Jump to content

Seymour

Member
  • Posts

    1,418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Another poster going on about my wife
  2. Strange thing to say but alright
  3. You're missing my point. I'm saying that coming from a scientific background, my default standpoint when confronted with new information is to think I might NOT be correct. To question my own thoughts, and the new information, and to see which holds most weight. I'm always 100% happy to be wrong and to change my views accordingly if shown something which I find outweighs my existing world view. The frustrating thing is when other people do the opposite and won't even accept that another point of view could possibly carry any weight whatsoever. It's why the whole world is in a f***ing mess at the moment with Trump, Brexit, climate change deniers, and indeed radicals of any kind on any part of a political or religious spectrum. If we all critically evaluated information put in front of us and were more flexible in our outlooks, the world would be an infinitely better place. So I'm about as far as anyone ever could be from saying that I think that because of my background I'm always right. Anyway. Yes, we've had individual years in which Ashley made a loss. You say you don't think that means Ashley will be more likely to sell. Do you remember when we were relegated to the Championship and he dropped the club's asking price? Because that's what happened very publicly in 2009. What you're suggesting won't happen has already happened in the past, under Mike Ashley, under the situation you describe. The problem is we went straight back up again so he got the TV money back. If we go down and stay down, history suggests he'll sell and sell cheap. Did he drop his asking price though? And if he did, he still didn't sell the club
  4. Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense. He's already asking for an unreasonable amount and the club is in over a 100m in debt... You remind me of the arguments I have with my parents about Brexit or global warming. There is no level of proof which is high enough to convince them that they might be wrong. No matter how much actual evidence I put in front of them, from experts and peer-reviewed sources, they just go "Nah, that's not right" and show me some Daily Mail article about how forrins are ruining the country. It's about as rewarding as trying to kick water up a hill. You're the same. Not saying your a Brexiteer or climate change denier, of course, but you're so deeply entrenched that where this is concerned there's no level of evidence which is satisfactory for you to question your standpoint. You just dismiss everything anyone puts as if none of it carries any weight whatsoever, no matter how backed in facts, figures, or historical evidence. I don't want to be rude to you, because you've not been rude to me or indeed anyone on here and for that at least I respect you. But I come from a scientific background and believe strongly in the scientific method. I like to think I'm very open to new ideas and reassessing my viewpoint in light of new information as that's how we grow as people and how we expand our horizons. But you don't have this in your DNA and when I can see that only one side is putting out a compelling case there's no way of getting around that discussing anything with you is just a complete waste of time. You haven't really shown me evidence though mate, you've basically just said that if you take away ticket revenue that we'd make a loss. I hadn't looked at the accounts and you're right we would make a loss. We made a profit of £18.7 so taking away ticket revenue we would make a loss. But do you really think that makes Ashley sell the club? We've had years in the past where we've made a loss and he hasn't sold the club or lowered his price. Im sorry like but just because you come from a scientific background that doesn't mean you're correct. Why would he hang onto something that makes heavy losses year on year if he wasn't able to stem them (because he wasn't selling shirts or tickets)? Would you hang onto something that's costing you a f***ing fortune that you get no benefit from? Actually yes you would, and you do. The club has made losses in this tenure previously and he hasn't sold the club, in fact the club was making a loss before he bought the f***er Year on year? Consistently? Without the crowd there to subsidise to the tune of £25m+ a year? When did this happen? Even if with ticket revenue the club made a loss and he still didn't sell the club
  5. Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense. He's already asking for an unreasonable amount and the club is in over a 100m in debt... You remind me of the arguments I have with my parents about Brexit or global warming. There is no level of proof which is high enough to convince them that they might be wrong. No matter how much actual evidence I put in front of them, from experts and peer-reviewed sources, they just go "Nah, that's not right" and show me some Daily Mail article about how forrins are ruining the country. It's about as rewarding as trying to kick water up a hill. You're the same. Not saying your a Brexiteer or climate change denier, of course, but you're so deeply entrenched that where this is concerned there's no level of evidence which is satisfactory for you to question your standpoint. You just dismiss everything anyone puts as if none of it carries any weight whatsoever, no matter how backed in facts, figures, or historical evidence. I don't want to be rude to you, because you've not been rude to me or indeed anyone on here and for that at least I respect you. But I come from a scientific background and believe strongly in the scientific method. I like to think I'm very open to new ideas and reassessing my viewpoint in light of new information as that's how we grow as people and how we expand our horizons. But you don't have this in your DNA and when I can see that only one side is putting out a compelling case there's no way of getting around that discussing anything with you is just a complete waste of time. You haven't really shown me evidence though mate, you've basically just said that if you take away ticket revenue that we'd make a loss. I hadn't looked at the accounts and you're right we would make a loss. We made a profit of £18.7 so taking away ticket revenue we would make a loss. But do you really think that makes Ashley sell the club? We've had years in the past where we've made a loss and he hasn't sold the club or lowered his price. Im sorry like but just because you come from a scientific background that doesn't mean you're correct. Why would he hang onto something that makes heavy losses year on year if he wasn't able to stem them (because he wasn't selling shirts or tickets)? Would you hang onto something that's costing you a f***ing fortune that you get no benefit from? Actually yes you would, and you do. The club has made losses in this tenure previously and he hasn't sold the club, in fact the club was making a loss before he bought the fucker
  6. Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense. He's already asking for an unreasonable amount and the club is in over a 100m in debt... You remind me of the arguments I have with my parents about Brexit or global warming. There is no level of proof which is high enough to convince them that they might be wrong. No matter how much actual evidence I put in front of them, from experts and peer-reviewed sources, they just go "Nah, that's not right" and show me some Daily Mail article about how forrins are ruining the country. It's about as rewarding as trying to kick water up a hill. You're the same. Not saying your a Brexiteer or climate change denier, of course, but you're so deeply entrenched that where this is concerned there's no level of evidence which is satisfactory for you to question your standpoint. You just dismiss everything anyone puts as if none of it carries any weight whatsoever, no matter how backed in facts, figures, or historical evidence. I don't want to be rude to you, because you've not been rude to me or indeed anyone on here and for that at least I respect you. But I come from a scientific background and believe strongly in the scientific method. I like to think I'm very open to new ideas and reassessing my viewpoint in light of new information as that's how we grow as people and how we expand our horizons. But you don't have this in your DNA and when I can see that only one side is putting out a compelling case there's no way of getting around that discussing anything with you is just a complete waste of time. You haven't really shown me evidence though mate, you've basically just said that if you take away ticket revenue that we'd make a loss. I hadn't looked at the accounts and you're right we would make a loss. We made a profit of £18.7 so taking away ticket revenue we would make a loss. But do you really think that makes Ashley sell the club? We've had years in the past where we've made a loss and he hasn't sold the club or lowered his price. Im sorry like but just because you come from a scientific background that doesn't mean you're correct.
  7. But if that "less revenue" is enough to mean the club makes him a loss rather than a profit, his whole reason for owning us disappears. It doesn't have to reduce his income to zero. Just enough to make us a millstone around his neck rather than a cash cow for him. Saying "but other revenue is more" is completely missing the point. Ticket revenue wouldn't be the difference between profit and loss How can you type that with a straight face? According to the latest released figures for 2017/18, we made an operating profit of £17.6m Ticket revenues were £24m So yes, on its own and without looking at anything else, ticket revenue absolutely is the difference between profit and loss for Mike Ashley. A further £28m was brought in through sponsorship, and trust me if you've got an empty stadium and nobody buying shirts then that takes a hit too. Add in further that if we go down, he looses the TV money and we'd all agree that a full stadium decreases the likelihood of relegation but to be honest to get shot of him it's a price I'd accept in a heartbeat to have my club back. In summary: Don't talk utter rot. I didn't look at the accounts Is that total profit of the club in the 2017-2018 season then? £17.6m? If we do make a loss, then the debt goes up by the way, which means the price goes up which means its even more difficult for a potential buyer. Seymour, surely you can see the gaps in your thinking here. If a business loses is value, regardless of the debt it has accrued, there will be no willing buyers paying the amount the seller is asking for with the cost of debt included within. For very recent evidence of this, see Sunderland: their owner had to basically give the club away to two idiots for almost nought, while having them give him the parachute money to pay back the debt he loaned to the club. Short sold the club in league 1,we're a premier league club where the ticket revenue isn't the main source of revenue. Take away ticket revenue and he would probably just reduce the transfer budget
  8. Wrong again. If we keep making a loss, and will keep making a loss in the future, he has to either keep taking the loss or has to sell for cheap and write some of the loss off. Like what Ellis Short did. He'll have no choice. If he asks unreasonable amounts for a club with debt, nobody will buy it off him and so it (and therefore he!) will keep making a loss. No failing business has ever had its owner keep the high business value and just tack the debt on and see a successful sale. History is replete with examples of businesses being sold for nominal sums like £1 because of how they're performing. Nothing you're saying makes sense. He's already asking for an unreasonable amount and the club is in over a 100m in debt...
  9. But if that "less revenue" is enough to mean the club makes him a loss rather than a profit, his whole reason for owning us disappears. It doesn't have to reduce his income to zero. Just enough to make us a millstone around his neck rather than a cash cow for him. Saying "but other revenue is more" is completely missing the point. Ticket revenue wouldn't be the difference between profit and loss How can you type that with a straight face? According to the latest released figures for 2017/18, we made an operating profit of £17.6m Ticket revenues were £24m So yes, on its own and without looking at anything else, ticket revenue absolutely is the difference between profit and loss for Mike Ashley. A further £28m was brought in through sponsorship, and trust me if you've got an empty stadium and nobody buying shirts then that takes a hit too. Add in further that if we go down, he looses the TV money and we'd all agree that a full stadium decreases the likelihood of relegation but to be honest to get shot of him it's a price I'd accept in a heartbeat to have my club back. In summary: Don't talk utter rot. I didn't look at the accounts Is that total profit of the club in the 2017-2018 season then? £17.6m? If we do make a loss, then the debt goes up by the way, which means the price goes up which means its even more difficult for a potential buyer. Not going wouldn't work. But even if it would work it wouldn't work. I'm just glad that we've finally agreed on things
  10. But if that "less revenue" is enough to mean the club makes him a loss rather than a profit, his whole reason for owning us disappears. It doesn't have to reduce his income to zero. Just enough to make us a millstone around his neck rather than a cash cow for him. Saying "but other revenue is more" is completely missing the point. Ticket revenue wouldn't be the difference between profit and loss How can you type that with a straight face? According to the latest released figures for 2017/18, we made an operating profit of £17.6m Ticket revenues were £24m So yes, on its own and without looking at anything else, ticket revenue absolutely is the difference between profit and loss for Mike Ashley. A further £28m was brought in through sponsorship, and trust me if you've got an empty stadium and nobody buying shirts then that takes a hit too. Add in further that if we go down, he looses the TV money and we'd all agree that a full stadium decreases the likelihood of relegation but to be honest to get shot of him it's a price I'd accept in a heartbeat to have my club back. In summary: Don't talk utter rot. I didn't look at the accounts Is that total profit of the club in the 2017-2018 season then? £17.6m? If we do make a loss, then the debt goes up by the way, which means the price goes up which means its even more difficult for a potential buyer.
  11. Mckeag had a willing buyer/consortium that fought for years buying shares. Who's doing that now? Well 3 parties have tried. Kenyon, Stavely and now BZG But willing buyers are irrelevant because we don't have a willing seller. And we don't have a willing seller because he's making a profit out of the club/your season ticket money. Stop that, and he will become a willing seller. Then the buyers have a fighting chance. Where are they all now? You mean BZG who release statements through f***ing DJ'S howay man They don't sound like a very credible buyer to me, sound like complete bullshitters This we agree on. Whole thing was total bollocks from day one. I think there are credible buyers out there though but they know full well Ashley is not a willing seller while the money keeps rolling in so we don't hear from them. Why waste their time? Was a real strange one the whole BZG thing. People aren't knocking the doors down to buy the club anymore...
  12. But if you agree that the fans and club both have things they're expected to do... then if the club stops doing its side, surely fans are justified in walking away? The obligation on fans to not turn their back is based on an assumption that the club is trying. Ofcourse the fans are justified for not going, we've just lost one of the best managers that we'll get for a very long time, a manager who with the correct backing could taken this football club forward. I've not said that fans aren't justified for staying away, what I've consistently said is that I don't think staying away will help, which I don't. If I thought giving up my season ticket for ayear would help, I could go a year without going to a game, but I don't think it will. Thats my opinion which I'm entitled too. Would you miss one game, just to see? Or is that asking a bit too much? Do I need to go and ask the other 44,999 people you expect to turn up, face to face, if they'll boycott before you do? Aye, why not do that? Fans who go to games are worse than Mike Ashley, cancerous cretins apparently, they're holding your football club back by going to games? Why not go tell them how you feel? You obviously feel very strong about it So you won't miss one game? Also, I've not actually said that the fans who go to games are worse than Ashley, or cancer etc. One day will do f*** all man!!! Other supporters have What about a half empty stadium week in week out as I mentioned above? You don't think that will affect Ashley? Its less revenue, so he would be less happy obviously. But no I don't think that would make him sell the club, ticket revenue is a small percentage of his income. It wasn't in the Championship but you still went. You just want to go to the match and that's fair enough, good luck to you. It's the pretence that I can't abide. You know full well that an empty ground in the Championship would be enormously damaging to him. You just don't care. An empty ground in the championship? Fuckinghell man, is that really what you want?
  13. Mckeag had a willing buyer/consortium that fought for years buying shares. Who's doing that now? Well 3 parties have tried. Kenyon, Stavely and now BZG But willing buyers are irrelevant because we don't have a willing seller. And we don't have a willing seller because he's making a profit out of the club/your season ticket money. Stop that, and he will become a willing seller. Then the buyers have a fighting chance. Where are they all now? You mean BZG who release statements through fucking DJ'S howay man They don't sound like a very credible buyer to me, sound like complete bullshitters
  14. But if that "less revenue" is enough to mean the club makes him a loss rather than a profit, his whole reason for owning us disappears. It doesn't have to reduce his income to zero. Just enough to make us a millstone around his neck rather than a cash cow for him. Saying "but other revenue is more" is completely missing the point. Ticket revenue wouldn't be the difference between profit and loss
  15. Mckeag had a willing buyer/consortium that fought for years buying shares. Who's doing that now?
×
×
  • Create New...