Again, all I’m saying is that your dictionary has different definitions for words than the one I have. Under no interpretation of any aspect of Cashley’s trusteeship has Cashley got anything other than below average as a mark.
no I think you've misunderstood tbh he's done well in the sense I said he has.. I never said anything about anything else
You mean the bit where Rafa approached us. Then Cashley bankrolled us to gain promotion to then hamstring the manager again for two years before the manager left because the owner didn’t share his ambitions. ?
You said “just looking at the bottom line... he bought a debt ridden club on the brink of being the next Leeds, rode it out , avoided selling to people that couldn't take the club fwd and finally sold us to a group that will make us the next PSG . I hate to admit it ,but that's a cracking job .” 1. We were a debt ridden Club. Nothing to do with Ashley. 2. We are still a debt ridden Club. All to do with Ashley. 3. We weren’t a Leeds. 4. Sold us to the first people prepared to pay his price. 5. Showed no ambition in the intervening 13 years except to get in and stay in the PL with the least amount of money spent as possible. Nope, still can’t see where the “cracking job” is.
Still no. He didn’t avoid selling the Club. Others avoided buying the Club. Big difference. And “the cracking job”. Just no. other than that you’re 100% right.
my point is irrefutable mate. all your separate arguments are debatable anyway, but I'm not looking at anything other than the bottom line... all the other stuffs moot in terms of the point I'm trying to make ..
irrefutable /ɪˈrɛfjʊtəb(ə)l,ˌɪrɪˈfjuːtəb(ə)l/ Learn to pronounce adjective impossible to deny or disprove. "irrefutable evidence" Nah, you’re wrong, irrefutably.
1. I said he bought a debt ridden club... he did 2. I never said anything about that 3. I said on the verge of being the next Leeds 4.you don't know that 5.I never said otherwise I hope that's all the information you need lol
Yep, I got that. But still falling short on that old “cracking” job conclusion you managed to jump to.
It's the context of my point you've missed mate.. I'm looking merely at the ultimate outcome... all the but in the middle doesn't matter I'm that argument . I'm still of the opinion his tenure was awful.
We were overly debt ridden. Ashley bought us without knowing that. He protected his asset by not causing the club to default on its loans. He managed revenue streams poorly. He oversaw 2 relegations and a general decline in the club's standing. He has managed the sale of the club clumsily though it looks like he has ultimately succeded. I have a hard time marking that above a C-
The above is based solely on business considerations. On a football related analysis, he would come out worse.
