Park Life 71 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Window price 100m Debt 70m Barclays overdraft (apparently a 40m facility probably racked up 20m so far in running costs this summer). 110m owed to some kind of Ashley financial instrument/fund/offshore/or him directly (not likely). Player costs about 15m every 3 months. Am I way off?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Window price 100mDebt 70m Barclays overdraft (apparently a 40m facility probably racked up 20m so far in running costs this summer). 110m owed to some kind of Ashley financial instrument/fund/offshore/or him directly (not likely). Player costs about 15m every 3 months. Am I way off?? From what Ive heard thats fairly close to it yet there are still people who say hes put us on a better financial position. To quote Decka (using the same quote I did in another thread) "We shoud start talking about MA buying the club for 244m rather than 134m if it would make it easier for us to "understand" and not get hung up on." so that means he paid £110 million off in debt, which if your calcs are correct makes us now £220m in debt but a league down and bringing in about £35 - £40m less per season. Way to go Rockerfeller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 nasty.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnthebrief 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) No they're not. We now have Barclays dictating whether we can or cant appoint a manager. That doesnt happen when you owe yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) What do you mean "wrapped up in the sale"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnthebrief 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) No they're not. We now have Barclays dictating whether we can or cant appoint a manager. That doesnt happen when you owe yourself. Yes, there is the overdraft of course. I was talking more about the structural debt, which will now have to be accounted for in any share sale - anyone buying Ashleys shares is going to value them on a net-of-debt basis (which he would have done if he'd bothered to do any due diligence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) No they're not. We now have Barclays dictating whether we can or cant appoint a manager. That doesnt happen when you owe yourself. Yes, there is the overdraft of course. I was talking more about the structural debt, which will now have to be accounted for in any share sale - anyone buying Ashleys shares is going to value them on a net-of-debt basis (which he would have done if he'd bothered to do any due diligence) Can you explain that in layman's terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnthebrief 0 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) No they're not. We now have Barclays dictating whether we can or cant appoint a manager. That doesnt happen when you owe yourself. Yes, there is the overdraft of course. I was talking more about the structural debt, which will now have to be accounted for in any share sale - anyone buying Ashleys shares is going to value them on a net-of-debt basis (which he would have done if he'd bothered to do any due diligence) Can you explain that in layman's terms? When valuing the shares the buyer is going to ask what is the net value of the club - ie, assets = x, less debts = y, total value of the shares = 3 shillings ha'penny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 In one respect we are better off than we were, in that the debt and equity are now together. Under FFS we were heading for administration because the shareholders couldn't/wouldn't service the debt. That won't happen now because Ashley owns the debt himself, and it'll have to be wrapped up in the sale (if the clueless fuck ever gets a sale away) No they're not. We now have Barclays dictating whether we can or cant appoint a manager. That doesnt happen when you owe yourself. Yes, there is the overdraft of course. I was talking more about the structural debt, which will now have to be accounted for in any share sale - anyone buying Ashleys shares is going to value them on a net-of-debt basis (which he would have done if he'd bothered to do any due diligence) Can you explain that in layman's terms? When valuing the shares the buyer is going to ask what is the net value of the club - ie, assets = x, less debts = y, total value of the shares = 3 shillings ha'penny Isn't the value of a company typically fixed by reference to its operating income rather than its net asset value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 plus the rumours around any kind of land or property now being owned by St James' Holdings rather than NUFC so (if all these things are true and therefore worst case scenario). A championship football club for £100m that comes with approx £220m debt and has no actual tangible assets (other than players), the same Championship football club that a mere two years ago was purchased for a total price of £244m (£134m sale price plus £100m debt 'restructuring') while a Premiership football club with a number of land and property assests. Its a deal, its a steal, its the saleofthefuckincentury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2188 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 plus the rumours around any kind of land or property now being owned by St James' Holdings rather than NUFC so (if all these things are true and therefore worst case scenario). A championship football club for £100m that comes with approx £220m debt and has no actual tangible assets (other than players), the same Championship football club that a mere two years ago was purchased for a total price of £244m (£134m sale price plus £100m debt 'restructuring') while a Premiership football club with a number of land and property assests. Its a deal, its a steal, its the saleofthefuckincentury I can't believe anybody would be interested on those terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 100m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 220m of debt? Since when? There is meant to be a 110m of debt, 40/50m of which was stadium according to reports pre-Ashley. Whatever percentage of the debt is based on the stadium developement, any new owner needs to take this on. Its an integral part of the club and its future value. My view is that whatever elements of the debt outside of stadium re-payment were paid off by Ashley should NOT be considered by the buyers as something they need to take on. This is simple. Ashley decided to pay off the debt rather than invest heavily in the playing squad, as he and his team were quick to point out. Some of the debt needed to be addressed because of the change of ownership, i assume this was the stadium expansion debt. The rest of the debt, he chose to pay off at the expense of a better playing squad and ultimately premiership status. Since the value of the club has fallen, the asking price needs to reflect this loss of value. He ultimately has not paid off any debt (since he wants it back) and at the same time, did not invest in the squad. All he achieved by that was saving future interest payments. If his total investment was 220m and half of that was tying up his capital to save on interest payments then he has to hold his hands up and say 'i've lost half the value of the total investment' because he had a choice (over a percentage of the debt i.e. the non-stadium debt) The new owners should therefore be looking to pay 70m for the club and taking on the stadium debt (and possibly the overdraft on the current account). Can anyone find pre-ashley estimates of the stadium debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 220m of debt? Since when? There is meant to be a 110m of debt, 40/50m of which was stadium according to reports pre-Ashley. Whatever percentage of the debt is based on the stadium developement, any new owner needs to take this on. Its an integral part of the club and its future value. My view is that whatever elements of the debt outside of stadium re-payment were paid off by Ashley should NOT be considered by the buyers as something they need to take on. This is simple. Ashley decided to pay off the debt rather than invest heavily in the playing squad, as he and his team were quick to point out. Some of the debt needed to be addressed because of the change of ownership, i assume this was the stadium expansion debt. The rest of the debt, he chose to pay off at the expense of a better playing squad and ultimately premiership status. Since the value of the club has fallen, the asking price needs to reflect this loss of value. He ultimately has not paid off any debt (since he wants it back) and at the same time, did not invest in the squad. All he achieved by that was saving future interest payments. If his total investment was 220m and half of that was tying up his capital to save on interest payments then he has to hold his hands up and say 'i've lost half the value of the total investment' because he had a choice (over a percentage of the debt i.e. the non-stadium debt) The new owners should therefore be looking to pay 70m for the club and taking on the stadium debt (and possibly the overdraft on the current account). Can anyone find pre-ashley estimates of the stadium debt? iirc it was 42m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 220m of debt? Since when? There is meant to be a 110m of debt, 40/50m of which was stadium according to reports pre-Ashley. Whatever percentage of the debt is based on the stadium developement, any new owner needs to take this on. Its an integral part of the club and its future value. My view is that whatever elements of the debt outside of stadium re-payment were paid off by Ashley should NOT be considered by the buyers as something they need to take on. This is simple. Ashley decided to pay off the debt rather than invest heavily in the playing squad, as he and his team were quick to point out. Some of the debt needed to be addressed because of the change of ownership, i assume this was the stadium expansion debt. The rest of the debt, he chose to pay off at the expense of a better playing squad and ultimately premiership status. Since the value of the club has fallen, the asking price needs to reflect this loss of value. He ultimately has not paid off any debt (since he wants it back) and at the same time, did not invest in the squad. All he achieved by that was saving future interest payments. If his total investment was 220m and half of that was tying up his capital to save on interest payments then he has to hold his hands up and say 'i've lost half the value of the total investment' because he had a choice (over a percentage of the debt i.e. the non-stadium debt) The new owners should therefore be looking to pay 70m for the club and taking on the stadium debt (and possibly the overdraft on the current account). Can anyone find pre-ashley estimates of the stadium debt? I agree it's all of his own making. He can't have it both ways...ie he was being responsible by paying off the debt at the expense of investment in the squad, then change his mind. The guy is a complete lia®bility but legally, he owns the club and there's not a thing we can do about it. He can decide what price he wants to sell it for whether it fucks us in the process or not. I really would like to think that at some point, a well organised group of supporters manage to "persuade" him to just fuck off one way or another.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So where did the other 68m come from? He basically took 68m of his capital and tied it up ineffectively in paying off creditors with an internal loan. This was the biggest choice he made, how to spend all the investment capital. It doesnt get any bigger than that. His choice of investment of that capital has fucked the club and was the wrong decision financially. The prosepctive owners will look at that decision as one which destroyed value and will price accordingly. Doesnt matter if it comes out of the asking price or any deal on debt with SJ Holdings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 220m of debt? Since when? There is meant to be a 110m of debt, 40/50m of which was stadium according to reports pre-Ashley. Whatever percentage of the debt is based on the stadium developement, any new owner needs to take this on. Its an integral part of the club and its future value. My view is that whatever elements of the debt outside of stadium re-payment were paid off by Ashley should NOT be considered by the buyers as something they need to take on. This is simple. Ashley decided to pay off the debt rather than invest heavily in the playing squad, as he and his team were quick to point out. Some of the debt needed to be addressed because of the change of ownership, i assume this was the stadium expansion debt. The rest of the debt, he chose to pay off at the expense of a better playing squad and ultimately premiership status. Since the value of the club has fallen, the asking price needs to reflect this loss of value. He ultimately has not paid off any debt (since he wants it back) and at the same time, did not invest in the squad. All he achieved by that was saving future interest payments. If his total investment was 220m and half of that was tying up his capital to save on interest payments then he has to hold his hands up and say 'i've lost half the value of the total investment' because he had a choice (over a percentage of the debt i.e. the non-stadium debt) The new owners should therefore be looking to pay 70m for the club and taking on the stadium debt (and possibly the overdraft on the current account). Can anyone find pre-ashley estimates of the stadium debt? I agree it's all of his own making. He can't have it both ways...ie he was being responsible by paying off the debt at the expense of investment in the squad, then change his mind. The guy is a complete lia®bility but legally, he owns the club and there's not a thing we can do about it. He can decide what price he wants to sell it for whether it fucks us in the process or not. I really would like to think that at some point, a well organised group of supporters manage to "persuade" him to just fuck off one way or another.... I wonder if there is and precedent for supporters to take legal action against a negligent owner?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 So where did the other 68m come from? He basically took 68m of his capital and tied it up ineffectively in paying off creditors with an internal loan. This was the biggest choice he made, how to spend all the investment capital. It doesnt get any bigger than that. His choice of investment of that capital has fucked the club and was the wrong decision financially. The prosepctive owners will look at that decision as one which destroyed value and will price accordingly. Doesnt matter if it comes out of the asking price or any deal on debt with SJ Holdings. Seems to lack vision which is strange as his other business model is all about fast acting and taking risks sometimes against the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So where did the other 68m come from? He basically took 68m of his capital and tied it up ineffectively in paying off creditors with an internal loan. This was the biggest choice he made, how to spend all the investment capital. It doesnt get any bigger than that. His choice of investment of that capital has fucked the club and was the wrong decision financially. The prosepctive owners will look at that decision as one which destroyed value and will price accordingly. Doesnt matter if it comes out of the asking price or any deal on debt with SJ Holdings. Seems to lack vision which is strange as his other business model is all about fast acting and taking risks sometimes against the market. Thats exactly how i'd descibe the january window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) So where did the other 68m come from? He basically took 68m of his capital and tied it up ineffectively in paying off creditors with an internal loan. This was the biggest choice he made, how to spend all the investment capital. It doesnt get any bigger than that. His choice of investment of that capital has fucked the club and was the wrong decision financially. The prosepctive owners will look at that decision as one which destroyed value and will price accordingly. Doesnt matter if it comes out of the asking price or any deal on debt with SJ Holdings. Seems to lack vision which is strange as his other business model is all about fast acting and taking risks sometimes against the market. Thats exactly how i'd descibe the january window. I agree. I'll be in Campaigne mid Aug (2 hrs from Paris). PM me your mob again. Edited July 16, 2009 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So where did the other 68m come from? He basically took 68m of his capital and tied it up ineffectively in paying off creditors with an internal loan. This was the biggest choice he made, how to spend all the investment capital. It doesnt get any bigger than that. His choice of investment of that capital has fucked the club and was the wrong decision financially. The prosepctive owners will look at that decision as one which destroyed value and will price accordingly. Doesnt matter if it comes out of the asking price or any deal on debt with SJ Holdings. Seems to lack vision which is strange as his other business model is all about fast acting and taking risks sometimes against the market. Thats exactly how i'd descibe the january window. I agree. I'll be in Campaigne mid Aug (2 hrs from Paris). PM me your mob again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 16, 2009 Author Share Posted July 16, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummiemag1 0 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Don't know if I'm the only one thinking this, but the longer this drags on without the club being sold, the more I fear the possibility that Ashley will put us into administration. The club owes him £100 million in the form of a loan, for which there is no evidence that he intends to write off and I understand theres also an overdraft of 30 million and counting. The value of the club must be falling and the level of debt rising with each passing week and yet still he doesnt sell. Each month without a sale presumably means another 5 or 6 million paid out on player wages alone. Is Ashley paying this or is it added to the overdraft? We have I think 12 players tied into contracts of £50,000 or more, most of whom we will only get rid of if we continue to pay a percentage of their wages. If the club goes into administration could that be a way of making these expensive player contracts null and void, (in other words we are no longer legally bound to pay them)? At what point will it be in Ashleys interests to put the club into administration? Can someone who knows a lot more about finances than I do please reassure me and tell me my fears are completely unfounded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 We have I think 12 players tied into contracts of £50,000 or more, most of whom we will only get rid of if we continue to pay a percentage of their wages. If the club goes into administration could that be a way of making these expensive player contracts null and void, (in other words we are no longer legally bound to pay them)? If a football club goes into Adminstration then the first thing that has to be paid is the players contracts, unlike a normal business that comes before the tax man even. 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