Toonpack

I apologise JawD, I meant to reply to what you said earlier. I'll have another look tomorrow. Was the stadium a badly managed debt ? Most financial experts didn't seem to think so, most of us on here have a mortgage and make repayments based on revenues, earnings etc, so why do amateur football wannabe accountants make out it was some sort of deal with the Devil. What is their alternative ? Save the money up first ? I've asked people like Toonpack and Mad Jock [in response to what he asked me] this very question, and the result is neither of them answer and Toonpack has put me on ignore probably because he realises that he can't. Nobody on here is a football accountant, it would seem. If someone, anywhere, knew how to run a football club that is a success on the pitch and make massive profits to constantly buy the best footballers, how much would they be worth ? Mike Ashley won't run the club into the ground because as you say, he owns it now and its his investment, but this is all he wants, he doesn't want success on the pitch, but he can make a profit without having success on the pitch, and this is what he wants. It is easier, far easier, for him to sell good players for a profit instead of gambling and speculating on getting into the Champions League, and I'm afraid that is what he is going to do. Well, I dont think the finances were spiralling us into a black hole. Seemed ok back them the way it was being done despite what others will say now. But, that said, many are saying a lot of football clubs were pushing too far with debt and wages. The problem was more that if banks pulled the plug on their debt if they got nervous. I wonder how we would of faired if we were in the same boat when the banking crisis hit? I'd have been a little less comfortable. But, fact is we didnt go bust or whatever, we didnt collapse under FS so I agree with you here. It's just speculation and I'm looking at what has actually happened. So, while I agree with your (more or less) on this point, I've still seen little evidence (remember I'm looking at whats actually happened) to say we are a selling club supplying lesser teams as you said earlier. I also agree that I dont think MA has aspirations for the champions league. That was pretty much confirmed by pardew when he said he hoped that by us getting into Europe, it might make MA thirst for more. I kinda agree with that. I hope he does. I think at the moment thye want a top half finish. I still have in my mind (the young team, the managed debt, the lower wage ratio) is all to set the club up as a good prospect to be sold. MA will then be in an ideal place. If he is enjoying it he can keep it and if not, sell it. But he had to sort things out first to try and make it more attractive. I think he'll struggle currently because of his price. He wont want to lower his price and lose out, so the only other way is to increase it's worth. On my previous point though, I still dont really see evidence of us being a Bolton or Blackburn? Im not sure where you get that from. I would add one comment, which is the basis for my "blacker side" of the speculation. Outside of the leveraged buy outs, no other significant football club debt is or was like ours, ours was all with banks and was 100% secured against club assets and income streams to the point of saturation. All other debt (certainly in the Prem League) is/was guaranteed or underwritten by club ownership/benefactor so that the clubs are to a point "insured". Despite the assertion in certain quarters that I "hate" the previous ownership, the simple point is that they were not rich enough to cover the club exposure, even if they had the will to. Of the succesfull clubs (to this point) not one of them goes into significant debt to buy players or pay wages (outside of the obvious two). Man U, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal have all operated a transfer policy within their means, they do go into debt, but for capital projects like the Emirates or in Spurs case their training ground. They speculate to accumulate but always within their means. Of course it is, to an extent, a self fullfilling prophecy due to the Champions League cash. Liverpool will be an interesting story to watch, they've had little success of late (by their standards), they have historically made profits which has supported their relative success. Now they have no Europe and no Champions league cash, and they, I believe, made a small loss last year, their approach will be interesting when the sums are done at the end of the window, and again if they continue to miss out of the Champions League. P.S. Leazes, on the bit I've bolded in your post (because you were quoted and you're making stuff up again). I have answered that many times. The Stadium debt was "good debt" but it was just over half of what we owed.

I would add that, anyone who thinks everything they've done is bad is similarly by definition.....................

I don't think anything he does is part of an evil plan. Again, I've given him credit for a lot of his financial decisions. I just think he talks utter shit and misrepresents any of the good he's done as a result. People like this Chris Gray and you perpetuate it. As discussed, in the 5 years before Ashley we lost £0, £0, £2m, £15m and £33m. The last couple are worrying and not sustainable. There's nothing to suggest Shepherd would have tried to sustain it though. On 7 June '07 we signed Viduka on a free. Being a free suggests to me Shepherd was looking for proven Premier League players on a budget with the intention of cutting the losses of the previous season. His wages were a twat, but he only got a 2 year contract. He'd already sold Scott Parker for £7m too. Ashley took a controlling share on exactly the same day though. We went on to sign Barton(£5.8m), Rozenhal(£3m), Smith(£6m), Enrique(£6m), Faye(£2m) and Beye(£2m) - as well as a free Geremi, but on a 3 year deal at huge wages. That's just short of £25m he spent. Losses for the year went on to total £20m, which can't be laid at anyone elses door, as Ashley sanctioned all those buys. Yet all we hear from the propaganda machine is how Ashley has inherited a mess, as if he hasn't contributed to it himself at all. The above 'waste' pales in comparison to then getting us relegated. I don't want to hear about not taking a penny out of the club, or how much he's pumped in, because he's just as much to blame as the last lot...the difference being 12th would have been a failure in their eyes for the level of investment. He absolutely inherited a mess, no doubt in my mind, similarly there is no doubt he deepened the hole (as I've said before) BUT it's cost no-one but himself, hence my "thanks" for, or appreciation of, his deep pockets. We were unsustainable, we needed deep pockets, we got some. We could have done better or been luckier, undoubtedly.

I did, at some point today, can't remember where But not sure it's leveraged (in the true sense of the word as the purchase was not financed) a'la Liverpool were or Man U are, in so much as their purchase was funded by external finance (banks) The debt is held in the parent company (St James' Holdings Ltd) which is Ashley's so whilst he's bought the club with his own cash the purchase price is held as a debit in SJPH Ltd. Dunno if that makes it a leverage or not.

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ?? I've given Ashley all due credit, even in this thread, when the banks refused to loan his insolvent business the money to stay afloat, he used his own money to protect his investment. The fact the debt is larger than ever before should put a stop to any suggestion we're financially better off though. We've effectively transferred our credit card balance to a 0% introductory offer and spent more on the new card. The fact we aren't paying interest is great. I'm not having a pop here, but Ashley apologists like you are getting ahead of yourself by insisting the financial mess is well on the way to being resolved. £20-£30m year on year? Up to 2007 we only ever lost over £20m one time....the average loss was £10m a year for the five years before he arrived. Losses were £0-£2m for three out of the five years before Ashley arrived. We went from a £19m loss in 2000 to break ebven in 2003, without the slash and burn approach. I sniffed at that, so I'll sniff at this too. I've just spent half an hour responding to this, embeded quotes the lot and the server crashed, am not doing it again but quick summary. 2000-2003, on the back of the newly expanded stadium we broke even with the Champions league, no slash and burn necessary. Between 2006 - 2008 we lost £68 Million, slash and burn (which intruth we haven't done by any stretch) was the only available course. We're not going to agree tbh I think it's "immeasurable better" you don't, fair do's. I'm not an Ashley apologist btw, I think he's a twat, but I can see some "method in the madness" on the financial side, and everything he does is not necessarily some perverse "evil plan"..

Sorry, but I think you're wrong (neither of us will be able to prove it one way or the other though). Player with one year left, who's succesfully stalled to get into that position, holds all the cards.

You can't to be honest. But I would contend owing £150Mill to yourself is better, by an immeasurable amount, than owing £150Mill to a bank.

And how does that negate anything I've said? You were saying he's yet to break even and I was just giving you a gentle reminder that they did forecast in March (I think) that they were on course to break even for the season just finished. In case you had forgotten Thought it might cheer you up on your birthday I hadn't fporgotten at all. Of course, breaking even won't get the finances looking immeasurably better either. It'll just stop the rot. Which as TP illustrates above is progress. Please don't agree with me, my arguments/statements/opinions lose credibility.

And how does that negate anything I've said? You were saying he's yet to break even and I was just giving you a gentle reminder that they did forecast in March (I think) that they were on course to break even for the season just finished. In case you had forgotten Thought it might cheer you up on your birthday I hadn't fporgotten at all. Of course, breaking even won't get the finances looking immeasurably better either. It'll just stop the rot. Stopping the rot = immeasurably better, surely

Who else they going to blame. They've offered him a new contract to stay, theres only Enrique to blame if he goes. (And fair enough if he wants to play CL football) Should still make his mind up one way or the other so a replacement can be acted on. With regard to Barton its already public knowledge that he has cooked his own goose by having too many things to say against the board whether that be statements to the press or talk-ins. The blokes a fool on that score. Not really, he'll be waiting to see if the clubs ambition matches his and to see what the contract situation really is like regarding other players, most likely As that twat Adrian Durham said the other night (and for the first time ever, I agreed with him): "I'm sick of hearing about players talking about clubs matching their ambition, what that really means is: I want more money".

Fair enough. But re the bold - I never said they should !!

Don't forget Tiote. I take your point like. I expect anti-Barton / Enrique propaganda to flow from the club if they both just let the last year of their respective contracts run down. Barton, I doubt it tbh, it's the clubs choice to have withdrawn his deal. If Enrique did choose to run his deal down (which I doubt he will) there damn well should be anti-Enrique feeling, nowt to do with propaganda. Depends on the circumstances / whose side of the story you believe etc. Don't think it comes down to sides of a story tbh (for Enrique). He's coming into his last year, he can either accept a new deal or be sold, given he's already been offered a new deal (reportedly) if he runs it down there's only him who can make that happen. Can't believe the club won't sell him, as they should, if he won't accept the deal.

RIP

Don't forget Tiote. I take your point like. I expect anti-Barton / Enrique propaganda to flow from the club if they both just let the last year of their respective contracts run down. Barton, I doubt it tbh, it's the clubs choice to have withdrawn his deal. If Enrique did choose to run his deal down (which I doubt he will) there damn well should be anti-Enrique feeling, nowt to do with propaganda.

Of course there is. What would be better, £150 Mill owed to banks or owed to the owner ?? As for the break even/profit "failure", we've done that once in a decade (by £600K aided by a transfer profit of £13.4Mill in 2005) I would suggest getting from a position of £20-£30Mill losses year on year to break/even profit in 4 years is not to be sniffed at tbh and btw overall income this year will likely be a record high for the club, as it was in 2008.

Doesn't make any sense at all but yeah, makes complete sense. it probably makes perfect sense to anybody with half a brain. Tell you what Gejon, on the basis that Mike Ashley is still owner of NUFC I'll bet you that Liverpool finish above NUFC next season [as you think they are doing it wrong and we are doing it right] ? And this time next year I'll give you the option of double or quits for the season after too ? That would be after 6 years of Mike Ashleys "plan" by then ? Yes or no ? Well you compare a player that cost £1m with one that cost £20m, both who play in completely different positions anyway. Why didn't you go with Tiote? Is it because it would have made your stupid comment redundant? Of course not you fucking moron. How many times have we finished above Liverpool in the last 20 years? Where did I ever say Liverpool's whole transfer policy was wrong? I even said I was jealous of the two forwards they signed in January. I picked one transfer I think they paid well over the odds on, I have pointed this out already. Just how thick are you really? Honestly it really is like hitting my head against a brick wall but instead of it making me thicker you seem to be having the negative affects on the old brain cells. You probably didn't, it'll be "you know who" making stuff up again. Liverpools transfer policy is exactly like ours is now stated to be, when it comes to transfers they have always lived within their means. £20Mill for Henderson is ridiculous (IMO) but if they can afford it, that's up to them.

That is the crux of the whole matter IMO. I can see reasons justifying the frugality up to now (as I've stated many many times), this summer the club is in a sound position, the will to move onwards and upwards (or not) will be plain to see come Sept 1st. That "will" however, will be "within our means". Edit - (Crux os obviously word of the day)

So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007? Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc) I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing. So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic? 59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point.... Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club. The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue. It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back. The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line. Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability. Any element of the figure which is attributable to the purchase price of the club can simply be ignored fwiw, so he gets neither a) the plaudits for 'pumping this money in' (blind, pro-Ashley propagandists) or b ) the blame for putting the club into 'even greater debt' (pro-old guard hysteria). Re: the £70 million of existing debts, if this only became repayable on demand where there was a change of owner, then the moderate view is that the last lot didn't have the club at 'death's door' financially speaking as is portrayed by the pro-Ashley propaganda machine. Ie it wasn't about to go instantly bust. And if Ashley had failed to appreciate £70 million was going to become instantly repayable on acquisition, then he's only got himself to blame as per the failure to do due diligence point, which doesn't need to be rehearsed any further. For completeness however, the club was being run at a loss and whichever way you slice it this does become a problem when credit dries up-which it ultimately did. In this sense, it is better to have somebody with Ashely's financial clout transferring the debts to himself instead of the last owners, who simply would never have countenanced that in a million years. ie we weren't about to go instantly bust when Ashley took over, however we were in a lot of debt that we were having to service via loans-which is a game you usually play by consistently re-structuring. This model fails when credit providers disappear. Basically, it's clear as day Ashley is attempting to do things on a shoestring now, but then it is his cash on the line I suppose. For me Ashley's main suit isn't what he's ploughed in, it's simply historical context. Anyone thinking that the old guard would be throwing money around these days (ie their own money) compared to Ashley is off their swede. It's the wrong argument altogether (not that that will change anything on here). Someone else might come in and fancy having a speculative punt with their own coin, but Ashley won't and in the present tense the last lot wouldn't either. If I see some sensible acquisitions and a team that wants to play for the shirt, that'll do me for now. That's just being realistic about the times we live in. The good thing is, I actually think getting a few right minded and hungry players in, with a decent scouting policy, can get you a good few places up this current league. After that, who knows, perhaps we will get bought. Then its down to fate once again. Agree 100% Ashley is 100% to blame for his exposure to the repayment of the £70Mill and if he had done a full due dilligence I reckon he'd have done what the other suitors did and would have buggered off. Obviously that's just my opinion. re Kitman's comment, I believe he knew the debt was there, but was not aware (because he didn't do full dilligence) that it had to be paid off sharpish. To be honest not many teams (excluding those with Sheiks/Oligrachs) take a "speculative punt", on balance the top teams all operate within their means.

Agree totally Agree but it didn’t need to be paid off in full in 2013, so until then he could have kept it going if he’d had the option. Souness and Roeder were around £5Mill between them, don’t know about SBR. The £27Mill figure is the NET owed at the point of change of ownership as far as I am aware.

A spend of +£43Mill is hardly frugal, they support it by buying low and selling high and by making profits.

I think it's what would need to be paid for Ashley to break even. Just got it from the link in robs delloite thread and they don't go into detail. Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital. Did we not have any transfer fees owed to us? It's just I've heard the fact that we owed outstanding amounts ad nauseum from different sources defending Ashley, but rarely hear of any amounts that we were waiting on and as the football world largely pays in installments I find this a bit odd. Just saying, like. The £27Mill figure I believe is the net figure. Obviously any figures are skewed by the Owen deal but it was an incomming deal nonetheless.

So 288 - 132 - 70 - 27 = 59 million that Mike Ashley's put into the club since 2007? Not an inconsiderable amount of money but some of that is presumably for a) paying compo to managers and their staff that have been sacked/forced out paying the cost of getting relegated from the PL c) paying high wages of players which were signed under his ownership (Smith, Collo, Gutti, etc) I'm not including transfer errors here like having to pay compo for Gutti's Bosman or the Xisco signing. So 229 to buy the club and 59 mill to keep it solvent? With a chunk of the 59 mill needed because of Ashley's own errors. Or is that just too simplistic? 59 mill sounds less impressive than 288 mill, although obviously it's 59 mill of his own money not a bank's, so good on him. I expect he'll want that back at some point.... Purchase cost was £132Mill, which has been leveraged against the club, not sure it should really be called “debt” per se as it was the cost of purchasing the shares and as such is really the “value of the club”. It’s just the same as if anyone else had bought the shares, it’s the minimum cost anyone would have to pay to buy the club. The £70Mill is additional money he had no option but to “put in” due to change of ownership clauses on the existing debts. Whilst that debt hasn’t gone away the benefit is that he’s paid that off as a loan, interest free and unsecured, saves the club £7Mill a year interest and the capital sum of the stadium expansion mortgage (£45Mill) which was due for repayment in 2013 is no longer an issue. It could be argued that as it’s a debt to the owner and as such to all intents and purposes the club is the owner and visa versa, it’s not really a debt at all, but I wouldn’t go that far as no doubt he will want it back at some point. That said unlike virtually all the other owners who are “in deep” he’s not charging interest and hasn’t secured his lending on club assets, that’s an important point. He therefore has no guarantee, he’ll get it back. The £27Mill transfer fee’s “owed” had to come from somewhere so in essence he’s covered some of that, as well, in his subsidies to the bottom line. Manager compensation (Alardarse and KK) was £10Mill IMO the only thing you can really discount from his “subsidy” is the original purchase price, he could have tried to refinance the £70Mill against the club, but he didn’t, he really did “pay it off” it’s now technically his risk/liability.

Between 07/8 and 10/11 (last 4years) Arsenal's player trading shows a profit of £21Mill. But if extended back over the last decade their position on transfers shows an overall deficit (net spend) of £31Mill. If Fabregas and Nasri nick off I'd be surprised if they're not in player trading profit again. Figures are as stated in their accounts. Similarly, Liverpool over the same 4 years have a net deficit of £18Mill and extended over the decade a net spend of £97.3Mill (Doesn't include Carroll/Suarez/Henderson - but Torres/Babel cash balanced the first two).

I think it's what would need to be paid for Ashley to break even. Just got it from the link in robs delloite thread and they don't go into detail. Purchase price £132 Million, repaying pre-exisiting debts of £70 Million (of which £45 Million was the stadium mortgage, the rest was "other loans") plus £27 Mill owed on transfers, whatever else since has been injected working capital.