NUFC Debt

[Craig 6300]

The questions still remain, why do we owe this money and why is he paying it off? If i borrow money to buy a business then use profits to reduce my debts, then i didnt pay for it out my own pocket. If i lend myself money and then pay this back out of the business, then i didnt pay for it out my own pocket.

 

In this case i bought the club out of the future income of the club and used a bridging loan to facilitate it. Its not an LBO but the principle is the same and should be, if true, recognised as such by the financial and football community.

 

We don't owe the money, really. It's like taking a tenner out of one pocket and putting it in another. NUFC, SJHL etc, it's all 100% Ashley. There is no evidence to suggest he borrowed money to buy the club and his personal cicumstances at the time of purchase make this highly unlikely. Also important to note that NUFC owes the cash, NUFC has not lent the cash up to shareholders.

 

Why is he paying it off? Probably because he feels he has a better use than leaving it knocking around in NUFC and rather than declare a taxable dividend, he can just partly repay the shareholder loan.

 

Your underlying point is 'Are the fans paying Ashley the cash back' and the answer is quite clearly yes. He realised he has screwed up but after realising he wouldn't get his money back decided the best thing would be for the fans and TV stations to extricate him from his woeful return on investment.

 

In laymans terms using us to get him out of the shitty mess he got himself into. Nice.

[CleeToonFan 1]

Mike Ashley's fat.

[Guest Your Name Here]

The questions still remain, why do we owe this money and why is he paying it off? If i borrow money to buy a business then use profits to reduce my debts, then i didnt pay for it out my own pocket. If i lend myself money and then pay this back out of the business, then i didnt pay for it out my own pocket.

 

In this case i bought the club out of the future income of the club and used a bridging loan to facilitate it. Its not an LBO but the principle is the same and should be, if true, recognised as such by the financial and football community.

 

We don't owe the money, really. It's like taking a tenner out of one pocket and putting it in another. NUFC, SJHL etc, it's all 100% Ashley. There is no evidence to suggest he borrowed money to buy the club and his personal cicumstances at the time of purchase make this highly unlikely. Also important to note that NUFC owes the cash, NUFC has not lent the cash up to shareholders.

 

Why is he paying it off? Probably because he feels he has a better use than leaving it knocking around in NUFC and rather than declare a taxable dividend, he can just partly repay the shareholder loan.

 

Your underlying point is 'Are the fans paying Ashley the cash back' and the answer is quite clearly yes. He realised he has screwed up but after realising he wouldn't get his money back decided the best thing would be for the fans and TV stations to extricate him from his woeful return on investment.

 

In laymans terms using us to get him out of the shitty mess he got himself into. Nice.

That’s how it looks. Not doing due diligence = very expensive fuck up. Getting relegated = very expensive fuck up. Who pays the price, the suppoters.

 

The factor in all this that always gets over looked is the value of the SD advertising, which grows with every passing year.

[LeazesMag 0]

The questions still remain, why do we owe this money and why is he paying it off? If i borrow money to buy a business then use profits to reduce my debts, then i didnt pay for it out my own pocket. If i lend myself money and then pay this back out of the business, then i didnt pay for it out my own pocket.

 

In this case i bought the club out of the future income of the club and used a bridging loan to facilitate it. Its not an LBO but the principle is the same and should be, if true, recognised as such by the financial and football community.

 

We don't owe the money, really. It's like taking a tenner out of one pocket and putting it in another. NUFC, SJHL etc, it's all 100% Ashley. There is no evidence to suggest he borrowed money to buy the club and his personal cicumstances at the time of purchase make this highly unlikely. Also important to note that NUFC owes the cash, NUFC has not lent the cash up to shareholders.

 

Why is he paying it off? Probably because he feels he has a better use than leaving it knocking around in NUFC and rather than declare a taxable dividend, he can just partly repay the shareholder loan.

 

Your underlying point is 'Are the fans paying Ashley the cash back' and the answer is quite clearly yes. He realised he has screwed up but after realising he wouldn't get his money back decided the best thing would be for the fans and TV stations to extricate him from his woeful return on investment.

 

In laymans terms using us to get him out of the shitty mess he got himself into. Nice.

 

exactly [at the expense of putting together a half decent football team on the pitch too]

[Dolly Potter MD 0]

226 Guests by the way.

 

I wonder if Mr Ryder, the club's resident arselicker down at T.House, has given the club a bit of a heads-up. If so, Ashley's legal eagles could be lurking among those two hundred odd guests. There's an obvious reason as to why the likes of McNally put in the investigative hard yards first before putting it on record, in the public domain. There's no harm, or little financial consequence to Ashley/Dekka to have their legal team scour through pages of forum thread, basically looking for anything that goes beyond glass houses type of claims, or anything that may be deemed as libel. It doesn't paint a rosy picture for Ashley's image when a prominent journo says that the ins & outs of the club's buy-out were legit & legal, yet in the same thread there references such as "bent cunt" based on how the readership has interpreted the points as raised originally ie. the club buy-out and loan repayment structure, all found to be legal, as morally corrupt as it is by the way of execution.

 

A spiteful, petty arsehole like Ashley would use any sort of ammunition to shut somebody down, especially a critic, in this case an internet site (with some credibility in the form it's topical/informative discussion, with the readership to match) which is probably the most anti-Ashley site on the net, certainly from a supporters' voice perspective. And Ashley loves a shit-fight as well.

 

Ashley's reputation, both as a club & retail business entrepreneur, is black as mud - certainly in the way of ethics but at the end of day the relevant ombudsman have cleared him of any wrong doing - on more than one occasion as well. If i was Ashley, with an obvious and deep-set hatred for the media, I'd be looking bring the heat down on any offending media source.

[The Fish 8977]

Threads like these mark this forum as superior imo.

 

A bit of a tangent, and I apologise for it, but does the debt lying with one man make the club a more attractive purchase than, say, Arsenal's situation with many shareholders?

[Guest Your Name Here]

Threads like these mark this forum as superior imo.

 

A bit of a tangent, and I apologise for it, but does the debt lying with one man make the club a more attractive purchase than, say, Arsenal's situation with many shareholders?

Depends who that man is?

[The Fish 8977]

Threads like these mark this forum as superior imo.

 

A bit of a tangent, and I apologise for it, but does the debt lying with one man make the club a more attractive purchase than, say, Arsenal's situation with many shareholders?

Depends who that man is?

Sexist.

 

Reported

[Phil 6]

I know i'm not the brightest, but i've read it a few times and still dont see the question/statement?

 

The debt increase was from the mortgage being to payable in full and club running at a 30m deficit?

[Matt 0]

Threads like these mark this forum as superior imo.

 

A bit of a tangent, and I apologise for it, but does the debt lying with one man make the club a more attractive purchase than, say, Arsenal's situation with many shareholders?

 

If he's a willing seller, it's much more straightforward. However at least with a plc you can make a rational investment case and win over shareholders, here you are purely down to one man's whim.

[trophyshy 6432]

Threads like these mark this forum as superior imo.

 

A bit of a tangent, and I apologise for it, but does the debt lying with one man make the club a more attractive purchase than, say, Arsenal's situation with many shareholders?

 

If he's a willing seller, it's much more straightforward. However at least with a plc you can make a rational investment case and win over shareholders, here you are purely down to one man's whim.

 

This is the bottom line, it's now a dictatorship, we've done an inverse Libya. At least Gaddafi had the decency to talk to the people he was making miserable.

[The Fish 8977]

Threads like these mark this forum as superior imo.

 

A bit of a tangent, and I apologise for it, but does the debt lying with one man make the club a more attractive purchase than, say, Arsenal's situation with many shareholders?

 

If he's a willing seller, it's much more straightforward. However at least with a plc you can make a rational investment case and win over shareholders, here you are purely down to one man's whim.

 

This is the bottom line, it's now a dictatorship, we've done an inverse Libya. At least Gaddafi had the decency to talk to the people he was making miserable.

Shirley a euphemism

[Tom 13830]

226 Guests by the way.

 

I wonder if Mr Ryder, the club's resident arselicker down at T.House, has given the club a bit of a heads-up. If so, Ashley's legal eagles could be lurking among those two hundred odd guests. There's an obvious reason as to why the likes of McNally put in the investigative hard yards first before putting it on record, in the public domain. There's no harm, or little financial consequence to Ashley/Dekka to have their legal team scour through pages of forum thread, basically looking for anything that goes beyond glass houses type of claims, or anything that may be deemed as libel. It doesn't paint a rosy picture for Ashley's image when a prominent journo says that the ins & outs of the club's buy-out were legit & legal, yet in the same thread there references such as "bent cunt" based on how the readership has interpreted the points as raised originally ie. the club buy-out and loan repayment structure, all found to be legal, as morally corrupt as it is by the way of execution.

 

A spiteful, petty arsehole like Ashley would use any sort of ammunition to shut somebody down, especially a critic, in this case an internet site (with some credibility in the form it's topical/informative discussion, with the readership to match) which is probably the most anti-Ashley site on the net, certainly from a supporters' voice perspective. And Ashley loves a shit-fight as well.

 

Ashley's reputation, both as a club & retail business entrepreneur, is black as mud - certainly in the way of ethics but at the end of day the relevant ombudsman have cleared him of any wrong doing - on more than one occasion as well. If i was Ashley, with an obvious and deep-set hatred for the media, I'd be looking bring the heat down on any offending media source.

 

We survived Wyn's legal onslaught. Ashley doesn't stand a chance.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

We survived Wyn's legal onslaught. Ashley doesn't stand a chance.

 

 

 

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

I'm no accountant but a leveraged buy out in its most cynical and sickest form is when you borrow the money to buy a company and pay it back by asset stripping it and pocketing the difference. A sort of bricks and mortar short trade.

 

Put the political stance aside and this short video could apply to us:

 

[Monroe Transfer 0]

This thread makes me feel like a retard.

 

ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

I'm no accountant but a leveraged buy out in its most cynical and sickest form is when you borrow the money to buy a company and pay it back by asset stripping it and pocketing the difference. A sort of bricks and mortar short trade.

 

Put the political stance aside and this short video could apply to us:

 

 

Ashley is a cunt!

[Happy Face 29]

As I see it, the Glazers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Ashley robbed himself to pay himself so it's immaterial whether he leaves the purchase price sized hole in his company or in his own current account, he wants it back sooner or later. Can't really tell if he'll take out the profit until we turn a profit.

[LeazesMag 0]

As I see it, the Glazers robbed Peter to pay Paul. Ashley robbed himself to pay himself so it's immaterial whether he leaves the purchase price sized hole in his company or in his own current account, he wants it back sooner or later. Can't really tell if he'll take out the profit until we turn a profit.

 

so now we have the Toonpacks, Newcastle Online posters and skunkers posters saying "give him until 2015" etc etc etc....

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Some real good "grown up" discussion about this and the "newcastle business model" on the sister thread on Newcastle Online.

 

Some interesting stuff for those interested.

 

http://www.newcastle-online.org/nufcforum/...,90265.200.html

[Deano 0]

Anyway, Am I getting this right, he borrowed the money to buy us, and now he is selling off assets to get that money back? Meaning in 5 years or whatever the club will be effectively free for him and he can still make £100+mil when he sells uo?

If I've read it right, he (potentially) set up a company (SJH) to buy the club, then loaned the company in question the money in order to buy NUFC. SJH then directly owns the club but owes MA the money. By reducing costs and turning a profit NUFC / SJH can then repay Ashley the money over a period of time. The net result being that (if it goes to plan) MA will get back all the money he paid out to buy the club, in effect getting it for nowt. It's not so much selling off assets (although Carroll would fit into that) it's more that the overall operating costs are less than the money coming in over a long enough period of time.

 

Understood perfectly.

 

So how does all this fit into what the club said about breaking even after this season? Does that mean SJH/FMA has got his 138mil back or that the club itself is running at break even?

 

Has there been anything to suggest monies have been paid to SJH?

[Monkeys Fist 38677]

Anyway, Am I getting this right, he borrowed the money to buy us, and now he is selling off assets to get that money back? Meaning in 5 years or whatever the club will be effectively free for him and he can still make £100+mil when he sells uo?

If I've read it right, he (potentially) set up a company (SJH) to buy the club, then loaned the company in question the money in order to buy NUFC. SJH then directly owns the club but owes MA the money. By reducing costs and turning a profit NUFC / SJH can then repay Ashley the money over a period of time. The net result being that (if it goes to plan) MA will get back all the money he paid out to buy the club, in effect getting it for nowt. It's not so much selling off assets (although Carroll would fit into that) it's more that the overall operating costs are less than the money coming in over a long enough period of time.

 

Understood perfectly.

 

So how does all this fit into what the club said about breaking even after this season? Does that mean SJH/FMA has got his 138mil back or that the club itself is running at break even?

 

Has there been anything to suggest monies have been paid to SJH?

Speaking of debt …

[sniffer 0]

So, is the big assumption ashley makes that 45,000 will still turn up to provide the revenue along with TV money to pay back the debt until he decides to sell at an acceptable profit? Or keep it as a cash cow. If we don't go, the shit hits the fan? It's not like he can demolish SJP and build condos to get his money back.

[Guest Your Name Here]

So, is the big assumption ashley makes that 45,000 will still turn up to provide the revenue along with TV money to pay back the debt until he decides to sell at an acceptable profit? Or keep it as a cash cow. If we don't go, the shit hits the fan? It's not like he can demolish SJP and build condos to get his money back.

Probably both. When/if a point arrives when his loans are repaid he’s into pure profit, plus having a PL club to promote his other company with. It would take a hell of an offer for him to give that up.

 

I don’t think it’ll pan out like that as you are spot on when you say ‘if we don’t turn up he’s fucked’ and attendances are already starting to fall by significant numbers and the tedium of being a nothing club has yet to kick in.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Your Name Here

[LeazesMag 0]

So, is the big assumption ashley makes that 45,000 will still turn up to provide the revenue along with TV money to pay back the debt until he decides to sell at an acceptable profit? Or keep it as a cash cow. If we don't go, the shit hits the fan? It's not like he can demolish SJP and build condos to get his money back.

 

this is where it all hits the buffers.

 

I can understand the younger supporters, and some of the older ones who are clueless or can't admit how deluded they were, thinking that 52,000 supporters have always supported the club and gone to every home game, and took it all for granted, but that is not the case at all.

 

This support has been built up, and this point has been explained by myself, Ollie Burtons Grandad, sniffer and a few others, but completely ignored by a few buffoons who think they know best for some reason. Laughable.

Edited September 1, 2011 by LeazesMag