The thing is nobody can claim it's been a financial "success", which is why the comments are so irksome. Shepherd initially, early to mid 90's, did a decent initial job, mainly thanks to Hall, but as time wore on it became clear Shepherd was utterly clueless and driving the club towards disaster. Ashley acting responsibly with a balance sheet for a business HE owns is a bare minimum, it's like saying a player's done a great job because he put his boots on and remembered which team he was on. That Shepherd wasn't even capable of the bare minimum in the end is an indictment of him, not a means by which to praise Ashley. The mis-management of the club may have helped us in the end. Not the finances. The fact we probably should have been worth double or more what he sold it for may be the thing that got us sold. I mean, he paid £134m and in 14 years, when Spurs value went up about 10x, when Man City went from £80m to a £4bn global brand, he managed to sell the club for about £180m. He increased the value barely in line with inflation. He was ****ing dreadful.
You still not getting that if we had continued under FFS we would be a league 1 team. End of discussion
That's not the point. The point made was he did a good job, financially, for this club. He didn't. He did "better than Shepherd". If that was the original point, I'd have agreed. End of discussion.
Here's one of many quotes claiming he did a good job (financially): "he ran the club well financially and that's helped sell the club or at least helped It's also why they can spend a bit more right off the bat." It's madness. If it had been run well financially we'd have been a) worth a lot more, b) already have a lot more to spend off the bat, c) have a higher/healthier turnover and a more valuable squad, d) a competent set-up, e) facilities that are better than League One standard, and so on and so forth. You can't just say Ashley did well, financially, then ignore all of the disastrous financial mistakes he made, just because he's richer than Shepherd and better at EBITDA!!! We still borrowed (from him), but we cut every cost rather than improve revenues elsewhere. We wouldn't even spend money that was guaranteed - Shepherd was doing the age-old mistake of borrowing against potential earnings (requiring CL football, etc.). Ashley was infinitely more sensible, but to the clubs detriment because we were waiting on Sky TV payments and wouldn't spend til it was actually in the bank. It hurt our advancement for years. He was a disaster, financially, but was better than Shepherd purely because he could lend from MASH Holding/Sports Direct, wouldn't use banks and knew what a balance sheet was.
Agreed although ou can definitely say he did a great job in making sure the debt was transferred to himself and the wage structure was reigned in and stuck to religiously likely saving the club but this is just one area, if you focus on how far the club fell behind in revenue to comparable clubs when he first took over he really didn't do a good job as we stagnated and even declined if I remember correctly, he also got cheap or even free advertising for sports dorevt limiting our options during his time. In conclusion everyone is correct to an extent, case closed now transfers please!
The question was whether he left the club in a better financial position and he did... It was a fact. He took over a club about to go into administration and be the next Leeds and turned into a business that made profits most years. What you've posted is whataboutery. Again up tell you like the others still licking their wounds that I am not saying everything he did was good....far from it
Better financial position than when he took over yes. The infrastructure and stadium and bogs better - no- far worse due to neglect. Having the club maximising all of it's revenue streams - no. We were ahead of Spurs when Ashley came in revenue-wise... when he left they were light years ahead of us. That's a perfect example of mismanagement.
You lot are all on a cocktail of drugs if you believe he saved the club from administration. All smoked the remnants of the worlds biggest crack pipe. The slug didn't do due diligence and didn't understand how football finances worked. Handcuffed the club by paying transfer fees upfront whilst receiving them on drip. Had no clue about the mortgage then paid it off himself "to look good and avoid paying interest" and then hid behind this as he raped the club.
And you lot are just so sore you'll perform all kinds of mental gymnastics rather than credit a person you want to burn at the stake for the one thing he did well. I find it easier to just say the truth because it doesn't alter the fact I don't like Mike ashley or what his product was. It doesn't matter whether he found out about the extra debt he still resolved the financial mess. Without Mike ashley we wouldn't have these owners.... Everything has happened that had to happen that's the irony you lot don't see.
No I just know once again that what I said was specific and correct. The fact is you're all arguing seperate points and that tells me you don't understand what I said in the 1st place.
Can you post on the Ashley thread if your having a discussion about him please ? To be honest it’s pages of repetition This is the transfer thread isn’t it?
Targett for £12m is a steal, great use of funds. Super reliable. Sure, he's not next-levelism but it's more than sufficient for the next year or two.
