Big Onion 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 The idea that we should be grateful for 'communication' irrespective of what is actually being said That piece is transparently pro-club bollocks. Ashley the 'man of principle' and Keegan the money-grabber, fuck me. The suggestion that we'll be spending £30mil net, or anywhere near that, is total horseshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilianbob 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 The idea that we should be grateful for 'communication' irrespective of what is actually being said That piece is transparently pro-club bollocks. Ashley the 'man of principle' and Keegan the money-grabber, fuck me. The suggestion that we'll be spending £30mil net, or anywhere near that, is total horseshit. I've said this before but the fans will ultimately buy the club for Ashley in much the same way the Glazers bought Man and then put the debt on the club to repay. Ashley bought the club for around £130m by setting up a holding company St James Holdings and lending the money to St James Holdings. The debt was then discovered and he loaned St James Holdings a further £100m. Any other funding such as the occassional input of £10m here and £10m there is simply a further loan to St james Holdings. St James Holdings are required to repay the loans to Ashley so that eventually the entire loan of around £250m will be repaid. That is why he wants the club to pay up front for players, so there is no debt and any income generated by the club in retail sales sponsorship etc can be used to pay him back sooner rather than later. Eventually Ashley will own the club lock stock and barrel, i.e. his loans will have been repaid out of the fans money and when or if he does sell for around £250m or more, depending on the economic state of the markets, that will be clear profit for him. Not bad eh? £250m clear profit, and all that for simply providing an interest free loan of £250m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Season ticket anyone? 30 million my arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadrian 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 The idea that we should be grateful for 'communication' irrespective of what is actually being said That piece is transparently pro-club bollocks. Ashley the 'man of principle' and Keegan the money-grabber, fuck me. The suggestion that we'll be spending £30mil net, or anywhere near that, is total horseshit. I've said this before but the fans will ultimately buy the club for Ashley in much the same way the Glazers bought Man and then put the debt on the club to repay. Ashley bought the club for around £130m by setting up a holding company St James Holdings and lending the money to St James Holdings. The debt was then discovered and he loaned St James Holdings a further £100m. Any other funding such as the occassional input of £10m here and £10m there is simply a further loan to St james Holdings. St James Holdings are required to repay the loans to Ashley so that eventually the entire loan of around £250m will be repaid. That is why he wants the club to pay up front for players, so there is no debt and any income generated by the club in retail sales sponsorship etc can be used to pay him back sooner rather than later. Eventually Ashley will own the club lock stock and barrel, i.e. his loans will have been repaid out of the fans money and when or if he does sell for around £250m or more, depending on the economic state of the markets, that will be clear profit for him. Not bad eh? £250m clear profit, and all that for simply providing an interest free loan of £250m. any way of finding out if St james holdings own the land ashley bought with the club ? little birdie told me ashley has moved the land to a different company he owns , so he will still own it even if he sells the club /St james holdings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 The land on which the stadium sits is on a long-term lease from the council isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Onion 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I think Hadrian is on about the Metro car park and land on the old brewery site. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the land. I remember in Mort's time the council were making very favourable noises article here Ashley is said to be involved in property investment projects with Paul Kemsley, and Jiminez is also a property man. Nothing to worry about obviously, as they have promised that not a penny will be taken out of the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Here's an idea... use the £9m to sack the 3 muppets he has running the club and re-instate Keegan. I have more confidence in £21m being spent wisely (s'cuse the pun) by KK than I do by Kinnear/Wise We can all dream.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I think Hadrian is on about the Metro car park and land on the old brewery site. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the land. I remember in Mort's time the council were making very favourable noises article here Ashley is said to be involved in property investment projects with Paul Kemsley, and Jiminez is also a property man. Nothing to worry about obviously, as they have promised that not a penny will be taken out of the club Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Onion 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 No casino apparently: The club’s deal with MGM Mirage to develop a casino behind the Gallowgate end of St James’s Park has also foundered after the Government decided not to proceed with plans for ‘supercasinos’ nationwide. I'm sure there are attractive alternatives for sites like those though. Hotel Xisco or Shola's bar perhaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4043 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I think Hadrian is on about the Metro car park and land on the old brewery site. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the land. I remember in Mort's time the council were making very favourable noises article here Ashley is said to be involved in property investment projects with Paul Kemsley, and Jiminez is also a property man. Nothing to worry about obviously, as they have promised that not a penny will be taken out of the club Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. I still think this redevelopment plan thing was Shepherd's cunning plan to finance the club - and I can't understand why it seems to have been dropped so readily by Ashley. Obviously in 2007 it would have been a lot easier to finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevietoon 0 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 I think Hadrian is on about the Metro car park and land on the old brewery site. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the land. I remember in Mort's time the council were making very favourable noises article here Ashley is said to be involved in property investment projects with Paul Kemsley, and Jiminez is also a property man. Nothing to worry about obviously, as they have promised that not a penny will be taken out of the club Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. I still think this redevelopment plan thing was Shepherd's cunning plan to finance the club - and I can't understand why it seems to have been dropped so readily by Ashley. Obviously in 2007 it would have been a lot easier to finance. i think the casino plan got dumped when newcastle as a city didnt win the super casino and mini super casino bid. the big one went to manchester - when everyone thought blackpool were nailed on - and boro got one of the smaller one's. this speculative land deal business is very interesting and something worthy of keeping an eye on; transferring club assets to other companies for accounting purposes and which allows you to sell them at a later date, pocket the money yourself and that money never hitting the clubs books. means that you can legitimately say you havent taken anything out of the club when in reality youve pocketed the sale of the land; all hypothetical obviously and nobody is suggesting that anything like that has or will ever take place at NE1. Most major businesses these days are littered with such activity; its become the accepted norm for companies to operate in this way. it keeps the corporate lawyers and accountants in employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I think Hadrian is on about the Metro car park and land on the old brewery site. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the land. I remember in Mort's time the council were making very favourable noises article here Ashley is said to be involved in property investment projects with Paul Kemsley, and Jiminez is also a property man. Nothing to worry about obviously, as they have promised that not a penny will be taken out of the club Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. I still think this redevelopment plan thing was Shepherd's cunning plan to finance the club - and I can't understand why it seems to have been dropped so readily by Ashley. Obviously in 2007 it would have been a lot easier to finance. i think the casino plan got dumped when newcastle as a city didnt win the super casino and mini super casino bid. the big one went to manchester - when everyone thought blackpool were nailed on - and boro got one of the smaller one's. this speculative land deal business is very interesting and something worthy of keeping an eye on; transferring club assets to other companies for accounting purposes and which allows you to sell them at a later date, pocket the money yourself and that money never hitting the clubs books. means that you can legitimately say you havent taken anything out of the club when in reality youve pocketed the sale of the land; all hypothetical obviously and nobody is suggesting that anything like that has or will ever take place at NE1. Most major businesses these days are littered with such activity; its become the accepted norm for companies to operate in this way. it keeps the corporate lawyers and accountants in employment. He seems too dumb to really get away with anything dodgy (yes I'm tempting fate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13919 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 No casino apparently: The club’s deal with MGM Mirage to develop a casino behind the Gallowgate end of St James’s Park has also foundered after the Government decided not to proceed with plans for ‘supercasinos’ nationwide. I'm sure there are attractive alternatives for sites like those though. Hotel Xisco or Shola's bar perhaps Shola's bar where even the strongest drink can't give you a proper kick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big TRon 0 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I think Hadrian is on about the Metro car park and land on the old brewery site. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the land. I remember in Mort's time the council were making very favourable noises article here Ashley is said to be involved in property investment projects with Paul Kemsley, and Jiminez is also a property man. Nothing to worry about obviously, as they have promised that not a penny will be taken out of the club Ah, righto. Funny how he's never pursued the casino thing btw. iirc that got planning permission / approval or whatever when FS was chairman. I still think this redevelopment plan thing was Shepherd's cunning plan to finance the club - and I can't understand why it seems to have been dropped so readily by Ashley. Obviously in 2007 it would have been a lot easier to finance. i think the casino plan got dumped when newcastle as a city didnt win the super casino and mini super casino bid. the big one went to manchester - when everyone thought blackpool were nailed on - and boro got one of the smaller one's. this speculative land deal business is very interesting and something worthy of keeping an eye on; transferring club assets to other companies for accounting purposes and which allows you to sell them at a later date, pocket the money yourself and that money never hitting the clubs books. means that you can legitimately say you havent taken anything out of the club when in reality youve pocketed the sale of the land; all hypothetical obviously and nobody is suggesting that anything like that has or will ever take place at NE1. Most major businesses these days are littered with such activity; its become the accepted norm for companies to operate in this way. it keeps the corporate lawyers and accountants in employment. He seems too dumb to really get away with anything dodgy (yes I'm tempting fate). Freddie Shepherd wasn't the brightest spark but he seems to have got away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13919 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The Anti Keegan aspect seems to have worked with some :- Am I the only person who feels just a little bit annoyed with KK, suing his beloved club for ¿9 million when we have well documented financial difficulties, why don't we just offer to bail out his partridge esque 'soccer school' and he can go back to waiting tables. Things aren't that bad,I mean NUFC have always been shocking with money ever since FFS decided to spend all of our money for the next 100 years on Michael Owen, And a few more Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) Most amusing thing is that Llambias is making noises about Ashley putting his own money (as a loan - you know, as though he doesn't own the club) to help the day to day running of the club and for the Nolan transfer when they've created the situation whereby we allow our competitors to defer their payments. It's mental. "You don't know what you're doing" as the song goes.Edit: "laughable" Or "You know exactly what you're doing" The way I see it.... Ashley has paid £138Million for the club. The value of which can depreciate. He's loaned the club £100M, the value of which is set in stone. Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return depends for the most part on the value of the club. Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back. So the £20M he's supposed to have since put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount. I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings and be guaranteed the return irrespective of the success of the player". Edited February 28, 2009 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Most amusing thing is that Llambias is making noises about Ashley putting his own money (as a loan - you know, as though he doesn't own the club) to help the day to day running of the club and for the Nolan transfer when they've created the situation whereby we allow our competitors to defer their payments. It's mental. "You don't know what you're doing" as the song goes.Edit: "laughable" Or "You know exactly what you're doing" The way I see it.... Ashley has paid £138Million for the club. The value of which can depreciate. He's loaned the club £100M, the value of which is set in stone. Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return depends for the most part on the value of the club. Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back. So the £20M he's supposed to have since put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount. I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings and be guaranteed the return irrespective of the success of the player". Happy Face on the case. The other thing is ST James Holdings is actually the benefactor, Ashley plans to get all his money back in two ways, the other being continually skimming off revenue and player sales till bit by bit most of his (St James Holdings) get their money back (hence the obsession with low outgoing on intangible assets ((players)). Of course when he sells he gets it back AGAIN. Double dabble as they say in Sarf Lahndan. How to buy a club ultimately for free while scaring everyone half to death that you've bought a 'wrongun'. Keeping the books straight is also all about being ready to sell asap (I give him a year and half or so). We have to sit tight and help the team etc while trying not to line his pockets cause we (the club) won't see any benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) Most amusing thing is that Llambias is making noises about Ashley putting his own money (as a loan - you know, as though he doesn't own the club) to help the day to day running of the club and for the Nolan transfer when they've created the situation whereby we allow our competitors to defer their payments. It's mental. "You don't know what you're doing" as the song goes.Edit: "laughable" Or "You know exactly what you're doing" The way I see it.... Ashley has paid £138Million for the club. The value of which can depreciate. He's loaned the club £100M, the value of which is set in stone. Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return depends for the most part on the value of the club. Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back. So the £20M he's supposed to have since put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount. I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings and be guaranteed the return irrespective of the success of the player". But he's not getting a "return" as such, is he? He's just getting his money back from loan repayments, as the loan's interest free. Arguably if you view the loan as part of the acquisition cost, the club is funding the purchase of itself, at the cost of investment. Whether that profits Ashley ultimately depends on the value of the club at sale date, and if he's run it down to the bones of its arse then he hasn't achieved a lot. So the way I see it, this is about minimising his investment i.e he takes out the money he's put in as soon as he can. However he only benefits if the club goes up in value, which it won't if we're relegated, all the fans stay away, or Sky won't show our dreary matches on the telly. I think the current strategy's mainly about maximising revenue and minimising cost. His motives for that depend on how you view his overall intentions. It might well be about rebalancing the books but that's ignoring the realities of football i.e. you need to invest a) to compete b retain your best players c) to keep the fans happy. But I really can't work out why they'd want pay upfront for transfers and accept deferred payments - that just makes no sense to me, unless you want to behave like a corner shop i.e only spend the cash you actually have. I can perhaps see the sense in not spending sponsors money in advance but not this. Edited February 28, 2009 by Kitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Most amusing thing is that Llambias is making noises about Ashley putting his own money (as a loan - you know, as though he doesn't own the club) to help the day to day running of the club and for the Nolan transfer when they've created the situation whereby we allow our competitors to defer their payments. It's mental. "You don't know what you're doing" as the song goes.Edit: "laughable" Or "You know exactly what you're doing" The way I see it.... Ashley has paid £138Million for the club. The value of which can depreciate. He's loaned the club £100M, the value of which is set in stone. Using transfer income to spend on transfer outgoings would mean the club is run within it's means and Ashley's return depends for the most part on the value of the club. Deferring transfer income, and using loans from Ashley to buy up front in full means that Ashley is assured his money back. So the £20M he's supposed to have since put in on top of the initial loan has bought players whose value might drop, Xisco for example. But the £6m Ashley pumped in for him is a loan he's guaranteed to be paid back in full. The club might only recoup £2M from his sale, but Ashley is still owed the full amount. I assume he saw the money being paid out on Luque and thought to himself, "well I'll fund those sorts of signings and be guaranteed the return irrespective of the success of the player". Good thinking Batman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig 6369 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 In other words no matter what the club does, Ashley doesn't lose? Certainly would explain why he never seems that arsed when we lose game after game. I wish he'd take his money and fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now