| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... 18:16 - Mar 26 with 2654 views | redrickstuhaart |
If its a bunch of Maga leaning Americans, they may well be right behind all this and indeed actively complicit or encouraging connections with Farage.
We don't really know.
Ashton, for all the stupid innuendo that some throw his way, has done a fantastic job for this club and has, to date, appeared to act with commitment, integrity and a huge amount of energy and vision from which we have massively benefited. It is tragic that this situation has been created, especially now at the "business end" of a crucial potential promotion season, as football parlance would have it.
|  |
| |  |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 20:45 - Mar 26 with 758 views | peterleeblue |
To be honest that was my first thoughts on Tuesday.
Trump supporting yank ownership?
I hope not. |  | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 21:09 - Mar 26 with 690 views | NBVJohn |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 18:38 - Mar 26 by nrb1985 |
Yeah, let’s see what happens when sponsors started making noises…
I’m not sure our private equity owners will take too kindly to losing money. |
Whilst the MSC logo is visible in many of the photos, the HALO on doesn’t seem to be.
I understand this will have a lot to do with Farage and 10 being featured on the back but was wondering if either sponsor had commented? | | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 21:15 - Mar 26 with 668 views | DJR |
I am not sure if anything has mentioned this, but I imagine the value of the club will have gone down, with investors less like to want to put money into a club which has suffered reputational damage.
That will be of concern to the owner but there may still be long-term damage even if Ashton is sacked. [Post edited 26 Mar 21:16]
|  | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 21:17 - Mar 26 with 646 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
JJJ knows his MAGA and implied that they pretty much must be, being upstanding money men and all that. |  |
| |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 22:13 - Mar 26 with 572 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 18:30 - Mar 26 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
Disagree, business savvy execs generally don't get to the top by putting personal politics above independent business decisions. |
But they do have private in house personal interactions which set a certain culture and mindset. | |
| |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 22:23 - Mar 26 with 540 views | SmithersJones |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 22:13 - Mar 26 by BanksterDebtSlave |
But they do have private in house personal interactions which set a certain culture and mindset. |
When your business is investing in lots of other businesses there are two things you dislike intensely:
1. Getting dragged into the day to day running of those businesses. You appoint a CEO to do that.
2. Seeing the resale value of your investment going down.
So, whatever the personal politics of our owners, they will be absolutely livid about this, I’m sure. | | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 22:58 - Mar 26 with 492 views | positivity |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 19:38 - Mar 26 by blueoutlook |
There are an awful lot of key board warriors on here,morning to night. Get a life mate,maybe a girlfriend even ? Go get a hobby. Stop trying to get people sacked,it’s what wrong with society,people always looking to ruin people’s lives,get pleasure from it do you ? |
you seem to be the chief keyboard worrier.
you're seeing offence where there is none.
you're lashing out at allcomers with petty abuse.
you're thinking that the likes of gb, churchman, sitters, baxter, itfcjoe etc etc etc are all lefty conspiratorors because they think that our ceo has lied to the local press and to the fans and hasn't apologised or even explained himself should resign or be sacked.
stop clutching your pearls and take a break if you can't cope with the voice of the vast majority on here. | |
| |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 23:19 - Mar 26 with 453 views | pointofblue |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 18:19 - Mar 26 by andyblue231 |
The fans can make it untenable. I don’t believe owners are going to stick by a CEO IF the crowd are chanting for his removal.
They normally sack managers in that situation. Can’t see them poisoning the well
For a CEO. |
Sorry if someone else has said this but the only way Ashton gets away with it is if he had lunch with Farage at their request - particularly if he advised them it would be a bad idea.
I really hope that isn't the case, because it makes the whole situation even more difficult to put right. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 23:20 - Mar 26 with 445 views | darkhorse28 |
He did a great job with massive resources for league one. We had one great season, we then had the worst season in our history, spent £220 million badly, and paid a manger without a single seconds elite (management) experience more than 99% of the best coaches in world football.
I wouldn’t say that’s a brilliant record. With all the resources, we might have fewer points this season than a certain Mick had with £3.75 to spend.
They’re all facts. He had a great start but had been really poor when given backing.
There’s a reason Brett said ‘we have a saying in Texas. Don’t piss in my boots and tell me it’s raining’ which was 100% aimed at Ashton.
You’re missing the point on the politics.
These are serious business people. There is ZERO chance they signed this off, I’d be shocked if they did. They could have a framed picture of the Donald in the bathroom, and they’d still know the commercial implications make the club and by definition THEM considerably poorer.
What was the club worth last week?
What’s it worth today.
Well if I’m buying it, nothing to do with which party or side of politics it is, I’d be saying - you just made the brand equity in your players, sponsors, and staff, significantly less, you’ll sell fewer tickets, and less merchandise, globally too.
Players will want more money to sign, because they’ll have fewer opportunities off the pitch with brands who might not want to be associated with any politics, for obvious reasons.
If we were worth £400 million - it’s half that, not that you’d be able to sell.
Who wants that smoke? Players might leave, managers, coaches, mitigated commercial upside, and a brand some (whether they are right or wrong) will see as toxic.
Owners like money. None of them are Ipswich fans.
He’ll get the sack. That’s certain. But with zero oversight and vision, when that will be who knows.
He’s such a complete moron - he ist any of why you describe just because we had success (at a low level) .., he’s better than what was here before, but that’s the tallest dwarf, not an elite operator, he was always ego fuelled…, but winning games hides many sins.
I don’t think the owners will take this well - of course if they did sign it off, and didn’t see the commercial implications until now - Mark will be the least of our worries. At that point we’re done, Marcus Evans will seem like the golden years.
We can’t be a success and as one in that environment, it’s done, sacrificed for Marks ego .., and political career aspirations .., that you can even begin to defend him blows my mind.
It’s OUR club, not his. | | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 23:21 - Mar 26 with 447 views | TRUE_BLUE123 |
Ed Schwartz doesn't strike me as a MAGA fanatic I have to say. |  |
| |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 23:25 - Mar 26 with 434 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 19:38 - Mar 26 by blueoutlook |
There are an awful lot of key board warriors on here,morning to night. Get a life mate,maybe a girlfriend even ? Go get a hobby. Stop trying to get people sacked,it’s what wrong with society,people always looking to ruin people’s lives,get pleasure from it do you ? |
Tool |  | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 23:30 - Mar 26 with 409 views | TripSwitch |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 23:20 - Mar 26 by darkhorse28 |
He did a great job with massive resources for league one. We had one great season, we then had the worst season in our history, spent £220 million badly, and paid a manger without a single seconds elite (management) experience more than 99% of the best coaches in world football.
I wouldn’t say that’s a brilliant record. With all the resources, we might have fewer points this season than a certain Mick had with £3.75 to spend.
They’re all facts. He had a great start but had been really poor when given backing.
There’s a reason Brett said ‘we have a saying in Texas. Don’t piss in my boots and tell me it’s raining’ which was 100% aimed at Ashton.
You’re missing the point on the politics.
These are serious business people. There is ZERO chance they signed this off, I’d be shocked if they did. They could have a framed picture of the Donald in the bathroom, and they’d still know the commercial implications make the club and by definition THEM considerably poorer.
What was the club worth last week?
What’s it worth today.
Well if I’m buying it, nothing to do with which party or side of politics it is, I’d be saying - you just made the brand equity in your players, sponsors, and staff, significantly less, you’ll sell fewer tickets, and less merchandise, globally too.
Players will want more money to sign, because they’ll have fewer opportunities off the pitch with brands who might not want to be associated with any politics, for obvious reasons.
If we were worth £400 million - it’s half that, not that you’d be able to sell.
Who wants that smoke? Players might leave, managers, coaches, mitigated commercial upside, and a brand some (whether they are right or wrong) will see as toxic.
Owners like money. None of them are Ipswich fans.
He’ll get the sack. That’s certain. But with zero oversight and vision, when that will be who knows.
He’s such a complete moron - he ist any of why you describe just because we had success (at a low level) .., he’s better than what was here before, but that’s the tallest dwarf, not an elite operator, he was always ego fuelled…, but winning games hides many sins.
I don’t think the owners will take this well - of course if they did sign it off, and didn’t see the commercial implications until now - Mark will be the least of our worries. At that point we’re done, Marcus Evans will seem like the golden years.
We can’t be a success and as one in that environment, it’s done, sacrificed for Marks ego .., and political career aspirations .., that you can even begin to defend him blows my mind.
It’s OUR club, not his. |
You make valid points but the emotional hyperbole and agenda makes them very hard to spot amidst all that.
Stop posting like an angry child and make your points succinctly without constant crying and emotionality and people may take you seriously and actually pay attention to your posts. |  |
| |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 07:41 - Mar 27 with 320 views | nrb1985 |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 21:09 - Mar 26 by NBVJohn |
Whilst the MSC logo is visible in many of the photos, the HALO on doesn’t seem to be.
I understand this will have a lot to do with Farage and 10 being featured on the back but was wondering if either sponsor had commented? |
It’s not really about whether the logo is visible or not in the material we’ve seen it’s the general brand association that can be toxic/polarising - see Chelsea sponsors post Abramovich sanctions.
No idea if and when some of our sponsors will make unsatisfactory noises but would you want your brand associated with rolling out the red carpet for a pound shop grifter like Nige?
Even if they vote reform themselves it will be divisive which isn’t really what you want in terms of brand PR. | | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 09:21 - Mar 27 with 270 views | braveblue |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 18:19 - Mar 26 by andyblue231 |
The fans can make it untenable. I don’t believe owners are going to stick by a CEO IF the crowd are chanting for his removal.
They normally sack managers in that situation. Can’t see them poisoning the well
For a CEO. |
I hope the owners have more integrity than pandering to some fans outrage because they disagree with someone’s politics. | | | |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 09:34 - Mar 27 with 259 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Whether his position is untenable rather depends on who owns us... on 18:26 - Mar 26 by redrickstuhaart |
Let's hope so.... |
Phil’s presumable better informed than us, so we can assume they’re mostly not MSGArettes. And besides, they’ll probably be thoroughly bemused by this and won’t have been involved in any of the decisions around the visit.
We probably need to hear from them now. I think, maybe? If not, is there a way Ashton himself can calm things down? For the sake of moving on and getting back to focussing on promotion, would people accept a genuine apology from him if he said he hadn’t realised how upset some of the fans would be? Or has it gone too far? |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
