Newcastle United sale stalls as financial liabilities scare off potential suitors

peasepud · July 17, 2009

at the end of the day, what do Profitable get out of pretending they are bidding for a football club if its not publicity?

They cant be serious otherwise they wouldnt be breaking the confidentiality clauses that are in place. Even if they were, theres nothing to be gained from going public other than publicity itself.

I disagree with your logic though, the Profitable group is looking for publicity, just take a look at their website.

http://www.profitablegroup.com/

It starts with a full page advert for Liverpool FC going to Singapore in something they (Profitable) have organised. Why? for publicity, not to get the Liverpool players to sign agreements on management contracts but to promote the Profitable brand.

Another look at the news section on the site and you see a number of stories related to UK housing and land deals. Like it or not, people, be they individuals or owners of large corporate businesses are still swayed initially by whether they've heard of a company. Bad example I know but its been used half a dozen times on the TV program Hustle, all you have to do is get the person to see the name of your company a few times or read it in an article in your favourite paper and suddenly you know the name, you know the company and already that first hurdle is over.

If they're looking to expand their portfolio in Britain then the first thing they've got to do is get some publicity out there because before the Toon rumours the only thing you could find related to Profitable Group in the UK was details of shady deals involving land. Those stories are now buried under a mountain of google results saying "Steve McMahon this and Profitable toon that".

"The profitable group? oh aye Ive heard of them they were buying Newcastle werent they? must be a big company then, could be worth doing business with them".

I'm not weighing behind their bid or anything like that, i just disagree that a conglomerate of 15 business divisions, with retail brands in each division markets themselves like that. It goes against every rule of channel marketing. I'm only going on my experience of working in and with marketing, not because i have a view on this lot in paticular.

The first question has to be 'why'. In the bit i've highlighted you talk about looking to expand their portfolio, so why use a generic umbrella of the investment group when they sell actual brands.

If they are not looking to sell their consumer brands but actually get into football ownership, it doesnt make a lot of sense to say their PR over 'getting into football ownership' is just PR, since thats the whole objective.

Or are you saying this is to raise their profile as agents of footballers? Again, i'd say PR associated with handling players would be more effective.

i'm not convinced either way, just highlighting things that seem illogical to me.

Because this is free advertising?

because they are a company that deal in this kind of thing and therefore probably need to be seen to be bidding even if they're not.

Even if they are interested in buying a football club in Britain but not us, going down the route of announcing that they are serious here will raise their profile for when they do actually bid for some other club.

As a global brand overall they want to raise their name and this is a cheap way to do it.

Publicity is publicity, I wont ever understand the advertising world, for instance what do BASF get from their adverts on TV? its not even a product, in fact the only product anyone can name of theirs is tapes and nobody uses them anymore yet they spend a fortune showing some fucker climbing a mountain and dont even give us a product to buy? Surely they'd be better advertising in "chemical buyers weekly" or some other related way?

http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA6380

Park Life · July 17, 2009

http://www.profitablegroup.com/partners-group.aspx

Those links work too, am sure HSBC, Dell etc would sue if they realised.

Got to admire the cheek.

It looks from their website that the core strat is investing in niche or venture capital type scenarios with a purse of $1-2m

The Fish · July 17, 2009

God that website is cheap!

peasepud · July 17, 2009

All joking aside, I dont think these appear to be the people to take us forward quickly.

peasepud · July 17, 2009

That list of business partners is great isnt it......

Bank of Scotland - One of ou employees has a bank account with them

Dell - The managing director owns a laptop.

ESPN - We have bought a years subscription for the rest room.

Land Registry - Are investigating us.

World Pay - I bought some porn through it last week

Park Life · July 17, 2009

That list of business partners is great isnt it......

Bank of Scotland - One of ou employees has a bank account with them

Dell - The managing director owns a laptop.

ESPN - We have bought a years subscription for the rest room.

Land Registry - Are investigating us.

World Pay - I bought some porn through it last week

It would be funnier if it wasn't sad that we're mixed up in the media with this lot.

ChezGiven · July 17, 2009

at the end of the day, what do Profitable get out of pretending they are bidding for a football club if its not publicity?

They cant be serious otherwise they wouldnt be breaking the confidentiality clauses that are in place. Even if they were, theres nothing to be gained from going public other than publicity itself.

I disagree with your logic though, the Profitable group is looking for publicity, just take a look at their website.

http://www.profitablegroup.com/

It starts with a full page advert for Liverpool FC going to Singapore in something they (Profitable) have organised. Why? for publicity, not to get the Liverpool players to sign agreements on management contracts but to promote the Profitable brand.

Another look at the news section on the site and you see a number of stories related to UK housing and land deals. Like it or not, people, be they individuals or owners of large corporate businesses are still swayed initially by whether they've heard of a company. Bad example I know but its been used half a dozen times on the TV program Hustle, all you have to do is get the person to see the name of your company a few times or read it in an article in your favourite paper and suddenly you know the name, you know the company and already that first hurdle is over.

If they're looking to expand their portfolio in Britain then the first thing they've got to do is get some publicity out there because before the Toon rumours the only thing you could find related to Profitable Group in the UK was details of shady deals involving land. Those stories are now buried under a mountain of google results saying "Steve McMahon this and Profitable toon that".

"The profitable group? oh aye Ive heard of them they were buying Newcastle werent they? must be a big company then, could be worth doing business with them".

I'm not weighing behind their bid or anything like that, i just disagree that a conglomerate of 15 business divisions, with retail brands in each division markets themselves like that. It goes against every rule of channel marketing. I'm only going on my experience of working in and with marketing, not because i have a view on this lot in paticular.

The first question has to be 'why'. In the bit i've highlighted you talk about looking to expand their portfolio, so why use a generic umbrella of the investment group when they sell actual brands.

If they are not looking to sell their consumer brands but actually get into football ownership, it doesnt make a lot of sense to say their PR over 'getting into football ownership' is just PR, since thats the whole objective.

Or are you saying this is to raise their profile as agents of footballers? Again, i'd say PR associated with handling players would be more effective.

i'm not convinced either way, just highlighting things that seem illogical to me.

Because this is free advertising?

because they are a company that deal in this kind of thing and therefore probably need to be seen to be bidding even if they're not.

Even if they are interested in buying a football club in Britain but not us, going down the route of announcing that they are serious here will raise their profile for when they do actually bid for some other club.

As a global brand overall they want to raise their name and this is a cheap way to do it.

Publicity is publicity, I wont ever understand the advertising world, for instance what do BASF get from their adverts on TV? its not even a product, in fact the only product anyone can name of theirs is tapes and nobody uses them anymore yet they spend a fortune showing some fucker climbing a mountain and dont even give us a product to buy? Surely they'd be better advertising in "chemical buyers weekly" or some other related way?

http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA6380

Its not 'free' advertising though is it? First of all its PR, which every marketing organisation devotes budget to. Second, this is taking time and effort from the company to get the story in the press, with the right messages. This takes a comms team a while to put together. If its fake, then this effort seems a bit weird. Think of all the effort that goes into a NUSC statement, the to'ing and fro'ing, the attempts to get people on board etc.

Secondly, if they want to sell more of what they do, a more effective way of doing this isnt some bizarre fake bid to buy NUFC but actually advertising what they do, isnt it?

Thirdly, the idea this a fake bid to increase their profile for future bids is feasible but not that plausible imo. If the finance is there, then they go for it. If the finance is not there, then they focus on what is making them money, not some grandiose bizarre bid that is mainly playing out in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle. The only thing i can think of is that they are using this to attract finance from potential investors. Those potential investors are however, not likely to be swayed by seeing the name associated with a bid for NUFC, as you suggest above. They have far more complicated and stringent criteria. Then again, this is the far east...

ChezGiven · July 17, 2009

All joking aside, I dont think these appear to be the people to take us forward quickly.

Thats another question, all depends on the finance iyam.

ewerk · July 20, 2009

Profitable Group would install Shearer as manager

Jul 20 2009 by Lee Ryder, Evening Chronicle

NEWCASTLE United bidders The Profitable Group say they will install Alan Shearer as manager should they wrestle the club from the hands of Mike Ashley.

Derek Llambias has always played down the group's chances but they insisted today they were still in the hunt.

The Singapore-based group bid for United at the end of last week and the Chronicle understands that the group spearheaded by former Liverpool man Steve McMahon is waiting to hear back from Seymour Pierce.

McMahon said today from the Far East: "We would certainly be looking to keep Alan.

"He would be a major draw for players to the club and for the supporters.

"Shearer is part of the future for Newcastle if we acquire it.''

Yet McMahon says progress on the sale has been slow.

He said: "We need something to happen very, very quickly, for Newcastle supporters, and for the players.

"The season is only two or three weeks away for the Championship to start. We urgently need something to happen, and we're trying to make that happen.

"I would imagine this week is crucial. If we don't hear anything back by the end of the week, it doesn't look hopeful.''

It is understood that United have not reached £100million but McMahon said: "A hundred million is difficult.

"We've just offered what we believe is the value of the club.

"He's lost a lot of money on it, but he was there when Newcastle needed him. OK, it hasn't worked out for him as a business, but we don't intend to steal it off him, that's for sure.''

Park Life · July 20, 2009

Why would he continue with this? :rolleyes:

Norbert Colon · July 20, 2009

Why would he continue with this?

Have to agree like - if its a fakey bid he ain't half milking it - almost to the point where it would be negative pr if it were found to be lies - i think they want to buy us but obviously will not want to jeopardise their investment by paying fatboy the new signings money - makes sense really

accadacca · July 20, 2009

Let's face it, none of it makes any sense. Surely any group would want to get on with it to make sure we go up next season. Pissing around with a couple of million is false economy if we spend another season in the championship. Also, it suggests to me that the group doesn't have what it takes to run the club even if they can get the money together to buy it.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if anybody is seriously interested in buying us.

Club.Welcome.to.

Its probably pissing about with £30m tbf.

Ashley is in a very waek position - why should anyone offer him what he wants - it is not worth £100m plus another £130m for his loan, then the overdraft and the debt and the wage bill. We are talking big bucks here and any consortia will be thinking - if a billionaire like Ashley is taking a caning, then something must be up.

Tom · July 20, 2009

The debt is being written off as part of the sale I imagine.

The ''loan'' and the ''debt'' are also one and the same.

Also the wage bill (a lot of the stories are bullshit anyway, like Xisco being on £50k!) will take a caning if the new owner can't afford it and if they can it's no problem.

duo · July 20, 2009

Does anyone really believe these guys are for real? All bidders have had to sign non discloser agreements.

Edited July 20, 2009 by duo

Howmanheyman · July 20, 2009

at the end of the day, what do Profitable get out of pretending they are bidding for a football club if its not publicity?

They cant be serious otherwise they wouldnt be breaking the confidentiality clauses that are in place. Even if they were, theres nothing to be gained from going public other than publicity itself.

I disagree with your logic though, the Profitable group is looking for publicity, just take a look at their website.

http://www.profitablegroup.com/

It starts with a full page advert for Liverpool FC going to Singapore in something they (Profitable) have organised. Why? for publicity, not to get the Liverpool players to sign agreements on management contracts but to promote the Profitable brand.

Another look at the news section on the site and you see a number of stories related to UK housing and land deals. Like it or not, people, be they individuals or owners of large corporate businesses are still swayed initially by whether they've heard of a company. Bad example I know but its been used half a dozen times on the TV program Hustle, all you have to do is get the person to see the name of your company a few times or read it in an article in your favourite paper and suddenly you know the name, you know the company and already that first hurdle is over.

If they're looking to expand their portfolio in Britain then the first thing they've got to do is get some publicity out there because before the Toon rumours the only thing you could find related to Profitable Group in the UK was details of shady deals involving land. Those stories are now buried under a mountain of google results saying "Steve McMahon this and Profitable toon that".

"The profitable group? oh aye Ive heard of them they were buying Newcastle werent they? must be a big company then, could be worth doing business with them".

I'm not weighing behind their bid or anything like that, i just disagree that a conglomerate of 15 business divisions, with retail brands in each division markets themselves like that. It goes against every rule of channel marketing. I'm only going on my experience of working in and with marketing, not because i have a view on this lot in paticular.

The first question has to be 'why'. In the bit i've highlighted you talk about looking to expand their portfolio, so why use a generic umbrella of the investment group when they sell actual brands.

If they are not looking to sell their consumer brands but actually get into football ownership, it doesnt make a lot of sense to say their PR over 'getting into football ownership' is just PR, since thats the whole objective.

Or are you saying this is to raise their profile as agents of footballers? Again, i'd say PR associated with handling players would be more effective.

i'm not convinced either way, just highlighting things that seem illogical to me.

Because this is free advertising?

because they are a company that deal in this kind of thing and therefore probably need to be seen to be bidding even if they're not.

Even if they are interested in buying a football club in Britain but not us, going down the route of announcing that they are serious here will raise their profile for when they do actually bid for some other club.

As a global brand overall they want to raise their name and this is a cheap way to do it.

Publicity is publicity, I wont ever understand the advertising world, for instance what do BASF get from their adverts on TV? its not even a product, in fact the only product anyone can name of theirs is tapes and nobody uses them anymore yet they spend a fortune showing some fucker climbing a mountain and dont even give us a product to buy? Surely they'd be better advertising in "chemical buyers weekly" or some other related way?

http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA6380

:rolleyes:

I've thought that too!

(It must work, I just don't know how.)

Ketsbaia · July 20, 2009

Does anyone really believe these guys are for real? All bidders have had to sign non discloser agreements.

That's only with regards to discussing the finances apparently.

duo · July 20, 2009

Really? Where did you hear that?

Even so.....I still don't believe a word of it. All seems like pie in the sky.....

Craig · July 21, 2009

On the BBC ticker....

FOOTBALL: Prospective Pompey owner Sulaiman Al Fahim passes Premier League fit and proper person test

Surely these tests should be on-going? Ashley isn't fit to run a football club - he's proved that in practice rather than test so why the fuck didn't the Premier League take action last season?

ewerk · July 21, 2009

On the BBC ticker....

FOOTBALL: Prospective Pompey owner Sulaiman Al Fahim passes Premier League fit and proper person test

Surely these tests should be on-going? Ashley isn't fit to run a football club - he's proved that in practice rather than test so why the fuck didn't the Premier League take action last season?

So what can they do? Deduct points? I doubt they could force him to sell the club. Basically they can do fuck all that wouldn't harm the club.

Park Life · July 21, 2009

Fuck knows what this is all about......

"Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley hits back20 July 2009 | By Adam Fraser | Notes & Insights | Rumour | Soccer

Sign In

Newcastle United sale stalls as financial liabilities scare off potential suitors

Recommended Posts

peasepud 59

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Park Life 70

Link to comment

Share on other sites

The Fish 8950

Link to comment

Share on other sites

peasepud 59

Link to comment

Share on other sites

peasepud 59

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 70

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ChezGiven 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ChezGiven 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ewerk 26181

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 70

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Norbert Colon 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

accadacca 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tom 13811

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duo 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Howmanheyman 26606

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ketsbaia 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duo 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Craig 6287

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ewerk 26181

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Park Life 70

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JUICE690 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

peasepud 59

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Tom_NUFC 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Stephen 0

Link to comment

Share on other sites

1892 0