Toonpack

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point. If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump. didn't you say September 1 was the time to judge Ashley. Just wondering what you make of his intentions now... I answered that in another thread (can't recall which one) sadly. But in essence, it appears obvious, due to the apparent financial "health" of the club, (and lack of visible spend) that he's recouping his exposure. Should have bought a striker, all would be well with the world. As to his wider intentions, still can't work that one out. If he was in full blown "make money mode" he'd start charging interest on his loans, by not doing that he could be trimming to sell, alternatively he could be on an ego trip. "I'll show the fuckers how it's done, my fucking way". I'm leaning towards the latter possibility, which could all end in tears or maybe not. I don't hold with the, keep it plodding along and milk it theory, a) because he could be milking more already (interest on loans for example, or b ) It's not his style, he likes to make a really BIG splash, milking the club (no matter how financially sound) is loose change to him and c) He, probably most of all, likes to buck trends, he's a maverick, the city boys hate him, he doesn't play by the rules yet still makes money. Millionaires (I've known a couple well) don't play a short game, ever, and they have MASSIVE ego's. Billionaire's will be even worse I would think. It ceases to be about the money it's about the "doing it" whatever the "it" may be, the "it" does usually result in more massive dosh mind, but that's not the primary driver.

The current PL naming rights range from about £1m a year (Stoke, Bolton, Wigan) to £10m a year (Man City). Arsenal are getting £100m over fifteen years. Where NUFC fit on that scale is open for debate but it has to be more than the sfa we are reputedly getting now. Maybe he should charge himself about £5 Mill a year eh? Would that make everyone happy ??? On the other hand he could also start to charge interest on his loans, that'd probably be about £9-£10 Mill a year, club'd be £5Mill worse off. Or maybe we should forget the cost of advertising and continue not to pay interest eh? You can't look at this shit in isolation.

Paying off early or over time, makes no difference, it's the same amount of money out at some point. If it was a "one off" you'd have seen his subsidy peak and then drop, it's been pretty consistent over time. This year'll be different I suspect and he probably wont have put owt in, maybe even recovered a lump.

47

Paul Rodgers has one of "the" great voices and it's never changed over the decades. Kid Rock's voice is seriously underrated an all.

Don't agree with this sort of comment tbh. People attend the match to watch their football club. The club is bigger than the owner. To many it's a necessary sacrifice. Unless there was a massive, massive exodus and drop in attendances then I can't see it having much effect on Ashley either way. I can't see him changing his ways regardless of what the fans do. He literally could not give a fuck about the supporters of the club, we all know that. So why whinge about a sponsor on top of a roof? It's fucking pointless! Ashley did it so it is inherently evil and calculated to piss the fans off, simple really. Old Trafford is plastered but that's different. It all has to come down for the Olympics anyway, only Olympic partner advertising allowed.

Aye a point against a team that spent a lot in the Transfer Window and we could of nicked it, so FCB will be happy. We need a run of raping results and a few injuries until FCB will stat to wonder. Is that what you are hoping for then ???

The difference being RAs loans have largely been used to fund the development of a title winning team, whereas fmas loans have been used to cover the cost of not undertaking due dillegence and a completely avoidable relegation. Due dilligence or not, those loans (or that money) still needed injecting into the club, if not him, who ??

There's a higher proportion than there should be, in relation to the demographic, in prison ???

Brothels, dogs and Mary Poppins

Ebb!!! That pre-supposes there was a flow to follow, was a slippery slope and only was heading one way as the "profit" graph amply illustrates.

And these are the hard cold facts of football today. Speculate to accumulate is fine if you have a individual prepared to gamble a very large ammount of money. Is speculating to accumulate working for Ellis Short? The best way IMO to come to the business model for today, is to assume you have just taken control and your off to see the bank manager. But it will always come bact to the fact that in the whole wages are strangling the game. But its not and you dont see that because all you associate the word "competing" with is the top 4. You talk about being debt free like its something we are, yet we're in way more debt now than we ever were pre-Ashley. You talk about buying players like its a dirty statement yet its the be all and end all of football, its how football clubs progress, dont do that and you stand still. Every time wages are mentioned people bring into the equation the percentages, if its too high a percentage of turnover then you need to reduce wages. Theres always another way to reduce the percentage but Ashley, you and many many more dont ever see it as an option yet its how business is done in every other industry. You increase the turnover, its not a difficult concept to grasp. Man United have it sussed yet they have one of the highest debts going, pay some of the highest wages and yet still manage to turn a £110m profit. When the next accounts are released we will see another drop in turnover which in turn will see the wage bill highlighted as concern. Cue stage 2 of the sales process. What will that do? reduce turnover even more. Gate receipts these days are not that important in the great scheme of things but theyre a oood indication of how a club is doing. We're down 6.14% How?? Revenue's which are non-TV have all but plateau'd throughout football. Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham make up almost 60% of the Prem League revenues. In 2009/10, the revenue for those clubs grew by 5%, which looks canny, but more than two-thirds of that increase (£56 million) came from Man City, with their “friendly” Middle East deals and there was almost no growth from Man U, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool. Overall Prem League revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004 but that's nearly all TV money and very little of that growth has come in the last three years and match day revenue growth has effectively stalled, it actually decreaased 5% in 2009/10, while commercial revenue barely grew at all (3%). You can't just take turnover in isolation and using Man U as an example is extremely flawed, they are the richest club on the planet and just about the most succesfull. I would also suspect that we'll actually see a record revenue for NUFC in the next accounts. Our historical high revenues were in our Champions League years, the CL money these days has grown out of all proportion from then, as has the TV deal, the clubs that have stayed in the CL are the one's who have benefitted, the money is such, that it's almost a self fullfilling prohecy.

You're right like Chrimbo, i used to go for the day out and couldnt care about the behind the scenes caper and pretty sure it's still mainly the case. The irony and headwreking bit about not going (5 times a season or so since wrapping [partly through mates fucking it off and own circumstance]) is I've become more interested with the non-footballing side and the club generally. (Not purporting to be much the wiser btw!) My experience of attending over the last 3-4 years has been one of a bowl of apathy . Sorry like, but it's simply shit going to the match nowadays . The bit i find mystifying though is the actual apathy in there given goings on ?! I admit to not being the most 'rounded' individual and maybe need more in me life ! but especially with this sickening, insulting signage stunt i really don't 'get it' all anymore !? . . It's too hard to convey via words on a pokey phone anyhow ! It certainly is. There is, as you say, an air of apathy hanging over the ground. Like most the people are there out of habit not conviction. The club hardly feels like NUFC anymore. More a commercial vehicle for SD which happens to involve a pitch, 22 players and a ball. Looking at the falling attendances I doubt I’m the only supporter who feels this way, and I suspect a fair chunk of those who still pay to go feel the same way and won’t be clinging on to a lost cause much longer. In the three decades I’ve been attending games I’ve never know SJP so lifeless. - so lacking in energy and passion. The heart and soul is being ripped out of the club. Outside of the top 3 or 4 that could likely be written by every supporter in the land. Football in general has lost it's soul.

Perhaps they’re right? Coming hot on heels of the fan pleasing end to the transfer window, I found myself thinking ‘replacing the club’s name on the east stand with a SD advert will surely be the last straw’ and other stupid thoughts like ‘this has to be the straw that finally stirs supporters in action' and ‘there’s no way we’ll carry on turning up like a bunch of compliant sheep who like getting shitted on after this’. Then I thought ‘but we’ve spent the best part of four years letting this bloke disrespect us and our club without ever trying to give him a metaphoric kick in the balls’ and ‘every time anyone suggests a serious protest the response is it’ll make no difference so let’s do fuck all’ Does this make us stupid or loyal? Answers on a postcard to GetOutOfOurClubUFatCockneyBastard@St James Park. Whether people like it or not FMA & co. will take continued ticket sales as tacit approval of their methods. There's a sizeable number of folks who are only interested in the team on a saturday (or any random day of the week these days) and don't give shit about the baordroom etc etc, they'll keep going no matter what, on top of that if (and I appreciate it's a highly dubious big fucking IF) the team keeps winning, however ugly, tickets will continue to sell, not perhaps as sold out season tickets but match to match. .................and wouldn't keeping on winning be a vindication of their methods, just a thought !!

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh? I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty. There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted. You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations? It sure can When has that ever happened though? the scaremongering starts again. No it doesn't, I answered a question, something you could do with doing, once would be good. Your comprehension is shit btw, where did I ever mention any of this as a current threat or scare if you'd prefer ????? That danger has passed, thanks to an owner (however crap) with very deep pockets.

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh? I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty. There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted. You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations? It sure can When has that ever happened though? That wasn't the question, the question was, why isn't having money with the bank the same as owing it to Ashley. In business, it happens all the time, Barclays were going to do it to NUFC in the late 80's

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh? I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty. There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted. You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations? It sure can

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again. I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to? In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured. Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh? I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty. There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted. Don't play down the interest free either, it's probably worth about £10mill a year based on current exposure. (It was £7Mill a year "in the old days"). This is still the bit I don't "get" about Ashley. If the club is to become simply a cash cow, why doesn't he charge interest on his loans (a'la virtually all the other owners) that way he'd be making money on his subsidy, especially if, as we believe, the club is at least breaking even. Of course if he's simply reducing his exposure not charging interest makes sense as that would make the repayment quicker, but he's not "making money" or anything from it (as far as we know - up to the last accounts). All I can think is that he's postioning the club to be "really" debt free asap and he'll make his coin on a sale. Alternatively he's a bloody minded twat and he's in "I'll show the fuckers how it can be done, my way" mode, which wouldn't surprise me in the least either. As I've mentioned before, in my past, I've worked with a couple of multi-millionaire's (as a direct report to said rich bassa's) and I'd never underestimate their egotism let alone the size of an ego a self made barrow boy billionaire may have. They really are a different breed. Maybe we have to "buckle up" for that ride. I watched a bloke with tens of millions in the bank have panic attacks over basically nowt, and I used to think, what the fuck are you doing this to yourself for, you don't need to do another days work in your life (neither did his kids or grandkids either) but it was all about "showing I can do it again" or "going a bit further", all about the ego. Madness.

indeed he did, on many occasions, and it was also quoted on many occasions too [by me] that it was also Mike Ashleys NINTH transfer window, not the 1st or 2nd, but the NINTH Posters on other sites are now blaming the ex owners for selling the club to Mike Ashley. You really couldn't make it up. I don't always agree with TP but I think he makes his case well and so on. I think that you could conceivably make excuses for Ashley (at times I hasten to stress) before this window. I'm not defending his myriad errors but I can see why he might do x,y and z in order to make up for them. There's no excuse now though imo. A few will continue to make excuses but they're so stupid as to barely consider. In a perverse way I'm almost pleased now that virtually all and sundry can see him for what he is. I don't believe I make excuses for him, I just don't assign everything he does with the mark of Satan. He can (as I've said with monotonous regularity) be villified for many things, but if he's getting ripped for something I don't think is right, I'll say so. All just my opinion of course.

Yes I did, it appears patently obvious now that he is recouping his losses. On the window, we did what appears to be some excellent work and if we'd bought a striker, it would have been very good window IMO, we didn't so it was very disappointing. There were two ways it could go (which I believe is what I said) he'd be shown to be continuing to prop it up, thus we'd spend, or he's not prepared to do that which meant we wouldn't. We didn't spend so the answer appears clear. On the bright side, if he is reducing his exposure (the clubs debt to him) it makes it all the more saleable which has to be good. Pitty he's not more philanthropic, but at least he had the cash to keep us afloat. And just out of spite, for LM, he still hasn't taken a penny out, let alone £52 Million.

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course. Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club. If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing. Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

so now we have the Toonpacks, Newcastle Online posters and skunkers posters saying "give him until 2015" etc etc etc.... Please supply that link

Leverage buyouts are "OK & legal" in the UK as far as I'm aware, this just makes him a much bigger cunt than we initially thought. If it was a leveraged buy out, which it's not. Ashley is the sole creditor, the holding company is simply a vehicle as Matt states. He bought the club with his own money and holds that debt in the holding company. The Glazers borrowed the money from a bank and then put the debt onto the club (with asssociated interest) so they to all intents and purposes got the club for free. At the end of the NUFC chain the money came out of Ashley's pocket. This is not new information to be honest.

A goalkeeper contributing to a win, whatever hext

Suffice to say, not an apologist, just a realist. Will respond to anything of interest tomorrow when I'll be working from home, am in the smoke just now, new gig. Gloomy used to be a "anybody but Fred" person, just like you man. I still am and I'm right