Labour now want to interfere in running football clubs

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:06 am

Apparently. See link. Must be desperate for votes.

http://news.sky.com/story/labour-vow-to ... s-11829352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Somethingfishy · Post by **Somethingfishy** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:11 am

I'll get the popcorn...should be fun on here

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:14 am

How can they ban zero hours contracts? Is there another legal way of appointing staff to (say) man the food kiosks other than zero hours contracts?

tarkys_ears · Post by **tarkys_ears** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:21 am

dsr wrote:How can they ban zero hours contracts? Is there another legal way of appointing staff to (say) man the food kiosks other than zero hours contracts?

3 hour weeks on £20k a year.

No saturday or sunday working either!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:23 am

Corbyn then announced that under a future labour government ( which is a contradiction in terms , given, if there was a labour government, there wouldn't actually be a future) but we'll gloss over that. At the end of each season there would be no relegation or promotion and all teams would finish with the same , equal, number of points in the inclusive, newly sponsored, LBGTXYZ premier league.

Diane Abbot to present the trophies to the twelveteen team captains .

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:26 am

They can't run a bath !

AfloatinClaret · Post by **AfloatinClaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:49 am

"...give football fans power to hire and fire club directors..."

So not so much the Labour Party running football clubs, but the club's supporters; given some of the posts I've read on here at times, I don't know which would actually be worse?

Of course the fans at Newcastle and indeed every other club already have the option/power to run their club exactly as they see fit, all that's necessary is to first prove to the League that you're a 'fit and proper person' to be a Director - which can't be that difficult when you consider some of the Chancers that've been approved, then put your hands in your pockets and buy the shares to get yourself a seat on the Board.

fatboy47 · Post by **fatboy47** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:50 am

nothing to see here...right wing news outfit cranks up a bit of Corbyn-rage, and the usual trogs crawl out from under their stones to drink it in.

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:15 am

Apart from supporters being able to hire and fire directors which is a bit OTT the rest of the points made seem pretty sound. Do BFC pay a living wage for backroom/office staff? If not then they should.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:16 am

So the BBC report is lies?

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:19 am

The Times report:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn: ban bad football club owners like Mike Ashley

Jeremy Corbyn has vowed to transform how football is run, lashing out at “bad owners” such as Newcastle United’s Mike Ashley.
Meeting members of the “Ashley Out” campaign in Newcastle, the Labour leader said football clubs were “more than just a club” and should not be run by people who “put their business interests ahead of everything else”.

Corbyn wants supporters’ trusts to be able to buy shares when clubs change hands, as well as having the power to appoint and sack at least two members of their club’s board of directors.

He would also demand that Premier League teams use at least 5 per cent of their income from TV rights to fund grassroots football, including better facilities and pitches and training for developing coaches.

Corbyn, who supports Arsenal, said: “A football club is more than just a club, it is an institution at the heart of our communities. Clubs are part of the social fabric that binds us together. They are too important to be left in the hands of bad owners like Mike Ashley who put their business interests ahead of everything else, marginalise supporters and even put the financial security of clubs at risk.”

Ashley, who founded Sports Direct, has owned Newcastle since 2007. His reign has included a series of controversial managerial changes. This summer Rafa Benítez left after his contract expired to manage China’s Dalian Yifang, and was replaced by Steve Bruce.

During his meeting with the fans on Saturday, Corbyn was told that the mood of the city is directly linked to how Newcastle play. Corbyn told them: “Under a Labour government, the Premier League riches will be used to invest in grassroots football, fans will be protected from rip-off online ticket touts, and staff who work at clubs will get security and a living wage.”

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:25 am

Corbyn met Newcastle fans on Saturday.... on Sunday they beat ManU 1-0.

Is JC going to continue his tour of the clubs? How many more "bad owners" will he want to ban? Those whose clubs don't win anything? those whose clubs don't make a profit? those whose clubs make too much profit? Those whose clubs finish above Arsenal (he's a goner...)?

Have a great day, everyone.

UTC

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:33 am

Here's another right wing source, peddling propaganda about our dear leader.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 9937319190" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stay strong comrades

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:35 am

Interesting that Corbyn mentions Ashley, but not Brighton's owner who's left that club at a far greater risk of danger, or Glazers who've saddled Utd with debt that never seems to decrease whilst they're lining their pockets.
Just bandwagon jumping mentioning Ashley because there are definitely worse owners out there than him.

wickdkewlclaret · Post by **wickdkewlclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:47 am

Their policies are actually something I’d get behind, although not all achievable, the intent of the policies are clearly for the benefit of the population.

It is worrying to see so many people have digested and believed the right wing media outlets in a blind hatred for JC. It says something about the person in general.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:50 am

summitclaret wrote:Apparently. See link. Must be desperate for votes.

http://news.sky.com/story/labour-vow-to ... s-11829352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So I presume you are happy for football clubs to rip supporters off?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:57 am

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: Just bandwagon jumping mentioning Ashley because there are definitely worse owners out there than him.

Like who ?
He’s not going to mention the owners of a low profile club in the 2nd division.
He’s mentioned Ashley because Newcastle are a big club and it’s a big place....and their fans have been unhappy with their owner for a long time.
Nothing to do with jumping on the band wagon.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:01 am

Spijed wrote:So I presume you are happy for football clubs to rip supporters off?

No but it is nothing to do with a government.

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:03 am

TVC15 wrote:Like who ?
He’s not going to mention the owners of a low profile club in the 2nd division.
He’s mentioned Ashley because Newcastle are a big club and it’s a big place....and their fans have been unhappy with their owner for a long time.
Nothing to do with jumping on the band wagon.

He probably mentioned Ashley as he was meeting the Ashley Out group.

Suratclaret · Post by **Suratclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:19 am

So which two members of Burnley's board would supporters want to sack?..assuming, of course, there would be any.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:27 am

summitclaret wrote:Apparently. See link. Must be desperate for votes.

http://news.sky.com/story/labour-vow-to ... s-11829352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which of those ideas do you disagree with?

Mike Ashley was used as an example of a bad owner - suggesting there are others.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:31 am

Suratclaret wrote:So which two members of Burnley's board would supporters want to sack?..assuming, of course, there would be any.

I read it as "appoint and sack" - so two representatives of the supporters trust.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:32 am

He's chosen Newcastle because they believe they should be playing champions league football every season.
They will probably fall for it if they think it will get rid of Ashley. They dont realise that nobody will want to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into them with Corbyn telling them how to spend it.
I suppose Corbyn will be reaching out to people like the Davies and Walker families, to reimburse them after having most of their nest eggs, swallowed up by trying to give local fans a club to be proud of

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:49 am

Suratclaret wrote:So which two members of Burnley's board would supporters want to sack?..assuming, of course, there would be any.

I am not interested in the detail. This is no business of Government, other than all employers should comply with national laws on wages etc.

CleggHall · Post by **CleggHall** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:05 am

It's the Burys of this world that you have got to worry about (not Newcastle Utd), politicians were powerless to prevent Bury going under, the town and its citizens are poorer for this.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:07 am

AndrewJB wrote:Which of those ideas do you disagree with?

Mike Ashley was used as an example of a bad owner - suggesting there are others.

The reason Ashley is seen as a bad owner by Newcastle fans appears to be that he isn't willing to spend money the club hasn't got and he isn't willing to plough in billions of his own money. Neither of which meets the definition of "bad owner" in my book. He might have been better having a go at the likes of Eddie Davies - take a look at the Premier clubs that are way in debt. There are several.

Royboyclaret · Post by **Royboyclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:09 am

Suratclaret wrote:So which two members of Burnley's board would supporters want to sack?..assuming, of course, there would be any.

None of them.

All seven are Burnley fans first and foremost and all are committed to the cause with the best interests of the Club and team at heart. In that respect they are the polar opposites of the owners of clubs like Newcastle, Villa, Brighton and Crystal Palace, many of whom are in it purely to make a quick buck.

Leave well enough alone at Turf Moor, thank you.

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:17 am

dsr wrote: take a look at the Premier clubs that are way in debt. There are several.

currently there is only one club in the Premier League that carries no debt other than outstanding transfer payments (apart from some maintenance items bought on hp )- Burnley - though the owners of Aston Villa have been converting large amounts of loans to shares. - you may see reports that Chelsea carry no debt but they owe Abramovich around £1billion

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:22 am

This thread seems to be the appropriate place for this now - AgainstLeague3 are running their annual survey of football club ownership - where fans rate their clubs

have a go if you want

http://againstleague3.co.uk/2019/10/06/ ... rvey-open/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:23 am

Damo wrote:Here's another right wing source, peddling propaganda about our dear leader.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 9937319190" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stay strong comrades

so you are saying the BBC is a rightwing source

along with the Grauniad.... (they couldn't spell it ... lets face it if the Grunadia tried it would say "Right Wing Sauce")

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:28 am

Royboyclaret wrote:None of them.

All seven are Burnley fans first and foremost and all are committed to the cause with the best interests of the Club and team at heart. In that respect they are the polar opposites of the owners of clubs like Newcastle, Villa, Brighton and Crystal Palace, many of whom are in it purely to make a quick buck.

Leave well enough alone at Turf Moor, thank you.

There is no proposal to fire existing directors, but to appoint (and the power to dismiss) two. So it would be the supporters trust adding two directors to the current set up. That's not a bad thing at all. Here are the proposals in full:

- Legislate to give supporters' trusts the power to appoint and remove at least two members of a club's board of directors
- Legislate to enable supporters' trusts to purchase shares when clubs change hands
- Review all aspects of football governance, including fan participation
- Ensure that the Premier League invests 5% of income from television rights into grassroots football
- Enforce anti-bot legislation to crack down on ticket-tout websites selling tickets at inflated prices
- Ban zero-hours contracts and guarantee a "living wage" of at least £10 per hour for all staff, including those working at football stadia on match days
- Add women's sporting events, including the women's football world cup, to the list of key sporting events to be broadcast on free-to-air TV
- Improve access provision for disabled sports fans by ensuring improvements are made and by prioritising action to make clubs comply with obligations under the 2010 Equality Act

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:45 am

Premier League investing 5% of TV money in grassroots football makes a great deal of sense. They ought to be dong that anyway. It would be easy enough - all they need do is buy the land and put football pitches on it, and make it available for volunteer use. Any volunteer clubs willing to maintain the site can have it; the FA retains ownership of the land.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:00 am

AndrewJB wrote:There is no proposal to fire existing directors, but to appoint (and the power to dismiss) two. So it would be the supporters trust adding two directors to the current set up. That's not a bad thing at all. Here are the proposals in full:

- Legislate to give supporters' trusts the power to appoint and remove at least two members of a club's board of directors
- Legislate to enable supporters' trusts to purchase shares when clubs change hands
- Review all aspects of football governance, including fan participation
- Ensure that the Premier League invests 5% of income from television rights into grassroots football
- Enforce anti-bot legislation to crack down on ticket-tout websites selling tickets at inflated prices
- Ban zero-hours contracts and guarantee a "living wage" of at least £10 per hour for all staff, including those working at football stadia on match days
- Add women's sporting events, including the women's football world cup, to the list of key sporting events to be broadcast on free-to-air TV
- Improve access provision for disabled sports fans by ensuring improvements are made and by prioritising action to make clubs comply with obligations under the 2010 Equality Act

Seems a reasonable policy and definitely not deserving of all this commotion especially when you have Liz Truss at the DIT looking to pressurise Defra to reduce food standards to appease the US

The anti-bot legislation would be brilliant to combat ticket website for music gigs which is an absolute nightmare for it currently

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:04 am

dsr wrote:Premier League investing 5% of TV money in grassroots football makes a great deal of sense. They ought to be dong that anyway. It would be easy enough - all they need do is buy the land and put football pitches on it, and make it available for volunteer use. Any volunteer clubs willing to maintain the site can have it; the FA retains ownership of the land.

I'd go further (coach of an U11 team)

More and more 4G pitches.

FA pay for as many as possible for each club so they can play, train and even hire it out.

Stuff like that makes perfect sense

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:23 am

Devils_Advocate wrote:Seems a reasonable policy and definitely not deserving of all this commotion especially when you have Liz Truss at the DIT looking to pressurise Defra to reduce food standards to appease the US

The anti-bot legislation would be brilliant to combat ticket website for music gigs which is an absolute nightmare for it currently

There is talk of an online citizen's portal (it already exists for some elements of interaction with the government), that would give you a front end sign in and access to various things (your BBC iPlayer account, for example) followed by a further sign in to other things such as HMRC. If they could create a one way back end to this, so you could go from this government portal identified as a legitimate citizen to the ticket selling portal, then a large percentage of tickets could be put aside to be purchased this way. You could be allowed to buy up to eight tickets (for example), by providing the names of all eight people, and then those additional seven people would have up to forty-eight hours to log in and verify this purchase (this way it wouldn't just be down to individual people to go through the process and clog the system).

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:27 am

AndrewJB wrote:There is talk of an online citizen's portal (it already exists for some elements of interaction with the government), that would give you a front end sign in and access to various things (your BBC iPlayer account, for example) followed by a further sign in to other things such as HMRC. If they could create a one way back end to this, so you could go from this government portal identified as a legitimate citizen to the ticket selling portal, then a large percentage of tickets could be put aside to be purchased this way. You could be allowed to buy up to eight tickets (for example), by providing the names of all eight people, and then those additional seven people would have up to forty-eight hours to log in and verify this purchase (this way it wouldn't just be down to individual people to go through the process and clog the system).

Yeah - let's make it even easier to collect data on us, spend vast public monies on projects that generate vast overruns never work as sold to the public and can be hacked and shut down easily bring the country to a virtual standstill - I know I have worked on these mega projects - nightmares one and all

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:35 am

It is probably work pointing out that this is the 3rd time in the last decade that Labour have made pledges to hand the game back to the fans

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/statu ... 4665246720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and they were doing it in the previous 2 decades as well

https://twitter.com/Prof_Chadwick/statu ... 2849228800" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://twitter.com/sportingintel/statu ... 2278543361" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dpinsussex · Post by **dpinsussex** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:41 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'd go further (coach of an U11 team)

More and more 4G pitches.

FA pay for as many as possible for each club so they can play, train and even hire it out.

Stuff like that makes perfect sense

Apart from 4G pitches are bad for your joints.

Must be getting old

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:51 am

dpinsussex wrote:Apart from 4G pitches are bad for your joints.

Must be getting old

You are!

But most clubs have one grass pitch, which they have to somehow train on, play on (every age group).

4G is 24/7, all weather

Grass in North Lancashire is, basically, a swamp!

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:59 am

Chester Perry wrote:Yeah - let's make it even easier to collect data on us, spend vast public monies on projects that generate vast overruns never work as sold to the public and can be hacked and shut down easily bring the country to a virtual standstill - I know I have worked on these mega projects - nightmares one and all

I've no idea on the technical solution but something needs to be done about bots in the events ticketing arena. I think the boat has well and truly sailed around stopping large commercial entities being able to collect vast amounts of our data but I would see in the sphere of ticketing this could be optional.

If you dont want to give up your data you are welcome to continue competing with the bots but for those of us who dont mind registering with some key details give us an option to fairly compete for tickets

Awayfromburnley · Post by **Awayfromburnley** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:09 pm

summitclaret wrote:Apparently. See link. Must be desperate for votes.

http://news.sky.com/story/labour-vow-to ... s-11829352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two things here:
1) Does the Op read the Daily Mail? The use of the word "Now..." in the context it does (normally at the start of a sentence) is their classic method of delivering a news article that you are meant to read in a negative slant. Irrespective of the content. Irritates me.
2) What is possibly wrong with changing the way football is ran currently? It's a model that can't go on if we want a more level playing field.

Off on a tangent somewhat .. what gets me is that there is such a black and white opinion by some people about party policies. Just because it is suggested by Mr Corbyn doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad idea. Likewise for Mr Johnson!

Football is suffering here let's try something new!

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:12 pm

Chester Perry wrote:Yeah - let's make it even easier to collect data on us, spend vast public monies on projects that generate vast overruns never work as sold to the public and can be hacked and shut down easily bring the country to a virtual standstill - I know I have worked on these mega projects - nightmares one and all

It's not all bad. We are already beyond the "collecting data on us" Rubicon, so the next questions should be: Who owns this data? What can they do with this data? And how can my privacy be protected? Right now the majority of data on us is owned by private companies, who use it to tailor advertising to us, or help engineer referendum results. I wouldn't want the government to own the data, but it should be possible to create a public body responsible for collating, keeping safe, and allowing access to this data in the right kinds of way, to the right kinds of requests. That would be a public body independent of government control with a strict mandate to look after our data, and allow its use in ways that promote the public good, and protects our privacy.

All IT projects suffer problems, but with something like this it's a matter of replicating what already exists rather than creating something new and big.

dpinsussex · Post by **dpinsussex** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:22 pm

Singling out mike ashley as a bad owner I believe is wrong.
Just because he wants to run NUFC as a business. There is no harm in that and actually should be applauded.
The bad owners are the recent failings at two clubs not a million miles from Burnley. (10 years though in time)
Burnley is run as a business. The difference is that our fans generally have lower expectations than the deluded NUFC ones who just want Ashley to buy success or ship out.
Football will never be an,even playing field because of catchment areas, attractivity to investors, quality of individuals within the business.
What do you want an american football drafting process where everyone has the same budget?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:29 pm

How does football stop owners like the Oystons getting involved?

Chester Perry · Post by **Chester Perry** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:33 pm

AndrewJB wrote:It's not all bad. We are already beyond the "collecting data on us" Rubicon, so the next questions should be: Who owns this data? What can they do with this data? And how can my privacy be protected? Right now the majority of data on us is owned by private companies, who use it to tailor advertising to us, or help engineer referendum results. I wouldn't want the government to own the data, but it should be possible to create a public body responsible for collating, keeping safe, and allowing access to this data in the right kinds of way, to the right kinds of requests. That would be a public body independent of government control with a strict mandate to look after our data, and allow its use in ways that promote the public good, and protects our privacy.

All IT projects suffer problems, but with something like this it's a matter of replicating what already exists rather than creating something new and big.

It is not so much the small amount of key data as the profiling that is done with the transactional/behavioural data (it has been a hobby horse of mine since the early 90's

The reason big projects fail is not because they are trying something new in technology terms but because they are trying to integrate a vast array of legacy systems and practises which are being defended by an army of interested parties who exercise their own interests - when that involves local and central government makes negotiating Brexit so everyone is happy look relatively easy

Spike · Post by **Spike** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:22 pm

some football clubs are PLC's some don't sell shares so how can he force two directors on them.
He's not even talking sense never mind things he cannot produce

spt_claret · Post by **spt_claret** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:27 pm

Newcastle fans only see Ashley as a bad owner because they have the perpetual belief they should be spending hundreds of millions a year and challenging for the title. They've never got over Keegan choking.
The idea of increased fan oversight or legal legislation to prevent actual bad owners bleeding clubs dry like the Oystons or Bury's owners isn't a bad idea, but pandering to the Newcastle mob makes me think that any such legislation would be utterly cack-handed and counterproductive.
The comparison to Burnley is a good one in terms of keeping finances tight. And I for one shudder at the thought of some of our fans having any say in the actual running of the club let alone appointments to the board. The 5% re-investment idea is another misapplication- making the Premier League as an entity reinvest in grassroots football is a good idea. Applying that to the individual clubs' tv revenue as spelled out just disproportionately hits the club's with lower merchandise or gate revenue or less wealthy owners, who rely heavily on the tv rights to continue to compete in the league. Clubs like us, as it happens. Whereas coincidentally Arsenal with their massive brand and huge stadium with pricey tickets and wealthy owners are less reliant on Premier League tv money (for them the money's in Europe). But of course Corbyn wouldn't possibly propose a policy for his own entertainment like that would he.
Policies regarding capping ticket prices relative to the income of the area would be far more effective at opening football back up to working class fans, but of course they'd punish Arsenal and the like so don't expect to see that suggested. And as already pointed out banning zero hours or flexitime and mandating the living wage is basically incompatible with lower income clubs being able to operate concourses. We think Mars Bars are pricey now just wait.
It's so nearly a good set of policies until you examine the fine details and how they link with other policies and just general functioning of business and the sporting industry at large. Then it becomes clear all it really does is let the rowdiest fans start saying how their club should spend money that it may well not have, while utterly failing to actually address any of the real issues with dodgy owners or unaffordable prices at clubs around the country, because they're smaller clubs with less potential votes at stake in leagues and places he's not interested in. But hey Arsenal wouldn't really be affected by this policy so it sounds good to him.

UpTheClaretsFCBK · Post by **UpTheClaretsFCBK** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:32 pm

You lot talk about Labour more than half the Labour voters I know.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:31 pm

Spike wrote:some football clubs are PLC's some don't sell shares so how can he force two directors on them.
He's not even talking sense never mind things he cannot produce

A director doesn't have to be a shareholder (in most big businesses they're not).

There'd probably have to be some Companies Act carve-out to allow those fan-appointed directors to act in ways that may not necessarily be in the interest of the shareholders which would be interesting.

It's an interesting idea but obviously there's issues about how those two directors would be selected/fired, how much influence they'd have, what they could disclose, etc

northernpowerhouse · Post by **northernpowerhouse** » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:03 pm

spt_claret wrote:Newcastle fans only see Ashley as a bad owner because they have the perpetual belief they should be spending hundreds of millions a year and challenging for the title.

I live in Newcastle and most of them would be delighted with spending £16 million on Rondon and making it to the 5th round of the FA Cup.