Old Board vs New Board

[Park Life 70]

I'm confusing you; do you want to shorten the length of the words that I'm typing?

 

I've used an online dictionary definition as I thought that it would mean that you wouldn't pick holes in my personal understanding of what Debt means you numpty. I'm quite happy for you to come up with a more meaningful definition which isn't something dreamed up in your head.

 

You're dangerous, you haven't a clue what you're talking about and you're trying to pass it off as fact, I can only guess that some people are taking your word for it as you seem to be getting away with it.

 

Thanks for brightening up a dull subject, even if that wasn’t your intention.

 

Shame you couldn't put me right.

 

[Park Life 70]

There is debt and the debt was created to pay for the stadium and compete in the upper tier of the PL - so what?

[Guest]

Happy face trying to discard a stadium mortgage when comparing debt is a little unfair on Ashley, irrespective of how an accountant would describe it, it's there, it's a debt you're looking a bit desperate in this discussion btw.

[Park Life 70]

That graph is slightly more meaningful, but why choose 2001 as the year to compare? If you take it back over the same amount of time, is would be between 2004 and 2007 for an increase of 38%.

 

At any length this table is largely useless as there as so many external factors that are an influence. Key for me is noting particular decisions and actions undertaken by the current owner and board that have contributed to an increasing debt. More important of course is what is being done to turn an operating loss into a profit so that the debt can begin to be reduced.

 

Forgive me if it's a silly question, but where has the figure of 175m come from?

 

If you're taking that table as the only evidence* then it indicates that relegation only had a maximum 'cost' to the club of 26m.

 

* - Which I don't suggest anyone does.

 

What he’s doing is a bit like knowing the answer and not the question so he’s making the question up in an attempt to justify something he hasn’t the first idea about.

 

If things were so clear about the debt how come fatty didn't see it?

[Park Life 70]

Happy face trying to discard a stadium mortgage when comparing debt is a little unfair on Ashley, irrespective of how an accountant would describe it, it's there, it's a debt you're looking a bit desperate in this discussion btw.

 

The reason MA didn't twig the mortgage/debt becoming due is cause it wasn't as clear a picture as you and SB are making out. Infact he was shocked and started whinning like fuck.

[ewerk 26394]

Was the 'debt' on the stadium listed as liability on the balance sheet pre-97?

[Happy Face 29]

Happy face trying to discard a stadium mortgage when comparing debt is a little unfair on Ashley, irrespective of how an accountant would describe it, it's there, it's a debt you're looking a bit desperate in this discussion btw.

 

You're not keeping up are you?

 

I'm not trying to discard it. I'm saying it makes little difference to the current picture when you decide to it comes into play.

 

There's a reason to bring it into the frame at the point Ashley arrived....because that's when it became instantly payable in full and we probably couldn't get another one if we'd tried. That's what I did in graph 1.

 

There's a reason to include it all along...because whenever it was repayable...it was debt...which is what I've done in graph 2.

 

Irrspective of the mortgage though....the growth in net debt takes a massive leap in 2008 onwards.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Happy Face

[JawD 31]

I think with or without the mortgage debt, the figures seem to take a huge leap forward. I assume this is partly because of our increase in wages under Shepherd while having a decrease in revenue due to the clubs position (TV money, Champions League or lack of), this was compounded then with Ashley needing money for Fat Sam & KK, then further lost revenue and finally relegation.

 

Basically what was becoming a difficult scenario was then made a lot worse by MA.

 

I dont think you can point the finger and says its one persons fault.

[Park Life 70]

I think with or without the mortgage debt, the figures seem to take a huge leap forward. I assume this is partly because of our increase in wages under Shepherd while having a decrease in revenue due to the clubs position (TV money, Champions League or lack of), this was compounded then with Ashley needing money for Fat Sam & KK, then further lost revenue and finally relegation.

 

Basically what was becoming a difficult scenario was then made a lot worse by MA.

 

I dont think you can point the finger and says its one persons fault.

 

That's it in a nutshell.

[manc-mag 1]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

 

Summed up perfectly

[Dr Gloom 19826]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

[Happy Face 29]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

 

Thought it was because he sounds like Joe Pasquale

[ewerk 26394]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

 

He has a voice like Orville.

[Kitman 2188]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

Edited September 21, 2010 by Kitman

[Park Life 70]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

Kitman sits down after a short rebuttal to the judge.

[ewerk 26394]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

If I become CEO of a leading company and decide to cut costs, and a result quality, then lose the company's biggest contract because of the reduced quality, I'd say I'd still be responsible for the poor financial performance.

[Kitman 2188]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

Kitman sits down after a short rebuttal to the judge.

 

I may have been drinking this hevening occifer

[Guest]

We have an owner that had a debt-ridden ridden club, but could afford to get it relegated. Therefore he's not running it dangerously.

 

Anyone care to suggest or guess what would have happened had we gone down under Shepherd/Hall? And don't say it wouldn't have happened, we were tailspinning long before Ashley came in.

Edited September 21, 2010 by AshleysSkidMark

[Guest]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

If I become CEO of a leading company and decide to cut costs, and a result quality, then lose the company's biggest contract because of the reduced quality, I'd say I'd still be responsible for the poor financial performance.

 

 

But it was poor financial performance that motivated the initial cuts and reduction in quality Step backwards to take a step forwards?

[manc-mag 1]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

 

I think in terms of his core business it has to lead you to conclude that luck may well have played a big part in it. That said (taking a wholly objective view) if Sports Direct sustains itself as a market leader for the entire time he's associated with it then a sensible person would have to hold their hands up and say fair enough, he must have got the basic rudiments very right indeed and fair play to him.

 

Football clubs are a different matter altogether of course.

 

Part of me wants to have the idealised indignation others have re: Ashley but I struggle because it almost requires some sort of false memory syndrome about where things were headed under Shepherd. That had to stop for once and for all whatever happened next. Ashley has done nowt for me unless and until he establishes a better proposition of a football club for players wanting to come to play for Newcastle United. He's done that so far with a bargain basement model (you could argue, the only model he knows). The true test will probably be down the line in attracting the higher calibre of players for the right reasons (other than simply throwing $ at them). If he wants to do that and he can manage that then all well and good. If not then that's when I'll be getting indignant, demanding a change.

[ewerk 26394]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

If I become CEO of a leading company and decide to cut costs, and a result quality, then lose the company's biggest contract because of the reduced quality, I'd say I'd still be responsible for the poor financial performance.

 

 

But it was poor financial performance that motivated the initial cuts and reduction in quality Step backwards to take a step forwards?

 

Or maybe it was possible to find a balance? You reckon relegation was part of Mike's masterplan?

[Park Life 70]

I'm not bothered about how you correctly quantify the true level of indebtedness of the club at the point of acquisition tbh and I think people are wasting their time trying to. It's a moot point for me; if Ashley wasnt bothered to look into it himself before hand, that's entirely his fault. For all he pines on now, you could equally argue he's lucky the club weren't in even more debt if that was the extent of his inquiries at the time.

 

If the true debt now causes Ashley trouble and affects the way in which he can meaningfully take the club forward then that is his fault and he must take the blame for it. If on the other hand, through the austerity that has been forced upon him out of his own ignorance, he can somehow find a way to establish better overall management of the business, and this ultimately filters down into good value investment on the playing field then fair enough. I think that will be the extent of his virtues if he does manage that and we'd be at a stage where he truly had 'taken the club as far as he could', meaning we'd be looking for a more visionary successor, but hopefully we'd be a more attractive proposition to one by that stage for the reasons mentioned. Time will tell.

 

you have to wonder how the guy ever made his billions if we was so stupid not to do due dilligence before a takeover. i reckon he's just a barrow boy gambler type that came good and actually fluked his whole fortune. why does he never do interviews? probably because he's as thick as two short planks. the guy is a joke among City analysts

 

Think he's the type that had one good idea and then blagged it for all it was worth, his buying up failing and ailing brands (Slazenger, Dunlop etc), was a clever marketing move imo as they became the gateway to package cheap foreign made products under a semi-posh brand umbrella. I don't really mind him as a person on the business side (quite like the various stories of city types hating him cause he used to come to meetings scruffy and notes in a plastic bag), he's made a little go al long long way. It wasn't his fault either that he was lumbered with fat sam and those poor singnings (on silly wages). Where he did go wrong was not giving KK more leeway and letting Mort stay on too long (a man with no football background who prefers rugby).

 

His rat like survival skills will hopefully rub off on the club and brign it back to health and he's well on the way to do that with the sensible approach of Hughton.

[Kitman 2188]

We have an owner that had a debt-ridden ridden club, but could afford to get it relegated. Therefore he's not running it dangerously.

 

Anyone care to suggest or guess what would have happened had we gone down under Shepherd/Hall? And don't say it wouldn't have happened, we were tailspinning long before Ashley came in.

 

It's probably the drink but I'm not sure what your point is? We have an owner who can run the club as shit as he likes as long as he bankrolls it?

[Guest]

Fact is we got relegated under Ashley and not the Shepherd/Halls. How can you make a meaningful comparison between the financial performance of the 2 regimes given the impact of that disaster?

 

If I become CEO of a leading company and decide to cut costs, and a result quality, then lose the company's biggest contract because of the reduced quality, I'd say I'd still be responsible for the poor financial performance.

 

 

But it was poor financial performance that motivated the initial cuts and reduction in quality Step backwards to take a step forwards?

 

Or maybe it was possible to find a balance? You reckon relegation was part of Mike's masterplan?

 

There was hardly 'cuts' before relegation was there? We sold Milner because he wanted to leave, and we got a price that everyone thought was inflated at the time. We sold Given and Insomnia because they wanted out, not to cut costs. The summer before relegation we paid big money for Colo, decent money (in the end) for Jonas, in the January we paid a canny bit for Nolan. The major 'cost cutting' came after relegation, which I think was justified.