Toonpack

Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million. Take out the reiteration and you’re answer boils down to “Not really, end of”, which to be fair isn’t the most compelling argument I’ve ever read. What argument and what point are you trying to make ??? really ??? The club was skint. Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though.

Your comprehension is shit isn't it It's a fallacy because ........................

Bold bit = Fallacy, because as my non-diatribe facts riddled post(s) states - the liabilities are, by and large, underwritten by owners/benefactors. The rest is the usual laughable nonsense. What's your plan Leazes, to put us back in the glory ??

Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million.

How can you conceivably “assume no new debts would build up”. Our debt had grown from £37 Million in 2004 to £70 Million in 2007, that’s all but doubled in four years – sounds familiar as it’s doubled again in about the same timeframe. So we would have had to refinance the £25 million (you mention) plus a lumper to cover the annual losses, running at circa £30 Million a year, so for lets say 4 years, we’re looking at a refinance package of £25 Million plus 4x £30 Million, which equals £150 Million, near as makes no difference. When you are running at a loss the debt doesn’t stand still, it gets bigger every day. Of course any new loan repayments are also an increased cost to the club. So refinancing then – What was the package that was agreed to come into place ?? All I can see reference to is a £3 million loss in the 2007 accounts for failed refinancing attempts. BTW we were already paying 11.75% on one loan we already had in place in 2007. I’d also point out the net assets, -£16 Mill in my post above, at this time, we had literally less than NOTHING to secure lending against. But all that is OK because the other teams in the Premiership have debt, so we being NUFC can do it as well, on an even grander scale because we’re HUGE. Well let’s look at the Prem Teams. (these figures are from an early 2010 article as they are the best and most recent summary I can find). Discounting the top 4 as they are different cases. Liverpool Turnover: £164.2m Operating profit: £24.9m Net debt: £261.7m Interest payment: £36.5m The clearest possible example of the madness of a leveraged buyout in football. Liverpool's relatively healthy operating profits in 07-08 were wiped out by interest payments on their borrowings from the Royal Bank of Scotland and the US bank Wachovia. Since Liverpool refinanced in the summer, the new managing director of the club, Christian Purslow, has claimed that the club's debt has come down to £237m. New owner since then but he’s already said, got to sell to spend. West Ham Turnover: £71.6m Operating profit: –£32.8m Net debt: £114.9m Interest payment: £3.0m As the new co-owner David Gold puts it: "a car crash". West Ham's 07-08 accounts showed that they owed £114.9m, more than its annual turnover. The accounts also showed the club had breached covenants on a £35m bank loan. The new repayment date for that loan, from a syndicate of five banks, is August 2011. This is, no doubt, the reason why the Hammers' new owners are urgently seeking to raise £40m from new investors. Wonder why the just don't go to the bank ?? Fulham Turnover: £53.7m Operating profit: –£2.1m Net debt: £164.0m Interest payment: £1.0m The colossal size of Fulham's net borrowing reflects the debt it owes to Mohamed al-Fayed. The 07-08 accounts show that the club owes the Harrods owner £159m. However, this is said to be unsecured, interest-free and with no fixed repayment timetable. The club also has a £4.5m bank loan from NatWest, secured on Fulham's future broadcasting income and repayable within a year, on which it paid interest of 7.11 per cent. Aston Villa Turnover: £75.6m Operating profit: –£13.1m Net debt: £72.3m Interest payment: £5.7m Aston Villa's 07-08 accounts show the club has a £13m bank loan secured on the club's assets. £2.5m of this is repayable in three instalments each year until 2012. It also has a £10m overdraft. But Villa's biggest debt is to their American owner, Randy Lerner, who has lent the club £49.5m. These loans are repayable in full in December 2016. Villa paid £4.1m in interest in the year on Lerner's loan, on top of £1.37m to service the bank loan. Sunderland Turnover: £63.5m Operating profit: –£2.4m Net debt: £48.8m Interest payment: £0.7m Another club that survives by the grace of wealthy benefactors. The club's 07-08 accounts show that the Black Cats owed £35.2m to their immediate parent company. This was unsecured, interest-free and with no repayment date. The club also had a £13.6m bank overdraft, guaranteed by the owners. Ellis Short, the American businessman who took full control of the club last May, has given conflicting signals over how much he is willing to spend in order to push Sunderland up the table. The latest word is that he wants to reduce the wage bill. Bolton Wanderers Turnover: £52.3m Operating profit: –£5.3m Net debt: £58.4m Interest payment: £3.9m Not a healthy picture. Bolton rely on the backing of their owner Edwin Davies. The latest accounts show that the club owes its parent company £55.9m. Moreover, this borrowing does not come for free: £23m is repayable on demand and has an interest rate of 10 per cent. A further £11.5m is secured on future TV money. Wigan Athletic Turnover: £46.3m Operating profit: –£17.0m Net debt: £54.0m Interest payment: £1.5m The club's latest accounts make it plain that all that stands between Wigan and oblivion is Dave Whelan. The owner has put £39m into the club in the form of an unsecured, interest-free loan with no fixed repayment date. The club also has an overdraft and bank loan from Barclays of £18.7m, repayable on demand, on which Wigan paid £1.5m in interest in 08-09. The club ran at an operating loss of £17m in that year and the accounts note "further losses are anticipated in 2010 and 2011". Tottenham Hotspur Turnover: £113.0m Operating profit: £18.4m Net debt: £45.9m Interest payment: £8.0m Spurs have gone into debt to build a new training ground in Enfield. The club is paying an annual interest rate of 7.29 per cent on £30m of its borrowings. But it does not have to pay this back until 2024. A planned new 56,000-seat stadium should increase match-day revenues, although it remains to be seen how much the project itself will cost, or the terms of the financing. Stoke City Turnover: £11.2m Operating profit: –£7.8m Net debt: £2.3m Interest payment: £0.5m The Potters' 07-08 accounts showed negligible debt, but do make it clear how dependent the club is on its benefactor, Peter Coates, the owner of the bet365 online betting company. Revenue will have increased thanks to the Premier League TV money. But so will their outgoings. Last summer, the club spent £10m in luring Robert Huth and Tuncay Sanli to the Britannia Stadium. Everton Turnover: £79.7m Operating profit: £6.3m Net debt: £37.9m Interest payment: £4.1m Uncertainty reigns. £27m of the Toffees' borrowings – secured on future ticket sales – are spread over a relatively long period. But the 7.79 per cent interest rate meant that £4.1m of cash left the club in 08-09. The plan to increase match-day revenues by building a new 50,000-seat stadium in Kirkby was thrown into disarray last year when the Government rejected the proposal. Wolves Turnover: £18.2m Operating profit: –£1.6m Net debt: £13.0m Interest payment: £0m Wolves spent heavily to win promotion in 2007 and the club's 07-08 accounts reflect that. The effort was financed by new owner, Steve Morgan, who is now owed £13m by the club, although this is interest-free. Morgan tried to buy Liverpool in 2004 and says he was prepared to put £70m of cash into the Merseyside club to do so. Looking at Wolves' zero interest bill for 07-08, many Liverpool fans will probably wish he had been successful. Birmingham City Turnover: £49.8m Operating profit: £13.7m Net debt: £12.0m Interest payment: £0.26m Hope, perhaps, for Hammers fans. Birmingham City's 07-08 accounts reflect the golden legacy of David Gold, David Sullivan and Karren Brady. The accounts are evidence that a middle-ranking club without a ridiculously wealthy sugar daddy can run its finances in a sensible manner. The club's main debt was a £14.7m loan from its parent company, but this appears to be interest-free. Birmingham's new owner, Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung, has a solid base on which to build. Blackburn Rovers Turnover: £50.9m Operating profit: –£6.8m Net debt: £20.3m Interest payment: £0.8m Precarious. The latest accounts show bank debt, secured on the club's assets, projected to increase to £20m. This loan is repayable by May 2012. The estate of the club's late benefactor, Jack Walker, has lent some £6m interest-free. But there does not appear to be an open-ended commitment to fund the club's losses. As the chairman, John Williams, warns in the accounts: "Without external funding we are inevitably moving from a trading club to a net selling club". obviously they've been sold to the chicken farmers since The bottom line appears to be the banks that do lend money to clubs only do so IF it’s guaranteed by owners. Otherwise the clubs debts are serviced by the owners. I’ve said before thank fuck Freddy/Halls pissed off and we got someone with deep pockets. To me it is evident that the banks were NOT a route to refinance without a guarantee from Halls/FFS (because the club had NOTHING) and to be honest that just wouldn’t have happened, A- because they ain’t rich enough, and B - because they were into making money from the club not risking their own cash. "Portsmouth 2" just waiting to happen. I hope that’s answered the points you raised.

Sorry it's taken so long, been a busy weekend ( and I haven't read the thread further yet so some of this may have been said already by a fellow realist) - and it's in two bits as it must be too big for a single reply. Revenue (the money we generate) in itself is irrelevant, what is important is the revenue figure in comparison to the liabilities and costs associated with generating said revenue. We made a loss of £34.2 Million in 2007 That means the “revenue” was less, by a considerable amount, than the money we spent. The money “went” out the door faster than it came in. That loss was also “reduced” by the fact we got £7 million from the FA for Owens injury. We had record high revenue of £99.4 million in 2008, 2009 revenue dropped to £86.1 Million but that’s comparable with 2007, in fact possibly better because we achieved almost the same revenue with no UEFA cup games, the annual loss went down to £20.3 million (would have been £30 million if we didn’t make a profit on player sales of £10mill-ish) (BTW our only “profit” of £660K in 2005 was helped by a profit on player sales of £13.4 million). Directly responding to the point about “where’s the money gone” the answer is that it’s gone chasing the money we didn’t have but had spent in years past (or committed to spending in years past). For example, the £25million 5 year deal N/Rock cash (2005), paid up front and spent the in same year. There’s a £5million a year reduction in revenue for starters. Undoubtedly Ashley’s mistakes have cost the club (and him) dear. BUT I would consider a significant amount of the increased debt is because of what went before (or what was committed to before) and is resultant from spending above our means. Appreciate the relegation has cost more than staying up would have. Look at the net assets position: 1998 - +£100 Million 1999 - +£55 Million 2000 - +£36 Million 2001 - +£23 Million 2002 - +£36 Million 2003 - +£37 Million 2004 - +£32 Million 2005 - +£28 Million 2006 - +£17 Million 2007 – Minus £16 Million That means in 2007 we had liabilities of £16 Million fucking quid more than the total of ALL our assets.

I will when I get a minute, busy day and gannin oot soon, haven't properly read it all yet. You going to answer your share of questions elsewhere ??

I wonder where U V thinks the money could come from, maybe he'll answer the question.

you're entertaining as fuck too aren't you ? Correct. but way behind me I would doubt that, you live in the past.

By your logic Hitler did a cracking job for Germany.

Nope, his was the best period I have known, I had a pop at him for opening his gob now, when it's of no import. BTW he said he'd have sold Carroll too. P.S. Stolen from elsewhere for your crtitique,

They achieved 9.4th post Keegan (7.642857th inclusive of KK) They were for a time, then the world changed and they didn't/couldn't or maybe didn't want to because the gravy train kept a rollin. You post selected outdated "facts" of no relevance to the period in question. If you want to play that game the best regime we ever had was in the 50's FACT. They weren't. You spout this same bollocks all the time, 23 years ago this past Wednesday 7,000 turned up to support the team against Wrexham, it was abondoned at half time, without me it'd have been 6,999. What you think of me is irrelevant to me, you are deluded beyond all comprehension. I don't despise them, I realised in the cold light of day that after they drove KK off and the brief hiatus under SBR that they were utterly clueless. I don't get all emotional about stuff, never have, just like to be realistic. Now fuck off to your Mohammed shed and wave bacon at the neighbours.

My opinions are stated and I stand by them. End of. If you wish to find variance from said opinions of mine go ahead, please don't just make them up out of thin air. Regarding the snippet above, post Keegan, our average league position over the years was 9th (9.4th) to be precise. 10th or above year on year would actually equal that and you seem ecstatic and forever thankfull for that. Of course winning one solitary thing, would surpass it all.

Please point out examples of said backtracking. I still believe we would have been royally screwed under the continuance of the previous regime. Because the business model was absolutely, 100%, indisputably, unsustainable. (and no I don't "hate" them, I do think they were chancers supreme, who got lucky though and they screwed up as bad as FCB has, if not worse). I still firmly believe that, "what has happened to this club since the tosspot bought us" is significantly less bad, than what would have happened come 2008 and the banking debacle under the previous ownership, I also believe SJH's indecent haste to "get rid" indicates he saw the signs as well. (they'd - the club - already spent/lost £3mill on failed attempts to sell/refinance). I still believe we are "lucky" that Ashley was stupid enough to buy us without due dilligence. I am glad (gratefull even) he had deep pockets in proportion to his stupidity and the black hole he bought. I do believe he has shown great incompetence for a supposed business genius. I do not want the previous regime back in charge, ever. Accepting stupid money for Carroll, was absolutely the right thing to do IF it is spent in the summer (and no I won't say give him to January if it's not spent). This is the defining moment for FCB, the club HAS the money and should use it "on the field". Liverpool are (still) a bigger draw than us to players and are considered, within the game (which is where it matters) bigger than us, irrespective of any measurables to the contrary. Without an Arab/Oligarch challenging for the C/L places again has been an unrealisable fantasy for years, irrespective of regime. I think all of the above has been my position throughout. I agreed with the plausability of your theory around Ashley's purchase, I vehemently disagree with you on just about everything else. Mainly becuase you have no answers. As I said at the top, please feel free to give examples of my "changing" position.

The moon's blue, a Leazes post I agree with, almost. The Champions league (at this time) would need a financial gamble that even he isn't rich enough to go at. To be honest, our best bet of C/L ever again is Platini's new rules, if fully enforced (which I doubt) because then, our "size" would have a material effect again.

Absolutely answer my points and questions. Sick of doing that tbh, have answered every one over the piece, many several times, you never answer any, ever, try NJS's recent one for size why don't you. I don't hate anyone btw Am done with this.

Absolutely

What you say is the same old tripe which you can never back up. you incessantly talk like the Keegan days were still in full flow up to 2007/8. It was crap, not a lot different to now, the 7th placed finish was a late season miracle, it wasn't a serene procession, you could even say it was lucky. The years either side were WAY more representative of "where we stood". Also he's not "my man". BTW in the 2007 accounts which reflected our biggest EVER loss, part of which was a £3mill loss incurred on aborted refinancing attempts and takeover attempts. But we would have been fine, even in the credit collapse, we would have refinanced or would have been sold to someone (other than Ashley) because the brand was so strong. Aye right. You are beyond thick. BTW the failed flotation - £300-ish quid a share !!! in those days !!!! what would that be now ?? and floated just around Christmas (shortly after I think), it was designed to fail man Please don't bother quoting/responding, am done with this. I will comment on this topic to others or when I see fit, but you are beyond redemption.

What's that based on though? If we've accounted for TV money and player wages without showing that kind of profit, where do you see it coming from? 23 * 43000 = 989K bums on seats last year. 19*47000 = 893K bums on seats this year So there's less matchday revenue being generated this season. I've not seen any major announcements for sponsoership or new major kit deals. You're ignoring something there as well regarding the ticket revenue. When we got relegated we made £15.6m from ST sales £11m last season, but some are reporting gate receipts went up, which is true from £5.5m to £6.5m which is true, but the overall money's generated from ticket sales regardless of ST/our pay as you go went down from £21.1m to £17.5m. This season our average has gone up, it will be 5,000 higher than last season ticket prices have went through the roof £43 cheapest v Sunderland/Man Utd etc...while the ST sales only went up 1,000, so we should get back near the £21m gate receipts money we had in 2009, another example of it going up. I think that's all negated by having 10% more people coming through the gates (paying the same for pies pints crisps and pop) in the championship than we have in the PL. Point is, it's debateable, and J69's £50m figure is cloud cuckoo land. The pies and beer has been outsourced since 2008 so will likely be the same year on year.

Irony in extremis

Speaking of thick as pigshit, hiya Leazes I haven't mentioned Shepherd once in this thread. I have mentioned a few facts though. BTW not starting the circle with you again, you are so fucking deluded it's unture !!!

No sentence boils my piss more than this. Without Ashley we'd never have dropped into the Championship in the first place so Dekka can shove this theory 3 miles up his own arsehole. It doesn't wash with me. It's probably true though, we made a bigger loss than this in 2007 of £34.2 Mill then came the credit debacle, I can't see how we could have survived without someone with deep pockets. If not "gone broke" we'd have been seriously skint and let's face it we'd been pretty crap for years, even the 7th placed finish was due to a bit of a late season run from a position of some danger. Being totally skint, reliant on credit (when there was none to be had) and shite, was not a recipe for a resurgence. Edit - this is NOT a pro Ashley post. There is no fucking way in god's green earth that we'd have gone out of business without Mike Ashley. As JawD points out, someone else would have bought us. The Newcastle United brand is worth too much. Same goes for any top flight club tbh. I'm not defending the bloke. re-read my second paragraph (and my edit for that matter) I accept we may have been "bought" by someone, but from what position, administration probably, the financial model was unsustainable (even if the credit crunch hadn't happened), the team was crap and we were heading one way. The reason I say "from administration probably" is that we had huge debts, revenue was maxed out and we were piling up huge losses. If Ashley had done due dilligence (the idiot) he wouldn't have touched us with a barge pole. Seriously, what other buyer would ?? (unless of course we were being firesale'd by say an administrator). Aye it's a strong even "great" brand, but once upon a time so was Woolworths. All hypothetical of course, bottom line though, we needed a really rich twat, we got one, but sadly he's a bit dim, thank gawd he's minted though.

No sentence boils my piss more than this. Without Ashley we'd never have dropped into the Championship in the first place so Dekka can shove this theory 3 miles up his own arsehole. It doesn't wash with me. It's probably true though, we made a bigger loss than this in 2007 of £34.2 Mill then came the credit debacle, I can't see how we could have survived without someone with deep pockets. If not "gone broke" we'd have been seriously skint and let's face it we'd been pretty crap for years, even the 7th placed finish was due to a bit of a late season run from a position of some danger. Being totally skint, reliant on credit (when there was none to be had) and shite, was not a recipe for a resurgence. Edit - this is NOT a pro Ashley post.

Luadable though it may be, a deaf and dumb singing section won't help the atmosphere much mate.

# Don't be stupid, they don't need parking spaces for their canoes