NUFC Accounts

[Guest alex]

These accounts come out and King Cunt crawls out the woodwork again.

 

I know it's hard when you find out that if it wasn't for Ashley guaranteeing to support us financially we would be in administration but you've got to take it on the chin.

I'd have a modicum of respect for you (not that I'm suggesting you're arsed about that) if you didn't go hiding when he was doing things like offering Kinnear the job on a permanent basis or trying to flog Given. But where would you and your petty point scoring be then?

[Hadrian 0]

there is another thread like this on the chron forum with some interesting facts and lots of arguments , but its worth a read if anyone cbh .

 

dont buy into this BS, we would be in admin without ashley , .

Edited January 22, 2009 by Hadrian

[Fop 1]

Great transfer window so far, eh Baggio?

 

And these accounts explain why we're not splashing the cash around.

 

We were making a bigger loss prior to Ashley according to Happy Face (assuming the books haven't been cooked).

 

 

 

Also what level do you see NUFC at, as a £0 club? Championship?

[trophyshy 6434]

These accounts come out and King Cunt crawls out the woodwork again.

 

I know it's hard when you find out that if it wasn't for Ashley guaranteeing to support us financially we would be in administration but you've got to take it on the chin.

 

Surely he'll back any of his businesses that could otherwise go into administration if he thinks he can turn it around by slashing costs and getting cheap goods in to sell on at a profit eventually?

 

That's like saying looking after your kids prevents them going into care homes tbh.

[Guest alex]

It's perhaps worth remembering how NUFC is now perceived by people away from the club - in the media, in the game and in general. And that is as an absolute shambles of a club at its lowest ebb for years and one which no one decent would touch with a bargepole (be that manager or player) and one where (if rumours are to be believed) some of the most loyal servants and best players want out asap. That's not a defence of the previous regime either, who I was a vocal critic of many times, it's just plain and simple facts. Until that is sorted out the club has no chance of moving forward regardless of the intricacies of these latest accounts (which I have to confess I do no really comprehend anyway).

[Big TRon 0]

You are behaving like battered wives refusing to leave their husbands.

 

He bought the club to make money -no other reason, he has no interest at all in wha the supporters might want or having a succesful team. Look at his business empire, cheap tat piled high with no regard for staff or respect for customers

 

The only unanswered question is did he buy the club to flog on straight away for a quick profit, or did he buy it to run it on the cheap for as long as possible as an ongoing cash cow.

 

He is an asset stripping cunt who cares about nothing but making money

 

Nae offense mate but an audited account by Enrst and Young doesnt lie and thats clearly shown as utter bollocks by these accounts.

 

As for his profit motive, i'm fucking delighted that he is driven by making money, i'd hate us to be the only football club in the world without a chairman that is and therefore being run by someone potentially clinically insane.

 

 

An audited account by Enrst and Young might not lie, but it also doesnt tell anything like the full story. As mentioned before it takes no account of the money from next two years season ticket sales, or am I expected to believe that has been put into a bank account untouched until the relevant season. At the very least it must have some effect on cash flow.

 

I dont get how the accounts disprove my assertion anyway, bought the company, paid off the debt flog off as many players and bring in cheap replacements, if it wasnt for the credit crunch I would imagine he could have turned himself a very tidy quick profit.

 

He hasnt sold it, plainly thinks we arent going to get relegated, and that the fans will turn up regdless and the years to come will see media money increasing as the wage bill tumbles. Flog off a couple of his mate Wisey's imports at a healthy profit every year, jobs a gudun

 

Your last comment is frankly bizzarre, Its nice your happy about his motives though. Me, I prefer someone whose ambitions stretched to having a succesful club

 

So do I, where can I get me one of those and are they cheaper in January?

[Asprilla 96]

The thing is, if crippling wages are the problem, Ashley / Llambias should have come out and told us that. Another thing - who was in control of the club when Smith, Geremi, Viduka and Barton were signed and got these contracts?

 

Allardyce has a lot to answer for too.

Wouldn't have been involved in contract negotiations though, would he?

No but no matter what we paid these players they would have been poor value.

That's by the by. The current regime seem intent on trimming the wage bill but they have to carry some of the can for giving these people the large wages in the first place. That's not a defence of Allardyce's pretty ordinary record in the transfer market. I can sort of understand Viduka because he was a free so you have to balance his high wage against savings on the lack of a fee.

I think that when you look at it overall, including the above, it smacks of a pretty shambolic plan from Ashley and co, which may go some way to explaining the constant contradictions that come out of the club. I understand that the 'global financial meltdown' has perhaps played its part but I think the investment in the team was inadequate prior to that in the 3 transfer windows beforehand. There may be reasons for that that are not the fault of the board. Maybe we really did try for Modric and Woodgate etc. Although I have reason to be believe at least one of those approaches were lukewarm. You have to wonder what Ashley is playing at. He sacked Allardyce and brought in KK. But he also approached Redknapp. He's brought in a chairman who never speaks to the fans and a DoF (for want of a better word) who seems to have a massive influence on 1st team affairs despite having a managerial track record that is nothing special and certainly vastly inferior to those who have had (of would have had to) work under him.

The continued positions of Lambias and Wise are puzzling since they are both highly replaceable and netther seems to add much benefit to the club.

 

The point about trimming the wage bill is important as the accounts show that we need need to trim this to turn us back into a going concern / viable business.

 

Someone said above that you cant think of a football clubs as a normal business. This is so wrong, its hard to know where to start. Perhaps Leeds, or Hearts, or Charlton Athletic would be good places.

 

From a 'management' perspective, Ashley has been cynical and stupid but from a financial point of view, the accounts show that the tranfer window activity has been necessary.

 

I've got very little time for him but i do think during times of turbulence and hostility, its important to see a balanced picture of events.

I sort of agree with you, but the problem isn't WHAT he's doing as such, but more that it's completely different to what he SAYS he's doing.

 

 

If he just said "this club is in the shit, we need to get rid of players on big money in order to avoid going under" then people couldn't really complain. It's the big promises that don't ever come true that winds everyone up.

 

I don't remember people saying fair enough when there was talk of him looking to cut the wage bill back in the Summer.

You didn't read my post very carefully did you?

 

 

I said the problem is that he says one thing and does another. It's the lying that pisses everyone off.

 

 

Are you going to try and pretend that he hasn't lied?

[Fop 1]

The thing is, if crippling wages are the problem, Ashley / Llambias should have come out and told us that. Another thing - who was in control of the club when Smith, Geremi, Viduka and Barton were signed and got these contracts?

 

Allardyce has a lot to answer for too.

Wouldn't have been involved in contract negotiations though, would he?

No but no matter what we paid these players they would have been poor value.

That's by the by. The current regime seem intent on trimming the wage bill but they have to carry some of the can for giving these people the large wages in the first place. That's not a defence of Allardyce's pretty ordinary record in the transfer market. I can sort of understand Viduka because he was a free so you have to balance his high wage against savings on the lack of a fee.

I think that when you look at it overall, including the above, it smacks of a pretty shambolic plan from Ashley and co, which may go some way to explaining the constant contradictions that come out of the club. I understand that the 'global financial meltdown' has perhaps played its part but I think the investment in the team was inadequate prior to that in the 3 transfer windows beforehand. There may be reasons for that that are not the fault of the board. Maybe we really did try for Modric and Woodgate etc. Although I have reason to be believe at least one of those approaches were lukewarm. You have to wonder what Ashley is playing at. He sacked Allardyce and brought in KK. But he also approached Redknapp. He's brought in a chairman who never speaks to the fans and a DoF (for want of a better word) who seems to have a massive influence on 1st team affairs despite having a managerial track record that is nothing special and certainly vastly inferior to those who have had (of would have had to) work under him.

The continued positions of Lambias and Wise are puzzling since they are both highly replaceable and netther seems to add much benefit to the club.

 

The point about trimming the wage bill is important as the accounts show that we need need to trim this to turn us back into a going concern / viable business.

 

Someone said above that you cant think of a football clubs as a normal business. This is so wrong, its hard to know where to start. Perhaps Leeds, or Hearts, or Charlton Athletic would be good places.

 

From a 'management' perspective, Ashley has been cynical and stupid but from a financial point of view, the accounts show that the tranfer window activity has been necessary.

 

I've got very little time for him but i do think during times of turbulence and hostility, its important to see a balanced picture of events.

I sort of agree with you, but the problem isn't WHAT he's doing as such, but more that it's completely different to what he SAYS he's doing.

 

 

If he just said "this club is in the shit, we need to get rid of players on big money in order to avoid going under" then people couldn't really complain. It's the big promises that don't ever come true that winds everyone up.

 

I don't remember people saying fair enough when there was talk of him looking to cut the wage bill back in the Summer.

You didn't read my post very carefully did you?

 

 

I said the problem is that he says one thing and does another. It's the lying that pisses everyone off.

 

 

Are you going to try and pretend that he hasn't lied?

 

 

Even down to the money available this window it's been everything from £20m to -£1.5m so far.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Fop

[Asprilla 96]

The thing is, if crippling wages are the problem, Ashley / Llambias should have come out and told us that. Another thing - who was in control of the club when Smith, Geremi, Viduka and Barton were signed and got these contracts?

 

Allardyce has a lot to answer for too.

Wouldn't have been involved in contract negotiations though, would he?

No but no matter what we paid these players they would have been poor value.

That's by the by. The current regime seem intent on trimming the wage bill but they have to carry some of the can for giving these people the large wages in the first place. That's not a defence of Allardyce's pretty ordinary record in the transfer market. I can sort of understand Viduka because he was a free so you have to balance his high wage against savings on the lack of a fee.

I think that when you look at it overall, including the above, it smacks of a pretty shambolic plan from Ashley and co, which may go some way to explaining the constant contradictions that come out of the club. I understand that the 'global financial meltdown' has perhaps played its part but I think the investment in the team was inadequate prior to that in the 3 transfer windows beforehand. There may be reasons for that that are not the fault of the board. Maybe we really did try for Modric and Woodgate etc. Although I have reason to be believe at least one of those approaches were lukewarm. You have to wonder what Ashley is playing at. He sacked Allardyce and brought in KK. But he also approached Redknapp. He's brought in a chairman who never speaks to the fans and a DoF (for want of a better word) who seems to have a massive influence on 1st team affairs despite having a managerial track record that is nothing special and certainly vastly inferior to those who have had (of would have had to) work under him.

The continued positions of Lambias and Wise are puzzling since they are both highly replaceable and netther seems to add much benefit to the club.

 

The point about trimming the wage bill is important as the accounts show that we need need to trim this to turn us back into a going concern / viable business.

 

Someone said above that you cant think of a football clubs as a normal business. This is so wrong, its hard to know where to start. Perhaps Leeds, or Hearts, or Charlton Athletic would be good places.

 

From a 'management' perspective, Ashley has been cynical and stupid but from a financial point of view, the accounts show that the tranfer window activity has been necessary.

 

I've got very little time for him but i do think during times of turbulence and hostility, its important to see a balanced picture of events.

I sort of agree with you, but the problem isn't WHAT he's doing as such, but more that it's completely different to what he SAYS he's doing.

 

 

If he just said "this club is in the shit, we need to get rid of players on big money in order to avoid going under" then people couldn't really complain. It's the big promises that don't ever come true that winds everyone up.

 

I don't remember people saying fair enough when there was talk of him looking to cut the wage bill back in the Summer.

You didn't read my post very carefully did you?

 

 

I said the problem is that he says one thing and does another. It's the lying that pisses everyone off.

 

 

Are you going to try and pretend that he hasn't lied?

 

 

Even down to the money available this window it's been everything from £20m to -£1.5m so far.

Exactly!

[super_jonas 0]

It is clear from the latest financial accounts that he is attempting to build a sustainable football club, something which the club needs given the previous owners. For anyone who hasn't seen the additional breakdown of players wages etc

 

Owner Mike Ashley has ploughed more than £100M into the club to clear all debts at the club.

 

Sam Allardyce and his team got payouts of £4.6M when they left the club in January last year - no wonder it was by mutual consent that he agreed to leave - the club were very good to him financially.

Newcastle received £6.7M in compensation for striker Michael Owen getting injured during the 2006 World Cup while playing for England - that sounds good.

Newcastle’s revenue (turnover) rose from £87.1M to £99.4M over the last year , which reflects the Premier League’s new three-year television deal - that’s a 14.1% increase.

Newcastle have a wage bill of £62.6M, up from £53.2M - that’s a 16.9% increase, which is more than the revenue increase.

Newcastle recorded a loss before tax of £20.3M, which was less than in 2007, when it lost £34.2M.

The accounts were prepared by accountants Ernst and Young, and show that Mike Ashley has invested a further £10M of his own money into Newcastle since the end of the last financial year.

 

They have been signed off on the basis that Ashley has given assurances he will continue to finance operations into the future, which comes just weeks after he revealed the club is no longer up for sale.

 

A note to the financial statement adds:

 

“This funding, together with newly- agreed bank facilities, has been incorporated into the directors’ cash flow forecast for the group.”

 

“These forecasts indicate that the group can continue to meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements.”

 

“The directors have also received a commitment from its parent undertaking, St James Holdings Ltd, and from the ultimate controlling party Mr MJW Ashley that they will continue to provide the group with financial support so that it can meet its debts as they fall due for a period of at least 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements or up until the date of any changing control.”

 

“On this basis, the directors have prepared the financial statements on a going-concern basis.”

 

 

The introductory report to the accounts, written by Managing Director Derek Llambias, states the average Premier League attendances at St James’ Park rose from 50,686 to 51,321.

 

We would expect that figure to drop by a few thousand for the current financial year, because the home attendances seem to be down at least around 8%.

 

It also states matchday and commercial income declined over the year but more income was received due to Newcastle United finishing in 12th place in the league, compared to 13th a season earlier. Each place we understand is worth close to £1M.

 

The statements that Mike Ashley has further invested £110M of his own money into Newcastle United, on top of the £134M he initially paid for the club, are indeed accurate.

 

So Mike’s in for £245M at the club, so far, and it looks like the club has no debts whatsoever. It is understandable the direction he is trying to take the club in.

[peasepud 59]

These accounts come out and King Cunt crawls out the woodwork again.

 

I know it's hard when you find out that if it wasn't for Ashley guaranteeing to support us financially we would be in administration but you've got to take it on the chin.

I'd have a modicum of respect for you (not that I'm suggesting you're arsed about that) if you didn't go hiding when he was doing things like offering Kinnear the job on a permanent basis or trying to flog Given. But where would you and your petty point scoring be then?

 

Thats the thing, before I entered the thread I knew he'd have posted in yet strangely two weeks with nowt beforehand.

 

Thing is Baggy mate, I hope you're working plenty overtime to cover the obvious gambling debts you're going to have, if nothing else these accounts prove we aint gonna spend a penny this month (as if anyone other than you believed we would)

 

My argument stands btw, theres no way Mike Ashley bought this club to save it from ruin, he bought us to make money, now that his original plan to do that is fucked (ie more debt than he realised (own fault for not doing due diligence), a credit crunch and a fanbase that hates him (Baggio excepted of course)) then he goes to plan b.

 

The bit I find incredible is that these accounts run to July, the time when Keegan was here, the time preceeding the infamous transfer window yet the talk coming out of the club was all good, there'll be money to spend, KK was obviously given that view. I believe these accounts to be accurate Im not disputing that however the ones that will be interesting will be next Julys. Those I cannot wait to see pulled apart.

[LeazesMag 0]

These accounts come out and King Cunt crawls out the woodwork again.

 

I know it's hard when you find out that if it wasn't for Ashley guaranteeing to support us financially we would be in administration but you've got to take it on the chin.

I'd have a modicum of respect for you (not that I'm suggesting you're arsed about that) if you didn't go hiding when he was doing things like offering Kinnear the job on a permanent basis or trying to flog Given. But where would you and your petty point scoring be then?

 

don't worry about it mate, if his man stays around long enough, we will end up right back where the Halls and shepherd found us, with the DOF running the show, and hopefully he would fuck off for good.

[LeazesMag 0]

there is another thread like this on the chron forum with some interesting facts and lots of arguments , but its worth a read if anyone cbh .

 

dont buy into this BS, we would be in admin without ashley , .

 

indeed it is, but we will be in the shit if he stays and the crowds are halved and we are relegated for a couple of years or more

[LeazesMag 0]

It's perhaps worth remembering how NUFC is now perceived by people away from the club - in the media, in the game and in general. And that is as an absolute shambles of a club at its lowest ebb for years and one which no one decent would touch with a bargepole (be that manager or player) and one where (if rumours are to be believed) some of the most loyal servants and best players want out asap. That's not a defence of the previous regime either, who I was a vocal critic of many times, it's just plain and simple facts. Until that is sorted out the club has no chance of moving forward regardless of the intricacies of these latest accounts (which I have to confess I do no really comprehend anyway).

 

that is true. While people knew we made a cock up appointing Souness, we were still perceived as a club estabished among the other big clubs, perhaps on a downer but only a temporary one and would get our act together again.

 

Big difference between one that changes direction - now that is a club "going backwards", for want of an expression used by some of baggy's fellow Ashley apologists on NO, who also can't bring themselves to admit that his "plan" including denis the DOF is putting the club back years - beyond more than one that a simple change of manager could correct quite quickly.

[stevietoon 0]

on the finance thing; we all knew he was forced to pay off the mortgage the halls set up and that was at least £57m.

reflecting on the mortgage. it was used to develop the ground and in light of developments since it was completed, experts in that field consider it to be one of the best pieces of business shepherd and hall did; rebuilding SJP to the quality they did and then doing it on a mortgage which by standards of Arsenal's looks chicken feed.

liverpool, everton, spurs and chelsea would snap your hands off for a 52,000 searter stadium on a mortgage of £57m.

 

Ashley should take a cold hard look at myself and the people he did the deal with (and those who assisted/advised him). with the mortgage still in place we would have had that £100m to invest back into the club in a positive way, not lining the coffers of barclays debt machine. he should have done full due diligence.....fact; he should have considered re mortgaging rather than paying it off in cash......fact; he should have explained all of this 18 months ago..........fact; i equate his handling of the mortgage to the guy who saves all his pennies, pays off his mortgage packs in work and then finds that he has no money to feed his family. A foolish and selfish thing to do, as his kids starve to death or get taken into care. some call him prudent, others a fool.

 

on the remaining £40m; without a full set of accounts and the previous years figures to match up against, i dont know how much we were in debt, whether that was serviceable debt, debt on transfer fees stil due or debt due to the companys trading position. on the increase in wages during the period; does that include the £4.6m+ to Allardyce and his backroom staff

 

What we do know is that mike ashley paid off debt but then placed it in another account ready to collect when the club is sold. is the club worth the value he paid for it £136m or did he get if on the cheap - over £100m cheaper than it was worth, cos apparently its now worth nearly £245m; or does he just want some other mug to pay him what he thinks he is owed for his folly.

 

its all in the spin

[Gemmill 34422]

It's perhaps worth remembering how NUFC is now perceived by people away from the club - in the media, in the game and in general. And that is as an absolute shambles of a club at its lowest ebb for years and one which no one decent would touch with a bargepole (be that manager or player) and one where (if rumours are to be believed) some of the most loyal servants and best players want out asap. That's not a defence of the previous regime either, who I was a vocal critic of many times, it's just plain and simple facts. Until that is sorted out the club has no chance of moving forward regardless of the intricacies of these latest accounts (which I have to confess I do no really comprehend anyway).

 

that is true. While people knew we made a cock up appointing Souness

 

 

WHAT???

[ewerk 26285]

From The Times

January 23, 2009

Newcastle United set to report £34.1m loss

 

 

George Caulkin

 

The black hole at the heart of Newcastle United’s finances has been revealed with the first set of figures from Mike Ashley’s disastrous spell as owner showing that the company set up to run the club made a pre-tax loss of £34.1 million.

 

The report also discloses that, of the annual turnover of £100.9 million, the wage bill amounted to £73 million, or 72 per cent of Newcastle’s income. About 50 per cent is generally accepted as the safe limit. This may explain why the club have been eager to cut the salaries of senior professionals such as Michael Owen, Nicky Butt and Steve Harper, all of whom are out of contract this summer, provoking disaffection in the dressing-room.

 

The accounts for St James Holdings Limited, the company established to buy and operate Newcastle, which it wholly owns, put into perspective recent problems on and off the pitch. While Ashley has promised to support the club through trying economic circumstances, it is clear that previous levels of spending are unsustainable.

 

The deficit of £34.1 million for the year ended June 30, 2008, includes £20.3 million that arose directly from the running of the club. It confirms that, after buying Newcastle for £134 million, Ashley has spent another £100 million to keep them afloat, including £70 million on cutting debts.

 

Ashley recently announced that the club were no longer for sale, having failed to find a buyer. The limited activity in the transfer market this month may be because the owner appears caught between a desire to slash costs and the need to revitalise a team caught in a relegation battle. As the report states: “the acquisition of players and their related payroll costs are one of the most significant and high-profile risks facing the Group.”

 

Under Ashley and Dennis Wise, the executive director (football), the club have bolstered their academy, although it was a dispute over transfer policy that led to the departure of Kevin Keegan as manager in September. Joe Kinnear, Keegan’s successor, has made similar criticisms of Newcastle’s wildly unbalanced first-team squad and the concern is that refusing to invest further in players will cause the cycle of underachievement to continue.

 

The figures provide an insight into the dangerous position Ashley inherited when he took the club into private hands and, while he remains an unpopular figure among supporters, the tenure of the Hall and Shepherd families, who previously controlled Newcastle, invites scrutiny.

 

Ashley has admitted publicly that he was unaware of the financial difficulties that faced him, having chosen not to study the club’s books before his purchase.

 

The accounts filed at Companies House show that more than £2.1 million was spent in compensation to former directors, including Douglas Hall and Bruce Shepherd, for “loss of office”, a huge sum for a company of Newcastle’s stature, while Ashley’s impatience at the slow rate of progress on the pitch also came at a high cost. The dismissal of Sam Allardyce, the former manager, and his backroom staff 12 months ago resulted in a payout of nearly £4.6 million.

 

If there is some empathy for the position in which Ashley found himself and a recognition that he has attempted to run Newcastle on a sounder footing, it will be balanced by the tactical blunders that have characterised his regime. A lack of communication with supporters has roused anger, as did the appointment of Wise and the undermining of Keegan with the signing of players such as Xisco and Ignacio González, which he had not approved.

 

While Ashley bought the club and took on the debt with his own money, at some stage the sportswear retailer expects to be reimbursed. The report shows that St James Holdings Limited was loaned money to buy and re-finance Newcastle and owes Ashley £238 million. He was understood to be seeking about £250 million when the club were officially for sale and would still accept a similar sum.

 

Matters are unlikely to improve during the present financial year, with Newcastle’s season-ticket sales and home crowds dropping appreciably, their income from corporate boxes also falling and a low finish in the Barclays Premier League table beckoning. In protest at Ashley’s management, the Newcastle United Supporters Club has been promoting a boycott of all official club merchandise.

 

Kinnear has been pressing Ashley to sanction the signing of five new players this month to “protect his investment”, but has stated that he will be be given only £10 million to spend on top of what he generates through sales. Kinnear’s first signing as Newcastle’s manager is expected to be confirmed today when Peter Lovenkrands, who is out of contract, joins until the end of the season.

[Matt 0]

Ashley should take a cold hard look at myself and the people he did the deal with (and those who assisted/advised him). with the mortgage still in place we would have had that £100m to invest back into the club in a positive way, not lining the coffers of barclays debt machine. he should have done full due diligence.....fact; he should have considered re mortgaging rather than paying it off in cash......fact; he should have explained all of this 18 months ago..........fact; i equate his handling of the mortgage to the guy who saves all his pennies, pays off his mortgage packs in work and then finds that he has no money to feed his family. A foolish and selfish thing to do, as his kids starve to death or get taken into care. some call him prudent, others a fool.

 

What a load of shite. The debt on the stadium had to be repaid- it had nothing to do with Ashley or any advice he was given. Like the £100m loan Ashley has made to the club, any change of control gives the right for the debt to be called. The investors who had loaned the money took the opportunity to get their cash back now rather than later- so it would have made no difference.

 

The little analogy is similar nonsense. Ashley had a large mound of cash after selling off half of Sports Direct for £800m or so. He put his own cash in to the club because he felt it would be better to do that than invest his £100m elsewhere at 5% and borrow at 7% (borrowings in the club's parlous state would not come cheap). So in fact he was managing his finances sensibly.

 

You're talking rot.....fact.

[peasepud 59]

Ashley should take a cold hard look at myself and the people he did the deal with (and those who assisted/advised him). with the mortgage still in place we would have had that £100m to invest back into the club in a positive way, not lining the coffers of barclays debt machine. he should have done full due diligence.....fact; he should have considered re mortgaging rather than paying it off in cash......fact; he should have explained all of this 18 months ago..........fact; i equate his handling of the mortgage to the guy who saves all his pennies, pays off his mortgage packs in work and then finds that he has no money to feed his family. A foolish and selfish thing to do, as his kids starve to death or get taken into care. some call him prudent, others a fool.

 

What a load of shite. The debt on the stadium had to be repaid- it had nothing to do with Ashley or any advice he was given. Like the £100m loan Ashley has made to the club, any change of control gives the right for the debt to be called. The investors who had loaned the money took the opportunity to get their cash back now rather than later- so it would have made no difference.

 

The little analogy is similar nonsense. Ashley had a large mound of cash after selling off half of Sports Direct for £800m or so. He put his own cash in to the club because he felt it would be better to do that than invest his £100m elsewhere at 5% and borrow at 7% (borrowings in the club's parlous state would not come cheap). So in fact he was managing his finances sensibly.

 

You're talking rot.....fact.

 

Just wanting to play devils advocaat (or whatever) but could it not be more prudent in the football world to continue paying 7% interest on a mortgage and invest the 100million on new players. That investment would in turn, increase revenue in ticket and merchandising, increase the clubs value overall and most importantly get us higher up the table which in turn would automatically generate us additional income in TV revenue and possibly a European place allowing us to finance the interest payments?

[trophyshy 6434]

I LOVE a glass of Devils Advocaat like.

 

But yeah, you're right PP. I was tyring to make that point earlier, in one of my extremely rare sensible posts.

Edited January 23, 2009 by trophyshy

[Kid Dynamite 5904]

At least with that £6.7mil for Owen he only really ended up costing us £10mil

[Matt 0]

Just wanting to play devils advocaat (or whatever) but could it not be more prudent in the football world to continue paying 7% interest on a mortgage and invest the 100million on new players. That investment would in turn, increase revenue in ticket and merchandising, increase the clubs value overall and most importantly get us higher up the table which in turn would automatically generate us additional income in TV revenue and possibly a European place allowing us to finance the interest payments?

 

But they're not mutually exclusive. If Ashley wanted to put more money in the club then he would have done. Let's say there was no change of control clause- Ashley would simply have put in £60m less. I don't think he'd have funded transfers with it. Anyway, raising new finance would have been very difficult. This is not a good business.

 

To revisit the 'debt free' thing- we're free of long-term debt outside the company structure and Ashley. As he owns 100% of the club as long as he is owner (and guaranteeing loans to himself) then we are, in effect, free of long-term debt. There will be shorter-term debts occuring just as in the running of any business.

 

If someone came in and bought the club, paying back SJHL £100m would be part of the deal.

 

Edit: Just thinking about it, had Ashley not provided a personal guarantee in July with his sizeable wealth and decided to just let it drop, EY wouldn't have signed off the accounts, the banks will have withdrawn their facilities and we'd have faced administration in double quick time.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Matt

[Big TRon 0]

Ashley should take a cold hard look at myself and the people he did the deal with (and those who assisted/advised him). with the mortgage still in place we would have had that £100m to invest back into the club in a positive way, not lining the coffers of barclays debt machine. he should have done full due diligence.....fact; he should have considered re mortgaging rather than paying it off in cash......fact; he should have explained all of this 18 months ago..........fact; i equate his handling of the mortgage to the guy who saves all his pennies, pays off his mortgage packs in work and then finds that he has no money to feed his family. A foolish and selfish thing to do, as his kids starve to death or get taken into care. some call him prudent, others a fool.

 

What a load of shite. The debt on the stadium had to be repaid- it had nothing to do with Ashley or any advice he was given. Like the £100m loan Ashley has made to the club, any change of control gives the right for the debt to be called. The investors who had loaned the money took the opportunity to get their cash back now rather than later- so it would have made no difference.

 

The little analogy is similar nonsense. Ashley had a large mound of cash after selling off half of Sports Direct for £800m or so. He put his own cash in to the club because he felt it would be better to do that than invest his £100m elsewhere at 5% and borrow at 7% (borrowings in the club's parlous state would not come cheap). So in fact he was managing his finances sensibly.

 

You're talking rot.....fact.

 

Just wanting to play devils advocaat (or whatever) but could it not be more prudent in the football world to continue paying 7% interest on a mortgage and invest the 100million on new players. That investment would in turn, increase revenue in ticket and merchandising, increase the clubs value overall and most importantly get us higher up the table which in turn would automatically generate us additional income in TV revenue and possibly a European place allowing us to finance the interest payments?

 

I think I might have spotted the flaw in your argument...

[Baggio 0]

Just thinking about it, had Ashley not provided a personal guarantee in July with his sizeable wealth and decided to just let it drop, EY wouldn't have signed off the accounts, the banks will have withdrawn their facilities and we'd have faced administration in double quick time.

 

Worrying thought, even more worrying is some people think we would be better off if Shepherd was still here.

[OTF 6145]

When you think about it, it does make sense. We've been one of the clubs paying the highest wages to our players over the past 5 or so season. In addition our league position etc during that period has been nowhere near other clubs with similar outlays. The extra tickets sold compared to some clubs would equate to a pittance in comparison with multiple wages upwards of 40 or 50 thousand pounds a week. During that time we've still been spending comparatively large figures on buying new players as compared to clubs that finish in similar areas of the table.

 

Effectively it's similar to Leeds back in the day, all we were waiting on is the relegation.... the fact that the Global Financial Crisis has hit now means that we're in some ways lucky that Ashley came in when he did. Of course, we can all appreciate that the numbers being put out will have been fudged in Ashley's favour to give him a more favourable appearance to supporters. If the Club was still listed on the Stock Exchange I have no doubt that the 'official' numbers would have represented a much rosier picture!!