Author Topic: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.  (Read 195839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NE5

  • General Member
  • In Zumba Bumba Land
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3300 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:19:13 AM »
so he's an expert businessman but he jumped in a bought a Premiership club without first knowing if it needed debt recovery? He needs to do a review that frankly has taken so long you have to start wondering if he has reading difficulties. The same business that everyone is at great pains to assure everyone that the only way you make a profit is to spend on the pitch? (completely ignoring Doug Ellis in the process)

I wonder if ToonAmy et al remember the comments of Keegan about the support of Shepherd during his time here? I doubt it, when they compare a shop owner with a scrap metal merchant and somehow conclude the shop owner's more qualified to run a football club. Especially when he hands control of said club to a bloody lawyer.

And if you come back and say Ashley's more than a shop owner, I suggest you go back and review your own description of Fred.

No I was very young when Keegan was there. Not my fault, but no, I don't remember it.

But, to be fair, in your way, you have made a good point. Why should I trust a "Shop Owner" over a "Scrap Metal Merchant"? That is a good question.

Because the Scrap Metal Merchant became the King of the Castle, and ruled with an Iron fist (interfering with transfers, taking big dividends for doing nothihg etc), and I despise his methods, whereas the Shop Owner, is into Sports... and has no such illusions ... yet... he just wants his businesses to be successful, so therefore in the meantime I am buying into it... because so do I.

If someone takes a PLC private they also take on the responsibility, they get NO DIVIDEND, it is all on their own shoulders, and that for me will do for now...

It's true, there is no way to know ... you are right to be cautious, but I think you will find that you can stand down and chill out...
how many times....his cousin is the scrap metal merchant,fat fred and his brother made there cash in making offshore drilling rigs.
oookay...

even so, every else still stands...
he may take no dividends but he will take all profits,even as a plc the best way to boostr dividends is to be succesful.

how do you know for sure about fat freds interfering ?
how do you know ashley has "no such illusions"? and he made his money from selling clothes not from "sports".

all businessmen want their businesses to be successful.

i'm all for ashleys move,but i'm not getting carried away.......................just yet.

You don't have to get carried away. No one is asking you to do that.

But I do know that Shepherd interfered...why should you believe me? You don't have to. I am not going to try to convince you. But I know. And if you did some research, so would you.

As for Ashley, I have no proof either, sorry to dissapoint, but think about it and just be calm. IF we need to fear, we will know. There is no such reason yet.

Yes, that sounds really lame, in a world that wants proof, but do your own research, and think about it objectively. This is his Investment... why would he want it to fail?

It was the Halls investment, why would he want it to "fail"

That is, if you consider playing in 2 FA Cup Finals and europe regularly, more than every other club but 4, to be "failure".

Does this mean that the 88 clubs who have played in europe less than us have also "failed" ? Quite a number of these clubs have directors and owners who didn't want to "fail"

Could you tell us how you can guarantee us to be "successful" and pass the information onto us before all these club acquire it first ?

Did you consider us to be such "failures" when we were playing in the Champions League ?

What would you think if the club played in front of a half full stadium, like the mackems for instance, were promoted and relegated on a regular basis so often they considered survival in the top league to be "success" ?

Would you consider "anyone but Fred" [as you say] replacements such as Bob Murray, Mohammed Al Fayed, Peter Johnson, Rupert Lowe, Ken Bates, and the boards and owners of clubs over the years such as Birmingham, Portsmouth, Hearts, man City, Wolves, Villa, West Ham, Leicester, Ipswich, Derby.........for starters, the majority of these clubs who were above us for long periods during a time when we really did have s*** directors.

This, BTW, is FACT.

But don't look at the facts and ask yourself who is responsible for raising NUFC above these clubs and keeping them there, whatever you do  mackems.gif

What will you, and all the others who believe in fairies, say if in 5 years down the line, we have not matched Bobby Robsons 3 x top 5 league positions ? Will you still think replacing Shepherd with "anybody" would bring success, and Shepherd and the Halls "were holding the club back "

http://z3.invisionfree.com/NUFCforum/index.php?

"He wants what we want and goes to the games for the same reason as we do, he wants us to win for the pleasure that brings.  He wants to build the club up and put everything in place to make sure we can maintain a high position once we reach it." - mick [aka Stephensons Rocket], aug 10th 2008

"I think Keegan would be a daft option, he's been here and done the best he could." - mick, 6th March 2006

"Ashley will do something Shepherd has never ever done, he'll spend HIS own personal money on players as the club will be his." - mick 7th June 2007

I think we've done well in the last window - mick, 23 Oct 2008

any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

Offline Baggio

  • Definitely not black
  • General Member
  • Thinks NU$C are s****.
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3301 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:21:44 AM »
why has nobody denied it,for the same reason nobody has verified it perhaps.
thats my point,he's covered up so much in his time(at england aswell) that it's impossible to work out the truth.

The club trying so hard to stop the publication of the book then doing nothing to deny the contents should get people thinking, Bobby had to wait for something like 2 years to have his contract paid up while the club tried time after time to tie in the pay-off with the book yet Souness was paid up without question, think about it.
the club could have tried to stop publication for many reasons,are you saying it is 100% true and accurate because of that.

souness may have been paid up in full after having learned the lesson of haggling over robsons contract.

Why should someone come out and back Sir Bobby's opinion of events up? It's not a court of law.

If Shepherd didn't agree with anything in the book he would have come out and said so, he's not the sort to let his reputation be dragged through the mud.


Offline Mick

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3302 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:25:15 AM »
so it could be anything that was in the book ?

Do you really think that?

Usually when people try to stop the publication of a book it's because they have something to hide unless you can think of any other reasons, I can't.

Why would the club want to stop publication?
"Hello, Bobby," he once greeted his England captain, Bryan Robson.

"I'm Bryan," the skipper replied. "You're Bobby."

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3303 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:27:28 AM »
so it could be anything that was in the book ?

Do you really think that?

Usually when people try to stop the publication of a book it's because they have something to hide unless you can think of any other reasons, I can't.

Why would the club want to stop publication?
isn't that what i said..."so it could be ANYTHING that is in the book ?"

does it have to be what you suppose it to be ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline Mick

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3304 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:31:27 AM »
isn't that what i said..."so it could be ANYTHING that is in the book ?"

does it have to be what you suppose it to be ?

No it couldn't be ANYTHING in the book, why would they want to stop it if they didn't think it would hurt them?  By the way, they didn't know what was in the book anyway so it could be something which they feared but didn't go in.
"Hello, Bobby," he once greeted his England captain, Bryan Robson.

"I'm Bryan," the skipper replied. "You're Bobby."

Offline madras

  • Philosoraptor
  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3305 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:32:49 AM »
isn't that what i said..."so it could be ANYTHING that is in the book ?"

does it have to be what you suppose it to be ?

No it couldn't be ANYTHING in the book, why would they want to stop it if they didn't think it would hurt them?  By the way, they didn't know what was in the book anyway so it could be something which they feared but didn't go in.
so it could be something far worse that wasn't actually in the book ?
Bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.

Offline Mick

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3306 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:36:51 AM »
so it could be something far worse that wasn't actually in the book ?

Of course it could have been but we don't know, what I'm fairly sure of is that I've never known anybody try to stop the publication of a book unless they've had something to hide.

I also know that not a single person who is mentioned in the book has said anything in it is incorrect.
"Hello, Bobby," he once greeted his England captain, Bryan Robson.

"I'm Bryan," the skipper replied. "You're Bobby."

Offline OzzieMandias

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3307 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:37:44 AM »
isn't that what i said..."so it could be ANYTHING that is in the book ?"

does it have to be what you suppose it to be ?

No it couldn't be ANYTHING in the book, why would they want to stop it if they didn't think it would hurt them?  By the way, they didn't know what was in the book anyway so it could be something which they feared but didn't go in.
so it could be something far worse that wasn't actually in the book ?

I'm 100 per cent certain, just from knowing how these things go, that there's absolutely loads of s*** that didn't make the book -- wouldn't pass the libel lawyers, couldn't be substantiated, cast the author in a bad light too, whatever. Ghost-written football books are always the sanitised version, maybe with one or two dodgy things left in to create stories that will sell the book.

Invicta_Toon

  • Guest
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3308 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:42:14 AM »
well, shepherd was happy enough with the final edit, so I guess it wasn't what was in it after all

elbee909

  • Guest
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3309 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 09:05:07 AM »

Did you consider us to be such "failures" when we were playing in the Champions League ?


The same person(s) appointing Souness and Roeder after having appointed Robson should tell you enough about the general trajectory we were on under Shepherd.

FACT OFF, MOTHER FACTER!

Offline Mr Logic

  • Lord of the pikeys
  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3310 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 10:47:49 AM »
It is true that the Halls transformed the club as it really was in dire straits for a long time before that. The most bouyant periods during their tenure came under just two managers though, Keegan and Robson and everything imbetween and after have proven to be a rather farcical money-go-round.

To argue that Shepherd was not the major decision maker due to not being the major shareholder seems tenuous at best. Sir John had stepped back, moving further and further away as the years went by. It is concievable that Shepherd kept him updated constantly but I feel that would have been a protocol rather than needing constant confirmations of acceptance. Shepehrd was the chairman and ran the club on a day to day basis.

Douglas Shepherd possibly had far more input than people realise, having his fathers permission to speak on his behalf. That is conjecture, nothing more.

The fact remains Shepherd employed Souness and backed him with 50m, maybe thinking that would put to rights any grievances the fans felt after the sacking or Robson. When that went pear-shaped in almost record time the mouthy spokesperson of Newcastle then set about telling everyone the next appointment was the most important and he had to get it right. Roeder was appointed because Shepherd couldn't find anyone else, or wasn't willing to even entertain other possibilities. But he hardly got it right, did he?

Someone who decided to study the events at Newcastle over the last 8 years would be sure to draw the conclusion that Shepherd looked to be a bit of a liability, a loose cannon that would be as liable to shoot himself as hit the bulls-eye. That person doesn't need to be aware of Seymour, McKeag and Westwood to reach that decision, he can do it independently.

Certainly, for those that can remember and therefore see a wider period of history, there is no comparison between the fortunes of the club. It doesn't elevate Shepherd above and beyond criticism and his mistakes in such a public position deserve to be scrutinised as much as any others. Being aware of the old and the new to directly compare doesn't warrant defending Shepherd to the point where only some facts become permissible and others are completely ignored.
A life spent in fear is a life half lived.

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3311 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:13:29 PM »
"To argue that Shepherd was not the major decision maker due to not being the major shareholder seems tenuous at best."

How do you think private equity works?

How much like a private equity-run business do you think a PLC with 3 major shareholders is? The difference exists at an accountability level to the extent that investment institutions held shares. Which was what? Less than 20%.


Offline Parky

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3312 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:17:06 PM »
"To argue that Shepherd was not the major decision maker due to not being the major shareholder seems tenuous at best."

How do you think private equity works?

How much like a private equity-run business do you think a PLC with 3 major shareholders is? The difference exists at an accountability level to the extent that investment institutions held shares. Which was what? Less than 20%.



Oh no that's too simple!! Can you make it more complicated or people won't beleive it. :razz:

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3313 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:20:08 PM »
"To argue that Shepherd was not the major decision maker due to not being the major shareholder seems tenuous at best."

How do you think private equity works?

How much like a private equity-run business do you think a PLC with 3 major shareholders is? The difference exists at an accountability level to the extent that investment institutions held shares. Which was what? Less than 20%.


Oh no that's too simple!! Can you make it more complicated or people won't beleive it. :razz:

These people are clearly experts, they should understand it perfectly.

Offline Mr Logic

  • Lord of the pikeys
  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3314 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:25:25 PM »
"To argue that Shepherd was not the major decision maker due to not being the major shareholder seems tenuous at best."

How do you think private equity works?

How much like a private equity-run business do you think a PLC with 3 major shareholders is? The difference exists at an accountability level to the extent that investment institutions held shares. Which was what? Less than 20%.



I actually don't understand your post, not even sure I understand what private equity means. I'm no student of economics or business.

My statement is based on my own observations and intuitions, being that SJH wanted out and was content to allow Shepherd day to day control.

Are you arguing that SJH was still the puppet master and Shepherd a mere figurehead?
A life spent in fear is a life half lived.

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3315 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:36:36 PM »
"To argue that Shepherd was not the major decision maker due to not being the major shareholder seems tenuous at best."

How do you think private equity works?

How much like a private equity-run business do you think a PLC with 3 major shareholders is? The difference exists at an accountability level to the extent that investment institutions held shares. Which was what? Less than 20%.


I actually don't understand your post, not even sure I understand what private equity means. I'm no student of economics or business.

My statement is based on my own observations and intuitions, being that SJH wanted out and was content to allow Shepherd day to day control.

Are you arguing that SJH was still the puppet master and Shepherd a mere figurehead?

So you dont understand how equity works yet you are prepared to say how the share of equity affects how decisions are made, ie how the equity is managed? Well fair enough for admitting that.

Am i arguing he was a 'puppet master'? No.

You classify business decisions into two general areas, Operational and Strategic.

Operational decisions refer to the day to day running of the business, the selling of tickets, the official club travel, the merchandising. Shepherd will have done all that. If these operations go as planned then the value of the equity is stable.

Strategic decisions like appointing a manager affect the value of the equity, that is why the majority equity holder would have been involved as it affects his wealth. The operational stuff doesnt (or to a much smaller extent) so you dont need to be involved in those areas.

Offline Mr Logic

  • Lord of the pikeys
  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3316 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:41:40 PM »
Ok, thanks for the explanation Chez.

Taking that on board it would seem Freddy doesn't really deserved to be pilloried for anything then as the appointment of Souness, for example, would ultimately not have been his decision?

I must try to remember not to comment on things I don't truly understand. Which may actually mean I never comment on anything again. :(

:D
A life spent in fear is a life half lived.

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3317 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 12:47:29 PM »
Ok, thanks for the explanation Chez.

Taking that on board it would seem Freddy doesn't really deserved to be pilloried for anything then as the appointment of Souness, for example, would ultimately not have been his decision?
I must try to remember not to comment on things I don't truly understand. Which may actually mean I never comment on anything again. :(

:D

Not quite saying that, just arguing against the idea that the Halls had nothing to do with it.

"Hey John, just about to f*** about with £60m of your money, interested in whats happening?"

"Nah, Fred you go ahead and just let me know what you decide."

Aye, right.

Invicta_Toon

  • Guest
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3318 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 01:48:07 PM »
who's Douglass Shepherd anyway?

Offline NE5

  • General Member
  • In Zumba Bumba Land
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3319 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 02:03:39 PM »

Did you consider us to be such "failures" when we were playing in the Champions League ?


The same person(s) appointing Souness and Roeder after having appointed Robson should tell you enough about the general trajectory we were on under Shepherd.

FACT OFF, MOTHER FACTER!

As in major shareholders ? Unless you also foolishly think they idly stand by and allow someone else to run the multi million pound company where they have the biggest stake  mackems.gif
http://z3.invisionfree.com/NUFCforum/index.php?

"He wants what we want and goes to the games for the same reason as we do, he wants us to win for the pleasure that brings.  He wants to build the club up and put everything in place to make sure we can maintain a high position once we reach it." - mick [aka Stephensons Rocket], aug 10th 2008

"I think Keegan would be a daft option, he's been here and done the best he could." - mick, 6th March 2006

"Ashley will do something Shepherd has never ever done, he'll spend HIS own personal money on players as the club will be his." - mick 7th June 2007

I think we've done well in the last window - mick, 23 Oct 2008

any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

Offline NE5

  • General Member
  • In Zumba Bumba Land
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3320 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 02:08:43 PM »
Ok, thanks for the explanation Chez.

Taking that on board it would seem Freddy doesn't really deserved to be pilloried for anything then as the appointment of Souness, for example, would ultimately not have been his decision?
I must try to remember not to comment on things I don't truly understand. Which may actually mean I never comment on anything again. :(

:D

Not quite saying that, just arguing against the idea that the Halls had nothing to do with it.

"Hey John, just about to f*** about with £60m of your money, interested in whats happening?"

"Nah, Fred you go ahead and just let me know what you decide."

Aye, right.

Very well put. The more simple minded [not Gypsy King who in fact appears to be more level headed and sensible than most] should be able to understand that fairly well now.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/NUFCforum/index.php?

"He wants what we want and goes to the games for the same reason as we do, he wants us to win for the pleasure that brings.  He wants to build the club up and put everything in place to make sure we can maintain a high position once we reach it." - mick [aka Stephensons Rocket], aug 10th 2008

"I think Keegan would be a daft option, he's been here and done the best he could." - mick, 6th March 2006

"Ashley will do something Shepherd has never ever done, he'll spend HIS own personal money on players as the club will be his." - mick 7th June 2007

I think we've done well in the last window - mick, 23 Oct 2008

any individual or group resourceful enough to raise the £100 million plus that would be needed today to take over the club is likely also to be intelligent and resourceful enough to make a better fist of it than the current board - ozzie mandiarse 24th Oct 2006

alex

  • Guest
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3321 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 02:16:49 PM »
It would actually be quite interesting to know (doubt we ever will though) how much of what has happened in recent years was down to Shepherd and / or the Halls, with the latter being strongly rumoured to be the ones behind Robson going (perhaps backed-up by Douglas Hall's subsequent comments). Not saying Shepherd is without blame in some of the more 'interesting' goings in of recent years but he may have been the fall guy at times too.

Offline ChezGiven

  • General Member
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3322 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 02:29:55 PM »
We'll never know for sure alex but the idea that the Halls didnt influence all the major decisions at the club seems way out to me. To put it mildly. 

sicko2ndbest

  • Guest
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3323 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 05:04:00 PM »
Big Sam saying on SSN that basically while the takeover is good the new owners are causing him to miss out on targets because of their reluctancy to release funds until internal inquiry is over!

 :(

Invicta_Toon

  • Guest
Re: Ashley now owns NUFC - 93.19% shares gained.
« Reply #3324 on: Monday 16 July 2007, 05:06:00 PM »
Big Sam saying on SSN that basically while the takeover is good the new owners are causing him to miss out on targets because of their reluctancy to release funds until internal inquiry is over!

 :(

he didn't say that, he said failure to move quickly. he has funds