Five comparisons.

[ex_pat_magpie]

It would be interesting comparing five things.

1) The amount of debt under Sir John against the amount of debt now under Assley.

2) The amount of investment under Sir John against the amount of investment under Assley.

3) The quality of the squad under Sir John against the quality of the squad under Assley.

4) The satisfaction of the supporters under Sir John against that of Assley.

5) The general success of the club under Sir John against that of Assley.

[Geordie_Jacko]

It would be interesting comparing five things.

1) The amount of debt under Sir John against the amount of debt now under Assley.

2) The amount of investment under Sir John against the amount of investment under Assley.

3) The quality of the squad under Sir John against the quality of the squad under Assley.

4) The satisfaction of the supporters under Sir John against that of Assley.

5) The general success of the club under Sir John against that of Assley.

Yeah be nice to know bit take a bit of working out like. I thought you spelt his name wrong at first then saw the other 4 😂

[ex_pat_magpie]

Yeah be nice to know bit take a bit of working out like. I thought you spelt his name wrong at first then saw the other 4 ��

Just thought it looked a bit more apt like that. Or even the family may have changed it by deed pole a few generations ago not knowing he was going to come along and make it suitably descriptive.

[toonfalifekevbrown]

60 million of the debt was for the stadium under hall

[ghostrider]

It would be interesting comparing five things.

1) The amount of debt under Sir John against the amount of debt now under Assley.

It's not quite as cut and dried as to compare them both because the basic set up has dramatically changed due to ramped up TV rights and also a massive influx of money no object owners who were willing to bankroll their clubs under a more or less hobbyist kind of stance....but let's give it a bash anyway.

The difference between Sir John Hall and co's debt against the so called debt the club has... is, it is in-house under Ashley so actually isn't an external debt as such that can affect the club's ability to run.
Under Hall and co the debt was owed to the banks and also drip payments to other clubs for players which Sir John Hall and co could not sustain and were reliant on a sale in short order or face the collapse..

A massive difference when you consider the club's health and future hinging on a sale, where one group (Hall and co) could not sustain the push and the other owner (Ashley) being well able to sustain the push and under no obligation to sell or die a death stance that Hall and co basically fell under.

2) The amount of investment under Sir John against the amount of investment under Assley.

Sir John Hall has to be massively lauded for having the guts to revamp the stadium and bankroll a manager he believed could gain success.
He had a good old go but failed after at least giving us all arguably the best footballing enjoyment of many of our lives.
As for Ashley. I'd say he took a big gamble on buying the club with its hidden debts, whether people want to believe it or not.
He invested a lot of money to get the club moving again after it started to fall apart with a lot of overpaid mercenaries inherited but also an attempt to rectify it all by sanctioning signings like Colo and the likes...as well as a lot of flair players, some of who turned into gutless mercenaries.
He invested enough and allowed wheeling and dealing with players.
He just didn't bow down to calls for bigger attempts to put in bigger money for bigger potential mercenaries.

In my opinion of course.

3) The quality of the squad under Sir John against the quality of the squad under Assley.

The quality under Hall for the main was far better in terms of entertainment, hands down. No arguments there.

4) The satisfaction of the supporters under Sir John against that of Assley.

Immense under Hall until it all started to fall apart.

The satisfaction under Ashley was half that in length of time as far as I'm concerned.
However it helps to understand that under Hall we had a head start on many sugar daddy clubs.
Under Ashley we simply couldn't pound for pound do what Hall done and survive without hitting the ground running and gaining immediate lengthy success, which meant winning major trophies and not being also-ran which...as good as the football was under Hall's charge, we won nothing and was the reason why we were close to being in serious dire straits.

5) The general success of the club under Sir John against that of Assley.

Probably similar. A few lesser trophies won each.

[ex_pat_magpie]

60 million of the debt was for the stadium under hall

Yes that's right Kev and it's a distinct asset which Assley would like to get into his back pocket.

[Geordie1974]

No comparison on anything.Everything was better under Hall than the slug.
In house debt,never heard anything so phucking stupid.When he leaves he will take that on top so its debt.End of.As well as repaying himself like he has been,whilst the debt stays the same.
And before I am asked no I haven't got any phucking proof of this.Its my opinion!!!!

[pboromag]

does it phecking matter
we are where we are

i would sugggest 120 million 11 years ago with the amount of money coming in was a lot more than it is now
120 mill gets you a player these days
then you could buy two squads and we had ammaseed that debt whilst having some great runs in the chanpions league a couple of decent cup runs etc etc and all the money that brought in

then you had one team really may be liverpool

now you have 5-6 teams all with more money than ash or sir john hall could ever wish for

sir john bled us dry whilst giving us some good times
which we can thank him for
but he got us into huge debt
ripped us the fans of by paying his familty and friends with our money

and then sold us to ash

wan737

if you look at success as trophies both similar
ie won pheck all

[waalsendmick]

Hall and shepherd had less debt, WITHOUT raking in £100m telly money.

Look at all the players bought by Hall, they were ALL sold at a profit or money back. By the time the shares were distributed only £15m had been spent nett.

That was on ALAN SHEARER!!!! Worth every penny.

As kev said, the debt that followed was a mortgage, a mortgage well used as it expanded the ground from 36,500 to 52,300.

We have stagnated and moved backwards ever since.

No need to research the 5 points.

If you have lived through both regimes, you would be a fool to prefer what happens now in comparison to what happened then.

Disclaimer - my answer has been fuelled by several bottles of beer.

[Geordie_Jacko]

Disclaimer - my answer has been fuelled by several bottles of beer.[/QUOTE]

I like your style. 🍻