I always knew Mike Ashley would not be in for the long haul. I’ve often said so…and I’ve always been wrong.

I always knew Mike Ashley would sell in the short-term. I’ve often said so…and I’ve always been wrong.

Ten long years of brooding, truculent ownership is longer than has ever seemed likely, but there again it’s not long since he was indicating that 2016 was the earliest he would put the club on the market. And here we are in 2017, and the club is on the market. So, in the end, errm, I was right. Wasn’t I?

Of course it’s even less time since the glorious day he appointed Rafa Benitez to be our manager. And it’s just a few months since he persuaded Rafa to stay after relegation when he made promises to our manager he failed to keep. And don’t forget there was that interview on Sky when he said he wouldn’t sell until the club had won a trophy.

But we still haven’t won a trophy, he’s reneged on his promises, and now Amanda Staveley is coming to our games, and her investment fund is entering into confidentiality agreements, and hopeful meetings are apparently being conducted.

One fact is becoming clear. Ashley, who has taken no dividends and no salary from Newcastle during his entire period of ownership, and given us the benefit of zero interest loan facilities, wants a big pay day before he leaves forever.

It would seem £380m will be enough to secure the club. That would mean a net profit of £117m for Ashley, which is not a bad return for a club currently performing well beyond its apparent potential, and a proven two-time success at getting promoted immediately after getting stupidly relegated.

And it is being quietly acknowledged that Ashley wants to sell to a buyer who is going to give Benitez a few quid to spend. I have seen the figure of £500m mentioned. That is pushing the price of our club up towards a billion. That would seem to be affordable for Ms Staveley, who is thought to have offered more than that in an unsuccessful bid to buy Liverpool.

The thing about Newcastle, though, is something that makes the club different from similar Premier League outfits. Our players aren’t worth much, our ground is not owned, there is one substantial debt owed to a single creditor, Ashley himself, which will have to be cleared, and pretty much the entire value of Newcastle United is simply what Ashley thinks it’s worth. That would be what is technically known as the goodwill of historic, grand old Newcastle United.

On that basis, I think it’s a bit of a high valuation. And almost for the first time, I am wondering if Mike Ashley really wants or intends to sell.

Sure, the fall in the value of the pound has made his business a bit less profitable. So much of his expenditure is in dollars, and most of his income is in pounds.

The collapse in profits of Sports Direct revealed in the summer means, more than ever, that Ashley has to wheel and deal and buy in neglected brands and buy existing businesses to try and generate profits. This means he needs cash. Selling Newcastle would be very useful. And famously he has said he will sell on hire purchase terms, and will not require a big chunk of money upfront. All these things suggest he really wants to sell up.

But he has said that he would want to buy another club, perhaps in the lower leagues, and bring them profits and success. And I find myself thinking of something I have often thought about Ashley.

The fundamental thing about the man is that he is a ghastly gambler. He loves nothing better than investing less money than anyone else and getting better results. This sounds to a lot of us like being a cheapskate but to him it’s a gamble.

It’s gone wrong more often than it’s gone right. And, as I’ve said, when the chips are down he DOES invest. Because he knows investing brings success.

But Ashley, in the end, wants to do things differently. Doing well in the league, doing a Leicester, would be his idea of heaven. And, frankly, I wonder if he thinks the age of the unicorn can still dawn at St James Park.

Putting the club on the market takes the heat off. The fans are no longer calling on him to sell, because he is trying to sell.

And Benitez is suddenly saying things like the better the team does the easier it will be for Ashley to sell the club. Already we are no longer looking at Ashley. We are looking at the league table. We are ahead of Liverpool. We could qualify for Europe.

Ashley will sell on his own terms. He wants a price that is too high. I wouldn’t bet on him being offered it. He is bloody-minded enough to stick to his guns. And obstinate enough not to sell after all.

He might decide that the wheel, at Newcastle, even at this stage, so soon after relegation and with a mediocre squad, is actually in the process of being reinvented.

As the author of this particular new wheel, he might want to hang around to see it revolve.

To feature like Wiz submit your article to [email protected] and/or for more info go here



  • TwinFire

    I’m still leaning towards the idea that this is a ploy to avoid investing in our squad this January. He wont get the high asking price he wants, he sees the team finishing mid table now, he sees no reason to put more money in until the summer.

    • Oooh bobbi fleckman

      The club will be in receipt of PL payments by January, he’d not need to put more money in. The problem the club had in the summer is that the financial hangover from the Championship had kicked in without the money flow from the EPL.

      • TwinFire

        Cashley’s leaving bonus then

        • Oooh bobbi fleckman

          No, that stays in the business .

      • HarryHype59

        True, but he was responsible for this situation. Getting relegated again cost us in the region of £70m in lost TV money. He set a wage if which was 16th in the EPL and gambled on us not going down! The gamble failed, resulting in a loss of £70 min.

        • Oooh bobbi fleckman

          As it happens the resulting loss will not be 70m but the lost revenue will be around that much lost. However, that is reflected in the share price he receives.

          • HarryHype59

            Last season Watford finished fourth last in the EPL and picked up £109m. Newcastle received £41m parachute money…case closed.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            As I said, lost revenue, not profit.

          • HarryHype59

            £70m lost revenue is a massive indictment of Ashley’s regime! If he had any morality he should reduce his asking price by £70m!

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            The money in his pocket will be around £50m – £70m lower than it would had we stopped up.

            Look at it this way, you have a house for sale. It’s worth around £450k, but you find that there is a serious problem that needs addressing and if you don’t, it may be worthless. It costs you £15k (which you borrow) to sort that problem and the fact you had the work done has put buyers off a little so the value itself is down to £400k. When the sale goes through, instead of receiving £450k, you receive £400k and have to repay the loan of £15k so you only come out of it with £385k not £450k.

            That’s where MA will be.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Had we not gone down, the debt to MA (or associated business) would be £15m lower so, assuming the asking price is £400m, he’d have lost £15m

          • HarryHype59

            Pedant, it was a Loss of £70m in income which has massive negative implications as you well know!

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Lost income is a problem but it forced us to address wages and MA had to find £15M to get through it.

            Your logic that he should lose twice is silly

      • HarryHype59

        Actually, he received a £38m ” lumper” in July and has been getting monthly payments since then.

        He will receive a larger sum in January and continue to receive the monthly payments until the end of the season, when the performance money based on final positions is paid!

        • Oooh bobbi fleckman

          He? You mean the club?

  • Dutch

    Put it this way. If he does not sell or refuses to put money in at the window he will definatley see Rafa walk out. Rafa is employable anywhere and Ashley would be back in the Championship. It’s in his own interest to keep to his word.

    • Peaky Magpie

      Perfectly put.

    • Geordiegiants

      Rafa will not walk.

  • Soldier

    He`ll sell ok, if the price is right

    • Oooh bobbi fleckman

      Of course, like anyone would.

  • Guest 2

    Why does Ashley give a chuff about new owners investing in new players? He certainly never did!
    None of the ‘debt’ owed to him was accrued by buying players.

    • TwinFire

      thats one of the reasons i think hes lying about this – saying he wants someone to invest in players, because he has no intention to this January, and hell use the ‘failure’ to sell as his excuse.

    • Oooh bobbi fleckman

      It was, some £40m was unpaid transfer fees. The near £90m annual bill in salaries (2007) was the most contributory factor to the annual losses he had to cover, the VAT case was all down to agent payments, I can’t remember the cost for that but £5m springs to mind.

    • Wiz

      He might remain a shareholder.

      • Guest 2

        Ask yourself, who would willingly enter into a partnership with him? Anyone doing full due diligence will be more than aware of the toxicity he brings to the club, and his way of doing business.

  • Coble’s Return

    I don’t get the line that this is all a smoke-screen to ensure that Ashley can get away without investment in the playing squad in January. If Ashley doesn’t want to invest (which is often the case) he doesn’t invest. I have made the point before that the club is at a point now where the stars are aligned to maximise the return in the event of a sale and that this will quickly change if January elapses with neither a sale having been completed nor investment in the squad.

    • X,WHY,Y MAN.

      I get what your saying but one reason could be to keep Rafa dangling with the carrot of might be a sale.
      He could even spin it through January and beyond with Rafa not wanting to leave the club in the lurch so he stays until the end of the season.
      If he keeps them up then Ashley has kidded his way through another season.

      Conspiracy stuff for sure but I wouldn’t put it past him !

  • Wor Monga

    He won’t get an offer of what he thinks it’s worth, but he will get an offer of what it’s really worth plus enough to cover what he’s owed, and he’d be a bigger fool than we give him credit for, to refuse it…in real terms the club he paid too much for all those years ago hasn’t actually doubled in value…

    …simply because so much now hinges on Rafa, and the team he has created staying together to ensure stability, and stay solidly in the PL on a more permanent basis…lose him with the likelihood of losing the team spirit, the great support, and face the risk of relegation possibly for several seasons, which would see the value of the club drop drastically because nobody with any real clout will want to buy it…

    …No…He’ll probably get offers approaching £350m which is a realistic amount, and a bit too good to refuse…seeing as the alternative is to start paying the bulk of the club’sTV earnings into Rafa’s transfer funds starting in January…or be looking for a new manager to take on a club that is rapidly going down the gurgler both in value, and league status

    once again!!!

    • Wiz

      I largely agree. He will do another stupid, pointless gamble. He will think to himself: if I wait, will I get more, or much less?

  • Monkseaton Magpies

    Think he will sell for somewhere in the region of £150m to £200m that’s the range
    he will be looking for and not far off what it is worth. Once the sale goes through there are outstanding liabilities to pay the main one being to himself of £144m.
    The terms of the repayment of this interest free loan can be negotiated say over five years which would suit both parties. The new owners then could do a commercial deal with third parties to inject money into the club to buy players in a similar way Man City or Chelsea do.

    • Geordiegiants

      He isn’t going to give up his adverting and commercial deals easily. It’s all part of his plan.
      Anyway, a serious question, are you a real person or are you a stooge from the mag?
      I know this post isn’t controversial, but I’m not sure you are a serious contributor. I think you are a here to try and drive up debate?

      • Monkseaton Magpies

        Thanks for asking in a non hostile mood unlike many others much appreciated. I am currently on 491 points for the away loyalty scheme which means I have been to four hundred and ninety one away games since the system started and probably double that in total. I know I am in the top fifteen supporters of the club not that it matters. Take care and keep on following the team have a great post ready for when Ashley leaves which tells what it was like in the old days when I grew up.

        • Geordiegiants

          It’s your opinion and at the end of the day that’s all that matters, but I’m very sad that such a supporter thinks that the tens years have been among the best with this chairman. I wonder how you come to that conclusion when we have been asset stripped and have been relegated twice. The 40/50 years before hand weren’t that bad according to the history books.

          • Monkseaton Magpies

            When I started going to matches there was round thirty in our group in the mid seventies then it went to ten and then two and guess what then one no one would go crowds for a decade were low lost all my mates now they all back again like rats out of a sewer our average crowd fell as low as sixteen thousand very hard days indeed remember one match where I had a row to myself so you lads do not know what it was like in crowds of seven thousand in the pouring rain with no roof.

          • Geordiegiants

            I do in the eighties it was the same. Never the less, even Mckeag didn’t asset strip. He rinsed the club of all income, but there wasnt anything to asset strip. Jabba has stripped us and rinsed us, and relegated us TWICE!

          • Toon fan

            I was there. Wrexham

          • Monkseaton Magpies

            Well done there were two games against Wrexham the first one got called off at half time when the keeper took a goal kick and it went out for a corner the wind and rain were that bad they took the buses and trains off and had to ring for a lift home.

          • Monkseaton Magpies

            In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s we spent six years in a row in the second division so a lot worse yes.

          • Geordiegiants

            Howare is that it?

        • Jonnyfandango

          top 15! what a terrible thing to say. I’m in the top w5 loudest singers at the ground. not that it matters.

    • Oooh bobbi fleckman

      If you mean the shares, the minimum he’s taking is around £220m.

      If the new owners have to pay his loans off in installments, we should be very afraid as we have to ask where those installments come from. If the new owners can;t afford to pay him off there are two choices.

      Pay in installments from profit – i.e. money is not going to be available for transfers.

      The installments are to be borrowed from other lenders on the basis of the income generated / all the money is borrowed from other lenders to pay the debt, this is effectively paying of a creditor who will not put the company at risk by borrowing from someone who will.

      this may sound a little ‘careful what you wish for’ but this takeover may not be all it’s cracked up to be.

      • Monkseaton Magpies

        I think the press are getting this all wrong when quoting the valuation of the club and what an interested party would be willing to pay. There are two transactions to consider possibly more. The first is the price to be paid to secure the ownership of the club. The second is now that you own the club paying Mike Ashley his interest free loan back which I believe now stands at £144m do you agree.

        • Oooh bobbi fleckman

          Yes, the £400m quoted is the amount needed for Mike Ashley to walk away. If it’s £400m, that’s £144m for the loans and £266m for the shares.

          I know you’re not suggesting this but it has been suggested elsewhere – I can’t see the loan being negotiable. Time to pay? yes but there is no incentive to write it off. The reason, the loan is repayable tax free, shares have a potential CGT liability.

          The purchase price will be £111m to pay the loan to MA, £33m to pay the loan to SJ holdings and balance for the shares.

          As I say, If a new buyer is asking to pay over time, I’d be concerned as to why? If it’s just cashflow, fine but if Mike Ashley / SJ Holdings is lending at interest free to his own company, that is understandable, lending to a 3rd party is different. Moreover, how is the money to repay being generated? If the money is being generated from the club’s activities, that’s coming out of the pot which would be for transfers, wages and running the club.

          As it happens, I think the staged payments is a red herring designed to hurry the process along and if the new bidder is from the Middle East, cash will not be a problem.

  • Martin Mcghee

    Think you should check the balance sheet for the end of June 2017, Ashley took £33m out of the club last Xmas (2016) and then loaned £18m back to NUFC to cover costs? That to me is a divended and reported via the mag…

    • Oooh bobbi fleckman

      NO, there isn’t a balance sheet yet for June 2017. In December 2016 St James Holdings (a company that is owned 100% by Mike Ashley) lent the club £33m and the previous loan of £18m due on demand in favour of Mike Ashley was repaid.

      The net outcome was that MIke AShley (or companies owned 100% by Mike Ashley) introduced an additional £15m to the company.

      This in turn makes the balance sheet appear a little stronger.

      • HarryHype59

        Pray tell, why he needed to loan the club money? Could it be something to do with a £70m TV revenue shortfall due to his regime contriving to get us relegated again!

        • Oooh bobbi fleckman

          Yes, that is right. We had costs and someone had to lend us the money.

          • cmrowley

            We had costs and someone had to lend us the money?

            Who is the we in this situation? and who is the someone?

            Would the sentence not better read as follows;

            Newcastle United had costs and the owner of Newcastle United had to pay those costs.

            Where does lending anything come into it?

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            The ‘we’ is NUFC , the club we feel part of. I’d love it if the ‘we’ extended to ownership, i.e. we as fans actually bought the share and ‘we’ take responsibility rather than constantly blame someone else for not spending someone else’s money.

            NUFC could have got finance externally, it certainly used to be the way that any extra money came from anyone but the major shareholders.

          • cmrowley

            So what you’re saying in effect is that “we” – you, me, the other NUFC fans, Shearer, Ant & Dec, Jimmy Nail et all, accumulated costs (!!??) by Mike Ashley’s club being relegated and Mike Ashley has generously loaned “us” the money to cover those costs, but he wants it back?

            Does that not seem somewhat disingenuous? Is Mike Ashley the owner of the club? The costs associated with running anything you own are your costs are they not?

            Would you agree that if you own something and it has costs associated with owning it or repairing it after damaging it these are your costs?

            If you bought a car for £220 million and it turns out you damaged it and it costs £18 million to repair and restore it to it’s prior condition, is the car now worth £238 million?

            I know it’s a tax issue and a loan from a separate trading entity, but the entities are both owned by Mike Ashley, he’s loaning money to himself, to cover operating losses born by his incompetence in running the companies, and expecting to recoup all of it.

            “We” don’t have any responsibility for the costs, just as “we” don’t have any say on the expenditure.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            I was going off at a bit of a tangent, my big thing is that if fans want rid of Mike Ashley, they should club together and buy him out, hence the ‘take responsibility’ comment.

            However, you are right with your analogy. Perhaps go back a bit, He bought a classic car for £131m and found it to be riddled with problems and still had finance on it so had to spend £129m to get it roadworthy and free of finance. He made a few mistakes over the years and yes, he’s had to spend another £15m to get it into good condition.

            Luckily, this classic car market has grown and got quite heated. A good condition classic like this one is now valued around £400m-450m. Similar but slightly more sought after examples are valued in the billions whilst you can pick up some classics which have perhaps more potential in West Yorkshire, they need loads of work.

            My point here is perhaps the same as yours, the value of the thing is the market value, irrespective of how much has been spent on it.

  • Gallowgate Dave

    Can someone answer me a question? The article states Ashley doesn’t own the ground, does that mean he doesn’t own the lease (presumably owned by the council?) or does it actually mean the entire ground?

    • MichaelMaximusMoose

      Leazes is the guy to answer that one, when he`s back from holiday
      😂😂😂

      • Andy Mac

        The stadium, infrastructure etc are all owned by the club. The land it all sits on is leased from the council

        • Geordiegiants

          I think that’s about right. Fleckman will probably be able to confirm that.

          • joolzyoungman07

            According to The Guardian, after relegation in 2009 Barclays took ownership of St James as a guarantee against our unsecured debts. I suspect this is what the author refers to – what I don’t know is whether the club ever regained ownership

          • Geordiegiants

            Obviously! Jabba payed it off and made out he was doing us a huge favour. Then just put the debt back to him, but without so called interest. 10 free years of advertising. Not just pitch side, but every single spare inch of space he could get toxic logo on. I wonder what that would of cost?

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Stadium advertising typically is around 25% of a clubs sponsorship deal. So, around £2m but the club still advertises non- Sports Direct brands so closer to £1m a year.

          • Geordiegiants

            We aye! 1million???? Even your not that silly.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            That’s the amount we miss out on as a club.

            Some idiot (I think it was Leazes Ender) suggested the advertising revenue would be £25m. IF the club can generate £25m extra a year, Mike Ashley would need a proverbial smelly stick to beat off buyers at £400m, I’d re-mortgage heaven and earth to buy a club that generates a profit of £40m + £25m a year.

          • Geordiegiants

            Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.
            His tat is on every single little thing imanginable to advertise. £1m your just being absolutely ridiculous. So you are telling me that MRF aren’t paying more than £1m a year?

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            I don’t know how much mrf are paying but that’s not the point. If you look at clubs perimeter advertising income in relation to their shirt deals (main sponsor) it’s pretty consistent at 25pc. Sports Direct take about 1/3 of that advertising so do the sums.

            If you really think the club can get an extra £20m a year by selling the space elsewhere, it would make the club far more valuable than £400m

          • Geordiegiants

            You even sound like Ashley, I don’t think many think that the jumble sales pitch side advertising is £20m a season. You are grossly over estimating fans expectation of the cost, and grossly under estimating the advertising’s worth.
            Your just being ridiculous, and MRF’s cost is relevant, and I’ll bet you a fiver it’s more than £1m a year.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            It may be £1 m but that’s not my point, based on past performance, the pitch side advertising earns around 1/4 of the shirt sponsor. That’s not set in stone, it doesn’t go up with a sleeve sponsor, in reality, a sleeve sponsor will dilute the value of pitch side advertising.

            What do you estimate the value of all perimeter advertising at nufc to be?

          • Geordiegiants

            I know the Jumble sale adverting is a lot more than just pitch side, and I know that £1m a year is a ridiculous estimate. MRF is relevant as you are trying to say that MRF and the tat shop would be paying around the same.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Yes, there is more than just pitchside but the valuable advertising space is the adverting that gets TV exposure.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            £1m is based on other similar businesses. The sports direct advertising on the upper roof line and on the outside of the stadium is not worth a lot of money in the scheme of things.the value is for the TV cameras. A side issue is sjp is a bit rubbish for advertising. The levels aren’t faced with space for advertising and the TV gantry is facing the stand with the least advertising space available.

          • Geordiegiants

            There is not a single shot of Newcastle on tv, wether that be live matches or news (local or international) without his toxic advertising in on the picture.
            That is worth millions, not 1 million.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Come off it fella, Sports Direct / Cruise Flannels / Firetrap get a 1 in 4 chance of appearing on screen.

          • Geordiegiants

            You are taking the pee now.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Well, if you are right, the advertising space available at Nufc must be worth millions and Mike Ashley should increase the price of the club as the new owner will access a veritable goldmine.

          • Geordiegiants

            It is worth millions, and the club is up for sale for probably more than it’s worth anyway.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            You can’t have it both ways, either the club is over-priced or its missing out on easy income streams that will be maximised by new owners.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Don’t believe all you read in the Guardian….scrap that, it’s the Guardian, don’t believe any of it.

            Barclays had a charges over the Stadium from 1999, these were released in 2007 and 2009 but Barclays then took a floating charge over the IP, this was similar to the charge RBS had at Liverpool and used it to effectively remove Hicks and Gillette. It was simply to cover the overdraft facility.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            Yes, that is right, it’s leased from the council and the freemen of the city. I believe there covenant (not the best word to use, I know) which will restrict it’s use for anything else so if a new owner fancies building something new, they will not be able to get anything financially significant from SJP.

            I’m surprised MA hasn’t at least tried to buy the lease but I suspect the Freeman of the city would never allow it.

          • Geordiegiants

            I would certainly hope not. Especially to a maniac like that!

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            The problem is that nearly every new football ground has been part-financed by the sale of the old one. There will never be a 65,000 all-seated stadium on the St James Park site unless Leazes Terrace is somehow moved so to expand, NUFC has to move. Whilst the site is owned by the council and freemen, this is a problem for NUFC WHOEVER is the owner.

          • Geordiegiants

            No it’s not, it could be extended over strawberry way, just look at the Milburn.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            The Milburn does not go over a two way main road with access to an important hospital. It’s also not dependent on piling that go through or sit on a subterranean railway.

            The leazes end has a capacity that is less than 2,000 extra seats over that of the Gallowgate. The cost of expanding the Gallowgate was more than that of the Leazes and Milburn combined – Best estimate is £200m for 2,000 seats. Is it really a good idea to build 2,000 of the worst seats in the house which would take 181 years to repay at the current ST price?

            More seats can be fitted in the corner but if you study the problem, the corner is bang over the changeover tunnel of the Metro. The club cannot drive pilings into the corner to support a massive canterlever stand, take a look at the drop of Barrack road from the Leazes to Gallowgate

            To add Corportate Hospitality on the Gallowgate and around 1,000 seats, it’s closer to £25m. That would leave a symetrical SJP and more corporate income

          • Geordiegiants

            It could be done though never the less.

          • Oooh bobbi fleckman

            In civil engineering, it seems nearly anything can be done, it just comes down to price and time.

            With stadiums, there is always a dis-economy of scale after an optimal point. If i was choosing a seat at SJP, I’d be choosing around 10 rows back in the east stand or the West Stand which give the best view and funnily enough, the club charge more for those seats and even better, they are amongst the cheapest to build being (on the west) just a seat bolted to the old west terrace or on the east, front row of the old east stand 2nd tier. The worst seats are currently at the back of the Leazes / west corner in L7, the worst view and by far the most expensive to build. If the Gallowgate was built on, the worst seats would be at the back towards the old corner, not scoreboard (one for the dads ;-) ) and these would cost seven times as much per seat than L7 Leazes corner.

            For 2,000 seats, a capacity of 54,000 and the cost is not worth it. as it happens, the most scope for more seats is in the corner of the Gallowgate / west and it the club could knock down my great great great uncle’s house on St James st, the Gallowgate / east corner could offer another 2,00 seats but both those options are unlikely because of the Metro.

            If the club see a business case for a 60,000 seat stadium, they would be better off building from scratch

        • Gallowgate Dave

          The article paints that as a negative but I’d trust the council to look after our interests more than a private owner so I see it as a good thing in terms of checks and balances the club (Ashley) doesn’t own the lease. The council wouldn’t risk losing the votes by doing something detrimental to the club whereas there are lots of examples of private owners (and this isn’t necessarily just a dig at Ashley) exploiting fans love of football for their own ends.

  • steve pearce

    The Fat Stinking Bag Of Southern Pus is selling our club so get that into your head. Because you have heard nothing since the announcement doesn’t mean he’s not selling it means the deal is being done. Now here’s one for you Diz – Alan Shearer has been absent from MOTD for some time as I think he’s involved in the sales process and may even become our new Chairman as I couldn’t think of anyone better placed to ensure that our heritage is respected and our fans interests are well looked after. So go and have a nice lie down and divvn’t worry your heed…..

    • TwinFire

      Pretty sure hes on holiday in Dubai

    • Wiz

      Involved in the sale process???!!!!

    • Oooh bobbi fleckman

      Jesus Christ, you do make stuff up. Shearer’s not going to be the chairman, what experience has he got of running a business of any sort?

      The deals are being put together, things will be quiet for a few weeks but forget romantic notions of Shearer somehow caring for the heritage or fans’ interests being looked after.

    • cmrowley

      Jeezus man, S T F U.

  • NUFCLX

    If he does not sell this year we will just have to wait and see what happens after he takes it off the market at the end of Jan window and puts it back on the market next August.
    Learn the lessons from the past. I struggle to think of a true statement this man has ever made. I, for one will not believe in any takeover until it is signed, sealed and delivered. Would love the fat bar steward to prove me wrong.

  • Martin Rooney

    He’s a lot cleverer than most take him for, unfortunately we have a schizoid set of fans on forums, schizoid local press, and gullible imbeciles lapping it up. Ashley will sell when it suits him, over the last few weeks he has had the line ‘Mike Ashley NUFC owner and sports direct tycoon’ splashed all over the papers. Amanda Staveley (whose parents live 45bmiles from SJP and whose husband is a liverpool fan) similarly has had the line ‘ Staveley od PCP partners who have £28bn under mamangement…and brokered the man city deal for Mansour’ all over the international media. Both have had their stocks in the news reaping the benefit at the expense of the numpties on Tyneside.
    Sad really

    • anyobrien

      Not me or many of my season ticket holding mates…. We know the score.

      • hetonmag

        I think loads of fans know after 10 years of Ashley’s lies and deceit exactly what he’s about, but while this is in the offing at least we have something to cling onto.

  • MichaelMaximusMoose

    The Fat Lads testing the water to see whats out there, He changes his mind at the drop of a hat so don`t bet on him leaving

  • anyobrien

    He’ll blow it and stich us up yet again.. Blokes a [email protected]

  • HarryHype59

    There is an article in the NEC that values the club around £280m based on different accounting methods. Ashley’s £380m asking price is, to use Chronicle parlance,

    ” wide of the mark”

  • HarryHype59

    There is an article in the NEC that values the club around £280m. Ashley’s £380m is too high!

  • Yemzzy Ad Sr

    The writer has sussed Ashley out very well….. I can’t wait to see the back of him.
    If he’s still here by January…. he’s obviously playing mind games…🙄🙄

  • steve pearce

    Hmmmmm – there are ways and means of ensuring our sale.

    There are reports that Carlos “The Jackal” is not dead and has been seen drinking in The Strawberry and studying photos of our owner….