves credit for his financial support but a section of supporters don’t make him feel welcome at St James’ Park, or when he attends away games. Criticism is part and parcel of the job, abuse is not. This makes life uncomfortable and certainly doesn’t make Mike feel more inclined to put his hand once again in his pocket. That’s not stubbornness, it’s human nature. I think most of us would feel exactly the same. If I’ve ever read a more pathetic paragraph then I don’t remember it. I thought Ashley was supposed to be a business man that makes the best of his investment. Not a schoolgirl who’s fallen out with her BFF. In most lines of business contempt from your customers is seen as a negative, you would usually take action to win them over, engage in PR moves that show you understand and want them to be happy customers. You don’t say “be nicer or we’ll serve you up some even worse product!”. What a terrible man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 32826 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 If I’ve ever read a more pathetic paragraph then I don’t remember it. I thought Ashley was supposed to be a business man that makes the best of his investment. Not a schoolgirl who’s fallen out with her BFF. In most lines of business contempt from your customers is seen as a negative, you would usually take action to win them over, engage in PR moves that show you understand and want them to be happy customers. You don’t say “be nicer or we’ll serve you up some even worse product!”. What a terrible man. What a wanker, basically. Everytime Llambias opens his trap the 'poor Mike' patter is usually bound to follow, top businessman? Like you say, If Marks and Spencer has a bad year and gets bad press and customer complaints the last thing their PR man will do will be to take a hissy fit at reporters and their customers about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 The fact that Ashley appointed Llambias and continues to think he's the man for the job is easily one of the most worrying signs about how MA views the fans and the direction in which he'll continue to take the club. He's the public face of the fat cunt's contempt for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Llambias undoubtedly looks like one of the most unlikable men I've seen. However, he's simply implementing Ashley's plan, no matter who was MD, they'd still be doing the same thing. That's not to say that he doesn't enjoy it, I reckon he fucking loves it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Llambias does however have a black and white stair carpet in his home, not sure if it was already that colour before he took the job like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. Or maybe, they [again, they know who they are] just want to disagree with anything I say, as I also have said precisely this in the past too. It's absolutely mind boggling how these fuckers that now run this club are feeding off the irrational unpopularity of the past owners etc etc and some are still buying it. The above scenario is precisely what the aim is. They think they can exist in the premiership, with minimal outlay and costs, and hope to keep gates etc as high as possible [having now maybe accepted the 52,000 crowds who would always support the toon was a myth they believed but has never existed] Edited September 20, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9298 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that yes they have, and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that yes they have, and you know it. Stop agreeing with me and then making outlandish claims. I get tainted by association. The expansion was 20 years ago. Who off here were you talking to about it at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that yes they have, and you know it. Stop agreeing with me and then making outlandish claims. I get tainted by association. The expansion was 20 years ago. Who off here were you talking to about it at the time? I meant the expansion of the Leazes and Milburn stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that yes they have, and you know it. Stop agreeing with me and then making outlandish claims. I get tainted by association. The expansion was 20 years ago. Who off here were you talking to about it at the time? I meant the expansion of the Leazes and Milburn stands. So did I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that yes they have, and you know it. Stop agreeing with me and then making outlandish claims. I get tainted by association. The expansion was 20 years ago. Who off here were you talking to about it at the time? I meant the expansion of the Leazes and Milburn stands. So did I. I was agreeing with you. That's why I quoted it and commented. But it wasn't 20 years ago. Edited September 20, 2011 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? Maybe you should be asking how 90% [give or take] of clubs appear to be operating under different financial rules to NUFC ? Why hasn't almost every club in the country gone out of existence ? Which is what you are implying, isn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? Move to Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30369 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 God I'm going to regret this but Leazes, what happens when the banks won't give us any more money? we compete at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn etc rather than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool ? You're saying that debt is a necessity in a football club (bar having a sugar daddy). But what happens when the debt has to be repaid? quite clearly, about 80+ clubs in the country all go bust. I'm asking a very specific question here. What happens when the debt has to be repaid? Maybe you should be asking how 90% [give or take] of clubs appear to be operating under different financial rules to NUFC ? Why hasn't almost every club in the country gone out of existence ? Which is what you are implying, isn't it ? I'm not asking about other clubs. Yet again I'm asking about NUFC. If we get ourselves into debt, what do we do when the banks either want their money back or won't lend any more to us? I'm just talking about NUFC here, not anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Finally got round to actually reading all the responses. Some thoughts... Our long-term plan off the field is to make sure that Newcastle United is self-financing, which in turn will allow us to invest in the squad, our youth development system and our facilities, without having to rely on additional financial support from the owner. There aren’t many clubs in England who can hope to achieve that. There's no clubs that would want to achieve that. Why on earth would anyone spend 5 years balancing the books....then go and build up £50m of debt in order to buy a top striker or two. It's like saying I'm going to clear my credit cards...so I can hammer them again. Either you're balancing the books for stability and we'll rely on the youth/facilities, or you're running a model of buying big sustained by success on the field....which can only be achived after the big buys. Clearly the former is the aim, and it's spin to say we'll invest in the squad once we're breaking even....resulting in us not breaking even. unfortunately, there are some people around who inadvertently advocate this approach. They are the ones who harp on about "debts", "not spending what you don't have", "running the club as a business"...etc. They may not admit it, but this is the core of their warped thinking. They think football is like a high street business, and even criticise the expansion of the stadium, calling it a "debt" - as if attempting to capitalise on the clubs fanbase with an investment aimed at the future is "bad planning", just because it was done by the old owners [i'll try not to go there, so long as people [they know who they are] accept these comments which are in fact the truth]. \lies, again. No-one hs said that yes they have, and you know it. Stop agreeing with me and then making outlandish claims. I get tainted by association. The expansion was 20 years ago. Who off here were you talking to about it at the time? I meant the expansion of the Leazes and Milburn stands. So did I. I was agreeing with you. That's why I quoted it and commented. But it wasn't 20 years ago. As good as. 1993. What we agree on is that it needs some vision and some investment to climb the table. Nobody does it the other way round, climbs the table, then gets a vision and starts pumping money into it. I think that is the same as the high street tbf. You have to invest in premises, stock, staff, advertising etc. That's the risk of being in business, putting your own money up and striving to succeed and possibly going bust if there's a crash, or if other businesses make a better fist of it. All this talk of "how do you pay it back" doesn't interest me, not until the money is being spent year after year without any results to show from it. It's like parents telling a really talented kid they can't concentrate on football, they have to do their school work and get good grades in their exams. A conservative and uninspired approach to mediocrity. Ashley has spent £140m on the club since he got here, that sort of money could have done so much more in the hands of a Kevin Keegan or an Arsene Wenger. EDIT: I don't agree anyone has said the stadium shouldn't have been expanded. Edited September 20, 2011 by Happy Face 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