NUFC Debt

[Guest alex]

I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank.

 

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

 

Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club.

 

If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing.

 

Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to?

 

In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

 

I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty.

 

There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted.

 

You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

 

It sure can

When has that ever happened though?

[LeazesMag 0]

I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank.

 

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

 

Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club.

 

If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing.

 

Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to?

 

In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

 

I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty.

 

There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted.

 

You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

 

It sure can

When has that ever happened though?

 

the scaremongering starts again.

[Toonpack 6820]

I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank.

 

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

 

Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club.

 

If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing.

 

Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to?

 

In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

 

I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty.

 

There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted.

 

You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

 

It sure can

When has that ever happened though?

 

That wasn't the question, the question was, why isn't having money with the bank the same as owing it to Ashley.

 

In business, it happens all the time, Barclays were going to do it to NUFC in the late 80's

[Toonpack 6820]

I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank.

 

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

 

Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club.

 

If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing.

 

Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to?

 

In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

 

I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty.

 

There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted.

 

You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

 

It sure can

When has that ever happened though?

 

the scaremongering starts again.

 

No it doesn't, I answered a question, something you could do with doing, once would be good.

 

Your comprehension is shit btw, where did I ever mention any of this as a current threat or scare if you'd prefer ?????

 

That danger has passed, thanks to an owner (however crap) with very deep pockets.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Toonpack

[LeazesMag 0]

I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank.

 

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

 

Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club.

 

If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing.

 

Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to?

 

In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

 

I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty.

 

There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted.

 

You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

 

It sure can

When has that ever happened though?

 

the scaremongering starts again.

 

No it doesn't, I answered a question, something you could do with doing, once would be good.

 

Your comprehension is shit btw, where did I ever mention any of this as a current threat or scare if you'd prefer ?????

 

That danger has passed, thanks to an owner (however crap) with very deep pockets.

 

oh dear. After everything you have said for the past x months. You STILL are going to carry on attempting to justify this man taking the football club back to the 1970's and 1980's.

 

So much for "give him until Sept 1st".

 

Newcastle United would NOT have gone bust under the old regime, they also would NOT have been relegated and they would NOT have sold or lost their best players to the likes of Wigan, and they would NOT have lost out on transfer targets to clubs like Wigan [again] and Fulham, and they would NOT be competing at the levels of Bolton, Blackburn, and below the levels of the likes of Stoke and Fulham [again].

 

As it is, the decline will only continue, until any threat of administration due to the long term effect of apathy will get ever more closer, just like in 1991, depending how long your man carries on owning this football club and running it into the ground.

[Jusoda Kid 1]

wrong thread

Edited September 2, 2011 by Jusoda Kid

[LeazesMag 0]

wrong thread

 

how ?

 

The bullshit by these people is staggering.

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits.

 

The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it...

 

Cake and eat it time again.

[Guest Your Name Here]

I see no difference in Ashley lending the money or a bank lending the money other than it being interest free. At the end of the day the clubs still owes money be it to Ashley or the bank.

 

Presumably with Ashley's debt the club has a bit less control over when it gets paid off. For instance if there was 35 mill lying around in a bank account, Ashley could demand the cash rather than it being used say to buy a new striker. Assuming his debt was repayable on demand of course.

 

Nope, a bank could take all of the money at any time it liked (as Barclays all but did once in the late 80's) if Ashley increases the debt in the club to pay himself back all he would be doing is creating losses which he himself would be liable for or at least have to cover. Your statement forgets that Ashley as the single owner with no shareholders, to all intents and purposes, is the club.

 

If he's recovering money, it would be by reducing the debt the club owes to him from the operating subsidies he's put in, which based upon the lack of spend this window, may be exactly what he's doing.

 

Recovery of the £130-odd Million would come when and if the club is sold again.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand this. If you have a loan agreement with a bank, and are honouring the terms of it, why can the bank take all of the money any time they like? And why would they want to?

 

In addition, I never said anything about increasing debt to pay himself back. Your last point is exactly what I was saying - if the club is cash positive, and does not require subsidising anymore, then he can use surplus cash to repay all his debts. Which a bank couldn't demand if the terms of the bank loan are being honoured.

 

Maybe I've got this wrong. Happy to be corrected, try not to be a patronising twat in the process, eh?

 

I don't see what you are driving at in all honesty.

 

There's a world of difference between owing money to yourself (through whatever vehicle) and owing the money to a third party. A bank can pull or reduce an overdraft or call in a loan any time it likes, or the security it has on said loan/overdraft. Why would a bank do that, probably if their risk team recommended the exposure was unwarranted.

 

You see, this is the bit I don't understand. If I enter into a loan with a bank, and meet all the requirements regarding interest and loan repayments, they can still demand all of the principal is repaid at any time? So a bank can put a business under at any time if it wants its money back, even if the debtor is meeting all of its obligations?

They can but rarely do. It’s not good for future business.

 

There are pros and cons to Ashley lending himself money. On one hand it gives him flexibility to do what he likes, on the other hand it gives him flexibility to do what he likes. If he has the best interests of NUFC at heart its good news, if he doesn’t its bad news.

 

Just like the deal that was struck between the club and SD for advertising space at SJP, FMA is sitting on both sides of the negotiating table and we have a pretty good idea how that panned out.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Your Name Here

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits.

 

The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it...

 

Cake and eat it time again.

 

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it].

 

It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership.

 

Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ?

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits.

 

The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it...

 

Cake and eat it time again.

 

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it].

 

It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership.

 

Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ?

 

I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your shambles of an argument. You can be 'right' about pretty much anything as long as you make enough contradictory statements down the years, you just look like a bell end in the process. You can't have it both ways you clot.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits.

 

The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it...

 

Cake and eat it time again.

 

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it].

 

It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership.

 

Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ?

 

I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your shambles of an argument. You can be 'right' about pretty much anything as long as you make enough contradictory statements down the years, you just look like a bell end in the process. You can't have it both ways you clot.

 

"shambles" seems to be your word of the moment, what a shame that it perfectly describes your constant change of mind and your semi-permanent disagreement with me and anything I say, even when everything I said about Mike Ashley which you have disagreed with is staring you in the face now and undeniable.

 

The same thing will continue to happen. The decline will continue. You will continue to disagree with me, and insist you are right and I am wrong, even though as time passes, you will take on board more and more of what I am telling you now.

 

I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, read this again, I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, only long term apathy could do that, just like before although it will take a long time, and Mike Ashley has started the ball rolling down this particular road.

 

"Clot". "Shambles". How pathetic are you. It's as pathetic as those posts where you said "chomp", are you really an "intelligent solicitor", with nothing better to do than that? Your ego governs everything you say, you wanker. You just want to disagree, because its me that is saying this, if someone else said it you would probably agree, you're such a clown, you're a joke. You may be a solicitor son, but you do not know more or better than I do. You know nothing about me, so don't draw such hasty conclusions about what you perceive of me.

 

Spend the next 4 years disagreeing with me again, like you have done the last 4, if you like, but I'm sticking to my guns because I know the direction the club is going, it is crystal clear, I will watch with interest while you slowly come around to realising it.

[manc-mag 1]

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits.

 

The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it...

 

Cake and eat it time again.

 

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it].

 

It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership.

 

Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ?

 

I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your shambles of an argument. You can be 'right' about pretty much anything as long as you make enough contradictory statements down the years, you just look like a bell end in the process. You can't have it both ways you clot.

 

"shambles" seems to be your word of the moment, what a shame that it perfectly describes your constant change of mind and your semi-permanent disagreement with me and anything I say, even when everything I said about Mike Ashley which you have disagreed with is staring you in the face now and undeniable.

 

The same thing will continue to happen. The decline will continue. You will continue to disagree with me, and insist you are right and I am wrong, even though as time passes, you will take on board more and more of what I am telling you now.

 

I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, read this again, I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, only long term apathy could do that, just like before although it will take a long time, and Mike Ashley has started the ball rolling down this particular road.

 

"Clot". "Shambles". How pathetic are you. It's as pathetic as those posts where you said "chomp", are you really an "intelligent solicitor", with nothing better to do than that? Your ego governs everything you say, you wanker. You just want to disagree, because its me that is saying this, if someone else said it you would probably agree, you're such a clown, you're a joke. You may be a solicitor son, but you do not know more or better than I do. You know nothing about me, so don't draw such hasty conclusions about what you perceive of me.

 

Spend the next 4 years disagreeing with me again, like you have done the last 4, if you like, but I'm sticking to my guns because I know the direction the club is going, it is crystal clear, I will watch with interest while you slowly come around to realising it.

 

piece of piss!

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes hamming up administration in future and in 1991 despite his 'no football club ever goes bust' mantra when it suits.

 

The only people who wouldn't have made the club bust however? Yes, you've guessed it...

 

Cake and eat it time again.

 

you can continue to "argue" this for another 4 years, until eventually - again - you end up spouting what I'm already telling you. Just like you are doing now [but denying it].

 

It isn't me who has said the club would go into administration, but they were a damn sight nearer to it in 1991 due to long term apathy and decades of running it down [down the same road Ashley is taking it] than they ever were under the old ownership.

 

Hammer away at that for the next few years, until the truth dawns. What a clever boy you are, to disagree with anything I say, because you are a solicitor and think you know best.....what a pity you don't know anything about me ?

 

I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your shambles of an argument. You can be 'right' about pretty much anything as long as you make enough contradictory statements down the years, you just look like a bell end in the process. You can't have it both ways you clot.

 

"shambles" seems to be your word of the moment, what a shame that it perfectly describes your constant change of mind and your semi-permanent disagreement with me and anything I say, even when everything I said about Mike Ashley which you have disagreed with is staring you in the face now and undeniable.

 

The same thing will continue to happen. The decline will continue. You will continue to disagree with me, and insist you are right and I am wrong, even though as time passes, you will take on board more and more of what I am telling you now.

 

I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, read this again, I have NEVER said the club would go into administration, only long term apathy could do that, just like before although it will take a long time, and Mike Ashley has started the ball rolling down this particular road.

 

"Clot". "Shambles". How pathetic are you. It's as pathetic as those posts where you said "chomp", are you really an "intelligent solicitor", with nothing better to do than that? Your ego governs everything you say, you wanker. You just want to disagree, because its me that is saying this, if someone else said it you would probably agree, you're such a clown, you're a joke. You may be a solicitor son, but you do not know more or better than I do. You know nothing about me, so don't draw such hasty conclusions about what you perceive of me.

 

Spend the next 4 years disagreeing with me again, like you have done the last 4, if you like, but I'm sticking to my guns because I know the direction the club is going, it is crystal clear, I will watch with interest while you slowly come around to realising it.

 

piece of piss!

 

yawn.

 

Good "debate" there son !

[manc-mag 1]

Mate, I could have about a dozen sigs from that rant. You're clearly foaming.

 

I'll leave it there, it's too easy to hold my attention

[LeazesMag 0]

Mate, I could have about a dozen sigs from that rant. You're clearly foaming.

 

I'll leave it there, it's too easy to hold my attention

 

on the contrary, I'm laughing at you. You're still "disagreeing" with me, but realise you're looking more stupid than ever the longer you do it, because even the biggest fuckwit can now finally see the direction Mike Ashley is taking this football club. Which is why you are opting out.

 

You know it too.

 

[manc-mag 1]

Aye, righto. It came across that way.

[LeazesMag 0]

Aye, righto. It came across that way.

 

haha, your judgement has been abysmal for 4 years, don't stop now.