Newcastle Finances in the Championship

[LeazesMag 0]

So Ashley paid £135m for a club that was worth minus £16m?

 

 

Not really, he paid £135 for the club end of, it was just the liabilities were greater than the assetts by £16 Million.

Take out the reiteration and you’re answer boils down to “Not really, end of”, which to be fair isn’t the most compelling argument I’ve ever read.

 

What argument and what point are you trying to make ??? really ???

 

The club was skint.

 

Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though.

 

aye, and relegation was great. What a fucking mug.

 

You confirm that the real problem with NUFC supporters, and Geordies in general [not personal and I hate to say this, but its as clear as night becomes day when you have lived away for a long time] that you are quite simply far too prepared to accept 2nd best and don't even realise it.

 

I won't even mention, again, the sheer hypocrisy of being attracted back to the club by people who you now despise for nothing other than an irrational personal hatred, and will only go back again if the current owner brings the trophy signings and consequently top level football that comes with them that you scorned.

 

Pathetic.

[LeazesMag 0]

I'm not latching on to mistakes, I was merely acknowledging his analogy. The point was having net liabilities does not mean you have negative value.

 

You should read that book you will see what it is about.

 

I'm afraid it is beyond the comprehension of fuckwits like Toonpack and his chums though.

 

When will they ever go back to supporting the club again ? What hypocrisy. If they think Ashley is so much superior to his predecessors, why have they stopped going to games ? Why are they not supporting their man to help prove their point, surely if they think the club is run on better lines and has a more positive direction they should be more motivated ?

Edited April 4, 2011 by LeazesMag

[ChezGiven 0]

Also clubs go 'bust' all the time. They are the ones that get relegated because they can no longer afford good players and never come back. Official administration is rare, as you sell players who you can't afford or can't keep up with the quality of the league. Saving a football club from going to the creditors is straightforward because the customers are not signalled away to other suppliers like in normal business. When a company gets in trouble, customers no longer want to buy so the business collapses. Supporters keep a club from total devastation but can't keep them competing at the top if the money is not there to build the club or keep it at a certain level. Thats why finance is important.

[LeazesMag 0]

So the club figures prove that the only way to survive is to have owners who guarantee loans or running costs with their own money - something Hall & Shepherd never did apart from one very early stage when I remember Hall guaranteeing an overdraft with Barclays briefly. In fact I'd say the motivation to sell was probably advice that that's the way clubs were heading and they didn't fancy it.

 

Of course you can spend beyond your means as LM advocates but the results can be summed up by Portsmouth and Leeds who never seem to get a mention in LM's take on football finances. I wonder why that is?

 

why is it that stupid cunts think out of about 80+ clubs in this country running a debt we are the only ones who are running the club badly ?

 

If you prefer to aim for the levels of Hull and Stoke rather than Liverpool, and be happy to finish 10th in the premiership, thats your problem.

Edited April 4, 2011 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

Also clubs go 'bust' all the time. They are the ones that get relegated because they can no longer afford good players and never come back. Official administration is rare, as you sell players who you can't afford or can't keep up with the quality of the league. Saving a football club from going to the creditors is straightforward because the customers are not signalled away to other suppliers like in normal business. When a company gets in trouble, customers no longer want to buy so the business collapses. Supporters keep a club from total devastation but can't keep them competing at the top if the money is not there to build the club or keep it at a certain level. Thats why finance is important.

 

you haven't really answered. What happened between 1969 and 1991 ? Who saved the club then, and belive me, that is when this club would have went bust.

[peasepud 59]

Nobody denies the club needed to sort out its cash flow situation, but the idea it would have ceased to exist if Ashley hadn’t bought it is more propaganda than fact. We don’t know and never will know what would have happened if the club hadn’t been sold. What we do know is that Shepherd didn’t force Ashley to pay £135m without undertaking due diligence. It is entirely Ashley’s fault a decision he took left him in a position where he either had to lend himself £110m or lose £135m. It had absolutely nothing to do with FF, and has everything to do with the cost cutting that is turning us into a selling club with no ambition intent on flogging our heritage to the lowest bidder.

 

It really is time people stopped buying the club’s propaganda and looked to the present/future instead of burying their heads in some hypothetical past.

I think I may use this as my sig because its spot on for how I feel. Yes we had debt, yes changes were needed but there was no way on this earth that we were going bust. This notion that the coming credit crunch would have wiped us out while FS sat back blind to its consequences is farcical.

 

Shepherd had his faults, many of them but a lack of business sense is definitely not one of them. Under him we had far greater revenue streams than we do now and thats without plastering our ground with tacky advertising and without ever contemplating changing its name. Never mind selling off every asset we own.

[peasepud 59]

Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though.

Seriously man, give your fucking head a shake

[Toonpack 6766]

why is it that stupid cunts think out of about 80+ clubs in this country running a debt we are the only ones who are running the club badly ?

 

If you prefer to aim for the levels of Hull and Stoke rather than Liverpool, and be happy to finish 10th in the premiership, thats your problem.

 

 

There are tons of clubs being run badly, but if you look at the Prem, the majority of the debt is underwritten by owners/benefactors or secured against profits (and we didn't do profit). NUFC needed to refinance, everyone agrees on that, so who would underwrite the new debt??.

 

Do you think FFS/Halls would or could (they weren't that minted).

 

It was like having your house with negative equity and then trying to rraise more cash against it. NUFC already had their 110% mortgage but needed more.

 

Ashley was a complete mug to buy NUFC, I think we all agree on that. Thank fuck he did though.

Seriously man, give your fucking head a shake

 

 

We desperately needed someone with deep pockets, we got one. Others had looked and run away, he may be a twat but thank fuck he was minted.

[Toonpack 6766]

you haven't really answered. What happened between 1969 and 1991 ? Who saved the club then, and belive me, that is when this club would have went bust.

 

Not strictly true. The club nearly went "pop" mid/late eighties, I know this for a fact because at the time I worked in a role that had daily dealings with the regional head corporate banking guy and he told me Barclays centrally wanted to pull the plug but over time local lobbying within the bank - because "we'd lose most of our customers and probably a few of our branches" (his exact words) eventually gained a stay of execution, the liabilities in them days were miniscule in todays terms. All was eventually fine again with the banks after that. If we'd gone down to the thrid we'd have been screwed mind.

[ChezGiven 0]

We went bust last year! We didnt need to go into administration because MA put money in, just like Lerner, the mackem yanks etc. All of the clubs who are being funded by benefactors are technically 'bust'. They survive because its a football club not a business.

 

Clubs dont cease to exist, thats nonsense as Leeds and Portsmouth (who actually truly went bust) prove. The concept of financially bust applies to clubs like Sheff weds, Notts Forest etc, clubs that were once competitive at the top and who no longer can be as they didnt grow their revenues, or whatever.

 

This notion that the coming credit crunch would have wiped us out while FS sat back blind to its consequences is farcical.

 

As i say, we would not have gone bust, or ceased to exist but all lines of credit were gone. For those posters with a semblance of financial understanding, its clear that the club was in a perilous situation financially. Sorting the club out and dealing with that would have been very hard. However, in the short-term it was feasible if we remained a premiership club. The burden of debt in the medium term would have been very difficult to cope with unless a manager of Allardyce's methods was allowed to run us on a shoestring and maintain that status. His appointment by Shepherd was basically an admission of the financial difficulties. If the club had stayed under the old board's control and Allardyce had kept us up then the short term was just about manageable. If we had gone down, it was fucked.

 

Its irrelevant though as the old board was planning to sell anyway, despite the media rhetoric. Otherwise why else were they buying and driving the price of the shares up between 2006 and 2007?

[LeazesMag 0]

you haven't really answered. What happened between 1969 and 1991 ? Who saved the club then, and belive me, that is when this club would have went bust.

 

Not strictly true. The club nearly went "pop" mid/late eighties, I know this for a fact because at the time I worked in a role that had daily dealings with the regional head corporate banking guy and he told me Barclays centrally wanted to pull the plug but over time local lobbying within the bank - because "we'd lose most of our customers and probably a few of our branches" (his exact words) eventually gained a stay of execution, the liabilities in them days were miniscule in todays terms. All was eventually fine again with the banks after that. If we'd gone down to the thrid we'd have been screwed mind.

 

I said between 1969 and 1991, and I am referring to the entire period where the club was run like Netto ie the way it is now and heading for further decline in footballing terms.

 

Did you not see the post I made where I said that Westwood and his chums bailed out because Barclays wanted them to stump up 16 grand each to keep the club afloat, not a lot of money for rich men who had benefitted from running the club for years ?

 

Anyway, we are talking about what DID happen, not what what MIGHT have happened ie the club DIDN't go bust, and nobody knows what would have happened if the Halls and Shepherd hadn't sold. Others are making the same point too, but you ignore them. Are you seriously saying that every premiership club, all of them bar the couple who made an operating profit, would all be in danger of going under apart from the small number being "held together by rich benefactors". What bollocks. PP has told you that as a businessman Shepherd maximised revenues but that is a truth you simply can't bring yourself to face because your head is completely up your arse and your blinded by your irrational and brainwashed hatred of the personality. You should try and "like" somebody who actually gives you a good football club and brings good footballers to it, its much better and far more logical.

Edited April 4, 2011 by LeazesMag

[NJS 3956]

Can someone (PP?) define the revenue streams which Shepherd exploited that Ashley hasn't?

[ewerk 26142]

I'm sure that we would've had increased revenue from corporate sponsors/boxes and increased TV money under Shepherd. However, the fall in these is to do with the economy/lack of performance on the field.

[NJS 3956]

I'm sure that we would've had increased revenue from corporate sponsors/boxes and increased TV money under Shepherd. However, the fall in these is to do with the economy/lack of performance on the field.

 

I can see a bit of leeway around the edges of things like these but people are suggesting significant amounts which I'm not convinced by.

[ewerk 26142]

I haven't examined the accounts in detail but this idea that Shepherd was a business genius is a bit far fetched. We were a bigger attraction back then and attracting sponsorship and ticket sales wasn't that difficult a task.

[NJS 3956]

I haven't examined the accounts in detail but this idea that Shepherd was a business genius is a bit far fetched. We were a bigger attraction back then and attracting sponsorship and ticket sales wasn't that difficult a task.

 

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me.

[LeazesMag 0]

I haven't examined the accounts in detail but this idea that Shepherd was a business genius is a bit far fetched. We were a bigger attraction back then and attracting sponsorship and ticket sales wasn't that difficult a task.

 

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me.

 

maybe you don't give Fred enough credit or is Ashley simply a tosspot ? Either way, what you are saying here is that Shepherd [and the Halls] had more about them than Ashley ? Not really what most people predicted is it ie "anybody but Fred" - and I'm not saying YOU personally said that, you may have done, but it doesn't matter, it is what the majority were spouting at the time.

 

Nobody has ever said anybody is a "genius", only that they were a good board and far too many people took the ambition they showed for granted, which looking back was naive although plenty STILL can't bring themselves to admit it.

 

Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why some people don't get this.

[NJS 3956]

I haven't examined the accounts in detail but this idea that Shepherd was a business genius is a bit far fetched. We were a bigger attraction back then and attracting sponsorship and ticket sales wasn't that difficult a task.

 

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me.

 

maybe you don't give Fred enough credit or is Ashley simply a tosspot ? Either way, what you are saying here is that Shepherd [and the Halls] had more about them than Ashley ? Not really what most people predicted is it ie "anybody but Fred" - and I'm not saying YOU personally said that, you may have done, but it doesn't matter, it is what the majority were spouting at the time.

 

Nobody has ever said anybody is a "genius", only that they were a good board and far too many people took the ambition they showed for granted, which looking back was naive although plenty STILL can't bring themselves to admit it.

 

Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why some people don't get this.

 

 

No - I'm saying that even if he did have clever ways of raising money - which of course you can't define as "exploiting revenue streams" is just one of your magic phrases you quote with no backup - then theres no reason that Ashley wouldn't or couldn't do the same. At the worst it would have been recorded in the accounts even if it was something Ashley hadn't thought of before.

 

Ashley may have failed on many counts but I can't see him ignoring money.

[Toonpack 6766]

Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why I just don't get this basic and simple stuff.

 

Agreed

[LeazesMag 0]

Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why I just don't get this basic and simple stuff.

 

Agreed

 

I meant you.

 

Where do you think this club will be in 5 years time if Mike Ashley is still in charge ?

 

PS remember he's had 4 years of his "plan" already

[LeazesMag 0]

I haven't examined the accounts in detail but this idea that Shepherd was a business genius is a bit far fetched. We were a bigger attraction back then and attracting sponsorship and ticket sales wasn't that difficult a task.

 

I can see him being good at what he did in this area but its the idea that he had streams which Ashley hasn't thought of that seems strange to me.

 

maybe you don't give Fred enough credit or is Ashley simply a tosspot ? Either way, what you are saying here is that Shepherd [and the Halls] had more about them than Ashley ? Not really what most people predicted is it ie "anybody but Fred" - and I'm not saying YOU personally said that, you may have done, but it doesn't matter, it is what the majority were spouting at the time.

 

Nobody has ever said anybody is a "genius", only that they were a good board and far too many people took the ambition they showed for granted, which looking back was naive although plenty STILL can't bring themselves to admit it.

 

Even I'm getting bored with this now. I just don't understand why some people don't get this.

 

 

No - I'm saying that even if he did have clever ways of raising money - which of course you can't define as "exploiting revenue streams" is just one of your magic phrases you quote with no backup - then theres no reason that Ashley wouldn't or couldn't do the same. At the worst it would have been recorded in the accounts even if it was something Ashley hadn't thought of before.

 

Ashley may have failed on many counts but I can't see him ignoring money.

 

I'm going to talk about money, one thing that seems you have a problem with ie people making money. I am not the chief executive of NUFC or any other football club. Neither are you I presume. So why are you asking me how they should make money ? I just bet you begrudged the salary paid to the person who thought of these ways of making money ? If I knew better, then I would be after his job ? Get it ? But as he was so "shit" please explain why you think it is so obvious and easy a job then they are paid so much for doing it, and explain why his successor has not made such a success of the job ?

 

So, yes "exploiting revenue streams" is actually part of the job, that these people are paid for. And whatever your "feelings" [not just you but others with their irrational hatred and denial of the fact that he must have done a good job which should now be obvious to anybody with half a brain] he may well have just been paid well for doing a good job which is proving difficult to match ?

[NJS 3956]

If you can't define what they are and how much they raise then stop using it as an arguing point.

 

You have repeatedly said Shepherd maximised revenues - either put up or shut up - its that simple.

 

If he was doing 10 things that Ashley isnt which amount to more than £5m then I will gladly apologise and concede the point. If you name some things which make a difference of £97 then I'll feel free to tell you where to go.

[LeazesMag 0]

If you can't define what they are and how much they raise then stop using it as an arguing point.

 

You have repeatedly said Shepherd maximised revenues - either put up or shut up - its that simple.

 

If he was doing 10 things that Ashley isnt which amount to more than £5m then I will gladly apologise and concede the point. If you name some things which make a difference of £97 then I'll feel free to tell you where to go.

 

don't be stupid, thats like saying don't criticise Ameobi for not scoring enough goals when you yourself haven't played premiership football ?

 

What a div.

[NJS 3956]

If you can't define what they are and how much they raise then stop using it as an arguing point.

 

You have repeatedly said Shepherd maximised revenues - either put up or shut up - its that simple.

 

If he was doing 10 things that Ashley isnt which amount to more than £5m then I will gladly apologise and concede the point. If you name some things which make a difference of £97 then I'll feel free to tell you where to go.

 

don't be stupid, thats like saying don't criticise Ameobi for not scoring enough goals when you yourself haven't played premiership football ?

 

What a div.

 

Well stop using it as an arguing point then.

 

More finance savvy people than you are I have posted in this thread on both "sides" but you keep cherry picking phrases that "make your point". Its obvious you don't understand what they mean as HF's posts regarding turnover and revenues which gennerally prove that have been completely ignored.

 

So if you say Shephed ran the club from a financial point of view better than Ashley either put up or shut up. Others who think he did have posted and made good points which I accept. You haven't.

[Toonpack 6766]

I meant you.

 

Where do you think this club will be in 5 years time if Mike Ashley is still in charge ?

 

PS remember he's had 4 years of his "plan" already

 

We are in a better position NOW than we were in 2007

 

Please tell me where you think we'd be NOW if we hadn't been taken over by a very rich bastard.

 

I have answered every question asked, worthy of comment, with facts (from multiple sources), not doing it any more until you start to do the same.