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

[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.

[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]

Original question 5) The general success of the club under Sir John against that of Assley.
Ghost's reply
Probably similar. A few lesser trophies won each.

You either weren't a supporter under the Hall/Shepherd era or you have a bad memory or a selective memory. Don't you recall all of those nights in Europe for instance. Humping Manure and within a whisker of being league champions.

Is that "probably similar" in your eyes.

[ghostrider]

You either weren't a supporter under the Hall/Shepherd era or you have a bad memory or a selective memory. Don't you recall all of those nights in Europe for instance. Humping Manure and within a whisker of being league champions.

Is that "probably similar" in your eyes.

I didn't know that was classed as success.
So, are we talking about nearly stuff or actual success?

I class success as winning stuff. Trophies of whatever kind.
And again, going by that I'd say it was fairly even.

If you want to come back with how many champions league games they've both had then Hall wins hands down.
Is this what you meant rather than being successful?

[pboromag]

You either weren't a supporter under the Hall/Shepherd era or you have a bad memory or a selective memory. Don't you recall all of those nights in Europe for instance. Humping Manure and within a whisker of being league champions.

Is that "probably similar" in your eyes.

buttkk threw it away
and sheppard brought in the wrong player

so we have as many trophies in the cabinet under ash as we did sheppard

SOME OF us had good days out in europe
te rest watched it on the telly

infact we have 2 more trophies under ash than we did sheppard

and believe me they were great days out

probabaly not prem days like the stay aways wanted but as a match going fan believe me i would play any day in the fizzy over the prem .a much better experiance

[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!!!!